If you can prove dangerous man-made global warming, you win $6000

Power engineer Bryan Leyland yesterday spearheaded a dramatic new challenge to publish a peer-reviewed paper that proves we’re endangering the climate. For such a paper, Bryan announced he will give a cash prize of $NZD2000. Some of us have pitched in and already raised the prize money to $5000 $6000.

The challenge is called the Augie Auer Prize, which commemorates an unforgettable founder of the NZ Climate Science Coalition, and the other contributors are Bill Lindqvist, Leighton Smith and yours truly.

The challenge

A prize of $6000 will be awarded for the first peer-reviewed paper that satisfies an independent scientific panel beyond reasonable doubt, based on real-world evidence, that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide will cause an increase in global mean surface temperature that will be dangerous to human welfare by 2050.

The prize will be administered by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition and the offer is valid for 12 months from yesterday, 29 March, 2017.

Judging will be by an independent panel of three people with qualifications in sciences relevant to climate change and statistical analysis. One person will be chosen by the NZCSC, one by the applicant for the prize and the third by negotiation between these two.

As we are told that the consensus holds that man-made global warming is real and dangerous, we look forward to receiving many applications for the prize.

This offer must grow larger than any excuse to resist, so when it isn’t taken up it will be obvious to everyone that lack of evidence is the only reason. So we invite anyone to contribute to the prize pool. To record your pledge, you can leave a comment below, contact Bryan Leyland or email the NZ Climate Science Coalition.

Benefactors

  • Bryan Leyland
  • Bill Lindqvist
  • Richard Treadgold
  • Leighton Smith
  • Maggy Wassilieff

 

89
Leave a Reply

avatar
89 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
11 Comment authors
GRANT SUMNERMagooRdMAndyMike Jowsey Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Simon and Dennis,

This is your big chance, the evidence is supposedly ‘overwhelming’ so it should be easy money. You could paste or sticky tape the 2016 El Nino temperatures onto the end of Mann’s hockey stick graph in a similar manner to his trademark dataset splicing technique, supplement it with a pretty collage of dubious alarmist articles snipped out from The Guardian & Greenpeace, & throw in a few failed doomsday predictions from the great & mysterious prophet Goracle (manbearpig be upon him). Maybe mention a few key words like ‘denier’ & ‘polar bear’ a few times – it’s a sure thing.

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

PROOF! In science? Ha ha halfwit… You deniers wouldn’t recognise science if it slithered up your back passage and bit your brains. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us/pentagon-says-global-warming-presents-immediate-security-threat.html?_r=0 Pentagon Signals Security Risks of Climate Change. CORAL DAVENPORT OCT. 13, 2014 WASHINGTON — The Pentagon on Monday released a report asserting decisively that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages. It also predicted rising demand for military disaster responses as extreme weather creates more global humanitarian crises. The report lays out a road map to show how the military will adapt to rising sea levels, more violent storms and widespread droughts. The Defense Department will begin by integrating plans for climate change risks across all of its operations, from war games and strategic military planning situations to a rethinking of the movement of supplies. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, speaking Monday at a meeting of defense ministers in Peru, highlighted the report’s findings and the global security threats of climate change. “The loss of glaciers will strain water supplies in several areas of our hemisphere,” Mr. Hagel said. “Destruction and devastation from hurricanes can sow the… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

Dennis does make a reasonable point in that we don’t “prove” science in the way we prove mathematical theorems

As Popper stated in Conjectures and Refutations, we create a conjecture that is falsifiable.
In that respect, we have to define what the conjecture is, and what would refute it.

To date, answers to these questions have not been forthcoming

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/30/climate-change-global-reshuffle-of-wildlife-will-have-huge-impacts-on-humanity Climate change: global reshuffle of wildlife will have huge impacts on humanity Mass migration of species to cooler climes has profound implications for society, pushing disease-carrying insects, crop pests and crucial pollinators into new areas, says international team of scientists [extract] This mass movement of species is the biggest for about 25,000 years, the peak of the last ice age, say the scientists, who represent more than 40 institutions around the world. “The shifts will leave ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in their wake, radically reshaping the pattern of human wellbeing … and potentially leading to substantial conflict,” the team warn. “Human society has yet to appreciate the implications of unprecedented species redistribution for life on Earth, including for human lives.” Climate change driven by human greenhouse gas emissions is not just increasing temperatures, but also raising sea levels, the acidity of the oceans and making extreme weather such as droughts and floods more frequent. All of these are forcing many species to migrate to survive. “Land-based species are moving polewards by an average of 17km per decade, and marine species by 72km per decade” said Prof Gretta Pecl at the University of Tasmania… Read more »

Maggy Wassilieff
Guest
Maggy Wassilieff

Count me in for $1000.

Thank you, Maggy, that’s very generous. I’ll pass your name and email address to Bryan Leyland, who is managing the challenge. – Richard T.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

It looks like the US govt is considering funding scientists to challenge anthropogenic global warming and study natural causes:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/29/these-climate-doubters-want-to-create-a-red-team-to-challenge-climate-science/?utm_term=.8db31408e54b#comments

Now that will really rip the green’s nighties.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Climate change driven by human greenhouse gas emissions is not just increasing temperatures, but also raising sea levels, the acidity of the oceans and making extreme weather such as droughts and floods more frequent. All of these are forcing many species to migrate to survive.

How does “raising (sic) sea levels” have an effect on species migration? Is this something someone has studied?

Simon
Guest
Simon

Thank you Maggy.
I request that the prize money be donated to NIWA as partial compensation for the debts owed by Bryan Leyland and the other trustees of NZCSET.

Simon
Guest
Simon

Hansen and others have shown that 2°C of warming above pre-industrial levels will be dangerous. The question is whether and when this will occur. The uncertainty is in what future emissions will occur between now and 2050. Given that the Paris Agreements are insufficient to keep below this level, plus recent changes by the Trump Administraton, and candid admissions by NZ and other governments that they will struggle to meet their targets; it is quite possible that 2°C of warming is reached by 2050.
Leyland is being quite cunning here, if he had suggested 2100 or later, then he has just lost $2000, unless mankind can keep cumulative emissions below 500 GtC (which is not going to happen). Not that he would ever pay up, he has past history in reneging on promises and financial obligations.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Hansen’s opinion is that 2 degrees of warming will be dangerous, but not all climate scientists agree. Richard Betts, for example, does not.

The term “dangerous” is highly subjective and is very politically loaded in this context

Maggy Wassilieff
Guest
Maggy Wassilieff

@Simon,

I have been funding NIWA for the last 25 years.
If NIWA had been operating in an open, transparent manner, then there would not have been any need for NZCSET.
You can request all you like about where I squander my money, but as I have no connection with Bryan Leyland or any member of the NZCSET, I reckon you are on a hiding to nothing.
But if you want to be of use… how about getting Dr Wayne Mapp to run an investigation into why NIWA has failed to carry out the work he promised Parliament they would undertake on the NZ Temperature Record;
namely publish the method, table of adjustments and results in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

Andy
Guest
Andy

“he has past history in reneging on promises and financial obligations”

One could argue about the legitimacy or morality of creating an educational trust to limit liability on court expenses, but as far as I know it isn’t illegal

You can create a limited liability company to protect your own assets too.

The public gets shafted all the time by governments. My sympathy with govt funded institutions that have to bear some costs is pretty limited. We firehose millions of taxpayer money down the drain every year, particularly in my industry, that of IT.

Simon
Guest
Simon

Read the discussion below in this article on the whole sad case: http://pundit.co.nz/content/debts-and-lies-are-generally-mixed-together
The consensus is that Trustees are personally liable for legal costs incurred. The only reason this has not happened is because the cost of pursing the Trustees would exceed the cost outstanding.
I doubt though that Bryan really understood what he was committing himself to. Reading between the lines, it was the other Trustees who were most actively pursuing the court case.

Andy
Guest
Andy

It makes me laugh when lawyers get all sanctimonious about this. When we were fighting the coastal hazards policies in ChCh, we were the ones giving our time for free. The council had umpteen legal experts on god knows what hourly rate

Andy
Guest
Andy

Geddis doesn’t exactly sound impartial does he?

“Back in 2010, I posted on the obviously hopeless case brought by the “New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust” – a front organisation I’ll come back to”

” obviously hopeless case”
Obviously guilty, your honour. Case closed

Having said all this, I think the NZCSC needs some lessons in trolling and fighting the left. Trump is a maestro in this dept

Andy
Guest
Andy

OK, thanks for the clarification, RT.

Those that gang up on the NZCET are doing it for pure political theatre. There is no real concern for the unpaid costs

I’m pretty sure if some “minority group” was being treated in this way, the tables would be turned.

Of course, a bunch of grey haired “climate deniers” (like me) could be classified as a minority too, but not the right kind. “White conservative males” are at the bottom of the rung in the Oppression Olympics

Alexander K
Guest
Alexander K

Andy has it about right: I too am a middle class small-c conservative white male who has committed the awful sin of living a long and (relatively) healthy life and I am becoming very fed-up with the SJWs, Snowflakes and Warmists who think they are so badly treated by us authoritarian and racist old white men who couldn’t possibly know anything.
When one has been around the traps for some years, observations tend get laid down in the back of the brain ready to be retrieved and used at the appropriate time. The afore-mentioned Snowflakes, SJWs, etc will eventually grow up and realise this, but they want to run the world NOW before they are ready for it.
Sorry, little luvs, but it aint your turn yet! Watch, wait and listen and you may catch a clue or two as the parade passes you by.
As the old guy on the cheese ads says “Good things take time.”

Andy
Guest
Andy

No, not trivial at all. I’m not implying that costs to NZCSC were trivial. However, against the firehose of government wastage, the cost to NIWA was a drop in the ocean

Andy
Guest
Andy

I am going to guess that no one will take the money. Not because they can’t write a paper, but that they can’t take money from “Nazis”.

If you watched the video I posted earlier, we are all Nazis and Hitler now

Have a nice weekend my fellow Hitlers!

Maggy Wassilieff
Guest
Maggy Wassilieff

@ Richard Treadgold,
yes, I know Dr Mapp is not the Min of Science.

I was alluding to his recent call for an investigation into the Hit & Miss affair in Afghanistan.
I find it astonishing that he wants to revisit his decision to approve of the SAS operation when he was Min of Defence, but has never expressed any concern about how information was withheld/drip-fed to him about the activities of the group in charge of the NZ Temperature Record.

It would be timely to revisit NIWA’s broken promise.. especially as a number of associations and respected Scientific Journals are now calling for evidence that data and computer code are readily available and evidence that results are able to be reproduced.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084004/pdf

It is no longer acceptable for the authors of any scientific work to be solely responsible for access to their data.

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

It looks like the US govt is considering funding scientists to challenge anthropogenic global warming and study natural causes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/29/these-climate-doubters-want-to-create-a-red-team-to-challenge-climate-science/?utm_term=.8db31408e54b

Yeah. Nah, If Curry and Christy had anything to challenge the consensus view of — to all intents and purposes — every publishing climate scientist and every informed scientist in the RS, NAS, AAAS, APS, ACS … they’d produce it.

Nobel Prize and great fame awaits.

I guess those offering a “reward” to “prove” we’re endangering the climate — whatever that means — just don’t understand how science works. Would the reward be paid in bees? Bees-in-bonnets I mean.

Why don’t you watch Professor Alley explain the science to you.
Richard Alley – 4.6 Billion Years of Earth’s Climate History: The Role of CO2. National Academy of Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

No global warming today.

April Fool!

Energy equivalent to 400,000 Hiroshima bombs will be added to the climate system today. Today and every day.

Deniers know less than Fourier in 1827
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/mar/31/scientists-understood-the-climate-150-years-ago-better-than-the-epa-head-today

Bryan Leyland
Guest
Bryan Leyland

I am still waiting for someone to produce some credible evidence supported by observational data.

All we get is articles that assume that it is real and dangerous.

If everyone is so sure the evidence exists, why can’t they produce it at the drop of a hat???

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

I thought the evidence is supposed to be ‘overwhelming’, very funny that this ‘overwhelming’ evidence is nowhere to be seen, not even when a prize worth thousands of dollars is offered.

Dennis’ frothing rants in lieu of any ‘overwhelming’ evidence just confirms what we all know is true – there is no ‘overwhelming’ evidence for AGW. BTW, the frothing rants have really hit top gear since the prize was offered – hilarious.

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

The issue is – which is the dominant forcing right now?

The climate responds to the sum of the effects of the various forcings.

The current sum of natural forcings is very slightly negative, which means the Earth should be cooling very very slowly.

This is useful:

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf

Page 47 of the text (which is actually page 14 of the pdf) is the key.

Near the top of that page….

…. the magnitude of the warming is what is expected from the anthropogenic perturbation of the radiation balance, so anthropogenic forcing is able to explain all of the temperature rise

Further down…..

The second important piece of evidence is clear: there is no viable alternative explanation.

In the scientific literature, no serious alternative hypothesis has been proposed to explain the observed global warming.

Other possible causes, such as solar activity, volcanic activity, cosmic rays, or orbital cycles, are well observed, but they do not show trends capable of explaining the observed warming.

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

The American Association for the Advancement of Science endorses the consensus and publishes the prestigious journal Science. Doesn’t “prove” global warming/climate change, but it certainly proves the biggest scientific academy in the world accepts it. Along with all the others, of course.

Denialism is a psychological mechanism. Your irrational response to scientific method and knowledge explained:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fle_FkILmEQ&feature=youtu.be
It’s the end of the world as we know it (and I feel fine) | Daniel Gilbert | TEDxAcademy

But hey, you can “believe” anything you want. Chemtrails. Fake moon landings. 9/11 demolition. Sky-Daddy. Wanganui River is a person. You know something the global community of scientists doesn’t.

I think you can even deny the Holocaust. In New Zealand, anyway.

Andy
Guest
Andy

How much ‘observed warming” are we referring to? Over what time period?

Is it dangerous? Will it be dangerous in the future? How do we reconcile this theory with the lack of observed forcing as predicted by the theory?

Maggy Wassilieff
Guest
Maggy Wassilieff

Here’s a brief glimpse of some of the ‘global ecodisasters” we have been warned about since the 1970s.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/04/01/april-fools/#more-27050
These ones have not come to pass in the time period specified.

It’s looking very much that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming predictions will soon be consigned to this list of elaborate ecoscares.

Andy
Guest
Andy

But hey, you can “believe” anything you want. Chemtrails. Fake moon landings. 9/11 demolition. Sky-Daddy

Dennis, do you accept that everything governments and the media tells you is true?

I can point holes in some of your favorite list above, but that would be going off topic.

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

Wrong, Richard Treadgold. I’m not annoyed by your questions.

What questions?

I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind. I know there is no cure for people who really believe they know “something” that tens of thousands of climate scientists – experts in the field – have somehow missed. Or lie about. Who know more science than the informed scientists in every scientific institution and society on the planet.

I’m just examining the depths of the delusions displayed by your little coterie.

Long may the experiment continue. It’s going to be spectacular when West Antarctica collapses. Better eat less and exercise more …

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

‘Who know[s] more science than the informed scientists in every scientific institution and society on the planet.’

Really? Where is the evidence that ‘scientists in every scientific institution and society on the planet’ all agree with AGW or the conclusions of the IPCC – did they ask the members for their opinions?

Now, what were you saying about lying Dennis dear boy?

If you want to examine ‘the depths of the delusions’, there’s no better example than one of your frothing rants when confronted with empirical evidence from the IPCC – it’s very funny. 😉

Andy
Guest
Andy

Dennis

You will never change my mind about anything when you are such a sanctimonious and ignorant arsehole

Maggy Wassilieff
Guest
Maggy Wassilieff

“Denialism is a psychological mechanism.”

Denialism is an ugly neologism. No decent dictionary knows of its existence.

It belongs in the realms of fraudulent science… as does most of the stuff published in psychology journals.
http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248

http://boingboing.net/2017/03/02/psychology-journal-editor-aske.html

Andy
Guest
Andy

Denialism is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of a historical experience or event, by the person refusing to accept an empirically verifiable reality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

So, by being rational actors, we are exhibiting irrational behaviour. Typical Orwellian Doublethink

Maggy Wassilieff
Guest
Maggy Wassilieff

@Richard T

Anyone can invent words, and silly editors can adopt them.
Denial is a perfectly fine noun, and denier is a perfectly fine adjective.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

How about a Dennisialister – it works on several levels.

I suggest Mann also, such as “Opps, I just stood in a Mann”, or “Call the plumber, there’s a Mann stuck in the u-bend”.

Now is the Autumn of our sweet content,
Cast winter by these Dennisialister clouds;
And all the negative feedback clouds that lour’d upon our house
In the deep bosom of the non accelerating ocean levels buried.

Maggy Wassilieff
Guest
Maggy Wassilieff

oh woops, denier is a noun…

(unless you are talking about 40 denier stockings)

Maggy Wassilieff
Guest
Maggy Wassilieff

Over 150 scientific papers published so far in 2017 that indicate changes in atmospheric CO2 are not a major influence on weather or climate.
http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.PYYtzCi2.dpbs

Year after year, the number of papers countering the “consensus” view grows.
How long before the main stream media start paying attention?

Andy
Guest
Andy

I rather suspect the mainstream media will actually die off before the climate scare does

Andy
Guest
Andy

Hot Topicers are all claiming that this is “rigged” (like the US elections, per chance?)

Andy
Guest
Andy

If they had any honesty, they could phrase a response on the lines that there are a range of potential outcomes, some of which might be dangerous, and that it is a question of risk management.

Therefore the “proof” required is a statistical distribution that has a lot of subjective interpretation

But, that would confuse the public and might delay “taking action” on climate change, and we couldn’t have that

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

I personally think that deep down alarmists are fully aware that CAGW is a failed theory, but they’ve entrenched themselves so deeply and have treated those who they disagree with so badly that there’s no going back for them. To admit defeat is to eat mud with a giant side dish of humble pie.

The challenge won’t be accepted because they know there’s absolutely no possibility of meeting the criteria due to a complete lack of empirical evidence to back up their position. You could try advertising it on WUWT.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Half of the problem is that we are dealing with a large group of people who exist in a Postmodernist world view, where objective facts don’t exist, and it’s all “social justice”

You might as well ask them for evidence that Caitlyn Jenner is a woman

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

Maggy Wassilieff on April 4, 2017 at 8:07 am said:
Over 150 scientific papers published so far in 2017 that indicate changes in atmospheric CO2 are not a major influence on weather or climate: http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.PYYtzCi2.dpbs

First “paper”:
Learning from the climate’s history: the Arctic heat waves of the 1930s and 40s By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt [German text translated/edited by P Gosselin] – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.PYYtzCi2.6vZ9uYZS.dpuf

You mean this “expert”:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Vahrenholt_en.jpg

How long before the main stream media start paying attention?

Yes, how long before the world takes more notice of a tricky accountant blog than the RS, NAS, AAAS, APS, ACS and every informed scientists on planet Earth? Hmm.

Never mind. If people need to deny the science to remain sane and functioning day-to-day, they should be excused. Won’t make any difference.

Let the grand experiment continue!

Andy
Guest
Andy

How long before the main stream media start paying attention?

I have no trust in the MSM whatsoever. The sooner they go out of business the better

They have zero credibility. The latest fiasco over Susan Rice is just another example of their corruption and partisanship

They have been propping up the climate gravy train for decades.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Dennis dear boy,

If you think Vahrenholt’s prediction is bad (if realclimate’s portrayal of it is correct) then have a look at this graph of predictions from the ‘experts’ in the IPCC AR5 report:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_FigTS-14.jpg

The funny thing is they still believe in those ‘projections’ even though they’ve failed. I wonder why they don’t have that graph on realclimate.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Gosh, Bryan is brave sticking his head into the hornet’s nest at Hot Topic on this subject

it must be only a matter of time before someone calls him a racist or Nazi or White Supremacist

Andy
Guest
Andy

Hmm, sorry about the half an hour

Andy
Guest
Andy

Well, as one who has been accused there of the following:
A White Supremacist, a racist, an agent for the Alt-Right, a Brownshirt to name a few, I think I have reached the end of the road too.

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

Comment disappeared.

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

Just a reminder. From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

We are at risk of pushing our climate system toward abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts. Earth’s climate is on a path to warm beyond the range of what has been experienced over the past millions of years.[ii] The range of uncertainty for the warming along the current emissions path is wide enough to encompass massively disruptive consequences to societies and ecosystems:
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/

Andy
Guest
Andy

I can’t see me going back to HT. Admittedly we were going off topic on problems with Islam and the rapes in Sweden. My last comment that was deleted as “racist” made the suggestion that men from Arab countries don’t treat women very well. From that snipped comment, Thomas deduces (?) that I am a violent extremist that attacks women.

Everything they say and do is in a parallel universe to me. It’s not good for my mental health

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

Nothing else matters.

Dennis N Horne
Guest
Dennis N Horne

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/radical-conservation/2017/apr/05/climate-change-life-wildlife-animals-biodiversity-ecosystems-genetics
Climate change is rapidly becoming a crisis that defies hyperbole.

For all the sound and fury of climate change denialists, self-deluding politicians and a very bewildered global public, the science behind climate change is rock solid while the impacts – observed on every ecosystem on the planet – are occurring faster in many parts of the world than even the most gloomy scientists predicted.

Given all this, it’s logical to assume life on Earth – the millions of species that cohabitate our little ball of rock in space – would be impacted. But it still feels unnerving to discover that this is no longer about just polar bears; it’s not only coral reefs and sea turtles or pikas and penguins; it about practically everything – including us.

Three recent studies have illustrated just how widespread climate change’s effect on life on our planet has already become. [continues]

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Strange, it hasn’t even warmed in the past 20 odd yrs (except for temporary El Ninos that vent heat to space) so it’s hard to see how a lack of warming is such a problem.

Still waiting to see the $6000 prize winning peer reviewed paper though – I hear the evidence is ‘overwhelming’. 😂

Andy
Guest
Andy

Sea level rise in NZ is exactly what it was 100 years ago

We are told this is the biggest crisis facing humanity

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

to change our minds … address our questions … Nothing else matters.

Sorry for being cryptic.

Andy
Guest
Andy

By the way, if your are on Facebook, there is a scammer pretending to me me sending friend requests

I just reported this to Facebook

Andy
Guest
Andy

My FB imposter has been vaporised

Thank goodness. His grammar and spelling were terrible

Andy
Guest
Andy

Hot Topicers are busy ganging up on Bryan Leyland, yet none of them wants to claim the prize

Beta male behaviour

RdM
Guest
RdM

I’ve only just discovered this blog, site, you folk here, but also some others recently. I ask you to consider: http://www.thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/happer-major-statement/ (and the prior interview, linked early on and in the small right sidebar a bit down.) http://www.thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/william-happer-interview/ (and NB that a similar $5k prize also offered there!) I hear now the phrase “carbon dioxide pollution” uttered on Radio NZ news. What utterly dangerous nonsense! We need more CO2, it is not a “pollutant”! Or a CAGW cause, it’s a tiny %. As for the nonsense about the “97% consensus”, perhaps consider these: (although there was another link I viewed recently I can’t find showing how this was contorted*) http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/06/climate-wars-done-science/ http://joannenova.com.au/2015/03/the-97-consensus-misrepresented-miscalculated-misleading/ (* although perhaps will help:- https://defyccc.com/search/?q=97%25&pg=all&rnk=def ) In case some “true believers” missed the paragraphs, or couldn’t be bothered reading, from http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/06/climate-wars-done-science/ “The 97 per cent figure is derived from two pieces of pseudoscience that would have embarrassed a homeopath. The first was a poll that found that 97 per cent of just seventy-nine scientists thought climate change was man-made—not that it was dangerous. A more recent poll of 1854 members of the American Meteorological Society found the true number is 52… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy
Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Still no takers on the grand prize I see. I thought the evidence was supposed to be ‘overwhelming’.

In the meantime 17 more peer reviewed papers have been published disputing CO2 greenhouse effect as the primary explanation for climate change:

http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/08/17-new-scientific-papers-dispute-co2-greenhouse-effect-as-primary-explanation-for-climate-change/#sthash.EWAl0hQ2.dpbs

GRANT SUMNER
Guest
GRANT SUMNER

There is no vindication around the phrase .””CLIMATE CHANGE.”‘it has posthumerously been adapted by the alarmist’s for no other reason , than it gives them status around a arguable imagination that fossil fuel has the inclination as the causation of CO2 EMISSIONS, that increases our global temperature commensurate with the usual array of alarmist junk science fed by a whole host of FAKE protagonists non more so than the infamous. .”Al Gore.” whose latest rendition of FAKE scientific godswallop has given Al the status of the BOX OFFICE , flop of the year..along with the imaginary.””.Rockefeller Foundation Brothers Fund,”” whose divestment out of all fossil generating fuels, just like our superannuation funds, the university’s, the local body councils, all based on news media hype, non of it eventuated, certainly no evidence has been forth-coming of their intentions to act accordingly, the weather patterns remain incapsulated as in the 10bc- 16 century 20th century-..fire-famin -wind-snow-hail-sunshine.etc.etc etc..all peer reviewed data from the UN IPPC has been ridiculed as computer driven dribble, the physics of our universe suggest therorical manipulation of our computer data has falsely driven the ALARMIST gender around the fake science, manipulated by… Read more »

Post Navigation