Climate Change Isn’t Man Made? Prove It for $10,000

earth_climate_change_NasaNaysayers, you’re on. If you’re convinced that climate change isn’t man-made, a physicist in Texas wants to hear from you. Bring your virtual chalk, polish up your math, hone your argument and prove your point. Your time won’t be misspent: If you can irrefutably prove your hypothesis, he’ll pay you $10,000.

Dr. Christopher Keating, author of “Undeniable: Dialogues on Global Warming,” has offered the challenge to anyone who can “prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring.” Keating, who is well versed in climate change research, has taught at the U.S. Naval Academy and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.

He’ll also pay $1,000 “to the first person to show there is any scientific evidence that refutes the conclusion of man made climate change.”

He posted the first submission to the two challenges this week on his blog, Dialogues on Global Warming.  The competition entry, which was posted initially as a comment by an anonymous poster, received a full-page analysis by Keating – and an in-depth explanation (which must have been excruciating for the candidate) for why it didn’t pass muster for either category.

In two words: “cherry-picking.”

“Cherry-picking is invalid science,” Keating explains, “no matter which way you go. I cannot do it any more than Mr. Anonymous can. It is still invalid and only serves to provide someone with a false argument.”


It isn’t hard to see that the submissions Keating receives serve more purpose than to prove his premise that man-made climate change is indeed true. In the process of analyzing each submission, he’s teaching his readers how to analyze scientific data, and hopefully, to be discerning of what’s true and what’s not (in other words: real science).

And those who feel they do indeed have a chance to prove climate change and global warming are not man-made will be happy to hear the qualifications for entering this competition are fairly simple and straightforward.

“If it is so easy, just cut and paste the proof from somewhere. Provide the scientific evidence and prove your point, and the $10,000 is yours!” says Keating.

But he says he is sure that will never happen “because it can’t be proven. The scientific evidence for global warming is overwhelming and no one can prove otherwise.”

But, alas, where does this monetary challenge leave those who already have a strong, steady conviction that man-made climate change really does exist? Are there no opportunities for proving your point (or at least ones where you can be monetarily compensated)?

Fear not!

The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge takes the cake when it comes to earning potential – if you can meet the criteria of the judge(s), that is. Keating says he’s already entered the challenge and lost. The competition offers a $500,000 award for anyone that can “prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming.” The argument will be required to reject two hypotheses cited by UGWC.

climate_change_bees_pesticides_michael_gilBefore you start making a list of all of your irrefutable sources and mapping out your award-winning argument, you may wish to take note of No. 2 and No. 4 of the competition rules, which specify that, “Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the UGWC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment,” and that the website has the sole discretion to determine “the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest.” It also admits that there’s no guarantee that the $500,000 will ever be awarded.

The competition began in 2007. That alone may suggest that the judge is a hard audience to impress (Keating asserts that it is only one person judging the entries). It also highlights the fact that there is still a wide breadth in opinion when it comes to just how important science is in defining climate change, as well as our role in global stewardship.

Image of Earth: Nasa Goddard Space Flight Center

Image of pollinating bee: Michael Gil

Jan Lee

Jan Lee is a former news editor and award-winning editorial writer whose non-fiction and fiction have been published in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, the U.K. and Australia. Her articles and posts can be found on TriplePundit, JustMeans, and her blog, The Multicultural Jew, as well as other publications. She currently splits her residence between the city of Vancouver, British Columbia and the rural farmlands of Idaho.

338 responses

  1. LOL. I’ll pay a cool million if anyone CAN PROVE climate change is man made using the scientific method. Funny this moron says this…the scientific method has never been used on any climate study. In fact, as soon as you introduce the scientific method into the discussion, every AGW study goes sown the tubes.

        1. Emmet. I will beat your offer. I am doubling it to$2,000 to this clown of ill reknown!

      1. The high IQ, scientifically-minded, honest, moral subset of humanity, unlike the stupid, immoral, unscientific, non-critically-thinking, brainwashed peasant horde you belong to.

    1. Ah..goes “sown” the tubes?? And yes, much of the global warming is man caused. There are 5 BILLION humans who are teens and adults, each one radiates out from their bodies almost 100 deg. F 24/7. So, simple math.. take 5 BILLION times 100deg. F and you have 500 BILLION deg. F on the planet that was never there before. Now, add in the MILLIONS of miles of road/parking lots, buildings, ovens, heaters, car/truck/jet engine heat, lawnmowers, microwaves etc., etc. and you have a tremendous amount of warming far more than from just the old favorite topic of pollution!

      1. “There are 5 BILLION humans who are teens and adults, each one radiates out from their bodies almost 100 deg. F 24/7…take 5 BILLION times 100deg. F and you have 500 BILLION deg. F”

        Whoa there Tommy, temperature isn’t additive like that, you want energy. We radiate out about 400 BTU per hour, about the same as provided by the Sun (per square foot).

        BTW, it’s 7 billion people

        1. BTW it’s 7.3 billion people. Line up every man woman and child on the surface of the sun and you might just make a happy face, just might!

        2. “BTW it’s 7.3 billion people.”
          Do you have a source for that number?

          “Line up every man woman and child on the surface of the sun”
          We’d wouldn’t even be noticed. The features on the Sun are much larger than our planet.

          Was there a point to your post?

      2. First, any fool knows that ‘sown’ is a typo for ‘down’ as the S and D are right next to each other on a key board. Second, of the 560 billion tonnes of biomass on the planet, excluding bacteria, only 100 million tonnes of that is comprised of humans. That’s only .017% of all the biomass on the planet made up by humans. There is far greater total mass of ants on this planet than human weight. Total bacteria weight exceeds the total of plants and animals. So you’re saying that less than 2/100’s of 1% of all life on the planet is adding to global warming by the heat radiated from their bodies?…..LOL!!! Antarctic krill is probably the most successful form of animal life at 500 million tonnes of biomass. A bunch of tiny shrimp that consist of 5 times the weight of man. Ever hear of the Kreb’s cycle? Guess who putting off more CO2….man or the far greater mass of all other animals and aerobic bacteria combined?

        1. Do any of those animals drive CO2 emitting cars or have factories pumping out more CO2 than every animal on the planet? it has nothing to do with ‘body heat’ it’s our reliance on toxic technology and our harmful industry that is causing the damage not our body heat……..

      3. And just where do humans get that energy to radiate? Do they just create it? No, they absorb it from other sources and radiate it back. It’s here already, it’s changed nothing, it’s removed nothing and added nothing.
        Just like your thought process. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.

      4. Wrong on every level.

        Lol! It gets radiated into space in the form of longwave radiation and is absolutely DWARFED by solar radiation. The roads and parking lots act as reflectors that add to an albedo effect cooling the planet.

    2. Well if you think man made global warming isn’t real than take the challenge. Or are you afraid that he will prove you wrong after all. It would be real interesting to see your explanation posted online and Mr. Keating prove you wrong!

      1. the problem is..we could cite study after study…and this guy would shoot them down, like he was shot down on the other one. I could cite evidence that states the ice in the arctic has rebounded….but you don’t want to hear that…or that the glaciers of kilimanjaro have advanced…but again…that’s not ” real” science.Is it?

        1. Why does he have to prove it on a constant basis? Because you say so! Or is it just so he can tell it to you over and over repeatedly like a broken record just like you skeptics repeatedly do just so he stop talking about it.

          Besides, I don’t see any of these so called top climate skeptics make a similar challenge! Is it that maybe they will be proven wrong? I would have to assume that is the case.

          But isn’t it funny how you call man made climate change a hypothesis when everyone else says it’s a theory. So which is it. Is man made climate change a hypothesis or a theory?

          That’s the thing about you skeptics isn’t it. You try to make contradictions about everything that you all just contradict yourselves!

          So, in closing. Why don’t you prove prove that man made climate change isn’t real. Go ahead, take the challenge. If you think you know it all then you have nothing to fear except embarrassing yourself!

        2. See, Keith, it is very difficult to prove the null, which is what you are asking the deniers of AGW to do. The proof has to be on the AGW, proof is not opinion which a lot of people are throwing around as proof. I believe the moon is made of green cheese, Prove it is not. I reject your argument on the surface dust and rocks as that is simply a thin coat a few meters thick over the green cheese, Your argument that the mass of the moon precludes green cheese, neglects the iron basket the green cheese is in which raises the mass of the moon to its observed state. See? We could go on and on. The AGW people have to present proof and they cannot from the science. All they can show is the world warmed a bit from the depths of the little ice age. It was warmer than today in 1000 AD and in 6000 AD, the climate was different in Roman times as north africa was a food belt for Rome, at one time the Sahara was grass lands, the glaciers covered large parts of northern north America as well as other parts of the world, Those are facts you can show, you cannot show CO2 had anything to do with those climate changes. AGW hypothesis lacks a case example as none of those changes had anything to do with CO2 level changes. You can show the world for tens of millions of years has been colder than it was when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the earth has been going into a number of ice ages and little ice ages during that long period. Again CO2 levels do not show any relation to those changes, If anything the cold peroids are the ones we should be concerned with as those would kill a lot of people just like the little ice age. One estimate I read was 30 percent of europes population died from starvation in a period of one year as the little ice age snapped into being. NASA is planning on a rise in sea level of 13 inches by 2100Ad. That is not the end of the world and if people would stop building on sand bars, on ocean marsh lands and in flood plains they would never notice the rise.

        3. Keith, he has never proved it, that is the point. It is all opinion just like the IPCC latest report where even they admit their model does not predict the current 16 year hiatus in warming yet they have 95 percent confidence in the result after firing everybody on the review team who disagreed with the language. The problem is not climate change, it is what is doing the climate change. The AGW people including yourself claim man is forcing climate change by emitting a lot of CO2. If you were claiming that means a lot of pollution which should be cleaned up, smog and so forth, you would not have an argument from the deniers. Instead you are claiming man is at fault for rising temperatures when the very science you point to shows the world is not warming presently even if it has warmed a bit from the depths of the last little ice age over the past 400 years. The ice core studies show CO2 level changes do not force climate change so your AGW hypothesis is disproved. The current built up as shown by the Mauna loa study from 1959 shows no correlation with climate change, so your hypothesis is disproved. Why not spend your energy on reducing pollution.

        4. The top climate experts who do not belong to the fake ‘consensus’, which incidentally was arrived at the same way the evidence for AGW was arrived at, altering numbers and outright lying, don’t need to offer 10,000. They don’t need to offer a million.
          If someone could prove AGW they would have the proof. So far it’s all just a bunch of junk science and lies.

        5. Well, if you think you’re right then get you’re sheets of paper, sharpen those pencils, break out them calculators and just take the challenge! Just don’t talk about it to me. Prove it!

        6. We just did, We pointed to the studies which show the AGW hypothesis is unsupported by the data. You just like the Pope will continue to believe what you want to believe as that is your nature. Both of you really should rethink how you arrive at your conclusions.

        7. Right, Keith Oliver! As I stated earliar, the reknowned James L. Powell, an M. I. T. associated with the prestigious National Science Board concluded that out of 25,182 26 scientist denied manmade global warming.These 26 scientists dad a morass of inconsistancies in their misguided beliefs. The majority of the foemer had very consistant viewpoints amongst their ilk. I will place my bets on them & not some self proclaimed climate genius like Emmet.

        8. Actually, you couldn’t be ever more wrong. You must think that no one would look up your statement. But I took the time to go into Mr. Powell ‘ s website and got the correct statement which you so gladly cherry picked and changed the wording to your advantage. Here it is:

          Read it and weep,

          “Combining this result with my earlier studies (see here and here), over several years I have reviewed 25,182 scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals. Only 26, about 1 in 1,000, in my judgment reject anthropogenic global warming. I describe my methodology ”

          You have just been exposed!

          Nice playing with you!


        9. Keith. Before I forfeit my winner status to loser, please accept my challenge of you typing in, The real truth about climate change on u-tube. Watch at least 6 documentaries as I have watched. If you disagree, you have a mental block of accepting facts! These are well respected scientists & if you do not believe in them then you believe that the earth is flat. The facts are out there but the truth is too hard to accept for humans. I live alone in the country. I do not have to worry about living a more ascetic life, such as that of a Benedictine monk! I walk the walk, I talk the talk. You will not want my monastic life, but I am a true believer. Perhaps u have just been exposed. What is it with people that want to deny the facts so that they can keep on living on the high hog. The day of sorrow will come. Pay back will be a bitch. It will be a bit too late then!

        10. You talk about denying the truth when it’s you that denies the truth. That when an overwhelming majority agree on one thing after everything else has been proven otherwise, it has to be the truth.

          I just exposed you for your cherry picking of what’s been actually said. Please don’t embarrass yourself any further by proving that you’re just another lair!

        11. Oliver, what…proven otherwise? Are we reading the same books & watching you tube videos the you yube that I know of on planet earth. I have pretty much watched them all.As an artist I have the luxury of listening to all this stuff while I create works on canvas & I must tell you that the concensus is on my side. I have listened to your side of the trace percentages compared to the majority & came to the conclusion that they resemble folks who publish their nonsense that the earth is still flat. My question is this: Why do some people look to the minority conclusions to base their belief systems on? My answer to that is because it fits their framework of thinking. As an artist I have always achieved my results in divergent thinking & not the convergent thought process of todays folks. No wonder I hated school. Creative thinking was considered blasphemous.! Check out M.I. T. philosopher / political activist Dr Chomsky. This dichotomous thinking is a symptom of of our times. In other words if you believe in climate change, you are an idiot. If you do not believe I climate change you are also an idiot. Only in America is this dichotomous relationship possible. Think I will move back to Germany where that kind of nonsense has no reality. Nice talking to you. Keith.

        12. Hate to tell you this moron but even Germany is getting on the ball with its fight against global warming. You really are a stupid idiotic moron!

          Nice playing with you. Now try to make a cheap copy of Michelangelo or some other great painter. Just make sure you’re not sniffing your product!

        13. Keith. Is that the best u can do resorting to name calling. I have always understood that this tactic is used when one runs out of answers. Name calling advertises your intellectual deficits. My work has been posted in international art magazines. My portrait of the pope hangs in the Vatican. What did you achieve?

    3. If you by “the scientific method” mean educated, selected and planted there on behalf of the peoples party, like the gen. director, the chief engineer and the master plumber of cernobyl.

      They all claimed quite thorroughly and eagerly that they did rule and work along with “the scientific method..”

    4. jboss, you may want to talk to James l powell. He is M. I. T. educated & associated with the prestigious National Science Board. He determined that 25,182 accepted the climate change situation & 26 disagreed. Those 26 scientists had a hodge podge of inconsistent opinions.Iboss, I wish I was as smart as you. You know more than any scientist alive. Einstein wishes he were as erudite as you!! Hopefully I will never get that conceited.

    5. You can also take that million pay it to anyone who can prove gravity exists. That’s a theory too. Maybe you should study up on the scientific method a little.

  2. It is an old saying, but true: “You can’t prove a negative” on the other hand if the general warming which has been going on for the last 20,000 years was man made, the “warmers” could prove it, but they can’t.

    1. Ah, the warming has greatly accelerated in recent years, in fact, this past May was globally the warmest on record! FACTS are FACTS, and they really are simple.

        1. Hilboy, u idiot! Climate change will create extremes in hot & cold!! But the general d
          irection of the warming curves goes up. U need to do some climate 101 studies even at the elementary level. Sorry that I blew up on u. It’s just that when u go online & spout out garbage, u need to make sure that u are well informed!!!!

        2. It is you Joe who need to learn some actual science. The world is not warming and has not for 16 years just like it did not from 1940 to 1980, giss data set, go look at it or read the IPCC report. The claim climate change warming will make the extremes colder is bogus non science, If you warm something everything will be warmer. What you also ignor is the extent of the current warming, on the Kelvin scale, absolute zero, the warming in the last century was .17 percent, less that one fifth of a percent which is not very much.

        3. Ah… WRONG FOOL!! Warming tends to push cold air that will always exist into areas in unusual ways!! Just plain old simple logic and FACTS MBEE1!!

        4. thomas, you are the fool, if somebody disagrees you resort to name calling like a school yard bully, maybe that is what your are, grow up and be a man.

        5. Are there any good psychiatrists in your village? Does your village have another idiot to replace you while you’re in therapy?

        6. You are right, Thomas. I tried to explain that to mbee. You have to know that this person is a great authority on climatology who knows more than our leading experts!! My experience has been that those who shout the loudest know the least. Human nature 101 taught in any grade school, lol!!

        7. Ok mbee. I may buy into that but first u have to explain to me why Greenland’s ice is melting. This is a fact. One just needs to take a trip to this place. If things are not getting any warmer, then what else could be melting this ice. I really do not care what scientists say on this matter, but I always believed that if something melts there has to be an increase in temperature. I rest my case on that! However in the Antarctica there was discovered an underground volcano which could account for some of the heating effects, but it is not the case with Greenland. I simply cannot find any other reason to explain the melting, neither can the scientists. They know a lot more than I do. nor you
          You also say that if some place gets warmer then everything warms up. I am not a scientist but I do happen to know that with the storage of more heat building up in the oceans & the fluctuating wind patterns you are going to see pockets of extremities. If you disbelieve this then you are reading texts books from another planet! You are right that there was an insignificant amount of warming in the last century until man came into the picture. I also ask a favor of you & supply me with new facts to contradict the climatologists assertion that the oceans are storing more heat, hence the ever increasing corral destruction & extreme weather changes. I am a disciple of the great James Hanson. He sleeps with no one in the whitehouse. Hanson is world reknowned as the guru of climatology. I will believe him before I believe some self appointed expert in this field. I have great reverence for this dedicated scientist There seem to be a lot of experts who never went to the universities to study this especially the politicians. There wind power alone is wreaking havoc on this planet! To go back to the beginning, you are right that I know little about climatology, that is why I brought the big dogs with me that I had quoted from. If you disagree with me you are disagreeing with the 97% of scientists. If we are going to dismiss our scientist as lunitics then who will we trust? With this I rest my case!

        8. Joe, the average climate per the giss data set as the IPCC admits has not warmed in 16 years, that does not mean Alaska is not warming or Greenland or your front porch. Someplace else is colder so one come up with an average of zero.

        9. Ah, as a fortunate former conservative ( I have learned the TRUE FACTS now), I know righties use as many if not more name calling! And, don’t you just love the Republicans who cheat on their wives and families and on their taxes.

        10. Yeah, Bill (Lewinsky) and Hillary are Republicans. Kerry hides registration on his boat to avoid taxes. How about some democratic cold cash in the freezer? The list is endless.

        11. You are right hilboy, I was name calling & I do apologize for this. Sorry! However that this has nothing to do with party distinctions. It has everything to do with just being human. I will keep myself a bit more restrained the next time I get too excited. You do have a right to your opinions & I had no business name calling.I stand corrected, Hilboy

        12. RIIGHT ON Joe!! Just left my response to him also!! It really is almost impossible to fix stupid!!

        13. Darkstar98. It is not me who is stuck at the elementary level as I only quote my knowledge from Hanson & other great scientists. In esense you are saying that they are in the elementary stage!!

        14. No, my dear mr. Watson, I am not stuck at the elementary level. I am only espousing views from climatologists that have stated their case. I have neither the time nor resources to form any realistic conclusions. I leave that to the scientists as you might leave your car to a mechanic.

        15. OK, if you understood how warming works you would know that those events will occur! Here in San Antonio we had quite a warmer than usual winter!! You should probably change you comment name to hillbilly instead of hillboy, cause you sure do not know or understand the complexity of the earth weather patterns .

        16. San Antonio is not the world thomas, you are from Texas, and think Texas is the world but it is not.

        17. Mbee! Texas is not the world, but it is a microcosm. It exemplifies what goes on in the rest of the planet! What happens in Texas can happen anywhere, after all this is just 1 planet!

        18. Amen to that Thomas. I read a lot on climatology & its complexity overwhelms me. I will stick to my art!! At least I know something about it, lol!

        19. The ice in the great lakes was there until 2 weeks ago. Climate changes causes floods, droughts, cold, hot, winds, tornadoes, hurricanes. What the fools don’t seem to understand is this has been going on since the dawn of this planet. And they treat it like a religion. It gives them a cause to champion so they can feel like they are accomplishing something positive. And they are causing something positive. All the investors in green energy and resources and carbon trading are seeing their bank accounts go into unreal positive territory. These fools have no understanding at all that they are supporting one of the greatest swindles in human history.

        20. Darksar98. I am 62 years old & have experienced significant climatic changes since. Do you mean to tell me that climate changes abruptly in a mere 150 years? From the books I studied it is a forgone conclusion that we are just a blip in the geological time segment for any drastic changes to have occurred in a mere 150 years. You are totally irreverent of basic earth science. Period!!. I know for a fact that you did not study this as much as I have. It is easy to oversimplify when there is a deficit of knowledge. KNOWLEDGE is power, my friend!

      1. And how far do the “records” go back? What were temps like a million years ago, how about a billion? 100,000 years ago? 10,000 years ago (actually I think we coming out of the last ice age?), 1,000 years ago? Climates and temps always change naturally and always will with or without Man. Better arguement is “how much” man impacts climate and temp…and that cannot be broken apart and proven.

        1. SayWhat, yes 6000 years ago. We are talking major climatic changes in a mere 150 years. I have studied geology & am aware that there are no records of this suddenness in climate change. There seem to be a lot of ignoramuses here in America who don’t read! I too will award u $10,000 to prove otherwise. U would lose, because we have the records to prove it!

        2. than Joe you need to look up some actual science. A DO event can warm the world 7-10 degrees in as few as 10 years. The current warm up is very mild and stopped in 1998 as the giss data shows, If you graph the data from 1998 the world has actually cooled slightly. If you are actually a science student why not look at the NASA giss graph and see how they distort the warming to make it seem much more than it is which on the Kelvin scale is .17 percent, less than one fifth of a percent. They increased the temperature vertical points and decreased the years horizontal points to make the jump look bigger to the layman. It is basical a distortion./

        3. Mbee. Seems like you have a lot of facts & figures & I don’t. Perhaps I should be more studious as you are, but I do know that things are getting worse from a laymans perspective & as an artist, I always listen to my inner voice. I just hope that I am wrong & that you are right!

        4. “We are talking major climatic changes in a mere 150 years”

          I’ve read about evidence of major changes in the decade time scale, so there is published evidence of quick changes

          “I have studied geology & am aware that there are no records of this suddenness in climate change.”

          This paper suggests; recent, fast, climactic changes on a larger scale than present:

          “Sudden climate transitions during the Quaternary”
          The most detailed information is available for the Younger
          Dryas-to-Holocene stepwise change around 11,500 years ago, which seems to have occurred over a few decades.

          “I too will award u $10,000 to prove otherwise. “

          Do you use PayPal, or should I just specify my favorite charity?

        5. OUTSTANDING retort!! KUDOS!! But, of course mbee will attempt a pointless and FACTLESS response because that is what the unlearned always do I have found.

        6. Saywhat. In other words you know more than my hero known as James Hanson the world reknowned climatologist. I f you are going to disagree with him on that assertion that there is no sudden climate change, than perhaps you will teach me otherwise. Please start by listing your achievements. I am always amused by folks who have all the answers. I don’t….but you sure do!!

        7. Joe, I provided a link to a peer reviewed, published, paper. IF Hansen disagrees with the research, he should take that up with the author.

          If YOU want to blindly follow your “hero” without asking questions, that makes you what’s called a “useful idiot”.

          I don’t have the answers, and neither do you. I AM smart enough to read and question. Are you saying Hansen knows it all, and the rest of us are just wrong for questioning your “hero”? I think that’s called religion?

        8. Saywhat. I will not be rude to you as in the beginning. I do respect your opinions & apologize for my rudeness. I just got done listening to J Hanson & many of his ilks. There are well over 50 other independent scientists that I respect, but Hanson is the cream of the crop. Nothing to do with religion. Just as I have studied the works of great theoretical scientists such as the late Stephen Hawkins, I still have my theoretical hero as no other than Albert Einstein. I have drawn his portrait & read all his research. You & me combined will never equal his intelligence. My genius is my art, but in the other diciplines, I look to the experts to clue me in. There is no way in heaven & the earth that I will have James or Einstein’s resources. I am not a physicist nor a climatologist, but I am an international artist who knows his art. I Joe Mitschke do not know a whole lot about climate change. I also am not going to start studying it at the age of 62. I will leave you at this & wish you very well. You have your beliefs & I may be wrong & you may be very right. You take care now!

        9. Apology accepted, but I think you’re misled if you think Hansen is a respected scientist, he is a well know climate activist. But if that’s your hero, it’s your right.

          Best of luck to you,

        10. Saywhat. I do not know what to think anymore, lol! Now I hear in the news that the Antarctica ice is getting bigger. I think I will just have to chill out & work on what I know the most, art. Climate science is getting on my nerves! Thanks for yourapology acceptance!

        11. Think that global warming alarmism might be overstated for starters. Check out the Australian record cold snap too.

          I poked around looking for your art, got a link?

        12. GOOD Joe!! It is still almost impossible to fix stupid, but we will certainly keep trying!! Take care!!

        13. So what, could have been caused by excessive solar activity which was not recordable then. Today, it is idiot humans that are impacting the situation!

        14. Excessive solar activity? What exactly Thomas is excessive? Maybe current solar activity? The little ice age was a decrease in solar activity and the present solar activity is warming the world. You like to suffer and blame everything on man. You would have made a good priest back when they were burning witches to save mankind, now of course you have to be a cleric and move to Saudi Arabia as that place still believes in witches.

        15. “…could have been caused by excessive solar activity which was not recordable then…Today, it is idiot humans that are impacting the situation”

          Sounds like you’re one of those idiots, right?
          Pretty lame excuse for science you have there,

        16. Hello, hmmmm. U also sound like the last idiot named hilboy. Are u telling me that on a geological time scale where human is just a blip, that there will be major climatic changes in a mere 150 years? It has never happened. I will give u $10,000 to disprove it! U never will!!

        17. OK, now we enter the arena of ridiculous! I will contact NASA and have them send the moon rock and dust analysis and then I will tell you where to send my money. REALLY, time to give it up, you obviously cannot support your position with indisputable facts.

        18. Joe, see my post above.

          Change in less than 150 years. And REAL climate change, not just a trend that’s within the margin of error.

          Paypal is fine, thanks.

        19. Hey , when you get the $$ let me know, I have a GREAT investment opportunity that will return in the millions In a very short period of time!!! KEEP the FACTS a coming!!!

        20. Saywhat. You do sound like you have done some homework. I read stuff from other scientists & I watch a lot of documentaries on this subject. All I know is what I see & read by the great climatologists, but I will not argue with you on this. I only hope that solutions will be found so that my children have a good life. Take care!

        21. Joe, so what about your: “…I will give u $10,000 to disprove it!”

          I easily disproved it, are you a man of your word?

          “All I know is what I see & read by the great climatologists”
          If your “great climatologists” theories don’t hold water, maybe then they are not true scientists?

          “I only hope that solutions will be found so that my children have a good life”

          There is NO problem to find a solution for! Teach them to be critical thinkers, not sheep, and your kids will be fine and have a great life. Don’t saddle them with our stupid energy policies.

          Take a look at Ontario’s energy plan, they’re doomed to pay higher energy bills for generations.

          Good luck to you too, and check out WUWT for the skeptic side

        22. they warmers use two scales, the last ten years or from 1880. most of the time they use the last ten years when it warms, they simply ignore it when it is colder like say 2012 winter. the depths of the little ice age was about 400 years ago, the world has been warming a bit every since on average but we are still colder than 1000 AD when CO2 was half todays levels.

        23. Well Hmmmmm, yes it can!! Again, simple, even so simple I am sure I can get you to understand it. 5 BILLION humans that are teens and adults, now, each human radiates from their bodies almost 100 Deg. F 24/7. So, take 5 BILLION and multiply (I will assume that you know how to multiply, but I will give you the answer just in case) by 100 deg F. Yep.. 500 BILLION deg. F of heat that has never been on the planet before!! We DO NOT know if Dinosaurs were warm or cold blooded and if they radiated heat like we do! Now, add in all the idiot things humans do like… MILLIONS of mile of roads/parking lots, ovens, heaters, car/truck/jet engine heat, on and on the list can go, and most of this has occurred in just the past 80 YEARS!! Really, take some alone time and think about it, and I sure hope you do not vote, we have enough ignorant idiots in the capitols now.

        24. thomas the animals roaming North America and Africa before the human population wiped them out most likely numbered in the billions and they gave off a lot of gas, methane which is a better warmer than CO2 which they also gave off. Why is the earth still here?

        1. YEP!! Really, mbee just doesn’t know when to quit when he/she is so far behind!! Good reply Mike!!

      2. Facts are facts. You are implying that in the last 35 years warming has accelerated greatly, but there hasn’t been any warming in the last 17 years. That doesn’t sound like it is accelerating to quickly. And that doesn’t address the fact that the data for the past was adjusted and conveniently cooled every decade by .5 a degree. You’re right though, facts are facts. But just keep ignoring them.

        1. Tom. How the hell are u going to explain to me about the melting glaciers in Greenland. I left out Antarctica because there is a probability the underground volcanic activity is heating up the bottom of the ice. This is a partial reason. Perhaps I am an idiot such as yourself & believe that ice starts melting at warmer temperatures! You folks amuse me with your inverted sense of logic!

        2. the ice is melting Joe in Greenland a bit since the a lot of that ice showed up during the little ice age which the world has been warming out of for 400 years. When the Viking settled in Greenland around 1000 AD it was warmer than today just like in Alaska. That melting glacier in Alaska has a forest under the glacier. the forest is about 1000 years old so the world had to be warmer back than and it got colder during the little ice age so ice formed in Greenland and that glacier in Alaska. Now it is warming back up for the same reasons it warmed back than which has zero to do with CO2 levels in the air. NASA is planning on a rise of sea levels by 2100 AD of 13 inches for its dike building which is hardly a reason to think the world is ending.

        3. mbee. Thank-u for informing me! My knowledge of this matter is very limited in comparison to yours. I will keep on reading. Still, the fact remains that global warming does not need to be justified anymore. It has been too well established. James L Powell, M. I. T. educated & associated with the prestigious National Science Board found that 25,182 scientists believed that global warming is manmade & 26 scientists disagreed. The naysayers gave many inconsistent answers while the former dovetailed nicely into each other’s opinion. As a layman on this subject, I have to respect that. I will take heed of their warning!

        4. Joe, the argument is not about warming at all and never has been. The AGW crowd claim warming is mans fault be emitting CO2 and that is warming the world. That claim is simply not supported by the science. As your claim of 25000scientists that means zero. all that is is an opinion. If you asked 100000 priests, does God exist, all would say yes yet not a single one has proof that God exists. Opinion in mass is simply a mob it tells a rational person nothing about the facts, in this case man caused global warming. What you ignore is the fact the world has not warmed while CO2 has climbed so something is wrong with the mobs beliefs.

        5. Mbee.Thank-u for enlightening me with your view points. I watched some u-tube videos that see it your way your way or should I say the more scientific way. I guess I need to start checking out the reports from the deniers side so that I can view it more scientifically. I feel bad that my earliar comments insulted your intelligence. I respect your views very much. I will now keep my big mouth shut, lol!

        6. Nobody is asking you to keep your mouth shut. This is a free country founded on liberty for all. All I am trying to do is point out the AGW claim is bogus from the science or at least not supported. Other people can have other viewpoints but if they want me to listen they need to point to an actual study that supports the claim, a study that is supported by other studies. if all they have is an expert opinion than they get the finger from me as experts can be bought on any subject.

        7. Ah.. it was just reported that the recently month of May was the warmest ever recorded worldwide.. so what is the address of the rock you reside under?

      3. Another lie, warmest on record is a variable according to who you ask. Since the world average temperature is less than in 1000 AD we have not hit a record. If you want a record recently how about the winter of 2012, Europe and asia froze, not a word from you folks on that. How about the increase in Antarctica ice, not a word on that, how about the cold US winter , not a word on that. All you hear from the wackos is when someplace is hot, it is a record when they do not actually know the true temperature of the world on average before satellites showed up in the 1970’s.

      4. NO, that is factually incorrect. There has been zero warming for the past 17 years. And it was just found that they’ve been manipulating historical raw data, data which conclusively shows a cooling trend since the ’30s

        1. “the century‐scale global land surface air temperature trend is higher using the adjusted v3.2.0 data. With v3.1.0, the adjusted annual global land surface air temperature trend for 1901‐2011 was 0.94°C/Century. Using data from version 3.2.0 this trend is 1.07°C/Century. The greatest differences between the two
          versions of the adjusted datasets are in the data for years prior to 1970. There is little difference in the global surface temperature trend during the 1979‐2011 period.”

      5. Tommy, it was just in the news that NASA and NOAA have been found to be fudging the older temps to make it look like it has warmed. PROVEN they LIED! The 30s were the warmest on record. FACTS are FACTS, and they are really simple.

        1. Ah, so you are stating that 2 agencies that have unbelievable credibility are for some unknown reasons “fudging the records”!! Really, do you believe also that Lee Harvey Oswald shot Lincoln?? LOL!! Here in San Antonio 2 years ago we broke the record of 100 deg days by over 30 days!! FACTS, and ONLY FACTS.

        2. When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away
          around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few
          things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by
          the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence
          of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The
          Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been
          uncovered by Steven
          Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly
          manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records,
          the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National
          Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

          Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network
          (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with
          data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to
          downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades,
          to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is
          justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at
          USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs
          with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that
          the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on
          record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated”
          data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3
          degrees centigrade per century.

          And then this…

          A new study
          by researchers at the University of Texas, Austin found that the West
          Antarctic Ice Sheet is collapsing due to geothermal heat, not man-made
          global warming.

          Only the uniformed still “believe” in the fantasy.

        3. marysue, it is a funny thing how we are always finding faults with the scientific communities.. They fudged this or they fudged that. There may be some people like that, but doubt very much that there is a conspiracy amongst the scientists to brain wash us. It sounds very naïve to me to discard facts because they do not fit into your belief system.

      6. Actually the rate of warming has decelerated strongly for the last 17 years and will be cooling within a couple years if the trend continues. Mann’s Hockey stick has ED. 1 month of record warm for that month does not prove anything any more than the month before not being a record proves cooling.
        climate change is really a longer term thing,not month by month except for some possible catastrophic event.

        Temperature extremes

        Extreme Highest Temperatures Continent Highest Temp. ° F Location Elevation (Feet) Date

        Africa 136 El Azizia, Libya 367 Sep 13 1922

        North America 134 Death Valley, CA (Greenland Ranch) -178 Jul 10 1913

        Asia 129 Tirat Tsvi, Israel -722 Jun 22 1942

        Australia 128 Cloncurry, Queensland 622 Jan 16 1889

        Europe 122 Seville, Spain 26 Aug 4 1881

        South America 120 Rivadavia, Argentina 676 Dec 11 1905

        Oceania 108 Tuguegarao, Philippines 72 Apr 29 1912

        Antarctica 59 Vanda Station, Scott Coast 49 Jan 5 1974

        Extreme Lowest Temperatures

        Continent Lowest

        Temp ° F Location Elevation (Feet) Date

        Antarctica -129 Vostok 11220 Jul 21 1983

        Asia -90 Oimekon, Russia 2625 Feb 6 1933

        Asia -90 Verkhoyansk, Russia 350 Feb 7 1892

        Greenland -87 Northice 7687 Jan 9 1954

        North America -81.4 Snag, Yukon, Canada 2120 Feb 3 1947

        Europe -67 Ust’Shchugor, Russia 279 Jan 4 1954

        South America -27 Sarmiento, Argentina 879 Jun 1 1907

        Africa -11 Ifrane, Morocco 5364 Feb 11 1935

        Australia -9.4 Charlotte Pass, NSW 5758 Jun 29 1994

        Oceania 12 Mauna Kea Observatory ,HI 13,773 May 17 1979

        Extreme cyclones and hurricanes: only one record in the 21 st century and 1 in the 19th

        Characteristic Record Date Location Note

        Most intense (lowest central pressure)

        870 mb (hPa) (25.69 inHg) October 12, 1979 Typhoon Tip in northwest Pacific Ocean [2][3]

        Most intense

        (maximum sustained surface wind) 90 m/s (195 mph, 170 kt, 315 km/h)
        November 8, 2013 Typhoon Haiyan in northwest Pacific Basin [3]

        Most intense

        (unofficial maximum sustained winds) 96 m/s (215 mph, 186 kt, 345 km/h)
        September 12, 1961 Typhoon Nancy in northwest Pacific Basin [3]

        Fastest intensification 100 mb (hPa), from 985 mb (hPa) to 885 mb (hPa)
        in just 24 h September 1983 Typhoon Forrest in northwest Pacific
        Ocean [4]

        Highest storm surge 14.5 m (48 ft) March 5, 1899 Cyclone Mahina in Bathurst Bay, Queensland, Australia [5]

        Largest tropical cyclone

        (winds rom center) Gale winds (17 m/s, 34 kt, 39 mph, 63 km/h)
        extending 2,220 km (1,380 mi) from center October 12, 1979 Typhoon Tip
        in northwest Pacific Ocean

      7. thomas, slow up a bit and read the actual numbers, the warmig in may was .09 of a degree F, that is within the error rate of the numbers, basically it is a lie. it may be warmer colder or no change, you cannot tell when the number is within the error range, it is a political number not a science number. Beside that tiny problem it is colder than in 1000 AD so the record has yet to be broken and will not until sometime after 2100AD if the models hold up which they mostly don;t work so just cross your fingers. We are warming or were until 1998 from the depths of the little ice age 400 some years ago. We still have a way to go to get out of the little ice age. The claim the little ice age ended in the 1800’s is nonsense since the temperature reconstruction say we are still colder than in 900-1000 AD. All that melting ice is simply ice melting that accumulated when it was colder.

        1. So, you are the all mighty judge and have set yourself up to determine that because it is within a so called error rate it is therefore a LIE?? How pretentious of you! We are warming and we humans are a huge contributor, but maybe you love the overpopulation we now have, and maybe you believe each human is a “gift from god”!! Well, I DO NOT, if each human is a “gift from god” then I want to return most of the “gifts”! Overpopulation cheapens each of us, we basically become numbers not names or people. FACTS are FACTS, and for some unknown reason, maybe your parents messed your brain up, I don’t know, but too many people like yourself simply cannot understand the simplest of FACTS. That of course is just one of a myriad of reasons why this species called humans will become extinct sooner than later. So sad!!

        2. Thomas, I do not recall talking about gift from God or overpopulation except to agree that is the real problem and I do not recall calling your parents names but it is obvious you must really sadden them as you need mental health treatment for anger management or you might just wind up on TV for doing something really stupid which would be a waste as you do seem to have a brain.

        3. Ah… I did NOT call your parents ANY names, but again you prove that you cannot comprehend simple writings, and therefore I can not expect you to understand simple FACTS like most people. And yes, I do sadden my parents because I have learned the true truth about the god they believe in and how wrong they are about him/her/it. And no, you will never see me on TV for doing anything stupid because I work at a level far beyond the typical human that does things like that which you ascertain. I hope I am not using words that are too advanced for you to understand, I do that sometimes, but I strive to converse at a level to the person I am communicating with, and many times it is a really challenging challenge.

        4. Well said Thomas v. My father taught microwave communications at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He was an eccentric genius who always believed that the over educated professors have severe tunnel vision. Common sense seems to elude them, lol!

      1. Thank-u science & reasoning for this video. I watched it. Definitely a co 2 problem that we have with our fossil burning. Sad to say that I was shot down by many of folks on this comment thread that co 2 does not pose a problem. You presented the facts, but people will only believe what they believe. We are very creative at manipulating true science to affirm our wrong conclusions. Guess some of us just love mother earth by sticking our heads into it, lol!

    1. Chilcox. U say theory & 97% of scientists say FACT!! I am not a scientist so I will place my bets with the experts. Do u know more than they do? Are u a scientist? No? THEN KEEP YOU BIG MOUTH SHUT!!

      1. That “97% of scientists” stat is a hoax. Do you even know how it came about? They sent out an email to 3000+ academics, not even half of whom where in a field related to climate science, asking, “Do you believe humans are contributing to climate change?” Out of 3000+ email recipients, 78 responded. Of the 78 responses, 76 responded “yes” – and that’s the origin of your “97%” stat.

      2. So your approach to life is believe the talking heads. You must have loved Bush and his scientists on WMD in Iraq, only cost us trillions and 6000 dead to find out they were either wrong or liars or both. Why not do something different, actually gasp read the studies and decide if they make sense and whether the study is expressing an opinion or stating a fact. The facts on climate change are clear. The climate changes and has for billions of years, the last 150 years of climate change are not any different that say the warm up to the medieval warm period or the drop into the little ice age. The actual warmup has not been very much and stopped 16 years ago per the IPCC which is one of your talking heads.

        1. Actually, Mbee, I hated Busch. Never cared 4 the republican party. I put my trust in the top experts of this field of climate change. I actually watched that video posted on this comment thread. It is the one showing a volcano erupting. Please watch it. They also say that things are warming up. Climate change is very complex. I am in no position to really understand it so I leave it to the experts to figure out what needs to be done about it. I do not know much about cars so I take it to an expert. Also don’t know much about accounting so I take my paper work to an expert on accounting. We are in big trouble if we all start discounting our experts in their chosen field. There may be some political or monetary sway by some of them, how ever the vast majority will give us their expert opinion

  3. Scientist Reveals Inconvenient Truth to Alarmists

    Tuesday, 17 Jun 2014 07:59 AM

    By Larry Bell

    Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.

    This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today, with “a wild landscape and wide flowing river.”

    Dr. Schlüchter’s report might have been more conveniently dismissed by the entrenched global warming establishment were it not for his distinguished reputation as a giant in the field of geology and paleoclimatology who has authored/coauthored more than 250 papers and is a professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

    Then he made himself even more unpopular thanks to a recent interview titled “Our Society is Fundamentally Dishonest” which appeared in the Swiss publication Der Bund where he criticized the U.N.-dominated institutional climate science hierarchy for extreme tunnel vision and political contamination.

    Following the ancient forest evidence discovery Schlüchter became a target of scorn. As he observes in the interview, “I wasn’t supposed to find that chunk of wood because I didn’t belong to the close-knit circle of Holocene and climate researchers. My findings thus caught many experts off guard: Now an ‘amateur’ had found something that the [more recent time-focused] Holocene and climate experts should have found.”

    Other evidence exists that there is really nothing new about dramatic glacier advances and retreats. In fact the Alps were nearly glacier-free again about 2,000 years ago. Schlüchter points out that “the forest line was much higher than it is today; there were hardly any glaciers. Nowhere in the detailed travel accounts from Roman times are glaciers mentioned.”

    Schlüchter criticizes his critics for focusing on a time period which is “indeed too short.” His studies and analyses of a Rhone glacier area reveal that “the rock surface had [previously] been ice-free 5,800 of the last 10,000 years.”

    Such changes can occur very rapidly. His research team was stunned to find trunks of huge trees near the edge of Mont Miné Glacier which had all died in just a single year. They determined that time to be 8,200 years ago based upon oxygen isotopes in the Greenland ice which showed marked cooling.

    Casting serious doubt upon alarmist U.N.-IPCC projections that the Alps will be nearly glacier-free by 2100, Schlüchter poses several challenging questions: “Why did the glaciers retreat in the middle of the 19th century, although the large CO2 increase in the atmosphere came later? Why did the Earth ‘tip’ in such a short time into a warming phase? Why did glaciers again advance in the 1880s, 1920s, and 1980s? . . . Sooner or later climate science will have to answer the question why the retreat of the glacier at the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850 was so rapid.”

    Although we witness ongoing IPCC attempts to blame such developments upon evil fossil-fueled CO2 emissions, that notion fails to answer these questions. Instead, Schlüchter believes that the sun is the principal long-term driver of climate change, with tectonics and volcanoes acting as significant contributors.

    Regarding IPCC integrity with strong suspicion, Schlüchter recounts a meeting in England that he was “accidentally” invited to which was led by “someone of the East Anglia Climate Center who had come under fire in the wake of the Climategate e-mails.”

    As he describes it: “The leader of the meeting spoke like some kind of Father. He was seated at a table in front of those gathered and he took messages. He commented on them either benevolently or dismissively.”

    Schlüchter’s view of the proceeding took a final nosedive towards the end of the discussion. As he noted: “Lastly it was about tips on research funding proposals and where to submit them best. For me it was impressive to see how the leader of the meeting collected and selected information.”

    As a number of other prominent climate scientists I know will attest, there’s one broadly recognized universal tip for those seeking government funding. All proposals with any real prospects for success should somehow link climate change with human activities rather than to natural causes. Even better, those human influences should intone dangerous consequences.

    Schlüchter warns that the reputation of science is becoming more and more damaged as politics and money gain influence. He concludes, “For me it also gets down to the credibility of science . . . Today many natural scientists are helping hands of politicians, and are no longer scientists who occupy themselves with new knowledge and data. And that worries me.”

    Yes. That should worry everyone.

    Larry Bell is a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston, where he directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and heads the graduate program in space architecture. He is author of “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax,” and his professional aerospace work has been featured on the History Channel and the Discovery Channel-Canada.

  4. Climate Change Doomed the Ancients

    By ERIC H. CLINEMAY 27, 2014

    THIS month, a report issued by a prominent military advisory board concluded that climate change posed a serious threat to America’s national security.

    The authors, 16 retired high-ranking officers, warned that droughts, rising seas and extreme weather events, among other environmental threats, were already causing global “instability and conflict.”

    But Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a stalwart believer that global warming is a “hoax,” dismissed the report as a publicity stunt.

    Perhaps the senator needs a history lesson, because climate change has been leading to global conflict — and even the collapse of civilizations — for more than 3,000 years. Drought and famine led to internal rebellions in some societies and the sacking of others, as people fleeing hardship at home became conquerors abroad.

    One of the most vivid examples comes from around 1200 B.C. A centuries-long drought in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean regions, contributed to — if not caused — widespread famine, unrest and ultimately the destruction of many once prosperous cities, according to four recent studies.

    The scientists determined the length and severity of the drought by examining ancient pollen as well as oxygen and carbon isotope data drawn from alluvial and mineral deposits. All of their conclusions are corroborated by correspondence, inscribed and fired on clay tablets, dating from that time.

    Ancient letters from the Hittite kingdom, in what is now modern-day Turkey, beseech neighboring powers for shipments of grain to stave off famine caused by the drought. (The drought is thought to have affected much of what is now Greece, Israel, Lebanon and Syria for up to 300 years.) One letter, sent from a Hittite king, pleads for help: “It is a matter of life or death!”

    Another letter, sent from the city of Emar, in what is now inland Syria, states simply, “If you do not quickly arrive here, we ourselves will die of hunger.” The kingdom of Egypt, as well as the city of Ugarit, on the coast of what is now Syria, responded with food and supplies, but it is not clear if they were able to provide enough relief.

    It certainly created problems of national security for the great powers of the time. Correspondence between the Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, Cypriots, Minoans, Mycenaeans, Assyrians and Babylonians — effectively, the Group of 8 of the Late Bronze Age — includes warnings of attacks from enemy ships in the Mediterranean. The marauders are thought to have been the Sea Peoples, possibly from the western Mediterranean, who were probably fleeing their island homes because of the drought and famine and were moving across the Mediterranean as both refugees and conquerors.

    One letter sent to Ugarit advised the king to “be on the lookout for the enemy and make yourself very strong!” The warning probably came too late, for another letter dating from the same time states: “When your messenger arrived, the army was humiliated and the city was sacked. Our food in the threshing floors was burned and the vineyards were also destroyed. Our city is sacked. May you know it! May you know it!”

    While sea levels may not have been rising then, as they are now, changes in the water temperature may have been to blame for making life virtually unlivable in parts of the region.

    A 2012 study published in the Journal of Archaeological Science found that the surface temperatures of the Mediterranean Sea cooled rapidly during this time, severely reducing precipitation over the coasts. The study concluded that agriculture would have suffered and that the conditions might have influenced the “population declines, urban abandonments and long-distance migrations associated with the period.”

    To top it off, catastrophic events, in the form of a series of earthquakes, also rocked many ancient cities in these areas from around 1225 to 1175 B.C. These, together with the famines and droughts, would have further undermined the societies of the time, most likely leading to internal rebellions by the underclass and peasant populations who were facing severe food shortages, as well as invasions by migrating peoples.

    We still do not know the specific details of the collapse at the end of the Late Bronze Age or how the cascade of events came to change society so drastically. But it is clear that climate change was one of the primary drivers, or stressors, leading to the societal breakdown.

    The era that followed is known as the first Dark Ages, during which the thriving economy and cultures of the late second millennium B.C. suddenly ceased to exist. It took decades, and even hundreds of years in some areas, for the people in these regions to rebuild.

    We live in a world that has more similarities to that of the Late Bronze Age than one might suspect, including, as the British archaeologist Susan Sherratt has put it, an “increasingly homogeneous yet uncontrollable global economy and culture” in which “political uncertainties on one side of the world can drastically affect the economies of regions thousands of miles away.”

    But there is one important difference. The Late Bronze Age civilizations collapsed at the hands of Mother Nature. It remains to be seen if we will cause the collapse of our own.

    Eric H. Cline, a professor of classics and anthropology at George Washington University, is the author of “1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed.”

    So another words the climate has been changing,,, seance the beginning of our existence.

    1. Apparently you never heard of the military industrial complex that Ike warned the US about as he left the presidency all those years ago. All these geezers are doing is asking for more money and power, something they do every year by saying the sky is falling somewhere unless you up the military budget.

  5. It ISN’T my job to prove it to be a false science, it is the SCIENCE that has to be applied, which proves global warming is a hoax! If this was science, you would be able to provide evenidence via the scientific method you dumb kluck!

    What, are you brain dead?

    1. Well, this is the greatest hoax in human history next to that of god beliefs. Too many people involved in too many places. I know of a person who still does not believe we landed on the moon several times. As I told him, if it were a hoax they would not keep doing it, but would rather say there was no reason to go back since they didn’t find anything worth of interest.

      1. Hey there, Thomas. Remember the flat earth society from years ago when folks knew for a fact that a round planet was impossible? We know better today, lol! This ignorance is well & alive today. Global warming is a hoax & this gives me permission to keep blasting my planet with my excrement!

    2. Firstusa. Did u check out that u-tube video out above a few pages? Global warming does not need to be debated anymore. What needs to be debated is what we are going to do about it! While we are bickering, the climate keeps degrading. My guess is that we will keep politicizing about it until it’s too late. Then what?

  6. Proof is for math, not for theoretical science. Just the fact that this word is used demonstrates this is nothing but propaganda. In science you collect evidence. If the evidence continues to support the theory then the theory remains intact. However, if an evaluation of the evidence shows the theory does not pass a basic 95% confidence test then the theory is rejected. It hasn’t been “proven” to be false, but it is no longer an accepted explanation of reality.

    As it turns out dangerous or moderate AGW has already failed the 95% confidence tests as shown in Knight et al and Fyfe et al. The theory should have already have been sent to the dust pile. The real question that should be asked is why is it still being pushed?

    1. Say what?? I hope you are not stupid everyday and that is just a today moment! Have you not seen the news over the past few years? The weather is unpredictable almost everywhere on the planet which of course fits in to the global warming standards!! Simple my friend, just open you mind to the possibilities outside you little world.

      1. Silly nonsense. There has been no increase in extreme weather events. It’s called propaganda to fool those who cannot think for themselves. How do I know? I checked the actual data. Bet you’ve never checked one single item of climate data in your life.

        1. Say what, Saywhat? Above is my reply. There sure is some serious weather changes occurring. I am sure that you watch the news everyday. Never mind what the IPCC says just mind what you see happening on the news. No rocket science involved here!

        2. Rich Balance. I did not have to check out the data. I just turn on the news!!! There is plenty out there. Let’s start with California. I will not waste my time with my long list. Suffice it to say that the facts are alive & well on the front page news almost every single day!!!

      2. It’s amazing how stupid people are. Just because you see it more today, because of the media and tv, doesn’t mean the frequency of events has increased. There is a camera in basically every person’s pocket on the planet. That didn’t exist 20,30, 70 years ago. Use some common sense for a change.

        1. Tom. In Thomas’s defence I have to notify you that the oceans are definitely getting warmer & that it is caused by the absorption of ambient atmospheric heat. This has been going on for quite a while now. This is proven science & shows definitively that extra heat is being absorbed by the oceans. This is FACT! With it comes all kinds of unpredictable weather. I do not see the stupidity of this thinking. You lost me on that on. Please explain.

      3. Thomas. I feel your frustration when ever people want to live in their dream land of forever helping themselves to all that earth has to offer them. There will then come a time when the pied piper will call on them to pay for all that damage. Payback will be a bitch! Sad for our children though.

    2. It’s still pushed because climate scientists are making a very nice living off it. Politicians see it as a way to gather votes. Companies see it a way to make more money solving a nonexistent problem. There is no motivation for it to stop.

      1. yu tube. I really wish it was non existent. I hope u are right, but I see too many disturbing events happening today. I am not a conspiracist as you are. Conspiracism blinds one to the truth. You watch the news…..I watch the news. Our experiences should suffice. If you wish additional scientific corroboration, 99% of scientists will affirm your experience in todays climate disruption. Just check out James L Powell, M.I T. educated. He is with the prestigious National Science board. They concluded that out of 25,182 scientists who were climate change believers, 26 were not. The 26 gave nonconsistant stories. The believers were all united in their beliefs. It meshed nicely with their viewpoints.

    3. Rich balance. The evidence is in. From the world community it is no longer a question of probability but rather a question of what to do about it. It seems like you are stuck in the past when the science was still murky back then. Please fast forward yourself into todays time & work out solutions. Debating the validity of climate change just stalls progress! Time is running out very fast. Let’s move!!

  7. The facts are clear. So why don´t you brain washed ignorant americans find out what is really going on in the world and stop listening to the distorted news from Faux News, Bill O´ and Koch brothers.

    1. Sorry, not listening to any of those sources on AGW, kinda relying on coursework on meteorology and climatology, a lifelong fascination with science (not computer models, but the actual, empirical kind) and forty plus years of watching the debate evolve. And before the shriil screeching of “settled science” and “consensus” erupts I would like to point out that “settled science” when I started my studies in college lo those many years past predicted collapse by overpopulation, collapse by lack of fossil fuels, and rampant famine and overpopulation would’ve taken us out by now.

    2. RIGHT ON!! It is really hard to fix stupid. I find that most deniers also believe that god is all love and good. Heck, they cannot even understand their own Bibles no less simple scientific facts.


  9. What you can prove are the reactions of certain chemicals/compounds/emissions and the affect those have on our planet/ozone/lands/oceans. Those are measurable. To hypothesize that those interactions correlate to ACCELERATED climate change is up for debate. There is no doubt that climate change is happening and the people that don’t understand the complex systems associated with it are the nay-sayers. It is illogical to think man has no affect on our climate.

    1. Nope, most of the effects are not measurable to necessary tolerances given the complex, non-linear nature of our climate. Too many factors for our current level of technology. And, that doesn’t even get into the number of unknowns. If what you said were true the models wouldn’t be in complete failure.

      1. My point was there are to many variables to prove climate change. But you can prove how molecules interact. Our ozone is made up of particles and particles come out of the tail pipes of cars. You can test how those interact.

      2. Rich. If I fall & trip because of untied shoe laces, would it not be best for me to get other types of shoes or tie them properly? Would it not also be better to fix our climate woes with more ecological alternatives than to fight with the leading climatologists?

      1. “If I pee in the ocean, does it raise the level?” It depends on the sample you select. What if you had two people pee, 10 people pee or 100 million people pee. Does that change the level??

        1. I all 7 billion of us pee’d our daily 2 liters into the ocean, it would raise the level 0.000001644 inches.

          After a thousand years of doing that, we’d gain about 0.6″.

    2. Karl W. Very well spoken. It is a breath of fresh air to read from someone with intelligence. Just wish there were more like you. Perhaps then things will change!

  10. There is no such thing as Global Warming. Even scientist agree that Global Warming is an inexact term. Climate Change how ever is a more exact term for what is going on. If we were facing a Global Warming according to scientist then our winters would be getting warmer too but they are not. Infact they are getting colder and more intense. Climate change also has been linked to the intense Solar Flare activity.

    1. Clearly, you know nothing about climate. The entire science is built on an increase in the global energy equilibrium. Too bad there’s is no evidence that this is happening.

    2. Sorry to correct you, Dodie, but while I was (Ohio) in a deep freeze, California had a very mild winter. Remember that? The oceans are holding in a lot more heat. There are also many wind patterns. The resultant effect is to create hot & cold areas on our planet. This is very normal in a high c0 2 envoirement. Climate change is very complex, but it exists whether we like it or not.

  11. England was once warm enough to grow grapes and I am sure no one was driving SUV at that time and the world population was much lower then it is today. Can I have the check, please.

  12. Since 2004 . The Swift Boat for Truth guys have offered 1Million$$$$ to any who could refute their charges against one Mr John Kerry,, that bounty has still gone uncollected

  13. Oldest intellectual scam in the book, challenge someone to absolutely prove a negative. Sure would be nice to stick to science on this, but I guess we hafta play games…

  14. And, I’ll give Dr. Keating a dollar if he can tell me what happened to the predictions of the “CLIMATE CHANGE EXPERTS” in the 1970’s. You know the predictions of “GLOBAL FREEZING” and “ACID RAIN.” I’m waiting, Dr. Keating.

  15. I have a better idea. Let those who are so damn certain climate change is manmade, put up a bond for say $10,000,000, and they lose it if they can’t prove it.

  16. What is his starting base line for positive temperature change? 100 years ago or what?
    Drill 2 miles down in the southern ice cap and up comes Ferns and palm trees ? So at any rate what was the temperatures in darkest Africa 150 years ago or Australia or the Pacific islands or Russia or Canada or anywhere global. You have to have a non flawed factual starting point and on a global scale.

  17. Note the specific phrasing: “… prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate-change is not occurring …”. This is a semantic boobytrap, and I believe Keating designed it to be one.
    1. Using the scientific method it is possible to demonstrate that a hypothesis has a very low probability of being correct or, conversely, that it has a very high probability of being correct. It balks at categorically proving or disproving any hypothesis.
    2. By the basic tenants of the scientific method, any change occurring within a closed system (e.g. a planetary biosphere) ultimately affects the whole in some greater or lesser proportion.
    Build a small campfire and one introduces a small quantity of compounds into the atmosphere that weren’t there before. Lightening ignites a forest-fire and you have a release of the same compounds, only several orders of magnitude greater. Build a fossil-fueled power-generation plant that operates 24/7/365 and both the specific compounds, the gross amounts released, and the rate of release are all changed. All three examples have an affect; the question is, how significant an affect?

      1. Thank you, Joe. We ALL need to be asking these questions, rather than buying into this elaborate “carbon exchange” system. The more I look at it, the more it looks like a Ponzi scheme, with the United States predestined to come up holding the bag at the end.

  18. Such silly nonsense. He’s sets the rules so he can’t lose. He sets it up so that the challenger has to convince him. Well, tell you what. If he can prove to me that man is changing the climate to catastrophic oh-no-world-is-ending tipping point levels, I’ll give him $10,001 dollars. He can make charts and graphs and timelines and cite formulas and consensus and when he’s done, I’ll just say to him the same thing he will say to anyone taking his challenge. “Nope, you’re cherry picking. I’m not convinced.”

  19. is my shot.

    Arctic Icecap melting (NEW THEORY)

    There are a lot of theories, ideas and hypotheses regarding the cause of the disappearing North pole icecap.

    We all know that geologic formations has a major role in weather, such
    as mountain ranges and open plains. The same goes for undersea
    mountains and canyons, they too have a real and tangible effect on the
    position and strength of the ocean currents.

    Up until now geology and geologic formations have been ignored as far as the cause for the melting Arctic icecap.

    We propose a closer look at the Bering Strait

    Currently the Bering Strait is shallow a 14 meters and as deep 52
    meters. This has not always been the case. Currently the Bering strait
    shallowness blocks the circulation or flow of the North Atlantic waters
    into the Pacific resulting in a warmer Arctic waters, When the Bering
    strait was deeper it would allow the Arctic waters to mingle the
    Atlantic waters with the Pacific.

    As the Bering Strait rises from the sea it will choke off the Pacific
    all together and the Atlantic will continue to pump ever warmer waters
    into the Arctic ocean. Resulting in the total melting of the Polar
    icecap together with the Whole ice cap of Greenland and the surrounding
    Arctic Circle.

    However all is not lost.

    What happens, when the Arctic circle becomes Ice free and the Ocean levels Rise?

    The big question is will a rise of a few meters in the ocean level allow the co-mingling of the Atlantic and pacific waters again?

    On the picture below you see a new ocean current that was discovered
    recently of the coast of Green land. That same ocean current will also
    disappear once the pacific and Atlantic waters start co-mingling again
    due to the rise of Ocean water level….
    Abraham Ben judea

    1. hmmmm. Kind of like roaming in Georgia in the dead of summer. I’m happy that I don’t live there! If I was a dinosaur, perhaps I would be joyful, lol!

  20. More Global Warming Kook nonsense. He can’t prove it is man made either. If he could, there would be no debate. Nothing to see here, move along…

    1. Marine core soldier. The debate was over a long time ago, sorry to say. It is the deniers that are stuck in the debating phase, which has been phased out years ago. Sad to say that there are still folks who believe that the science has not been settled. A little bit too late for the o k. corral meeting!

      1. Hardly. You will find we are heading into a new ice age if you look seriously. This has been going on for millions of years and will go on for millions more. You Dems are the ones that are in denial.

        1. Marine core. Perhaps u are right. I apologize that My earlier comment to u was nasty. Take care!

  21. Only $10k, no I’ll need a $10M per year grant for at least 5 years to recruit and equip a team to properly review the Gordian Knot of decades of data and models that is current CC.
    How about this instead, all grants or government funding will pay only $10k per year for research that concludes CC is all manmade.

    1. Yu tube. You are a good comedian. I was getting depressed over how we will die very soon & you, my friend, made my day! This is a depressing topic so I appreciate your humor. I am not too sure if our children would…..too bad.

  22. It is easy to prove that climate change is not man made. Science has already done this, with the proof of Ice ages and then warming. Hell maps drawn by ancient Phonetician cartographers have been prove as maps of Antarctica before it was cover in Ice. These are proofs of a natural cycle of climate change. But I will not and can not say that humans with our pollution and other destructive behaviors have not had an impact on those natural cycles. But we are not the cause of them.

    1. Wake up, Jason Scott! This is not debatable anymore. It has been settled long ago. The debate now is What To Do About It! I will not quote scientists such as James Hanson, etc because the debate is dead. I will not say anymore because it will be pointless. You have not done your research!

      1. Obviously Joe you are another dumb ass stupid liberal who can’t think for their own Damn self. You believe in any thing that the stupid liberal media tells and accept as fact. Well wake up , climate change is a natural part of earths cycle. It is not nor has it ever been caused by humans. But humans are expediting the process .

        1. Jason, we Germans think u are all liberal or repubs. We do not think in bipolar thoughts here in this country. I am probably much more educated than you are. My father was a genius who taught in McGill university & I am an international artist who paints the plight of mankind on canvas & graphite on paper. My I Q is 147 & I do not make fatuous statements as you do. Shame on you! Get educated my friend! Check out my art!

  23. That’s baloney. Claiming that “climate change” is man made us stating the obvious. Man activities affected the climate for the last 12,000 years – ever since man changed from hunting/collecting to agriculture. The issue is not whether there IS a change but WHAT is the change. The claim that man produced CO2 is a fraud as oroven by NASA chief scientist and head of the Jet Propulsion lab – James Hansen

    In fact, in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.

    The joker should send his check to Hansen directly (I won’t claim any commission . . .)

  24. I’ll try to prove that it isn’t man made as soon as someone can convince me that it’s actually happening to the extent that’s making everyone panic.

  25. Well if we are to go on which side is more confident, I’m going to go with the non-anthropogenic crowd. They are offering 500,000 to prove man is causing global warming, and the anthropogenic crowd is offering 10,000 to show it isn’t. But basically the bottom line and what has been demonstrated by Keating, is that you can’t prove or disprove climate change.

  26. Great comments, guys! Obviously it’s a hot topic (and no, pun wasn’t intended). Thanks as well for the reasonably, more-or-less civil tone everyone is maintaining.

    Just to remind those who are enthusiastically focused on winning this competition, you’ll have to post (or repost) your submissions on Keating’s site. I see some ambitious starts here in some of the comments and I’m looking forward to seeing how the challenge turns out.

    (And just a head’s up: If you repost all of someone else’s article, please make sure you have the writer or publisher’s OK, and tell us where that piece of literature comes from. Nothing makes our fellow writers feel happier than a good, properly referenced credit.)

    Thanks again for the read and the great comments!

    1. JN, stop supporting this individual who is ignorant on so many levels. This man has assumed a model-based HYPOTHESIS to be true and has fallaciously twisted his argument back onto the SKEPTICS to prove him otherwise. This is cr@p!

  27. WHAT A HACK!!! His entire position is based on a fundamentally fallacious perspective. This is science 101. The burden of proof rests ENTIRELY on the “scientists” making the claim. This man is a DANGER to the scientific process. As a physicists, he’d agree then that the CERN collider was a wasted exercise since the math underlying Quantum Mechanics already “proved” the existence of the Higg’s boson. I mean, why search for physical evidence of a cause-effect relationship when a model already seems to work so well?

  28. It’s nature made. The planet is still thawing out from the last ice age. What is there to prove other than it would still be happening if man didn’t even exist?

  29. The issue here is that Dr. Christopher Keating is actually a witch. I’ll give anyone $1,000,000 to prove it’s not true.PS- Don’t ask me to prove he really is a witch, if you can’t disprove it, we can all assume it’s true.

  30. Send me my cash!! This is easy!! I live in Michigan. 10,000 years ago Michigan was covered by a mile thick glacier…FACT! SCIENTIFIC FACT! IRREFUTABLE!!… IT MELTED!!!!!!!!!! Not caused by man…..NO CARS, FACTORIES, POWER PLANTS… etc.etc. I’ll be in touch to collect my money…or should I say my Lawyer will contact you.

  31. I have no degrees and not much of a science buff, but I can look at history and see where a lot of the so called global warming acts has happened before! So if the same weather patterns have occurred in the past how is it global warming now?

  32. The new nonsense theory that climate change isn’t man made goes to show how stupid people are. OF course, it is man made. Climate change isn’t natural and the rapid rate of destruction that man has been doing for many years. Oil drilling, industrial pollutions and car usage, including smoking, dumping of garbage in our environment, stripping our wildlife of trees causes and contributes to global warming. People are destroying our once beautiful planet and to see the unsettling changes already being made makes me sick to the stomach. I am sick and tired of people continuing to behave in a way of continuing to be in their usual denial that global warming exist.

  33. well it isn’t science proven but the oil we use is to cool our ingines that we take out of our grounds, why wouldn’t the earth heat up? fracking our rocks so we get “gas” to heat our houses, again taking from our grounds. we can only take so much at a time which in turn takes the earth many years to replace!

  34. If 10 jellybeans of solar energy enters the atmosphere in a 24 hour period, and 9 Jellybeans are radiated into space in that same 24 hour period then we have an extra 1 jellybean of energy to deal with. I suspect that the energy goes from warm to cold as per 6th grade science. Cold is ocean water and ice… the atmosphere stays about the same….for now!
    Given an ever more robust CO2 atmospheric content, a ‘greenhouse gas’, also as per 6th grade science, we seem to be retaining an extra jellybean of energy. It’s not ‘the sun’ getting hotter, it’s not volcanoes and it’s not heat islands, or ‘liberals’ creating this added heat index…it’s CO2 from burning fossil fuels. To win the money all you have to do is prove that 6th grade science is bogus…simple as a stone!

    1. there is a tiny problem with your example, it is nonsense. The science shows CO2 level changes in the past do not cause climate change, the present CO2 level changes has not warmed the world in 16 years, zero correlation with climate change.

  35. It has already been proved that CO2 does not cause climate change as climate changes. The ice core studies 800,000 years of data show CO2 level changes never caused a climate change in all that time. The Mauna Loa study of CO2, the place they get that 400ppm number from, shows CO2 has zero correlation with climate change which has not actually changed in 16 years per the IPCC. The professor knows the word proof is pretty hard to show so he is just a lying idiot who wants your tax money for his favorite research. You notice the professor, liar that he ls , has turned the proof upside down, It is up to him to prove CO2 causes climate change not the other way around otherwise I would offer you $10,000 dollars to prove the Moon is made of green cheese.

    1. Mbee, are you knowingly lying or just deluded and stupid. That is quite a set of lies you put together there. The fact is, real scientists would read that trash than laugh at you for being an idiot.

      12. “CO2 lags temperature”

      When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth’s orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.

  36. Here’s the laughable part… since climate cultists are anti-science and are offering a prize to “disprove” their claims/lies (a joke in itself), then that means that they are holding the cards when it comes to what is considered acceptable evidence disproving their cult. No matter WHAT evidence you throw at them, they will NEVER accept it, and thus, will never pay out the money. Valid science has disproven the left’s cult beliefs MANY MANY times but they just stick their fingers in their ears and shout, “I cannot hear you, it’s settled science!” over and over again.

  37. The scientific theory does not set out to prove a negatives. The very notion of the “challenge” is further evidence man-made GW is a hoax, propped up by gimmicks. If they wan’t to make drastic societal changes based upon their theories – theories proven wrong time and again – theories they manipulate data to prop up – it’s incumbent upon them to prove it correct.

    1. Wow, dude, you just said the theories couldn’t be proven wrong, then turned around and said they have been proven wrong. You people are hilarious. You really should learn to make your lies self-contradictory so you don’t make yourself look like a lying fool.

  38. “But he says he is sure that will never happen “because it can’t be
    proven. The scientific evidence for global warming is overwhelming and
    no one can prove otherwise.” With that caveat, why waste the time to try to educate him?

        1. Easy Edg1, you said, “… why waste the time to try to educate him?”, in reference to Dr. Keating. That is something only an uneducated fool would do.

  39. What a fraud, the data from the so called human caused climate change is so badly “cooked”, modified, and rewritten, that no one can prove or disprove anything with it. Then there is the lie that the science is settled, science is never settled it is growing and evolving constantly as research provides new information. The global warming/climate change fraud is a political lie designed to defraud the people of the United States of billions of dollars in the carbon tax scam. The insane part is that anyone believes an exorbitant tax will fix either the weather or the climate. What is going to happen is the climate will change one day, like it has many times in the past, and there is nothing we can do to control it. When it does change it may be an extinction event for mankind because there are too many of us. That is science that has been known for almost a hundred years and been ignored for the whole time.

    1. Only liars and fools use lying sock puppet talking points Jim. Which one are you?

      1. “Climate’s changed before”

      Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate’s sensitivity to CO2.

        1. The London Telegraph ran a nice little article on NOAA’s data 2 days ago. They also mentioned the climate hoaxer’s fudged numbers and outright lies. The title of the article is “The scandal of fiddled global warming data.”

        2. L don’t claim the NOAA is lying Rich, I claim you people are lying. BTW, nice low-life attempt at distortion.

      1. I understand science very well. I also am familiar with all the goofy lies you and others have been putting out. I predict that nobody will win the bet, and only true idiots will try to take the bet.

  40. It is interesting to note that all of the pinheads that claim AGW is a proven lie can’t actually cite any proof. What a bunch of ridiculous morons.

      1. So Rich, when are you picking up your check? You have claimed numerous times that you have the proof that AGW is a hoax. So why don’t you put up or shut up?

      1. Steve, only fools and liars use lying sock puppet talking points. So which one are you?

        17. “Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy”

        While some of the private correspondance is not commendable, an informed examination of their ‘suggestive’ emails reveal technical discussions using techniques well known in the peer reviewed literature. Focusing on a few suggestive emails merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.

  41. People who live in more or less traditional society do not produce much chemical emissions which cause directly or indirectly global warming and therefore climate change.They rather produce carbon sinks. This I think qualitatively partially proves that climate change is ‘nt man made.

  42. That’s easy. Look at EPA ocean temperature and NASA Satellite temperature data, they were flat for 17 years while we have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere all along. NASA representative said if he had to guess he said the clouds have cooled down a little. EPA data indicates cooling too. To me, heat stored in a large radius object will cause the object being heated to cool. Simple fact of radiation physics. So have fun with little fish tank experiments. The earth is not a fish tank. It is a big ball with radiation absorbing gas around it. Hope we don’t all starve to death as the plants metabolic rate drops as the temperatures cool which of course drives it even colder. People will die of starvation if cooling occurs. Only have to move a few houses if it warms up.

        1. Rich, now you demonstrate that you really don’t know what you are talking about. Your post had nothing to do with my post, but you are apparently too stupid to understand that. BTW, current temperatures are still in the range of the climate model predictions.

      1. I don’t claim anything of the kind, nor does anyone I have heard about. AGW nuts are really good at destroying straw men, but that’s all I have ever seen them address.

        Is the climate changing? Absolutely, every day since long before there were people on this planet. Does human activity affect climate? Absolutely, just google “urban heat island.” Nobody contests any of that, so far as I know.

        What I consider unproven is whether changes caused by human activity amount to more than statistical noise given the changes that occur naturally. Keep in mind, when considering global climate over the life of the planet, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age both count as “statistical noise.”

        1. However, increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in a little over 150 years and continuing to ADD 39 BILLION TONNES OF CO2 to the atmosphere each year is not statistical noise.

        2. That’s as may be, but it doesn’t prove AGW theories any more than “urban heat island effect” does. AGW theorists have yet to show that their theories and models accurately reflect the effect of CO2 change in the atmosphere. Accurately measuring the amount proves nothing if you don’t know the effects of what you’re measuring.

          Current global temps are not considered *possible* by any current AGW model. They’re too cold. When reality and the model disagree, you can usually safely assume that it isn’t reality that has things wrong.

        3. That is total BS Grumpy Old Fart. Are you knowingly lying or just clueless and deluded. They know the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Current temperatures are on the low side, but still in range of model predictions. Perhaps you should turn off the dope addict on the radio and try to find some real facts.

        4. They know the effects in the same sense that people know alcohol gets you drunk. If they knew its effects accurately to a scientific standard, their models would be accurate.

          If current temps are still within the range of any of the models,

          1. It’s only just barely within the range of the most extreme 1 or 2 out of dozens, and

          2. It’s steadily moving out of the ranges considered “possible” by those models.

          To be fair, I’ll grant you that I haven’t checked closely on a daily basis, but they have been “borderline and moving toward impossible” for most of a year now, and the trend is for actual temps and modeled temps to grow farther apart, not converge.

          Don’t take my word for it, do some googling.

          Oh and just so you know… name calling doesn’t help your argument, it just makes you look juvenile.

        5. Grumpy, you just admitted you were lying. Here are a few more clues. Just because the increase in surface temperature has slowed doesn’t mean that the warming has slowed. Surface temperature is just one of a set of parameters that define the heat content of the Earth’s biosphere. 17 years is nothing. Are you also one of the clowns that say 150 years of weather data is not enough to derive a trend?

        6. No, I’m one of the clowns that says that

          1. When you find out 16 years after you have “derived your trend” that the arctic ice pack was very nearly GONE during the 1920s and 1930s and your weather data not only didn’t show that, but assumed it was at “typical” size, it shows that your data is incomplete. You apparently have no idea how much data gathering capabilities have changed in the last half century, much less over the last 150 years.

          2. When your mathematical model that generates your “hockey stick” graph generates a hockey stick even when you run random numbers through it, as Michael Mann’s did, your model is a) suspect in general, and b) provably flawed in a way that undermines your primary conclusion. And

          3. Only a fool or someone whose goal is a political agenda, rather than a scientific breakthrough, demands specific actions based on the predictions of a model that has already been proven not to be accurately predictive.

          Please understand, I’m not claiming all climate science is a hoax or anything like that. I’m saying all the climate science that politicians use as ammo for their arguments has a problem in that it doesn’t meet the standards of a middle school science fair.

        7. Here’s your wakeup call. All of the above already has. Maybe you should do some googling.

        8. I never said google was a source. But google can lead you to places that *are* sources.

          Nor did I offer to do your research for you for free.

          If you want to know, you’ll go look. If you don’t, my looking *for you* isn’t going to accomplish anything. Since you are showing a distinct *lack* of desire to know, I don’t see any point in wasting any more time with you.

        9. In other words, you got nothing. No surprise there. Somehow, Denialists never can back up the crazy crap they say with any actual evidence.

        10. In other words, I’m done wasting my time on somebody who has already proven that they’re going to call me a liar every time I say anything without bothering to check to see if what I’m saying is true or not.

          You have convinced me already. No matter what I say, no matter what I back it up with, it doesn’t matter. You’re not going to bother to read any evidence, so there’s nothing to be gained by providing it. You could find it easily enough if you went to look, but since you quite obviously aren’t interested, never mind.

          Congratulations, you have provided everyone a shining example of what the political left means when they claim to be “tolerant” and “open to new ideas.” As usual, what they mean by that is that they are tolerant of their own view, and open to new ideas only so long as they don’t suggest any of your old ideas may be in error. No surprise there.

          Bye now.

  43. Count on the results of this contest to NEVER see the light of day. By the way a 10 year old could win this thing. Start with Climategate, followed by last week’s London Telegraph article outlining the lies and stat fudging of the climate hoaxers, followed by the centuries of data showing the direct correlation between solar radiation cycles and Earth surface temperatures, followed by the fact that the Earth has been cooling for the last 80 years, followed by the fact that the polar caps on Mars fluctuate at the same rate as Earth’s, followed by the fact that CO2 comprises less than 4% of greenhouse gas (the rest is water vapor and not affected by humans)…….come to think of it, where’s my $10,000?

    1. Apparently Steve, you are too out of touch to know that nine independent inquiries into the Climategate Scam found that you are lying out your backside.

      1. Repeating a lie does not make it true, Buggr. However, good of you to demonstrate just how deluded you really are. Anyone can read the emails and see the problems. You have to be in complete denial to claim the actual words of the scientists do not say what is more than obvious. LOL.

        1. Are you saying there weren’t any independent investigations or are you saying my number is wrong Rich. BTW, I can back up what I say with actual facts.

  44. Asking to prove a negative only proves this physicist doesn’t understand logical thinking. You can’t prove a negative. Hey physicist, you are making the positive claim! You prove it or shove it!

    1. But all you Denialist pinheads have stated that it has been proven that global warming isn’t happening? So were you lying then or lying now, or lying both times?

      1. It has been *demonstrated* there has been no global warming over the couple of decades. That is simply a check of the data. However, that in itself does not prove AGW is not possible. Of course, being scientifically illiterate you cannot understand these subtle differences.

        1. No Rich, it has not been demonstrated. Once again you demonstrate that you are a clueless, serial liar. The increase in surface temperature may have slowed, but the overall warming of the Earth’s biosphere has continued.

  45. i can answer:

    Climate Change has ‘nothing to do’ with ‘physical weather’ of this planet, but a happening of interactions in the worldly relationships of humans.

    Grammatical sources to substantiate my logic to my claim:

    Climate: from Latin clima (genitive climatis) “region; slope of the Earth,”… source from

    Change: from Late Latin cambiare “to barter, exchange,” from Latin cambire “to exchange, barter,”… source

    There, i’m done!

    It’s always required to have correct grammar [literally means ‘symbols collected into various forms, sourced from a/the/many cultural speech or written words, punctuations, numbers, etc.’ from the hominid race called homo sapien sapien] first before correct logic [literally means ‘why you used such grammar’] can be applied!!! If one does not know the etymology of words, don’t bother arguing or debating to others if one’s logic is not even backed up from correct grammar usage! Why?! Because people cannot directly sense what other people think! This so-called scientist guy cant’ even get his grammar and logic in order, so why should any man or woman even both rebutting or challenging his misguided and convoluted public contest?!

  46. If you are so worried about earth why don’t you figure up the damage to the ocean from the millions of gallons of nuclear waste leaking from japans damaged reactors. I would say it is a lot more dangerous CO2.

  47. This is total Bull Crap. Anyone can use bogus experiments for their math, and that is what will happen. You can’t prove either way, but this goofy math person has a sheet of data claims that are impossible to prove right or wrong. Want to know why? Because the atmosphere has vastly different atmospheric Temperatures, Humidity levels, Elemental gases at varying pressures and percentages, chemical compounds, a the list goes on and on. Any experiment in a Lab with a closed system, like the ones they are using, have the major flaw that they pick out the combination with the best results to use for their data. Plus now they claim that CO2 vibrates in solar heat in a way that will bounce the heat back down to the Earth, Again and Again….That’s how they make the numbers so large is that they multiply the results…..Mr math person wanting to bet 10,000. Explain how your Math Degree trumps my Biology Degree.

  48. The issue is not whether it is happening; the issue is whether it is caused only or in large part by human activity. Global Warming fanatics cannot (or pretend not to) understand that difference. That the Global Warming Fanatics spent years discussing the issue at conferences in Bali, Rio, Cancun Denmark, Rio (again) and other exotic locations, where thousands were transported and accommodated in luxury at government expense while creating as much CO2 as a small nation in Asia or Africa is indication that the leadership at least does not believe it either. The near total inaction by Global Warming Fanatics using their own resources (not one of the super-rich who claim to be Global Warming Fanatics have pledged their wealth today into replacing CO2 emitting technologies) also point to a lack of belief from those who have proven otherwise extremely adept. I would bet this guy would not pay out if over the next 5 years temps drop by a full degree, because he would blame that too on global warming caused by human activity, and would never consider that it was part of a natural cycle that has been for at least the last couple of million years.

  49. There really shouldn’t be any debate. We should by design try to lessen the negative impact of our activities on our Earth’s eco-system and climate. Anything that we can do to make our world “cleaner” is a good thing, even if there were no climate changes happening. Cleaner air, cleaner water, etc. are good things. Instead of arguing, we could simply work, going forward, to make all of our processes cleaner. We don’t need to suffer economically, or otherwise, if done right. I want to hear ideas on how to work through climate change in a manner that doesn’t harm us all. I’m sure that is possible.

      1. Paying “penitence” to whom? Why is that a relevant or rational concept? I like sleeping on clean sheets. I think most of us like that. I’d also like to live and breathe on a clean Earth. I think most of us would like that, too. We can make it happen without paying any “penitence” or otherwise suffering. It could be a whole lot of fun figuring out and implementing methodologies that make our world a nicer place.

        1. So clean your sheets. Get yourself something nice to eat, be kind to animals and make choices that contribute to reducing air and water pollution. None of this is related to the global warming hoax.

  50. Just in! The loch-ness monster has just had a baby!
    I’ll pay you $10,000 to irrefutably prove this is not true, otherwise you simply have to accept it as “settled science”. Debate over!

  51. I think NOAA & hacked email from East Angola University prove the case. NOAA has introduced a “Fudge Factor” to make sure that its temperature readings are hotter than normal!

    1. Only fools and liars use lying sock puppet talking points. Which one are you agsb?

      17. “Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy”

      While some of the private correspondance is not commendable, an informed examination of their ‘suggestive’ emails reveal technical discussions using techniques well known in the peer reviewed literature. Focusing on a few suggestive emails merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.

  52. Well I clicked on the link noted in this story, Guess what it does not exist per the Global Warming site. I guess the good lying professor is to scared of forking up his money to have an actual link. The science from the ice core studies is pretty clear, in the last 800,000 years of data, CO2 level changes never changed the climate so the idea that CO2 is a driver of climate change is disproved by his fellow scientists. he owes 10000 to the ice core people. From other posts of mine on this subject a whole bunch of people are frightened of the truth so would rather stick their heads in the sand like an ostrich and name call. That is pretty sad.

  53. To me, it makes sense that man will have an impact on the planet. With that said, this article, and other people like Dr. Christopher Keating, are rather confusing to me. If I recall correctly, the proper scientific method typically consists of a theory being put forth and the “skeptical scientific community” then attempting to disprove it. That is one issue I take with the current conjecture put forth by most of the scientific community, I would not consider their methods to follow what was once considered the scientific method. Instead of skeptical evaluation of data put forth, what we see more closely resembles “cheer leading” in my estimation. If a traditional skeptical stance was taken, I believe there would be fewer questioning the authenticity of the data.

    1. Havoc, you need to keep up with what is really going on. All of that study and debate has been done. The fact that the Denialist pinheads are behind the curve on understanding is a personal problem.

  54. Talk about a rigged contest…one biased judge!

    I wonder if this expert has any SOLUTIONS to the so-called “global warming/climate change/climate disruption/pick your flavor-of-the-month climate issue here” phenom other than taking out half the world’s population, holding our breaths, taking away people’s mobility, freedom, property rights, etc.

    Maybe that’s the more appropriate contest…pay someone $10,000 for actually coming up with the SOLUTIONS, not challenges to the BS.

  55. Proving climate change poses the same dilemma as proving that someone with autism or some other environmental illness is caused by that certain chemical or combinations of it. We know that there is a correlation but it is next to impossible to isolate it. Its complexity is beyond our scope at this time in our civilization. Climate change is a bit easier to correlate with all the graphs that are available. However, there is still a lot of work to do to make it really conclusive. I would bet on the scientists consensus so that we make major changes for if we do not & the science was proven correct, then we may be doomed.

  56. Interesting! I am curious as to how the Ultimate Global Warming challenge is doing. I am sure that we can all agree that we do play a big part in the Global warming. Here is an interesting site to check out on green products that are safe for our environment:


  57. the united nations , backed by the usa should unite scientist maybe 10,, and give them unlinited access to all tecnologies to resolve these and other world crises to reabiltate our abussed earth. we has american did reabilitation on dust contaminations in the 1900 love and efforts were there has we became one to help humans dieing and land corruption then we can overcome has a world nations and rehabilitate our earth ,, caring and love by our united nations scientist and politicians s can….. tecnology like satelites ,, telescopes that are used today for military purposes ,, come on nations let unite and fix this one and only planet earth ,, mother nature might give us a hug back.

  58. …once upon a time, many years ago, there were glaciers on what we now call the “Mainland” United States; as far south as the head of the Ohio River, in fact. When geologists visit this area, they all look around and say “yes, there were glaciers here!”
    Do any people we now refer to as “Americans” recall this vision of iciness? Can any member of the contemporary or even the classical era claim to have witnessed the frozen majesty of a glacier below the 40th parallel? Of course not, they’ve been gone for millennia! OBVIOUSLY the planet is warmer than it once was. Are we going to blame the Native Americans for the melting of these glaciers? If the warming we are now(not) experiencing is somehow the fault of modern industry, why is the warming that obviously occurred to a much more potent degree many years ago still considered a “natural” event? Can you honestly state(with a straight face) that people produce more “greenhouse” gases than anything else with the many examples like Lake Nyos belching out tons of CO2 every minute? Not if you are actually scientific, you can’t. Can you demonstrably show that our record keeping goes back far enough to prove that we aren’t simply on a long term warming trend that will actually thaw ALL the ice and thus increase arable land? Of course not! Would you say something as inane as “the native americans ruined the climate with all their SUVs and CAFOs!!!” No, you wouldn’t, because that would be daft. Science is as Science does, not as scientists say…

  59. OK folks! If anyone can produce more out of the old Earth than it can produce of its own natural status, I will bow to the scientists. If there is an area of 1 acre with grass and no cattle beast on it and another of the same size with a cattle beast on it, what will be the difference after measuring the output of both in the form of CO 2 or methane? I would say there will be nothing at all. Just give me the dough and I will enjoy the time out with it.

  60. Ok, for a start it’s easy to prove climate change isn’t man made.

    The climate has changed for thousands of millions of years before humans existed.
    Even while humans have existed the climate has periodically cooled.
    If you’re implying that it’s CO2 that changes the climate then humans couldn’t have caused the cooling as Alarmists claim CO2 warms the planet.


    It was warmer in the Mediaeval Warm Period globally than today with less CO2.
    It hasn’t warmed in 17 years despite rising CO2.
    CO2 levels were many times higher in an ice age in the Ordovician.

  61. Sigh.

    knowledge bomb for the alarmists.

    1. It hasn’t warmed for 18 years despite rising CO2.
    2. The Mediaeval Warm Period was hotter than today with much less CO2
    3. No mid tropospheric hotspot disproves the warmists’ positive feedback hypothesis and proves the models wrong.
    4. No sea level rise increase.
    5. No sea temperature increase to account for the supposed ‘missing heat’ (ARGO buoy data).
    6. Outgoing Longwave radiation increases with surface warming cooling the planet (ERBE satellite)
    7. Low level cloud from water evaporation creates and albedo effect reflecting short wave radiation cooling the planet.
    8. Arctic ice has recovered from the 2007 minimum somewhat and had much less ice almost 1000 years ago enabling the Vikings to easily navigate the Arctic, with much less CO2!
    9. Antarctic sea ice is at record levels.
    10. CO2 lags 800 years behind temperature rise in the climate record showing temperature drives CO2 not the other way round. (Vostok ice cores). The falling temperatures in these records accelerates much faster than the CO2 showing that CO2 is not a primary driver and has little effect on climate.
    11. GCMs (Global Circulation Models) are consistently producing results at least 3 times that of the observed temperatures, showing the models have their climate sensitivity parameter drastically wrong. In other words there are zero to negative feedbacks in the climate system, not positive as the models assume.



Leave a Reply