$500,000 awarded to the first person to prove humans are causing global warming

[Dementia_Madness]

No winners yet, perhaps our libs can come up with the answers and make themselves a little richer.

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

 CHALLENGE
$500,000 will be awarded to the first person to prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming. The winning entry will specifically reject both of the following two hypotheses:
UGWC Hypothesis 1

Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling.
UGWC Hypothesis 2

The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered.

[Just Win]

No winners yet, perhaps our libs can come up with the answers and make themselves a little richer.

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

 CHALLENGE
$500,000 will be awarded to the first person to prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming. The winning entry will specifically reject both of the following two hypotheses:
UGWC Hypothesis 1

Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling.
UGWC Hypothesis 2

The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered.

Don't count on Professor Phil Jones, Al Gore's main man on climate science, taking you up on that one DM. He had to walk the plank the other day and admit that a significant increase in global temperatures had not occur ed since 1995. In addition he could not produce the raw data to support the now infamous Al Gore Hockey stick graph that was the impetus for Mr. Gore receiving dubious laurels such as an Oscar Award from the Motion Picture industry in the USA and a Nobel prize.

[Dementia_Madness]

I do not think anyone will ever claim the prize, after all why go for a meager half a million with facts when you can get billions with lies, manipulated data, and opinions?

[roustabout]

Honestly, it is a ridiculous contest.

Many would say that science does not prove things. In fact, any scientist who sets out to 'prove' or 'disprove' is being unscientific. A true scientist may formulate a hypothesis, but always goes where the science leads. The reality is that philosophy is always leading science around by the nose.

This kind of stuff is ridiculous on both fronts. The biggest argument from MMGW proponents is consensus among 'scientists.' These scientists 'believe' that GW is man made. That is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one. Just like any human, a scientist can believe in God, and many do. However, they can not scientifically prove God exists. Nor should they, because this is NOT a purpose or even feasible result of science.
What if we ask these same scientists if they believe in God. If the majority come back and say, yes, is FL going to concede that God is a reality? Heck no.

92% of Americans believe in a higher power. I'd say that includes quite a few scientists
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090716/survey-one-third-of-scientists-believe-in-god/index.html

[Flummoxed Lummox]

Honestly, it is a ridiculous contest.

Many would say that science does not prove things. In fact, any scientist who sets out to 'prove' or 'disprove' is being unscientific. A true scientist may formulate a hypothesis, but always goes where the science leads. The reality is that philosophy is always leading science around by the nose.

This kind of stuff is ridiculous on both fronts. The biggest argument from MMGW proponents is consensus among 'scientists.' These scientists 'believe' that GW is man made. That is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one. Just like any human, a scientist can believe in God, and many do. However, they can not scientifically prove God exists. Nor should they, because this is NOT a purpose or even feasible result of science.
What if we ask these same scientists if they believe in God. If the majority come back and say, yes, is FL going to concede that God is a reality? Heck no.

92% of Americans believe in a higher power. I'd say that includes quite a few scientists
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090716/survey-one-third-of-scientists-believe-in-god/index.html

Roust,

I partially agree with you. You're right about the "challenge." It's an absurd premise, meant to pander to dolts. The same challenge exists for any scientists to "prove" evolution is real. No credible scientist would bother because there is no amount of evidence that will suffice to meet the creator's demands. In short, it's rigged.

Comparing science to religious belief is apples and oranges ... and you know it. Every scientific tenet, theory, and "law" is subject to continual debate, further reseach and experimentation, and constant revision of accepted beliefs. All science is based on rigorous study, observation, experimentation, and conclusions based upon the evidence and ability to duplicate the findings.

Religion could not be more different. There is no way to measure, see, manipulate, or experiment with "God." In fact, very few people would even agree on what "God" is. Ask a Christian what God is and you will get a very different answer than if you ask a Buddhist.

It's one thing to have a consensus with objective, testable, and measurable data. It's quite another to have a consensus about the existence of "God."

[roustabout]

And I can and have provided you scientific studies that attribute GW to non man made phenomenon.

[Flummoxed Lummox]

I do not think anyone will ever claim the prize, after all why go for a meager half a million with facts when you can get billions with lies, manipulated data, and opinions?

I don't think anyone will claim the prize either ... because it's a bogus challenge meant to appeal to dumber-than-dirt  . It's rigged. There is no amount of evidence, none, that will ever convince the authors of the challenge that conditions have been met.