Ok, here is my response to the challenge and yes sorry I am submitting it
for the money. I'm going broke putting gas in the car....
It would actually be put towards r&d on my hackaday.io project
The basic jist of my proof is that we do not have enough data to either
prove nor disprove Climate Change, Global Warming, or cooling. We are
looking at such a small slice of the data, that it cannot be put into
perspective. We cannot "zoom out". We cannot look at previous Earth cycles
and accurately predict what the GENERAL trend is, like we can't see the
forest for the trees. We also don't know enough about the factors that
influence global temperature, CO2 has some effect, but may in fact be
negated by forces that have a greater effect. Or it may be insignificant in
comparison. True scientist will admit when they don't know.
We also know that both sides of the argument have an agenda, and like to
cite the INSUFFICIENT data as evidence. We see it in Climate arguments, as
well as commodity prices.
I also believe that there is a proper course, AGENDA free, that we should be
taking. I have not heard it from either side, since it is agenda driven. I
am NOT citing any of the BS on the web that I am allowed to. Because I know
it is practically ALL BS, from both sides.
The zig-zags you see in any comparable dataset, as well a global
temperature, are evened out when you plot an equation of the graph. You are
looking for the general trend. If your dataset period is not sufficient,
your curve fit will be inaccurate.
I took physics, and if I was doing a lab and got lazy and did not collect
enough data, my curve fit did not work. ( I'm sure you remember EZ-PLOT).
But I knew what it was supposed to be, and I could fudge enough numbers that
included the acceptable margin of error to make it fit and turn in my lab
However, if you don't know what the equation is, and your dataset is all you
have, all you can do is fit some equation to what you have. And if it's not
enough, it doesn't make sense, and your conclusion would turn from warming,
to change. As it has seemed to. Volatility is probably next.
I do not believe Mankind's emissions are capable of influencing planetary
climate to a degree that is any way competitive with natural forces. I does
make sense to be as clean as possible, and I firmly believe in alternate
forms of energy. Capitalism will eventually produce a viable, cleaner
alternative that competes economically with fossil fuels. But artificially
raising the price of fossil fuels, or subsidizing alternate energy through
"carbon" taxes is the wrong approach. We are just fooling ourselves and
crippling the economy in the process. It needs to be truly cheaper.
The first part of my proof is this:
First it was "Global Warming", with Al Gore's hyperbolic, fear mongering
movie. And his solution just happens to be a TAX. How convenient. If you
believe that, here's a link to make your pc faster. Gee, it just happens to
be after he loses the election and needs a new scam to perpetrate upon us.
Psychology is a science, the study of human behavior. Then it seems we have
scientists on board with this, but there certainly is some doubt as to their
motivations. Such as funding sources for the studies. This was my initial
impression, and I believe I am right to be skeptical. It's been presented in
such a snake oil, sideshow hawker, fear mongering kind of way that my guard
was immediately raised.
Then it seems that the current data does not seem to support "global
warming", but more like "climate change". Or climate volatility to really
term it better. I suspect someone will latch on to my term. But the solution
seems to be the same - Taxes.
Regulations, and Govt subsidies to politically affiliated Green energy
The right and left are most certainly guilty of hyperbole. Listen to Sean
Hannity every time it snows. Every time the weather is not "typical" it's
purported as evidence. Gimme a break. Both sides seem to take us for fools.
How did we have Ice ages? How was there a land bridge connecting Alaska to
Siberia? Plate tectonics, dinosaur bones found in northern climates. The
climate is constantly changing. Sometimes it changes fast, sometimes slow.
What caused it to change before Mankind industrialized? Something caused the
changes. Dinosaur flatulence? Decaying organic matter? Volcanic activity?
Meteors? Solar activity?
We don't know what it was. We do know it was NOT Mankind. ******
So, climate changes without mankind. Proven.
What do we still have from the past that could be changing it now? Huge
changes in temperature require huge forces. Small changes in temperature
require huge forces as well. The Earth is inhabitable because it naturally
evens out the forces acting upon it. We have some volcanoes but, and we have
The Sun is most certainly capable of having a huge effect on the climate.
Solar maximum, minimum, sunspots, CME's. I read somewhere that if we were
only slightly ( 12 feet or 12 miles) closer to the Sun, life could not exist
on Earth. I am not providing a link, since I know our orbit is elliptical
and I am not sure this is accurate. You may know of this and accept it, but
it's not integral to the proof. The Earth's tilt has an effect. The spin has
an effect. The distance on the moon has an effect. The density of the
Earth's crust and how it's distributed could certainly influence spin. How
did the Earth spin when Pangea existed? How does the viscosity of the magma
in the mantle influence spin, tilt, wobble? Whatever we think we know about
the Sun, it is a mere fraction of what there is to know about it. Is the
moon's distance fixed? I read somewhere it is increasing, slightly but
How do these forces compare to Mankind's emissions when it comes to the
ability to influence the climate? Do we have such a self important view of
Mankind to be able to view our mere emissions on par with such planetary and
astronomical forces that we KNOW for sure have influenced the Earth's
climate in the past? How much data do we have? For how long exactly have we
been able to accurately measure the Earth's temperature on a GLOBAL scale?
Is it 100 years, or not quite? What data is quoted to support OR disprove
Mankind's influence on global temperature?
They often go back to like the 70's. How can that be enough to accurately
determine the trend? There's a whole lot of zigs and zags in there, and we
are supposed to be alarmed and accept economically hindering taxes on this
small amount of data? Isn't the planet 4 billion years old? And we only were
technically able to measure the temperature on a global scale since maybe
the introduction of air travel. I believe in the 1920's they used to hang a
thermometer off the side of a ship. And 1.5 degrees Celsius is somehow
beyond the margin of error?
So I was looking to sell some silver. I looked up the price. I probably
can't paste the graphs here. I really wish there was some better interface
to submit my response.
So here's the link:
Look at the 3 month price. WOW it's going up.
Look at the 6 month price. Oh crap, maybe not
Look at the 1 year price. Should have sold last year
Look at 2 years Oh maybe 2 years ago
Look at 5 years wow $50 in 2/11
Look at 10 years looks like it went up and is now trending down
Does this tell me what to do? What influences the price? lots of things.
I have no idea. Should I tax myself and buy more, maybe it's going up?
If I listen to the BS on the radio, then maybe. But it's BS with an agenda.
Glen Beck fear mongers for a living, and hawks gold, silver, food insurance,
liberty safes. Good gig if you can get it. But BS nonetheless.
Now let's look at global temperature. I see graphs going back to 1880. How
accurate were our measurements? Where they as good as they are now? I would
say NO. What year exactly can we say that we were actually able to
accurately measure the global temperature? What did the 2nd world war do to
the global temperature, with all the bombs, firestorm in Dresden, burning
bodies, 2 nuclear detonations. Then the post WW2 nuclear testing,
multi-megaton blasts? Did that raise the global temperature 1/2 degree? Can
we even tell?
I look at charts for global temperature, and there are a whole lot that go
back to the 70's, and some from 1880. These show 1.5 degree raise. What
could cause this?
It must be humanity, because we can't freakin tax the Sun now can we.
The ONE thing that seems to stick out at me in the Global Temperature charts
is all the zigs and zags. So which the heck way is it going? Just like
Silver, if you look at too small of a sample you can be deceived. And I
would venture the hypothesis that we know more about the price of silver and
where it's going than we do about global temperature. We can ACCURATELY
track the price of silver to the fraction of a cent further back than we can
the temperature. And what influences the price of silver? Factors that are
EASILY measurable, since they are human creations. All those trying to make
a living from analyzing global temperature would seem to be better off
investing in silver, since it only had a value since the beginning of
civilization and we certainly have a greater set of accurate data compared
to the whole. And we can more accurately determine the factors which
influence the price, as compared to what exactly influences global
temperature. But even so, it's still not an exact science, and there are
plenty out there who capitalize on the uncertainty. Yet, there are those who
will say they KNOW which way global temperature is going. Or, if that cannot
be predicted, the natural zigs and zags are presented as "proof" that the
only TAXABLE factor that could possibly influence global temperature is to
blame. Fossilized tree rings, core drilling, or any other method to
determine historical or prehistoric global temperature cannot be accurately
measured to within a margin of error that makes the 1.5 degree change we are
supposed to be alarmed about meaningful. All we have is an approximate data
set comprising the last 100 years, with increasing accuracy over time. And
the terrestrial and astronomical factors which can contribute to any
measured temperature volatility are still beyond our comprehensive
Therefore, it cannot be stated that the climate volatility is in fact
anomalous, and further cannot be stated that the volatility is caused by
Mankind's industrial emissions.
Since I went through all the trouble typing this at this late hour, please
take a look at my project on Hackaday.io and follow or skull it if you like
it. If you can run 6 or more computers from 1 box, that's gotta help with
the temperature. Reduce your silicon footprint anyway.
2329 Chase Road
Rock Stream, NY 14878
The challenge is not to prove global warming. As I keep saying, this challenge is in response to deniers that keep telling people that man made global warming is not real and they can prove it. So, let's see you do that. Here is a venue for you.
As for proving the existence of global warming, climate scientists work on that very issue every day and there is a massive amount of published material to support the scientific consensus.
It is not accurate to say a 'true scientist' will say he does not know. We actually have a pretty good understanding of the factors involved. In fact, you were correct when you said there may be naturally occurring factors that would negate global warming. The naturally occurring cycle we are currently in is for global cooling. That negates all arguments that this is just a natural cycle.
To say both sides has an agenda is not an argument for or against AGW. Yes, scientists have an agenda, they seek to find the truth. Deniers have an agenda too, to deceive the public so as to delay any action being taken that would threaten the profits of certain wealthy entities.
I'm not sure what you are saying about the data sets and plots. Are you saying scientists are falsifying the data? If so, that is a very serious accusation and I would like to see any serious evidence of that (Don't bother me with that Steve Goddard idiot. He has a history of making false claims that he has to later withdraw.) Right now, all you have is a non-scientific argument that amounts to nothing.
You then continue with your evidence being, basically, you don't like Al Gore. That is not evidence and the real world doesn't change because of how you feel about someone. Al Gore could be right, or he could be wrong. He is not climate science and anything he said, or didn't say, has no effect on the actual situation.
Even continuing, your claim is that there has been climate change in the past. This is not a new submission. In fact, it is so common I made a special posting on just that topic. Quickly, the fact that there has been naturally occurring climate change in the past says absolutely nothing about climate change today. Where is the evidence showing what is happening today is natural?
You are right the the Sun's effects are major. In fact, there is a very strong correlation between solar activity and the historical temperature record. As solar activity goes up, so does the temperature. As solar activity goes down, so does the temperature. Until recent decades. Solar activity is going down, but the temperature is going up. The correlation has been broken in recent year. The difference is that we are here loading the atmosphere with CO2.
We can get a an accurate temperature profile (I think it is a decade average resolution) going back 800,000 years. The difference between global average temperature and your silver analogy is that the price of silver does not follow the laws of physics. If it did, we could explain its movements and make forecasts about what will happen in the future. Right now, it is merely due to the whims of investors. No so, climate. The climate will not change because fashion changes. It takes the laws of physics to change the climate.
The total tonnage of explosives used in WWII (including all nuclear devices - three by the U.S. and very likely one by Japan) was insignificant compared to the amount of energy coming in from the Sun every day. Any any energy released over the six year period would be so small as to not even look like noise in the data.
You are right that the daily temperature zigs and zags. That shows how there are many things involved and is why we don't focus on that data. What we are interested in is the average over a period of time and how the current data compares to a longer-term average. We try to identify all of the factors involved in an attempt to explain what is observed. The only way we can explain what is observed is if we include man made effects along with the natural ones.
Essentially, you did not supply any scientific evidence in this submission, so it doesn't qualify. But, beyond that, your arguments are not valid and do nothing to prove that man made global warming is not real.