Challenge Is A Scam

AnonymousJune 25, 2014 at 5:01 PM

Part 1/2
“I have heard global warming promoters make all sorts of statements about how the science (doesn't) supports claims of man-made climate change. I have found all of those statements to be empty and without any kind of supporting evidence. I have, in turn, stated that it is not possible for the promoters to prove their claims, because they have been falsified in many ways by many skeptics.” -- Skeptic, anonymous for obvious reasons

1. Before playing a game it is good policy to understand the rules and how to keep score.
2. The Proposer of a game has the duty to explain the rules and how to keep score and the Denier may refuse to play for any reason.
3. The Proposer of a theory has the duty to explain and prove it is true, the Denier only has a duty to explain why it is not.
4. Any theory, postulate, hypothesis, surmise or hunch may be either true, false or unproven. If true it is promoted from a Theory to a Law of science.
5. While Denier may prove a different theory is true so that proposed GHGT must not be, he does not have to meet that standard to claim GHGT is not proven.
6. If Denier merely proves the theory is unproven and not of sufficient quality to be promoted to a Law, that would satisfy the claim the theory is not true.
7. If Denier finds one flaw in theory, that is sufficient to deny it status as a Law.
8. A theory of science or mathematics may be considered true if it meets some well-established criteria, until then it is not yet proven.
9. Consensus about the validity of a claim not supported by science or evidence is irrelevant to decision to elevate theory to Law.
10. Since GHGT promoters still call it a theory, they acknowledge it is not a Law.
11. Since some GHGT promoters claim it is not falsifiable, they place it in the realm of religion, superstition or politics. This is evidence they accept it is not a Law.
12. Science has clear criteria standards to be met before a theory is considered true. Engineering profession has additional standards.
13. Both sets of standards must be satisfied before GHGT is deemed proven; if any one criterion is not satisfied, it is not proven.
14. Since there are a number of evolving attempts to define the GHGT, there is no accepted standard version.
15. Therefore a correct one is not finally offered for rebuttal. No proposed unique GHGT exists. Without a uniqueness proof, it must be held false.
16. Therefore it is important to clearly state what the theory is in English and mathematics, the language of nature.
17. Since Earth’s atmosphere is a chemical process system, chemical engineers holding degrees from accredited universities and professional licenses from State governments are qualified to be Deniers.
18. Since application of GHGT to control Earth’s temperature and climate is a control system, like a thermostat, control systems engineers holding degrees from accredited universities and professional licenses from State governments are qualified to be Deniers.
19. The GHGT must explain why CO2 is a pollutant, and what the consequences are if it is.
20. Since GHGT claims anthropogenic CO2 causes catastrophic global warming and climate change, the terms catastrophic, climate and change must be quantified scientifically, mathematically, before they can reasonably be denied.
21. Correlation does not prove causation. That breaks the foundation of GHGT.
22. The physical link between CO2 as prime cause and each claimed global consequence like temperature, sea level, drought, habitat destruction, hurricanes, tornadoes must be expressed in laws of physics.
23. Theory must provide the laws of nature, like mass, energy and momentum conservation and transfer rate laws of physics, chemistry, biology and chemical engineering that quantitatively describe the effect of greenhouse gases on Earth’s temperature and climate.
24. Unintended consequences must be identified, according to the Precautionary Principle.
25. Actual financial damages from anthropogenic CO2 must be quantified. Otherwise the catastrophe denial exercise is futile punching as a ghost.

AnonymousJune 25, 2014 at 5:03 PM

Part 2/2
26. If the Denier can identify one mechanism that provides a counter effect excluded from the proposed GHGT, that would suffice to deny GHGT status as Law.
27. Photosynthesis is cooling and CO2 consuming chemical reaction neglected by GHGT. CO2 is green plant food, an important Law of science neglected by GHGT
28. The proposed theory must not violate any existing laws of nature deemed to be true without first proving they are not true.
29. The proposed theory must predict behavior in nature which is verified by observation measurement. This has not been done, so GHGT must be deemed false.
30. In summary the theory must be completely defined and explained to anyone invited to falsify it.
31. The criteria for judgment of falsification success must be clear from the outset.
32. If Denier shows GHGT violates Stefan-Boltzmann Law of radiation intensity, that would be sufficient. This has been done.
33. If Denier shows GHGT violates a Law of thermodynamics, that would be sufficient. This has been done.
34. If Denier shows GHGT incorrectly uses the law of radiant energy transfer, that would be sufficient. This has been done.
35. If Denier shows a thermostat for Earth adjusting fossil fuel combustion rate is unmeasurable, unobservable or uncontrollable and hence will never work, that would be sufficient. This has been done.
36. If Denier finds one peer reviewed paper by a professor of physics that falsified GHGT, that would be sufficient. This has been done.
37. The Reward Offerer may not be a judge of a Denier’s falsification success since that would be a conflict of interest.
38. Merely having $10,000 does not qualify one to judge the scientific arguments of Deniers.
39. The judges must be identified at the outset, with credentials and agreement on the rules and score keeping.
40. The Reward Offerer must disclose who is financing the reward. Any government financing may be deemed inappropriate by invited Deniers.
41. Since many promoters of GHGT lack credentials and have public records of unprofessional conduct in the debate attempting to elevate GHGT conjecture to scientific Law, like name calling, hate mail, slander, intimidation, threats, and bogus lawsuits, the Reward Offerer should indemnify any contestant from harm, including from government. Guaranteeing anonymity is a minimum.
42. What assurance do Deniers have the Reward Offerer will designate someone a winner and grant Award rather than arbitrarily reject all responses?
43. Will Reward Offerer publish results and acknowledge Denier successfully showed GHGT remains unproven?
44. If it looks like a scam email offer of a free lunch, it probably is. There is no such thing as a free lunch either.
45. Stefan-Boltzmann Radiation Law gives temperature of any radiating body with emissivity e < 1 as T = 100(I/5.67e)0.25. Earth’s global emissivity is difficult to measure or determine, but Standard Global Climate Model uses e = 0.612. It increases with content of radiating gases like H2O and CO2. (It goes down with T.) Since e is in the denominator, if e increases, T decreases. That proves CO2 has a small global cooling effect.
46. GHGT underlying global warming and climate change claims is thereby falsified. Forever. By scientific method.
47. Since there are many proofs the GHGT is false in the peer reviewed literature and internet since 1997, the fact Reward Offerer is making this offer in 2014 proves he is unfamiliar with the literature. He can be excused since the literature on GHGT, global warming and climate change is in such a poor intellectual state.
48. When Reward Offerer fulfills all these conditions for a fair contest according to the scientific method, Deniers should consider teaching GHGT Promoters how to reject unproven theories and claiming the award.
49. Until then Deniers are free to assume the Reward Offer is not legitimate and they may rightfully claim it.
50. Since I just did falsify GHGT throughout and precisely in item 43, I claim the $10,000 as rightfully mine.

Anonymous Chemical Process Control Engineer, PhD, PE


Response:

Lots of words, little substance. What I have found is submissions with only a few words are due to the person not knowing what the are talking about. Submissions with lots of words are due to people not knowing what they are talking about, but want to deceive everyone else into thinking they do. This one qualifies in that regard. I will state it right from the beginning, I believe this individual lied about being a Ph.D. It really is that bad.

Almost every bullet has a problem, but I will focus on just the most egregious.

10. Since GHGT promoters still call it a theory, they acknowledge it is not a Law.
11. Since some GHGT promoters claim it is not falsifiable, they place it in the realm of religion, superstition or politics. This is evidence they accept it is not a Law.
12. Science has clear criteria standards to be met before a theory is considered true. Engineering profession has additional standards.
13. Both sets of standards must be satisfied before GHGT is deemed proven; if any one criterion is not satisfied, it is not proven.
14. Since there are a number of evolving attempts to define the GHGT, there is no accepted standard version.
15. Therefore a correct one is not finally offered for rebuttal. No proposed unique GHGT exists. Without a uniqueness proof, it must be held false.

This is a case of someone thinking they are clever and trying to mislead the audience. To begin with, 'global warming theory' is a term to cover all of the science involved in the subject. It is not some single, all-inclusive theory the submitter is trying to claim it is. In this regard, the submitter has failed completely and totally because he has failed to address the thousands of different theories involved, each of which has been examined by the scientific community and found to be valid. By claiming there is a single "GHGT" that needs only one flaw to be found false, he is either showing his lack of understanding of science, deliberately trying to deceive the audience, or both. Until he can address each and every one of the thousands and thousands of scientific discoveries made over a period of centuries by thousands of different scientists, this line of logic is completely invalid. 

17. Since Earth’s atmosphere is a chemical process system, chemical engineers holding degrees from accredited universities and professional licenses from State governments are qualified to be Deniers.

Again, an effort to deceive. No one needs any kind of accreditation to be a denier or skeptic of AGW. If you wish to believe man made global warming is not real you are free to do so and I am not trying to stop you or interfere with that right. I am merely providing a venue for contrarians to do what they say they can do. If I can also provide a scientifically rationale argument for the general public to help them understand the fraud behind the contrarian arguments, then that is a good thing. But, you don't need anyone's permission to accept, or reject, the science. And, to be clear, he never, at any time, showed that he has a degree from an accredited university or a professional license from any state government. So, just how are we to know he is some kind of qualified denier?

20. Since GHGT claims anthropogenic CO2 causes catastrophic global warming and climate change, the terms catastrophic, climate and change must be quantified scientifically, mathematically, before they can reasonably be denied.

I suspect this guy is a lawyer and not some engineer because he is making stupid semantic arguments instead of scientific ones. Further, his statements are so flawed that I doubt he is a Ph.D. Just look at this statement. Climate science is not claiming CO2 causes catastrophic global warming. We are claiming it is leading to global warming - leave off the catastrophic. That is a strawman that contrarians throw out there to divert the discussion. What the science shows (one of those theories he conveniently omitted to mention in his single GHGT claim) is that CO2 absorbs IR radiation and then reradiates it out.  As more CO2 is added, more IR radiation will be absorbed and reradiated instead of going straight out into space. Oh, by the way, this is all quantified scientifically, mathematically and even experimentally. Again, something he failed to mention. One more reason I think this individual is not the Ph.D. he claims to be.

21. Correlation does not prove causation. That breaks the foundation of GHGT.

This has become the rallying cry of many contrarians, especially when they can't discuss the science. It is a sure sign they don't know what they are talking about. What the statement means is that we can look at one variable and find it changes in accordance with another variable, but that does not mean they are related.  A couple of classic examples are the idea you can predict the stock market based on the length of women's skirts or predict the outcome of the presidential election based on what conference the Super Bowl winner plays in. The flaw in this statement, and the evidence that they really don't know what they are talking about, is the idea that thousands and thousands of scientists were all fooled and it takes this one person to point it out to them. Whenever someone makes this statement they are, in essence, stating they are a better scientist than all of the scientists in the world. Why would anyone think that all of the scientists involved in anything having to do with climate science do not understand this principle? To make it clear, yes, we understand the idea and very serious work is done to investigate it. We do, in fact, look for the cause, not the correlation.

24. Unintended consequences must be identified, according to the Precautionary Principle.
25. Actual financial damages from anthropogenic CO2 must be quantified. Otherwise the catastrophe denial exercise is futile punching as a ghost.

 No and no. In fact, NO and NO. This is a huge effort to deceive the audience without even a single bit of truth to them. First, science is not required, or even suggested, to be required to adhere to the Precautionary Principle. This is a policy that applies mostly to governments or other people that are acting on behest of a group of others. Further, there is no burden at all on science to identify the financial risks, or rewards (funny how he left out how we will actually benefit from addressing this problem) of the science. Science is just that, the understanding of nature. We do not sit in the laboratory and think, "I wonder how this will affect the stock holders?"

27. Photosynthesis is cooling and CO2 consuming chemical reaction neglected by GHGT. CO2 is green plant food, an important Law of science neglected by GHGT

More work to deliberately deceive the audience. If this person is truly a Ph.D. he would be fully versed in the fact that it is very much considered by climate scientists and we even have satellites in orbit with instruments that allow us to measure this activity. That does not sound like it qualifies as 'neglected' to me. 

29. The proposed theory must predict behavior in nature which is verified by observation measurement. This has not been done, so GHGT must be deemed false.

Again, he is either falsifying his credentials, deliberately attempting to deceive the audience, or both. Take a look here.

 30. In summary the theory must be completely defined and explained to anyone invited to falsify it.

This is not my problem. The challenge was to people making the claim AGW is not real and they can prove it. This guy seems to be making my point - No, you can't prove it, so stop saying you can.

32. If Denier shows GHGT violates Stefan-Boltzmann Law of radiation intensity, that would be sufficient. This has been done.
33. If Denier shows GHGT violates a Law of thermodynamics, that would be sufficient. This has been done.
34. If Denier shows GHGT incorrectly uses the law of radiant energy transfer, that would be sufficient. This has been done.
35. If Denier shows a thermostat for Earth adjusting fossil fuel combustion rate is unmeasurable, unobservable or uncontrollable and hence will never work, that would be sufficient. This has been done.
36. If Denier finds one peer reviewed paper by a professor of physics that falsified GHGT, that would be sufficient. This has been done.

This is an outright lie. All of these things have been proposed as proof that man made global warming is not real (many of them as submissions to the challenge) and all of them have been debunked. He goes and makes the claim that they have been done with no supporting evidence. If they have been done, where have they been done? Why doesn't he provide the proof himself? After all, he's a Ph.D. isn't he? He is qualified to be a denier, isn't he? Or, so he says. He can't show you any supporting evidence (SURPRISE!), but I can (ANOTHER SURPRISE!). Look here.  Or, here. Or, here. Or, here. Or, here. Or, check out the submissions to the challenge here. This is just a very easy list. There is literally more science out there debunking his claims than I can list, but it is all very easy for anyone to find as much science on a topic as they wish, including a supposed Ph.D. So, why didn't he? The challenge required using the scientific method. Making claims it "has been done" does not come anywhere close to that standard.

37. The Reward Offerer may not be a judge of a Denier’s falsification success since that would be a conflict of interest.
38. Merely having $10,000 does not qualify one to judge the scientific arguments of Deniers.
39. The judges must be identified at the outset, with credentials and agreement on the rules and score keeping.
40. The Reward Offerer must disclose who is financing the reward. Any government financing may be deemed inappropriate by invited Deniers.
41. Since many promoters of GHGT lack credentials and have public records of unprofessional conduct in the debate attempting to elevate GHGT conjecture to scientific Law, like name calling, hate mail, slander, intimidation, threats, and bogus lawsuits, the Reward Offerer should indemnify any contestant from harm, including from government. Guaranteeing anonymity is a minimum.
42. What assurance do Deniers have the Reward Offerer will designate someone a winner and grant Award rather than arbitrarily reject all responses?
43. Will Reward Offerer publish results and acknowledge Denier successfully showed GHGT remains unproven?
44. If it looks like a scam email offer of a free lunch, it probably is. There is no such thing as a free lunch either.

All of these comments, numbers 37-44, are strawman claims to divert the subject of discussion. They have nothing to do with proving man made global warming is not real, so why is he including them here other than to divert attention from his lack of scientific evidence? But, I will address them, just to show how silly he is. He is, again, totally wrong in just about everything he says.

#37. First, it is my challenge, so, yes, I get to be the judge if I want to be the judge.

#38. Merely having $10,000 allows me to make the challenge (see my previous sentence about being the judge).

#39. The judge was identified from the outset  - me. The rules were set out clearly in the challenge.

#40. I did identify who is funding the challenge. I stated I would give $10,000 of my own money.

#41. I see no reason to grant anyone anonymity that doesn't specifically request it (some did and I complied). Even fraudulent Ph.D. chemical engineers can request it. As for the personal attacks, that is the strategy of the denier community. Just look through the comments and submissions on this blog to see that for yourself.

#42. The only assurance they have is the fact that I have stated that I will post all submissions with my response for all the world to see. If I don't live up to the claim, it will be there for everyone to see.

#43. I answered this in my previous sentence. If anyone successfully shows AGW is not real, I will post it and acknowledge it. So far, no one has provided anything that is even remotely close. Including this one.

#44. There is no scam. Like I said, everything is there for everyone to see. But, in order for it to be a scam I would have to be taking something from the submitters without giving something in return that was promised. The challenge is free of charge and is open to anyone that wishes to submit. They are also free to not make a submission without fear of losing anything. They can even voice their belief without making a submission. And, all submissions and responses are posted for all to see.

45. Stefan-Boltzmann Radiation Law gives temperature of any radiating body with emissivity e < 1 as T = 100(I/5.67e)0.25. Earth’s global emissivity is difficult to measure or determine, but Standard Global Climate Model uses e = 0.612. It increases with content of radiating gases like H2O and CO2. (It goes down with T.) Since e is in the denominator, if e increases, T decreases. That proves CO2 has a small global cooling effect.

If there had been any remaining doubt in my mind that this person is a fraud this one comment would have removed it for me. But, I had already concluded he was a fraud before this, so no real damage done in that respect.

There are all sorts of issues with what he says here, but let's focus on just the one, fatal, flaw. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is wavelength dependent, meaning you get a different result with different wavelengths. This is not to say S-B is invalid, it means that it shows that there is a different result with different wavelengths of radiation. If you include the difference between short-wavelength sunlight and long-wavelength IR radiation, what you get is that Earth is getting warmer due to CO2, not cooler. In fact, his line of reasoning shows the exact opposite of what he is claiming because he is showing more energy is coming in than is going out. Really, a Ph.D. in chemical process control engineering would know all of this.

46. GHGT underlying global warming and climate change claims is thereby falsified. Forever. By scientific method.
47. Since there are many proofs the GHGT is false in the peer reviewed literature and internet since 1997, the fact Reward Offerer is making this offer in 2014 proves he is unfamiliar with the literature. He can be excused since the literature on GHGT, global warming and climate change is in such a poor intellectual state.
48. When Reward Offerer fulfills all these conditions for a fair contest according to the scientific method, Deniers should consider teaching GHGT Promoters how to reject unproven theories and claiming the award.
49. Until then Deniers are free to assume the Reward Offer is not legitimate and they may rightfully claim it.
50. Since I just did falsify GHGT throughout and precisely in item 43, I claim the $10,000 as rightfully mine.

This is a classic example of why I stated the challenge had to conform to the scientific method. Statements like "there are many proofs" do not qualify under the scientific method. If there are so many proofs, why didn't he supply some of them? Even one?

I particularly love the claim in #46 that AGW is 'thereby falsified. Forever.' What an incredibly stupid thing to say. He not only rejects science today, but he is rejecting all science that will ever come about.

He did not prove man made global warming is not real. Forever.