Submitted on 2014/07/30 at 1:04 amI love challenge. Obviously man DO change climate (he builds cities, clears forest, dries up water bodies, small or as big as Aral sea and Chad lake, etc.), so This WAS a challenge.
But i did it.
Here’s the proof.
0) we must ” prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring.”
1) formal logic is part of scientific method. Using it is fair play.
2) formal logic teach us that, if a logical frame includes a false sentences as an axiom, then it contains absolutely every sentences, whatever absurd. For instance, since i am not Christopher Keating, in an axiomatic set that includes the sentence “I am Christopher Keating”, the sentence “I am queen of England” is also true (despite the fact that I am not queen of England in reality, of course)…
So to prove that “that man-made global climate change is not occurring”, despite man-made global climate change occurring in reality, we can (and we must : there is no other way to do) prove that we work in some contradictory frame.
3) maybe someone could find that some kind of “real” proof, relative to the real world, is required. Actually, the way the challenge is stated just prevents it. The challenge is formal, or it simply doesn’t exist. For the scientific method is not a way to prove facts (Newton did not “prove” that apples fall of trees, Einstein did not “prove” that Mercury perihelia would advance, etc.). The scientific method is a way to construct and discriminate between theories about facts, and to make prediction about facts that are not already known (so that we can tell good theories from bad ). The way the challenge is framed implies that “man-made global climate change” is only a theoretical construction, not a fact that can be observed with a proper apparatus, and then discussed. Since we cannot dismiss the challenge, we must take it “as is”
4) our formal frame includes the following axioms
rule 1. [Christopher Keating] will award $30,000 of [his] own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring;
rule 5. [Christopher Keating is] the final judge of all entries
5) Christopher Keating is just a man. Men do mistakes, can be deceived, or self-deceive themself, and even lies, etc. Accordingly, anone knows that rule 1. IS OBVIOUSLY FALSE. We all know, and Christopher Keating knows, that as of today any of the following can happen :
* Christopher Keating awards the money to a flawed proof, that actually doesn’t prove the point;
* Christopher Keating doesn’t award the money, despite a valid proof being presented;
* Christopher Keating is prevented by circumstances to complete the process as he would have wished (whether awarding or not the money ), for whatever reason beyond his will.
* and many more
6) This prove the formal frame set by Christopher Keating is flawed beyond remedies, so that anything can be true in this frame, including “we proved, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring.”
My trick is obivously only formal, but that cannot be a surprise, since the challenge requires it to be, having the form of a rhetorical trick itself.
But at least my trick is logically (so scientifically) valid
The bottom line : a proper challenge is relative to something real, with a definition clear enough to prevent bad arguments, that can and will be obvious to anyone in some near future without it being already obvious. A soccer competition can support a challenge. Whether climate change occurs (what do you call a climate change ? what is “climate”, to begin with : for instance is a El nino condition a climate, and a La nina condition another climate — so that switching between these qualifies as climate change ? or are they both part of a single climate, so that such a switch does not qualify as climate change ? ), and whether it is man’s deed or not, cannot.
And if you issue such a bad challenge, you lose. That’s why I won.
Your logic is fatally flawed, you provided no scientific evidence and you did not employ the scientific method.
You did not prove man made global warming is not real.