The $30,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge!




NEW:  There is now a challenge deadline of midnight (CDT) July 31, 2014 for the challenge. All submissions will be posted with my response no later than the end of the day September 30, 2014.


I have heard global warming skeptics make all sorts of statements about how the science doesn't support 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 skeptics to prove their claims. And, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.

I am announcing the start of the $30,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge. The rules are easy:

1. I will award $10,000 of my own money, plus another $20,000 vouched for by The Young Turks, to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring;

2. There is no entry fee;

3. You must be 18 years old or older to enter;

4. Entries do not have to be original, they only need to be first;

5. I am the final judge of all entries but will provide my comments on why any entry fails to prove the point.

That's it! I know you are not going to get rich with $10,000. But, tell me, wouldn't you like to have a spare $30,000? After all, the skeptics all claim it is a simple matter, and it doesn't even have to be original. If it is so easy, just cut and paste the proof from somewhere. Provide the scientific evidence and prove your point and the $30,000 is yours!

This is no joke. If someone can provide a proof that I can't refute, using scientific evidence, then I will write them a check.

But, I am sure I will never have to because it can't be proven. The scientific evidence for global warming is overwhelming and no one can prove otherwise.

Any takers?


  1. Here is my submission

    1. Hi Christopher,
      You seem to be answering everyones else's attempts but mine?

      Waiting ............................

    2. I have your submission and will make my comments as soon as possible. Yes, I am answering everyone, even you, as quickly as I can.

    3. Hi Christopher,
      You seem to be answering everyone else's attempts but mine?

      I plan to donate the reward to the Galileo Movement so they can continue their important work

      Waiting ...........................

    4. In addition to the NIPCC reports, I say that one must know that things, at all levels (the macrocosm and microcosm), go through cycles (in this case, the Earth's cycles of global warming, followed by global cooling, then global warming, and so on, which geological/geophysical data supports). Mother Earth will continue to dance with 'Her-metric' Principle of Rhythm (cycles), regardless of what her humans do. We will continue to see more articles about global cooling, as that is the cycle we are currently in. The amount of carbon dioxide (which plants happen to like/need for growth) generated by humanity will not hinder a major Earth cycle. So whether there is any actual man-made warming or not is of no concern, because the Earth will do whatever she needs to balance herself as usual, as is typical for such systems, moving to a peek and a trough of states in a perpetual sine wave across an equilibrium point. Even the second person to walk on the moon--NASA Astronaut Dr. Buzz Aldrin--rejects global warming fears, saying in a July 3, 2009 UK Telegraph interview "I think the climate has been changing for billions of years.", and "If it's warming now, it may cool off later.", and "I'm not necessarily of the school that we are causing it all, I think the world is causing it."

      Many, many years from now, humans may once again be worrying about global warming, forgetting history (dooming themselves to repetition) and forgetting that Mother Earth will turn on the AC again whenever she needs to! ;) But if worrying about climate change helps people focus more on making the world a better place, so be it, so as long as it does not lead to more hazardous geoengineering schemes, but instead, the use of better energy sources and so forth. A better use of our time and money, rather than challenges that pit people against each other based on information published by third parties that continue to update themselves, would be a challenge for people to come up with ways to bring people together and make the world a better place--something like 'fixtheworld'.

      In any case, I thank you for the topic and hope you have a wonderful day.


  2. On reflection I realised that it was impossible to disprove something when it hasn't first been proven.

    So to show what a numpty "prize" this was I'm now offering my own "prize" for someone to prove by the scientific method that we are currently experiencing man-made global warming.

  3. Near the surface, thermodynamic effects interact with and dominate radiation.
    High above, extra radiation to space will cool and lower clouds.
    Lower clouds, lower surface temperature.

    Basic Physics -- simple logic
    Greenhouse gases Cool -- Opposite of Warm

    1. Is this a submission? I'm not sure it would even qualify under the 'scientific method' requirement. If you would like to expand on it and submit for the challenge you are certainly welcome to do so.

    2. zlop, you obviously have never had a college course in Meteorology. Cloud cover serves to retain heat in the atmosphere, because the solar rays reflect off the earth and are bounced back to the earth by the clouds, hence the term "greenhouse effect".

  4. To specifically answer your game that "man-made global climate change is not occurring" isn't a true statement and through wisdom, here is why: to say man's carbon footprint on the world using the industrial process is causing global warming is an understatement, because that is only a part of the current issue. To say that the man-made global climate change is happening, I can say yes, but what about the aspects of global climate change that isn't happening because of what man does, but because of the chain reaction of events that happen from the consumption alone of man, being included annihilation of species through deforestation.
    The deforestation caused by man making homes and farms also has a direct impact on local climate change, such as changing wind and rain patterns, which can thus effect temperature regions of ocean water, which can change currents, thus causing man-made global climate change, this is the current theory and we see it's side effects. Not to mention, China planning on bulldozing full mountains and seeding their clouds to produce rain, this can also create a local to global effect on the climate.
    But back to what is not man-made that is a side-effect of the growth of humans regardless to the industrial revolution or deforestation by farming, the extinction of animals. This annihilation of, for example, large animals thousands of years ago, can cause a butterfly effect, to a species of rodents that proliferates, which can end up eating the eggs of a certain type of bird that eat a certain type of insect. Now, there are many different hierarchies in the animal kingdom that this can occur, and probably has happened in the past, but now that that this insect is dead, other insects that either eat tree bark or carry a disease specific to a certain type of tree can also end up creating a deforestation effect.
    Now you have nature conservationalists fighting this and preventing it from occurring, but if they weren't there, we would have already seen by now the drastic world-wide consequences of not protecting our forests and jungles and their fauna and life.

    Now I am not saying the last Ice age was created by man hunting Mastadons, but since the Earth is in a goldilock zone, and a slight tilt of the Earth's magnetic poles could have drastic effects on life here, as well as a slight displacement of the moon in the heavens, anything could potentially tip the scales, and it must be "man-made" or you can say "man-touched or man-handled" to be more politically correct, or by a heavenly object, as we already know that by itself nature balances itself out best.

    So with this I am just disproving your statement that global climate change being man-made is not occurring, since (whether on a million year process or hundred thousand year process) not by the inventions of man's industrialization or inventions (except of the spear) is global climate change occurring but also through the evolution of man, because this cause-effect scenario could have already started many years ago just by the mass extinction of some animals and species by man.

    1. I think you misread the challenge. The challenge was made to climate change deniers to back up, with science their claims that man made global warming isn't real. I am familiar with the science on the topic and understand the science is overwhelmingly in favor of proving man made global warming is real.

      I agree with your comments about how we are changing the planet. The changes I have personally witnessed to the environment here is Texas since I was a boy is disturbing and, at times, heart-breaking.

    2. Oops I wrote my main sentence wrong there. I meant to take a philosophical scientific approach and use a specific argument to get to the point that your question itself can be proven true, while trying to maintain my ideological beliefs showing how it is impossible to disprove your statement.
      We all know there is a chance that on a local level with the Earth's cycles, a tipping point could be achieved, but to answer your question, not through man-made factors, but through a butterfly effect of man just killing off a certain type of animal species could this also occur.

      First we must describe what is 'man-made global climate change' and that is that the actions of post-industrialization of man is the sole cause of the world to have a drastic change in temperatures that could bring upon a new ice-age. You may disregard the ice age part, but I do believe I am correct about this question being based on how man is the sole cause for climate change or how man has no effect on the change in climate as it can't change and naturally changes slowly over time or some other reasonable explanation.

      So the statement that 'man-made global climate change is not occurring' is true, since it is not 100% based on man-made industrialization.

      For example if 35% of the current global climate change is based on Earth's natural cycle, 5% based on the actions of man over the past 10,000 years prior to the industrialization man-made era, and 30-60% from man-made industrialization the past several hundred years, it must be a full consensus as to the cause of global climate change being man-made to answer your question, and thus it is not even if we want to disregard the natural cycle and say 95% based on man-made industrialization.

      If your question was "global climate change is not occurring based on man's actions" then I would not be able to give this answer.

      But this potential scenario in which hunter/gatherer man does kill off 'big game' which ends up destroying a rain forest due to an increase of insects carrying a virus causing a temperature change in an area, causing the gulf stream to slow down/stop, causing a global climate change, (which is not man-made) is but a butterfly effect of global climate change and is currently untestable at the moment, this could be tested theoretically one day once we have developed the proper algorithms for how the world works;
      this scenario probably has occurred in different parallel universes and can mathematically be shown, some day.

      I look forward to your response.
      Have a good day. :)

    3. I am not aware there is anything here I'm suppose to respond to. Once again, you are incorrectly putting the burden on me to prove something. I provided my proof for my claims in my book. This challenge is a venue for deniers to deliver on their claims, not mine.

  5. Christopher,
    Let me state from the beginning I DO want the $10,000 and will not donate it to charity. There we go. Below is one article from a peer reviewed journal that demonstrates how two people can look at data and arrive at different conclusions. For me it demonstrates conclusively that the earth's climate has for eons cycled through some rather dramatic climate changes. It also demonstrates that we may be near the peak of the most recent warming trend.
    I am all for many of the "Carbon Initiatives" strictly because they lead to less pollution and a better, cleaner planet. What scares me are some of the proposed solutions that the "Warmers" are proposing. Purposeful pollution of micro-particulates for the purpose of cooling the planet is scary. The likelihood of damage far exceeds the potential of any beneficial change in our historical cycles.
    "Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica", NATURE |VOL 399 | 3 JUNE 1999 |
    So sit back and relax. Mother Nature has got this under control. What she doesn't have under control is the stupid nuclear power plant industry, hormone mimics, nano pollution, Monsanto and the GMO sociopaths. One might consider working toward restricting and reforming these assaults on our World as a more efficient use of resources.

    1. Thank you for your refreshing honesty. And, I have the same thoughts about some of these proposed 'solutions.' It is kind of like the story of how they introduced the mongoose into Hawaii to deal with the rat problem. Now, they have a rat and a mongoose problem.

      I will review this and post my comments today.

  6. The graphs do not seem to come through, so you will have to visit the URL for full effect. Additionally, it would be nice if you could act like a decent human being instead of a rude snob - you treated Lord Monckton (if that was really him) rather shabbily. Your unfairness is evident as you have the capability to prevent any reasonable counters to your arguments from ever appearing on this blog as you must approve them, whereas other venues/message boards/blogs allow posting that is moderated after publishing. Hence you control the venue entirely and can prevent any winning argument from even being heard on this blog. That and this blog limits me to 4096 characters - hardly enough to make a compelling argument.

    BIG NEWS Part VII — Hindcasting with the Solar Model

    1. I have not moderated any comments beyond postponing the posting until I have a chance to review them for family friendly content. That is the only rigorous rule I have. I would consider, on a case-by-case basis, any comment that is extremely rude or offensive. So far, I have not had to hold back even one comment. If you look, I have posted many comments that have been quite rude towards me and climate science in general. I think that demonstrates I am not censoring anyone.

      As for the bruising, part of the denier plan of attack is to bully scientists. As a group, we are trained and experienced in methodical debate, not the rough and tumble of public perception. I have a different background and am willing to give back to anyone that wants to give it. If they are courteous, I try my best to return the courtesy. As for "Lord Monckton", he engaged in the rough and tumble and got it back.

  7. You proved your challenge a few posts ago - you stated we were in a cooling period. Which is it, global warming or a cooling period?

    According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for May 2014 has just been published, the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 years since September 1996 is zero (Fig. 1). The 213 months without global warming represent more than half the 425-month satellite data record since January 1979. No one now in high school has lived through global warming.

    1. What I believe I said is that we are in a natural occurring cooling period. In other words, if it wasn't for us, the climate would be cooling right now. All of the warming above the average (actually, above what it would be without us) is due to the effects of our greenhouse gas emissions.

      The satellite data has been reexamined and there is most certainly a rise. Look here:

      But also, the satellite data measures surface temperature and does not include ocean heating, which has been extreme. Global warming includes the whole globe, not just one part of it.

    2. So this article is right then?

    3. I've seen multiple people post the same thing I explained 1st global warming is being created by duh????????? The sun and its radiation. Human history is still a big question. Maybe we were here when there we dinosaurs and we burned them all for food and it caused dino particle to trap the ever present radiation from the sun and now were all doomed and should sell our lawn mowers and eat the grass....So if you can't disprove the simple fact the suns radiation is the only reason our planet exists. Its why we have warmth and the moon and its light and intensity choose our weather. More radiation more heat... less radiation less heat..... Cmon bro pay up or put it in escrow or stfu go sell your horrible 100 page book on why you think your right. Show some money in some way or your just trolling......... I bet your book manufacturing process caused a penguin to die.....

    4. I am not really sure what you are trying to say there. I hope you don't think we were here when the dinosaurs were. If you have a proof you would like to submit I would be glad to post it.

    5. As for the data tampering claim, I see nothing in this article that is news worthy other than the deniers don't know how data is processed.

  8. Premise: increased concentrations of CO2 are causing the earth to warm
    Fact: Short wavelength solar radiation heats the earth.
    Fact: The hot earth re-emits longer wavelength radiation.
    Fact: CO2 absorbs some of this longer wavelength radiation
    Fact: By absorbing this radiation CO2 causes a thermo dynamical imbalance in the energy in-out equation for the earth as a whole and causes the earth to warm. Aka the greenhouse effect.
    All fine and dandy and nobody is questioning that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
    Fact: The extinction distance for CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere is about 300 feet. That is to say that any thermal radiation emitted by the ground and in the wavelength that CO2 absorbs strongly at will all be absorbed within the first 300 ish feet. That would be no matter how intense the radiation was. Engineers discovered this back in the 60s when they were trying to develop laser communication through the atmosphere. CO2 an H2O completely absorbed the laser light in those wavelengths that they strongly absorb at. 300 feet is based on the 1960 CO2 concentrations BTW.
    Fact: Increasing the concentration of CO2 only shortens the extinction distance it does not trap more heat. ALL the heat that CO2 can trap is already being absorbed in the extinction distance.
    Conclusion: increasing the concentration of CO2 does not cause any more heat to be trapped and therefore cannot be the cause of global warming.
    And to the point, Man is not causing global warming because CO2 can’t be the method by which it is happening.

    1. I am treating this as a formal challenge and will have my response up today.

    2. You might look at this:
      CO2 absorbs centered around 15um, and the range is very "peaky" If you look at the "transparency" chart about half way down the page you will see that while light gets through, at 15um there is a sharp spike. It is just to the right of the partial window for IR and right on the edge of the opaque portion shorter than radio

    3. while increasing CO2 has less and less effect on radiative absorption as ppm concentrations rise, more powerful greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide have different thermal absorption frequencys to CO2 that are not filled up (saturated) as much as CO2, so rising ppms of these gases are far more significant.

    4. Could it be the "wings" of the absorption band? No, looked at that and that ain't it. Much to small a contribution to the energy equation to make a difference. Third order stuff that normally gets ignored by most scientists of ilk.
      Could it be the upper atmosphere doing "odd" things? No it only does odd things when you mess with the equations to get them to do that. if you leave the equations in their original form the upper atmosphere does not change. Which is what you would expect if all the heat gets absorbed in the lower atmosphere where the concentrations of CO2 are higher (by volume)

    5. I'm apologize for not getting my response out today as I promised. I had some real technical difficulties the last couple of days and it has left me far behind. It is in the queue and I will get it done as quickly as possible.

    6. dk, you are in error about the other green house gases not being saturated.
      try this on for size. And yes he is a little loud and repetative but apparently that is what the science needs right now. a formal getting back to basics.

    7. Mr. Keating
      I completely understand running into technical problems using the internet.
      If I could impose on you to ping my email when you have something. I'll be off the net (vacation) from the 28 till the 8th of July so there will be some latency in my getting back on your comments.
      Have a great 4th of July.

  9. What data would you like me to use to disprove GW? Just a single data set of temperatures will suffice.... I ask not to be coy, but because I truly don't know where to find one... I can disprove the theory of GW as a non-natural occurrence and will do so not with science, but with the basics of the math that science uses.

    1. This challenge was set up for the deniers to prove their claims. I have provided a venue and a possible payout for anyone that can back up their claim with science. How you want to do it is up to you. Here is some more information:

    2. Future based science is not provable until it's in the past. That's basic common sense, and the frustration most "deniers" encounter. Global warming is theorized, but not proven. The point that an earlier poster made was that when the challenge was made for someone to prove their claim scientifically that global warming existed it was also not met (with a much larger 500,000 reward), because it's like claiming the existence of god, or a round earth. It is provable after the fact, but not before. Welcome to science. 101.

    3. I entered the JunkScience challenge because I didn't want him to be able to say no one entered. He just said I didn't win, but never provided a reason why. Are you really going to say that my challenge is not credible because the other challenge offered more money? That is a perfect example of how poor the logic is among deniers.

      If you can't disprove global warming, then why do deniers keep saying they can?

  10. "Even a smidgen"...That says it all.

    That's a safe, and stupid, bet. It's a safe bet, like saying "prove that summer, or winter, doesn't happen." It's all a matter of period. Year, decade, century, millennium, eon, of course the climate changes, nobody denies that, that's why the bet is stupid.

    Comparing people that do not believe in AGW to flat earthers is the wrong analogy. At the time people believed in a flat earth, 97% of scientist believed in a flat earth. It was the minority, the round earthers of that century, and the climate change deniers of this century, that were in the minority and punished for their thinking.

    Fortunately, us 'deniers' have time on our side, and all you AGW believers will feel very stupid in the not too distant future. You've already had to change the name of your religion from 'Global Warming', to 'Climate Change'. What will be your next iteration? 'Man made Carbon Dioxide Change'?

    You like 'settled science'? What happened to Stasis, the water cycle, and the carbon cycle. Have the properties of water changed and nobody told us? When water stops behaving as it has since the beginning of time, then we are in some trouble, but that hasn't happened yet.

    It is you AGW zealots that owe us 'deniers' scientific evidence. As @Chris Hatcher posted, the burden of proof is on you. You are the people proposing changes that will affect all of our pocket books, and possibly screw up the economies of entire nations. Based on what? Computer models that don't match reality? Heavily doctored or omitted temperature data that shows such little promise that you can no longer call this 'global warming'?

    All you have at this point is a rise in CO2 ppm. And their is a stronger correlation that this follows GW and does not precede it. What about the melting ice on Mars, where there are no people? CO2 levels on earth have been much, much higher in the past. Plants thrive at 1000 ppm, and we are at half that. What are the dangers of a warmer planet or higher CO2 levels?

    Here's my bet to you and Dr. Christopher Keating. Scientifically prove to us 'deniers' that 1) AGW is happening. 2) GW is a bad thing. 3) GW research isn't about the money. My terms are the same as Dr. Keating's, except my bet is for $1, and all the fame and fortune you will get from finally 'settling science', and you can submit your evidence to Dr. William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU). He's the guy that studies global air and water temps to predict hurricanes, and also not afraid to speak out against this climate change BS.

    You are just a blogger trying to make a few dimes off of clickbait articles. You haven't even bothered to Google where that '97%' figure came from. If you had, you would know that claim came from a websites' poorly worded, un-scientific poll that if a 'scientist', or even an educated blogger, were to answer correctly, 100%, not 93%, nor 97% would have agreed. 100% should have said yes to that question. No educated person would deny that the climate hasn't been changing--have you heard of the Ice Age?

    The burden of proof is on you...and time is on my side.

    1. No, the burden of proof is not on me. Deniers are the ones claiming AGW is not real and how they can prove it. I am just giving them a venue. There is no burden on me to prove anything except that deniers are frauds, liars and deceivers. But, you guys are doing a really good job of that for me.

      By the way, I am not only familiar with where the 97% claim comes from, but I am also familiar with the work by the denier that tried to disprove it and came up with a 91% figure. Then, a mistake in his process was pointed out and he came up with - surprise! - 97%!

      Do your homework next time.

  11. The only data I find is from 1880. Given the age of the earth, that is akin to a fifty-year old man dieting and trying to see some weight change from Noon to 12:01PM. While there is data that claims to go back several thousand years, that data is reconstructed. You cannot have a scientific fact based on reconstructed data. So can you please provide a source for data that takes into account at least 1,000 years or so? You see for the earth to be proved to be warming as a fact, the mean of the earth's temperature readings has to shift to the left under a bell curve beyond statistical reason. Given the age of the earth, you can EASILY mathematically prove that 50 years of data will not move the mean one iota to the left or the right.... unless the sun exploded. I await your reply as to how 25 years of data can move the statistical mean to the left with 25 years of data in a data set that is measured in the thousands, or millions.

    1. Check the National Climatic Data Center. I am not sure how far back their data goes, but they are suppose to have all data.

    2. Norman, You said, "You cannot have a scientific fact based on reconstructed data." I guess you are unaware of the science of ice core sampling from which accurate data of past climates goes back some 200,000 years. You need to clarify what you mean by "reconstructed" data.

  12. Thank you, Dr Keating. Your $10,000 is safe. But the time you will expend on slogging through the nonsense will cost you much, much more.

    1. It really is costing me more. This is a classic 'careful of what you wish for' situation. But, it is something that needs to be done and I can do it and have the time. So, there I am.

  13. Perhaps if you defer the decision as to whether something was proven or not to an objective participant, your offer would have some credibility. Right now it is a joke.

    1. The only joke is the claim by the deniers. They keep saying that man made global warming is not real and they can prove it. Well, here is the opportunity. So, why hasn't anyone been able to? In fact, there have been only a few submissions that I would characterize as being serious. Most of them have been ridiculous things like, there are natural cycles, or CO2 is only a small part of the atmosphere, etc. It is a joke that anyone should believe one of those arguments is a scientific proof.

      Now, if you want to submit something, please do. And, if I am not fair in my judgement then I am the one before the world stage as being a fraud. Right now, it is only the deniers that are being shown to be frauds.


    there ya go all copy and past urls

  15. How about data tampering? Would like to hear your thoughts on this.

    I am not a denier of global warming but I think that there has yet to be any one person to show PROOF that there is a MAJOR catastrophe coming if we don't stop using fossil fuels and the like. Most global warming advocates try to scare people saying the world is doomed. I will say though I would like to see the world using only solar energy to power everything, though this is not doable yet it could be in the near future and for the right price too.

    I don't claim to be knowledgeable in this field at all but I would like for you to reply to my comment explaining as briefly as you can your findings on global warming and prove to me it's really what you are saying.

    What are your thoughts?

    1. Steve Goddard?

      Who is Steve Goddard? And, yes, that's a serious question.

    2. Steve Goddard is a pseudonym for Tony Heller, a climate change denier that runs the Real Science blog and works hard to hide his identity.

      Data is processed to make adjustments for the instruments. Instruments don't all work the same and it is necessary to test them, validate them, document how they perform, and then process the data accordingly. There is nothing new or controversial about this. He is merely taking normal processes that are done in all walks of data collection and trying to make the case that some great world conspiracy is at work to change the data. This guy has a record of making claims like this and then having to retract them.

  16. I doubt if you will accept the clear problem of the Soviet Ice Core data. It is clear that these data show three prior patterns such as is happening now, namely rising temperature, CO2 levels, and dust level. This is followed by a decline in all three. I doubt seriously that anyone would endeavor to argue that mankind caused prior peaks.
    So yes, I think we are experiencing climate change and maybe in some minor ways we are contributing and no there are no benefits from ignoring our warmup and probably we really cannot do much. But cleaner air, water, and the land are best.

    1. The beginning and end of a glaciation is driven, first and foremost, by changes in Earth's orbit and inclination (Milankovick cycles). CO2 fits in to this particular process as a synergistic response to a change in solar input. As solar input decreases, CO2 is more easily absorbed into the oceans or is trapped in permafrost, decreasing atmospheric concentrations and thereby accelerating cooling. The reverse happens during a warming trend. Without the changes in CO2 concentrations, we would not have had the swings in climate associated with glaciations.

    2. See my posting on naturally occurring cycles. I believe it addresses your argument.

  17. I think I could give you a good argument, but I'd need accurate climate data from the ends of all of the ice ages that have happened here on Earth. Given that it is impossible to get such data, then arguments for both sides are subject to failure. Neither side can prove their points without accurate data from the past.
    That said, I maintain that while human activity may have played a small role in climate change, nature is cyclic, and this has happened before.

  18. The earth has gone through several hot and cold phases throughout it's existence.

    1. The PETM is a perfect example of a greenhouse gas driven climate change event. CO2 levels spiked 1000 ppm above background over the course of a few thousand years. At current rates, we are injecting CO2 into the air at rates 10 to 100 times as fast. The PETM caused substantial extinctions, not a great as those seen at other times, but enough to change the course of mammalian evolution.

    2. So what? Are you saying there is only one possible cause of climate cycles? There are even many naturally occurring ones. And, all of the evidence shows the natural cycle we are currently in is a cooling cycle, not a warming one. Until deniers can show evidence that the current cycle is somehow related to natural ones, your argument is a false one. I have addressed this claim many times.

    3. See my posting on naturally occurring cycles. I believe it addresses your argument.

  19. I was an atheist, believed only in science! Today I know that Gods exist. Why? They proved to me that they are infinitely more advanced than us in everything. They created being humano.Agora everything will change, the Bible is speaking of extraterrestrial beings and it says "the end times will come," Everything you see is an illusion, is matrix. Awaken

    * Hercolubus
    * reversal of the magnetic poles
    * Prophecy (Daniel)
    * Carl Sargan
    * Hal Lindsey and CC Carlson, The Lale Great Planet Earth
    * Ufo
    * Time Zero
    * Egypt
    * Rome
    * Atlantida ...
    * Your daughter will be fine

    Warning: The illusion seems real and illusion seem real because that made ​​it seem. Now they will pay.

    Under Brazilian pages

    1. OK..... I'm not sure what the point was.

    2. Aurea, I am so sorry for your conversion from reality. To test your commitment to the Truth, please read all of Bishop John Shelby Spong's books, for a start. Your lack of scientific approach to the challenge is problematic. You cannot and never will challenge science with religious beliefs. This is not an attack on you or your beliefs, but simply noting that nothing in your post has any basis in science.

  20. Actually the challenge is pretty easy, if you can empirically demonstrate the following things.

    1. Show that CO2 absorbs wavelengths shorter than 4000 nm, or does not absorb wavelengths in the infrared frequency.

    2. Show that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is insufficient to translate to any warming (show your work regarding sensitivity).

    3. Show that CO2 is not accumulating in the atmosphere, or that CO2 is not released during fossil fuel combustion, or that the CO2 in the atmosphere is unrelated to fossil fuels (use your isotopes!).

    4. Collect $10,000. Really, it is that simple.

    1. It really is that easy. Now, if someone only had the science to back it up they would have $10,000.

    2. Anon. Why are you only looking at CO2? There's nothing in the challenge which relies solely on CO2 levels as the cause of global warming.

  21. “It’s a cold day in Wagga Wagga”

    Those who seek to deny global warming constantly use transparently obvious tricks, selecting data from a single time, a single place, or both, to deny the larger long-term global patterns. This is easily done as climate is constantly fluctuating, so picking out the mean patterns and trends requires that one integrates the data over the largest time and space scales possible. So if one dishonestly wants to misrepresent the larger patterns, one can always find a particular place at a particular time that does not agree with the all the rest averaged together. This is sometimes referred to as the “It’s a cold day in Wagga Wagga” approach, and is repeatedly used by the climate change deniers to fool people who haven’t looked at the data themselves. The changes in Arctic Ice are no exception! Good data mapping the entire Arctic Ice Cap from space satellites is fairly recent, only since 1979, but the trends are absolutely clear:

    1. That is a good resource. Thanks for sharing it. As I keep saying, 'global' warming means the whole globe, not one small part. Just because it might have been really cold in some city doesn't say anything about what is happening over the whole planet.

  22. This is bullshit. How could one submit anything using a scientific method if the determination of plausibility/proof, will be decided by one who has already concluded that its impossible to prove? This is what is wrong with mainstream science. That is, the oligarchy of scientific opinions (The people getting funding to further elite agendas) start with a bias. How can you objectively review submissions if you have already concluded one way or the other? You cant. Take your ego, and preconceived notions out of this and replace it with a real appetite for truth without fear of being wrong, and you MAY be enlightened.

    1. It is not my credibility at risk here. Deniers keep claiming AGW is not real and it is easy to prove. Here is the opportunity for them to do that. If the claim is absurd, then deniers should stop making it.

  23. Dr Keating: "No, I am not asking anyone to disprove anything."

    From the challenge:
    "... that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring;"

    That's contradiction. To prove "not-A" is to disprove A.

    I think we would like to know your interpretation of the scientific method, and also how you believe that that same scientific method has been used to prove AGW.

    Were I to answer the challenge (but it's far too much like shooting fish in a barrel), I would only submit that the Earth has NOT been warming over the last 15 or so years.

    As you say, though, your money is quite safe: "5. I am the final judge of all entries..."

    1. You did not read the challenge carefully. The challenge is an opportunity for deniers to deliver on their claims. They claim man made global warming is not real and it is easy to prove. OK. Here is your opportunity!

      The reason my money is safe is because global warming is very real, so no denier can possibly prove it isn't.

      As for proving AGW, I did that in my book.

  24. Global warming is earth made, I wish I was a capable of putting together data information to confirm it, but it's as simple as this idea we are earth hince only earth can cause global warming

    1. You can find all the climate data you want the National Climatic Data Center. Its free to everyone.

  25. Here is my entry:

  26. MR Keating I have a proof for you. Will you read my submission? If you debunk it I will appreciate a correction. It is an analysis based upon my understanding of the data submitted as proof of man made global warming. I do not attempt to disprove climate change...only humanities part in it. How do I submit my proof? It is a logical argument with links to data references. It is ready for submission.

  27. The issue is not that climate change is real its that according to a UN report we have till 2030 to get significantly off fossil fuels. Then if you look at how solar is advancing exponentially by 2030 it will be 50% cheaper then fossil fuels meaning we will be significantly off fossil fuels before 2030. Not because its better for the environment, although it is, but because its cheaper. That is why I am not worried about climate change.

    This is from the New York Times:

    The United Nations report says that if the world’s major economies do not enact steep, fast climate policies well before 2030, in order to cut total global emissions 40 to 70 percent by 2050,

    The link for solar:

    If the trend continues for another 8-10 years, which seems increasingly likely, solar will be as cheap as coal with the added benefit of zero carbon emissions. If the cost continues to fall over the next 20 years, solar costs will be half that of coal.

    The link:

    1. The huge drop in the cost of solar power is very encouraging. It is now cheaper than grid power in some states and getting close to parity in several others. I have been checking into going solar and it would pay for itself in 3-4 years for me. But, keep in mind the majority of the world is behind on the amount of electricity per capita curve and they want to change that in order to improve the standard of living for their people. Will solar be the answer they take, or will they build coal-fired power plants and build lots of gas guzzling cars? The majority of the pollution now comes from the rest of the world other than North America and Europe.

    2. Solar will be the answer the science proves it. Sure today it takes 3-4 years to recoup the cost but solar is advancing exponentially and that will not be the case in the 2020's let alone by 2030. In fact by 2033 it will be "nearly free" so people from all over the world will switch. That is why the director of engineering at Google Ray Kurzweil is not worried about climate change and you can't say he is "anti science". So honestly I have won the challenge?

      The link:

    3. This is another video that deals with solar as well. Its from Ted Speaks by Peter Diamandis.

  28. How do I submit my Proof? I want to know it is actually read. you can disprove something. By showing how unlikely it is. I have actual hard math based upon published and accepted numbers.

    1. I got it and will post my response as quickly as possible.

  29. You do realize that there is no such thing as “scientific proof” right? Proofs are for mathematics and logic, not science. You can no more “prove via the scientific method” that man-made global warming is real than anyone can disprove it. Substantial amounts of convincing evidence does not equal a proof.

    We can’t beat the deniers by out-stupiding them, and it would help if people, particularly people claiming to be scientists, used correct and accurate terminology.

    1. If you are going to say there is no such thing as a scientific proof, then why do deniers keep claiming there is? Remember what this challenge is about. Deniers say that man made global warming is real and the science to prove it is easy to show. OK. Then do it. By scientific proof I mean one that uses science as the basis, not some 'God told me so' proof. If it can't be done, then deniers need to stop saying it.

  30. Hello, DR. Keating,
    I may have found proof of global warming and climate change is not real. In the Jurassic period. the Co2 level was 1800ppm and currently is 401.88ppm. Co2 freezes when compressed and used in fire extinguishers. Methane is another possible key component on global warming but methane burns easily so it is not so likely to cause excess heat and rises. But, if there is so much heat Earth including fires and explosions, the nitrogen in the atmosphere will combust killing every bit of life including bacteria. And there is so many microorganisms on Earth, they seem to not help nor make the problem worse. I researched the co2 levels via,
    I am 100 percent sure global warming is not real. It in fact was hotter to the dinosaurs and last I checked, they did not have cars and factories. And then all of a sudden… Ice age! But what caused it? The co2 condensed and froze. And that is not what else caused it. It was a POLAR SHIFT. Cleveland Ohio used to be the equator 400 million years ago before the dinosaurs and it is currently temperate. So the ice age was a polar shift and co2 freezing. Today the world is not heating but cooling due to heat. The oceans evaporate and the water vapor is pulled and condensed to the Arctic and Antarctic Circle. Since Co2 is hot it rises up and heads to the poles and condenses and freezes and gets colder. The polar ice caps grew in size by 29%. The Earth is warmer due to the sun getting bigger. I researched this topic for 2 years. My conclusion is that global warming is not man made but, natural.
    If global warming is real, there would be mass extinctions and un-bearable disasters. Hurricane Sandy like franken-storms will happen since the industrial revolution.
    In Japan the pollution is so thick by the chemicals they burn like plastic. In the USA, there are more cars than any country and we don’t have that much bad air. Humans just have the natural urge to say something is real when it is not. It is impossible to prove something that we do not have the technology to find out.

    1. I'm not really sure what to make of this line of thought. Nitrogen is not combustible, so that claim is not valid. As for the 'it was warmer in the past' argument, I addressed this topic and the issue of natural cycles in this post here:

    2. Nitrogen is combustible... When it is frozen or split into ions.... so are humans due to SHC. Spontaneous Human Combustion and last time I checked, Humans have nitrogen in our bodies.


  32. Dr. Keating, You do not speak or act as if you're a doctor. I'm a scientific minded, liberal, college educated girl on the side of global warming skeptism, in the same way my mother was raised catholic but questioned the proof of the existence of god. I do not believe we have to subscribe to faith based science and should be criticized for our natural curiosity about the alternatives. Lots of scientists believe as we do. Check the facts.

    1. I am a professor of physics. I graduated from the University of Texas at Dallas with my Ph.D. in physics in 1994.

      People have the right to deny man made global warming, if that is what they want to do. I am trying to make it possible for them to make that decision in an educated manner. Deniers are working very hard to deny that opportunity to people that are asking legitimate questions.

      I am rough at times, but that is in response to people that want to be rude and rough with me. I much prefer to be civil. But, if someone insults me, attacks me or tries to intimidate me then I am fully capable of standing up for myself. If they don't like the way they get treated, then they need to stop trying to bully people.

  33. I realize that you are a religious zealot, but the proof is logic.

    ... that man-made global climate change is not occurring.

    Men are natural. We are beings just as the dolphins or eagle. We are not extraterrestrial aliens. Therefore everything that man does is "natural".

    "Man-made" signifies that what man does is not natural, but our actions are natural. Therefore if any warming is occurring, it is therefore natural warming, due to the flora and fauna of the earth - which includes man.

    When you accept this conclusion, I expect you donate the $10,000 to the GOP.

    1. Do you really believe that? The argument that anything we do is natural simply because we are living beings is utterly ridiculous. Let ask you this, is a nuclear power plant natural because it was made by man? Man made means it is something that we did that would not occur without our intervention. Would a nuclear power plant just spontaneously occur? No. Would massive fossil fuel power plants and automobiles spontaneously appear and change the climate without us? No.

    2. Logic is not an answer, especially poorly constructed "logic". I am have an MS in Geography, with heavy education in Cultural Anthropology, and Sociology (BS in Soc./Anthro.). In Anthro., we say a thing is "man-made" if it is either a construct of human activity or "knowledge". EVERY thing that humans do is NOT natural. Cities do not spring up through Nature, but through human activities. This is only one example: look around at the human-built world of inventions, discoveries, and innovations and you will see something NOT occurring through Nature, but through human cultural activity in trying to meet human-perceived "needs" and "wants". Burning fossil fuels en masse and loading the atmosphere with their effluent is not generally done by nature, except through forest fires. Even those are usually the result of human modification of the landscape. They are often caused by not letting nature run its course--as it did before humans entered the picture in such large numbers. Human made "culture" at it exists today is NOT a natural product (not by Nature). Machinery, cars, dumping human chemicals in the oceans, and a million other things which do not occur naturally. Nothing you have stated is remotely relevant to the challenge, but is senseless opinion, not based on any observable realities.

  34. The deniers $10000 challenge was a total scam
    I claimed the money
    1, the warming is unequivocal
    2, Peter Laux accepted the IPCC RF chart figure but claimed that it was not due to humans
    3 the laws of physics demand that it is due to humans

    The claim was denied and i was told to take peter to court as per the instructions ,

    When i stated that i would pursue that his lawyer issued a statement that the challenge was not a legal contract, i was banned from the blog and not allowed to fully state the case laid out as required,

    this was the response from peter's ( climate sceptic's party lawyer)
    I see the difference here is that Chris will provide peer reviewed rebuttal rather than the opinion rebuttal by Dennis Rancourt,
    anyway if anyone wants to claim the denier $10000, you are wasting your time as this statement reveals .
    Peter Laux has offered $10000 to anyone who can produce empirical evidence proving man-made global warming [AGW]. Peter’s offer is in the form a Statutory Declaration, which is neither here nor there. Peter’s wording is:
    I offer you $10,000.00 (AUS) for a conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming
    This is an invitation to treat which differs fundamentally from a contract and being bound by contractual terms. An invitation to treat can be thought of as a prelude to entering a contract and being bound by contractual terms. Basically Peter is inviting people to submit offers about the proof for AGW which he may then convert into contractual terms.

    peter does not intend to convert

    1. This is all news to me and very interesting. Here is Peter Laux's challenge:

  35. If you light a candle, you are producing a warming. Bring your finger close to the yellow point in top of the candle, and you will notice it.

    OK, you may say it is a "local" warming. But "global" is nothing else than adding all the "local" parts. So, you are producing some "global warming". It doesn't matter you can't measure it. You know you are warming the planet to some extent.

    By this very simple way we know your challenge is particularly stupid. You are asking the "deniers" to demonstrate something they are not stating.

    1. Your line of reasoning fails any logic test. The amount of heat from a candle is no insignificant that it will have no effect on the global average temperature. The size of energy input into Earth's environment is on the order of 10^25 joules per day. It takes something very extensive in order to change Earth's heat balance. Changing the heat balance is what global warming is all about. What I am asking the deniers to do is simply do what they claim is so obvious and easy. OK, show us. That's all it is.

  36. 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....

    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 companies.
    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.

    1. The terms of the challenge required a proof via the scientific method. You provided no science at all, so I'm not going to count this as a submission unless you specifically request it. The logic of your argument is, basically, Al Gore is an idiot, therefore global warming isn't real. If you want to use that rationale you can prove anything you want. It doesn't make it valid.

    2. Eric Mockler,
      You said "Psychology is a science, the study of human behavior." There is strong skepticism that psychology is a science. And Sociology and Anthropology come closer to getting at human behavior than Psych. does.
      Neuroscience can tell us much more than Psych. can about human behavior and causes of certain kinds of thinking. Neurobiology has made great leaps in our understanding of how the brain functions and in many ways, demonstrates how the biology drives human thought processes frequently more often or even sans cultural influences. Psych. and Psychiatry are helpful when humans have certain behaviors or problems, but does not explain scientifically how it is that those people have those particular problems. Allowing people to talk about their problems with a trained listener is the most helpful aspect of Psych. and Psychiatry.

  37. 1. First instalment.

    Thank you for the opportunity, Christopher.

    In the context in which you raise ‘climate change’ you’re clearly referring to ‘global warming’. In case you’re being tricky though, I will address the broader issue of disproving ‘climate change’ after dealing disproving ‘global warming’.

    My proof relies on and cites empirical scientific evidence. It’s the determinant of science.

    To prove human carbon dioxide caused Earth's latest atmospheric global warming (now sometimes referred to as 'climate change') requires empirical scientific evidence that answers each and all of the following three (3) questions with a 'yes'.

    1. Is Earth's global ATMOSPHERIC* temperature rising unusually either in rate of warming or amount of warming and is it continuing to rise?

    *The UN, Al Gore and America's government claim human CO2 enhances their claimed ‘greenhouse’ effect. That's a supposed atmospheric effect based claiming warmed troposphere that supposedly warms Earth's surface. I'm going to be generous though and discuss not atmospheric temperatures AND surface temperatures.

    If it's not warming there's no need to go any further. If it is warming unusually, the second question is:

    2. Does the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in air determine the global atmospheric temperature?

    If not, there's no need to go any further. If yes, the level of CO2 determines temperature, the third question is:

    3. Does the human production of carbon dioxide determine the global atmospheric CO2 level?

    If not, human CO2 does not cause global warming.

    To fulfil your challenge "... prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring" all I need to do is to prove the answer to one of the three questions is 'no'.

    Empirical scientific evidence proves all three are answered 'no'.

    Let's get started:

    Question 1: Is Earth's global ATMOSPHERIC temperature rising unusually either in rate or amount and is it continuing to rise?

    The answer is 'no'. Satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature reveal that every year since 1998 the global temperature has been cooler than in 1998. There is no ongoing warming. This is confirmed by radiosonde (weather balloon temperatures).

    Dr. Phil Jones is in charge of temperature measurements cited and relied upon by the UN IPCC, Al Gore, NOAA and NASA-GISS. He admits that ground-based temperature measurements reveal no warming trend since 1995. Statistically, he’s correct.

    By the way, is this why the term ‘global warming’ was replaced by the term ‘climate change’?

    References are provided on pages 1-19 Appendix 4 here:!.html

    It’s easy to see that empirical scientific evidence reveals it is not continuing to warm. Earth’s latest modest cyclical warming is very modest compared with past cyclical warming periods. You’ll notice that temperature in recent decades is lower than in the 1930’s, 1890’s, Medieval Warming Period, Roman Warming Period and 80% of the last 10,000 years. The graphs on page 6 reveal that recent warm period is similar in extent and rate of warming to temperatures recorded in earlier cyclical warming periods.

    Please refer to Appendix 7 at the link above. It reveals the ground-based warming trends I’ve cited have been doctored to hide a cooling trend. In reality, Earth has been cooling for a century. Warming has been fabricated by manipulating earlier temperatures to appear cooler and inflating recent temperatures to appear warmer. Note the reportedly active involvement of NASA-GISS and James Hansen in fraudulently concocting warming.

    I could say global warming is man-made. It’s made by man. Fabricated by man.

    Please note:

    Note the corruption of American temperatures as revealed by American meteorologists Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts:

  38. Instalment 2:

    Please note this recent empirical scientific evidence from Australian scientist Jennifer Marohasy:

    Empirical scientific evidence proves Earth’s global temperature and climate is varying naturally. It proves humans are not causing global warming or climate change.

    In accordance with the terms of your offer I’ve done enough to claim your prize. Let’s continue though as this is fun.

    Question 2: Does the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in air determine global atmospheric temperature?

    This too is answered ‘no’.

    The empirical scientific evidence is provided on pages 20-24 of Appendix 4 at my first link above.

    Empirical scientific evidence proves changes in temperature drive changes in CO2 levels. That applies seasonally and over the longer-term.

    The medium-term is confounded by various other factors.

    Ernst Georg Beck’s work reveals atmospheric CO2 levels have been higher than current during the past 180 years.

    Note that during the medium-term range from 1958 to 1976 CO2 levels reportedly rose as atmospheric and ground-based temperatures fell and as human CO2 production increased dramatically.

    That’s two ‘no’ answers out of two. Human causation is doubly disproved.

    Let’s have some more fun by answering the third question.

    Question 3: Does the human production of carbon dioxide determine the global atmospheric CO2 level?

    Empirical scientific evidence reveals the answer is again ‘no’.

    It’s explained in detail and with links to empirical evidence on pages 25-27 of Appendix 4.

    Briefly, atmospheric CO2 measurements cited and relied upon by the UN IPCC reveal that Nature alone controls global atmospheric CO2 levels. Please refer to the graph of data at Mauna Loa measuring station showing CO2 levels.

    It’s further explained here:

    If you want NOAA’s actual graph, see the first two graphs at NOAA, here:

    All three questions are answered ‘no’. That’s comprehensive proof human CO2 did not, does not and cannot cause global warming or climate change.

    You owe me ten grand, Christopher.

    In the context of ‘climate change’ in which you offered your prize Christopher, I’ve proven human carbon dioxide cannot cause global warming.

    In case you’re going to distort the challenge, let’s be more comprehensive. Let’s consider empirical scientific measurements of supposed effects of human action on climate. All such measurements reveal no unusual change occurring. All variation is natural inherent variation: Storm activity frequency and severity; floods; droughts; snowfall; tornadoes; ocean temperatures; sea levels; ocean alkalinity; glaciation; ice sheets, ice caps; bush/forest fire frequency or severity.

    Please refer to links to empirical scientific evidence in Appendix 4a at the first link provided above.

    There is no signal anywhere of human’s driving global climate.

    Notice though that some agencies truncate data to create the false perception that trends are occurring. Yet when the full data set is used over a full climate cycle and over a full century or more there is no change occurring in any climate markers.

    You owe me ten grand, Christopher.

    For humanity’s sake, let’s continue

    Had all three questions been answered ‘yes’ it would mean that human CO2 affected global atmospheric temperature and climate. Yet, before cutting human CO2 output we would first need to ask a fourth fundamental question:

  39. Instalment 3:

    Question 4: Is warming detrimental?

    The answer is ‘no’.

    Pages 28-32 of Appendix 4 at the first link above reveal warming is highly beneficial. Empirical scientific evidence and history prove that.

    Humans do not control or affect Earth’s thermostat. If we could, we would raise temperature. Warming is beneficial.

    Nor do we or can we affect global CO2 levels. If we could we would raise CO2 levels. Higher CO2 is highly beneficial. As Nature has repeatedly proven in Earth’s past.

    But we cannot affect either CO2 level of temperature. We need to adapt and live with what we have and redirect our science funding to understanding climate and not reinforcing fraud. Although we have nothing to fear from Nature’s global warming periods, we have plenty to be concerned about with Nature’s cooling periods.

    We have something else to be concerned about: corruption of science.

    Science has given us our way of life and security and comfort. Science though has been corrupted.

    Please refer to Appendices 3, 5, 6, 6a, 7, 8, 9 10, 11 and 12.

    Please refer to Appendices 13 and 13a-16g for an illustration of how the global warming claim has been propagated in the media by a combination of ego, stupidity and government corruption.

    To understand the motives please refer to Appendices 14 and 15.

    Now, Christopher, let’s see your response. We’ll learn whether your position on climate has been driven by innocent error, stupidity or dishonesty.

    Your claim that human CO2, and more broadly that human activity, is causing global climate change is nonsense. It has been completely disproved by empirical scientific evidence, the determinant of science.

    Your claim has been enabled and pushed by massive corruption of climate science.

    Let’s see whether or not your claim is based on stupidly making assumptions or whether you’ve been innocently misled.

    Please advise the name of one scientist or one science agency or one government or any UN body that has provided proof of human causation of global warming or climate change. Only one is needed. Please specify clearly the location of the empirical scientific evidence and logical scientific reasoning that you see as scientific proof of humans causing global warming or global climate change.

    No one has ever provided such evidence. I’ve searched myself: NASA, Australia’s CSIRO, NOAA, UN IPCC, ...

    I’ve asked many academics and politicians advocating the claim that human CO2 caused warming. ALL failed to provide such evidence.

    Let’s see what you can do.

    How will you send me the check?

    Malcolm Roberts

    1. I have all of your submissions and will respond as soon as possible. I had some real issues with the blog and it has put way behind. Please be patient. My response is coming.

    2. Understood, Christopher.

      I'm very patient. Relying on empirical scientific evidence gives me confidence and patience.

      Malcolm Roberts

    3. By the way, Christopher, there's a fourth reason disproving the claim of human activity causing global climate change.

      Empirical scientific evidence, observations of Nature and laws of science prove the UN-Hansen so-called 'greenhouse warming mechanism' is bogus.

      That's the mechanism fabricated by the UN with collusion by James Hansen. It underlies the claim of global climate change by the UN, Al Gore and parts of USA government agencies.

      A fundamental analysis is available as Appendix 19, here:!.html

      It provides 15 succinct, straightforward and basic points. Have fun trying to honestly disprove these.

      Appendix 19 too disproves human activity is affecting global climate.

      Have fun Christopher.

      Malcolm Roberts

  40. Mr Keating’s response to my questions about his supposed “challenge” to scientific skeptics is depressingly inept. I had plainly stated that the proposition he challenges us to disprove – that “man-made climate change is not occurring” is one with which scientific skeptics would agree. I had also plainly stated that it has long been demonstrated by experiment that if one adds CO2 to the atmosphere some warming will – all other things being equal – be expected to result. To these two plain statements Mr Keating responds: “You say man made global warming is not real.”

    And this is the person who is going to judge any entry that may be submitted? This is the person who asks us to believe he will be a “fair judge”? He is plainly ignorant of the principles of natural justice, one of which is that none should be the judge in his own cause. Indeed, he has dismissed this principle of natural justice as a “false argument”, showing a lamentable ignorance of jurisprudential theory. I challenge him to appoint a genuinely independent arbiter – a retired senior judge with no known views on the climate question. But I very much doubt whether he will dare to do so.

    Mr Keating digs himself in still deeper by responding to my statement that there has been a decline in global temperature since the Holocene climate optimum by suggesting that the statement is inaccurate. It is, however, accurate. Indeed, for something like 7000 of the past 11,400 years the weather has been warmer worldwide than today. If Mr Keating does not know this, then it is he, not I, who is ignorant.

    Next, Mr Keating says, “Provide any proof that the warming witnessed today is a natural cycle”. Well, it is easy enough to provide evidence from the reviewed literature that a quantified natural forcing caused most of the global warming since 1750. However, if one were to submit that evidence to Mr Keating he would weasel out by saying that it did not constitute proof that none of the global warming since 1750 was manmade. Yet, as I have already made plain, all scientific skeptics accept that some of it was manmade, for that is what well-established theory would lead us to expect. His “challenge”, even if it were an honest one, is meaningless.

    Finally, Mr Keating continues to use the childish hate-speech term “deniers” to describe scientific skeptics even after having been invited to desist. He says “climate change” is killing 400,000 people a year. That may be so: but the question is whether the climate change in question is natural or manmade. Since there has been no global warming for getting on for two decades, the exact mechanism by which “climate change” – in the sense of global warming, whether manmade or natural – is killing people is far from clear. If Mr Keating wishes to be taken seriously, he must learn to moderate his language. Insulting the victims of the Holocaust, as he implicitly does in using the word “denier” of those who disagree with his belief system, is repellent.

    1. Mr. Mockton, you really are ignorant. Do you even bother to listen to your spiel? If you don't like being called a denier, stop denying climate change and science. Go back to reading your comic books and let the grown-ups discuss the issues.

    2. Good one Dr Keating!

      The most scientific reply as ever I have heard!



      ps. Is being told politely that you are wrong constitute being rude to you?
      I am interested in reading your PhD Thesis. Is it published online anywhere? I did once threaten to do this to a member of our parliament, and boy did his party change the major claimed on their website in a hurry.

  41. Good morning Mr. Keating
    clearly there are lots of folks out there that don't know beans about the scientific method or making a proof. I applaud your efforts to "play nice" and answer there sometimes rude comments. Such is the state of affairs that both sides have left off science and are cow-tawing to the political/industrial agendas.

    1. I try to be courteous. Sometimes, they are very rude and I will give it back to them. There is also a strong culture among deniers to try and bully any opposition to their line of thought. They quickly find they are trying that on the wrong guy. I would greatly prefer to keep all of this civil, but I will stand up for myself if I need to.

  42. Good golly. Submit for a chance to win $10,000 and even receive an explanation from you to explain why the submission is wrong. Yep, sounds right as rain...

    1. If it is valid I will also explain why it is so. Be assured, any submission will get fair treatment and by showing my reasoning I am showing to the world whether I am credible or not. Of course, any denier will always say I am not credible as long as I don't agree with them. That is why I always say deniers have denied science.

    2. HR Lawless, If you don't like this challenge, please see the JREF site of the Amazing James Randi. He has a challenge for $1million. Good luck!

  43. First to define Global warming as a process of elevation of green house gases in the atmosphere.

    It is by no doubt that the civilization has spawned into the last century and with it the concentration of CO2 and Methane as primers, but is all of that CO2 and Methane product of the human civilization?

    The answer is NO.

    Most of that CO2 and Methane is part of the biosphere, trapped under ice or under rock and it was a matter of time before it went into the atmosphere in first place.
    Human civilization DID NOT import any of this materials from extra terrestrial origin. It was all here to begin with.
    Could a global catastrophe initiate the same process? Yes and there are several points in earths history to confirm this.

    What is most important in this case is for human civilization to learn and manage this conditions as this green house gases even in minute concentration have devastating effects.
    One way is to limit the use of fossil fuels, but just as effective is to pump down the CO2 into the ground or to make it into some form of hard carbon composite (graphine, coal, diamond, carbides ect.) But not all the CO2 and Methane is from this process and we have yet to learn how to control this process. Also is this amount of green house gasses that will make the difference in the global warming? Currently the effects we (scientist) try to prevent is precisely this carbon and primly methane trapped mainly beneath the polar capsules not as it by far surpasses any green house effect the humans can achieve.

    So basically this adds up to the egg and the chicken problem but in any case my general opinion is that the current technology is very dirty in a way we have to get over it and make progress. I support your actions and dedication but technically you are wrong.

  44. Global warming is pure marketing, planet earth functions as a living organism that changes over life and that said warming is nothing but a physiologic change the world we think we know, however increasingly proves the opposite as was the case the discovery of water inside the earth, global warming was an early name to a phenomenon that we do not fully compreeemdemos. And the ending I've been wanting to join your contest if you can send some guideline to my email thank you. Thanks Edson.

    1. All of the guidelines are posted at the top of the challenge page. Additional comments are posted here:

  45. First to define Global warming as a process of elevation of green house gases in the atmosphere.
    It is by no doubt that the civilization has spawned into the last century and with it the concentration of CO2 and Methane as primers, but is all of that CO2 and Methane product of the human civilization?
    The answer is NO.
    Most of that CO2 and Methane is part of the biosphere, trapped under ice or under rock or biomass and it was a matter of time before it went into the atmosphere in first place.
    Human civilization DID NOT import any of this materials from extra terrestrial origin. It was all here to begin with.
    Could a global catastrophe initiate the same process? Yes and there are several points in earths history to confirm this. (Hot and Warm cycles for which I don’t think you need evidence as they are widely supported)
    What is most important in this case is for human civilization to learn and manage this conditions as this green house gases even in minute concentration have devastating effects.
    One way is to limit the use of fossil fuels, but just as effective is to pump down the CO2 into the ground or to make it into some form of hard carbon composite (graphine, coal, diamond, carbides ect.) But not all the CO2 and Methane is from this process and we have yet to learn how to control this process. Also is this amount of green house gasses that will make the difference in the global warming? Currently the effects we (scientist) try to prevent is precisely this carbon and primly methane trapped mainly beneath the polar capsules as it by far surpasses any green house effect the humans can achieve in any given time.
    So basically this adds up to the egg and the chicken problem but in any case my general opinion is that the current technology is very dirty in a way we have to get over it and make progress. I support your actions and dedication but technically you are wrong, humans did not do this, all this elements were here to begin with.
    By comparing how much oxygen and CO2 nature processes and how much human civilization doe, even if we add up it is like adding thousands and tens and again the problem is that trapped methane and CO2 under the ice caps.

  46. Mitch (Maumee, OH)June 25, 2014 at 10:48 AM

    Dear Dr. Keating,

    The so called greenhouse effect produced by Earth’s atmosphere is named by analogy to a glass greenhouse. The Earth's atmosphere and a real greenhouse are similar in that they both limit the rate of thermal energy flowing out of the system, but the mechanisms by which heat is retained are different. A glass greenhouse works primarily by preventing absorbed heat from leaving the structure through convection, while the Earth's atmosphere heats the Earth because greenhouse gases absorb out-going radiative energy and re-emit some of it back towards Earth.

    The absorption and re-radiation of photons by greenhouse gas molecules can be examined by analogy to a bucket brigade. Bucket brigades were used particularly by firemen before the advent of modern fire-fighting equipment. In a bucket brigade, separate buckets of water are passed along by a human chain so as to move a constant supply of water to a fire. Each fireman receives and passes individual buckets of water similar to the way greenhouse gas molecules absorb discrete units of energy and then re-radiate that energy to other molecules. A bucket brigade may consist of any number of firemen, and yet the rate at which water is thrown to a fire remains the same. Of course this assumes each man works at a constant pace. The number of men working in a brigade only affects the time it takes for each bucket to move from the source of water to the fire. If a brigade is made longer by the addition of more firemen, then certainly there will be a delay in water reaching the fire. But once the brigade returns to full capacity, the rate at which water is thrown to the fire is unchanged.

    The transport of individual units of water by a bucket brigade is indeed much simpler than the transfer of photons through multiple layers of greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gas molecules are not lined up single file as with a bucket brigade; they are distributed throughout three dimensions of space. But does this make any difference? Molecules re-radiate photons in all possible directions, but still the path in any given direction is comparable to a bucket brigade. An increase in the density of CO2 molecules only means that the path of photons in any particular direction has more chances for absorption and re-radiation. The atmosphere may absorb more heat, but the amount of heat returning to Earth and escaping into space re-mains unchanged. This analogy suggests that the addition of more greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 molecules, to Earth's atmosphere does not change the greenhouse effect.

  47. Good for you! Keep up the good work. I will certainly follow this thread and look forward the the debate.

  48. Hope this helps:

  49. This is silly. No one denies that man plays a role the debate centers on HOW MUCH of a role man plays and how much is cyclical and on going and out of our hands. So you can always prove man plays a role but what the alarmists get wrong is to what extent we play.

  50. Here is my argument. Since this format is too restrictive I have provided a link to it...

  51. I make no claims to being a scientist, but I have not seen anyone offer any scientific proof that in anyway challenges the statement that climate change is real and it is man-made. Dr. Keating offered up a simple challenge: Provide scientific proof that climate change is not real and it is not being caused by man. Posting a survey is not science supported evidence. It is opinions, not science. The piece offered no science and a whole lot of mis/disinformation. The NASA piece (dated 2003) simply confirms that solar activity can change the climate, but offers nothing to disprove the current warming trend is caused by man-made activities. Same for the science.nasa piece.

    Please just provide the scientific data that supports all of the denial rhetoric.

  52. It's gotta suck to issue a bullshit challenge and still get proven to be a bitch, eh "Doc"?

  53. Dr. Keating: As I'm sure you're finding out, the tricky semantics in your challenge will be the death of it. Anthropogenic Global Warming can neither be proven (nothing in Science is proven) nor disproven (there is always the case of "something we didn't think of").

    I have a better idea for a $10,000 challenge: A wager that no 5-year period in our lifetimes will see a drop in average temperature compared to a previous 5-year period. If Global Warming is real, AND IS PREDICTABLE (by dint of being man-caused), this is a no-brainer. There can be no denying the rising thermometer. (Well, no rational denying, anyway). You can make this a running challenge, and anyone who takes you up on it has to pay you $1,000 for every 5-year period in which the GAST rises. (Make sure they understand what a running average is, vs. discreet, consecutive 5-year periods. Those would work, too, but I doubt anyone would be willing to wait five years for their money).

    I thought of doing this myself, but am not in possession of the requisite funds.

  54. I noticed you didn't specify which scientific method could be used. Etymology is the scientific study of words.

    In the late 14th century, geographers defined climate as the "horizontal slope of the earth from equator to pole". Even if Man could change the entire horizontal slope of the earth from equator to pole, it is still be defined as such, from a geography perspective.

    Just for fun, more than a hundred years later, astrologists began associating climate with the weather of a region. This was roughly the same time astrology was separated from astronomy.

    Also, from a geometric perspective, the slope of a horizontal line is always zero, it never changes.

    Astrologically speaking, climate has never been stable and is only influenced by the Heavens, stars and planets, not by man.

    I've referenced several sciences here: Geography, geometry, astronomy, and etymology.

  55. There are no climate change deniers; history proves that concept.
    Billions have been spent on CO2 reduction, which are wasted because CO2 does not retain the heat it absorbs from earth radiation or infrared radiation from the sun. The best example of that is currently measured on the planet Mars, which has a CO2 atmosphere 2.5 times that of the earth. The temperature varies from 0 degrees Celsius in the afternoon to -100 degrees at night. No heat retention is sustained during the next day, which is the basis for IPCC GLOBAL WARMING..

    Robert Houston

  56. I am not a scientist and have no climate training at all except for my observations of the science of "Global warming" and "climate change". I am confused by your use of both in the challenge. Climate is always changing no matter what the temperature is doing.
    What I am seeing is not global warming. Yes, you can average it out for the entire planet, but what is most notable is where the earth is warming and how much it is warming. From everything I have seen, the most warming areas are in northern China, Northern Russia and the arctic region. These areas would be extremely difficult to do independent research without a large bankroll. So we must accept the NOAA and their data. If you look at all of the data and put it into one map you will see that , for the most part, the rest of the earth has not warmed and actually has cooled in the last decade. I'm not going to provide data to you even though you want some kind of proof. I am sure you are quite aware of this if you believe in global warming.
    I am still open to the possibility of man made global warming. What I have a problem with is how CO2 is the causation factor. How is it possible for there to be lower temperatures from the peak temperatures of 1998 and 2010 even though there is more CO2 in the air every year? It almost seems random. Even if you add circulatory water changes and weather anomalies such as el nino and la nina, there seems to be something else going on. I do not believe that this heat is trapped in the ocean depths. That is a guess promulgated by researchers who can't explain the missing heat.
    I am more than ready to believe in global warming, however as a scientist you have not really proven it is happening on a global scale. Average temperature of the earth can't be determined by a 30 year window. Regional warming is occurring but using that and averaging the earths temperature is not scientific. I would look at those regions that are warming and see if there are any reasons independent of climate for a temperature rise. I do believe scientists sometimes are too close to their own beliefs that when they get the results they want they are too quick to jump to what they think the cause is.

    Here's the proof of the climate change fraud

    Here's the chart of U.S. temperatures published by NASA in 1999. It shows the highest temperatures actually occurred in the 1930's, followed by a cooling trend ramping downward to the year 2000:

    The authenticity of this chart is not in question. It is published by James Hansen on NASA's website. (2) On that page, Hansen even wrote, "Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought."

    After the Obama administration took office, however, and started pushing the global warming narrative for political purposes, NASA was directed to alter its historical data in order to reverse the cooling trend and show a warming trend instead. This was accomplished using climate-modeling computers that simply fabricated the data the researchers wished to see instead of what was actually happening in the real world.

    Using the exact same data found in the chart shown above (with a few years of additional data after 2000), NASA managed to misleadingly distort the chart to depict the appearance of global warming:

    The authenticity of this chart is also not in question. It can be found right now on NASA's servers. (4)

    This new, altered chart shows that historical data -- especially the severe heat and droughts experienced in the 1930's -- are now systematically suppressed to make them appear cooler than they really were. At the same time, temperature data from the 1970's to 2010 are strongly exaggerated to make them appear warmer than they really were.

    This is a clear case of scientific fraud being carried out on a grand scale in order to deceive the entire world about global warming.

    EPA data also confirm the global warming hoax

    What's even more interesting is that even the EPA's "Heat Wave Index" data further support the notion that the U.S. was far hotter in the 1930's than it is today.

    The following chart, published on the website (4), clearly shows modern-day heat waves are far smaller and less severe than those of the 1930's. In fact, the seemingly "extreme" heat waves of the last few years were no worse than those of the early 1900's or 1950's.

    Short-sighted agricultural practices cause more global warming than CO2

    Seeing these charts, you might wonder how the extremely high temperatures of the 1930's came about. Were we releasing too much CO2 by burning fossil fuels?

    Nope. That entire episode of massive warming and drought was caused by conventional agricultural practices that clear-cut forests, poisoned the soils with chemicals and plowed the top soil away. Lacking trees to retain moisture, areas that were once thriving plains, grasslands and forests turned to desert. Suddenly, the cooling effects of moisture transpiration from healthy plant ecosystems was lost, causing extreme temperatures and deadly drought.

    Shortsighted agricultural practices, in other words, really did cause "warming," while a restoration of a more natural ecosystem reversed the trend and cooled the region.

  58. Stupidest thing I have ever heard. The scientific method has never been successfully applied to prove anything and Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. A logical argument can be constructed to support anything, even things not known to exist. Only a physicist would think a Proof is the contamination of scientific evidence. Science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.

    Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

    In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives.

    So don't fall for this $10k challenge. This guys thinks man made global climate change is a Proof. So to him it will forever and always be proven.

  59. First pls define what is: "man made global climate change"?

    Is it getting warmer? colder? more of the same? More ice? Less ice? Just hating humans? Weird weather? Catastrophic Global Warming? All of the above?
    Then when you clarify this you start asking questions.

    Lars P.

    1. So, it becomes clear you are not able to give a definition of what you want scientifically disproved.

      You pretend to engage "deniers". However you are just another priest chanting your truth.

      This is the crux with all these alarmist they all go full on steroids, insulting (deniers term), but unable themselves to simply formulate what does their theory really mean.
      To be able to falsify a theory, this (the theory) needs to be clearly formulated. Not "man made global change" "global warming" or other bs.

      Grow up and think like a scientist you pretend to be. So what theory do you have?

      Lars P.

  60. Sure would be fun to disprove a negative.

  61. The global climate change hoax/hallucination/religion is predicated on the premise that everyone must accept on faith that [humans & human activity] are such a significant factor as to not only be responsible for causing global climate change, but also possessing the capability to adequately address the problem through, of course, mandated solutions that in time all humans would be forced to follow or be subject to punitive consequences. Alas, this has always been the way of the liberal, progressive, statist ideology, they must make everything a part of their religion & then everyone else has to be subjected to it.

    Inasmuch as logic & deduction are parts of the scientific method, I will briefly explain not only what I have known to be true based on my own education, but also based on my life experiences of nearly six decades. Most of what I've learned about climate, I learned in elementary through junior & senior high school science classes & since the overwhelming majority of that learned information was/is basic foundational scientific information, I respectfully submit the following. Climate change, warming & cooling periods, has occurred on this Earth over the course of time immemorial, specifically prior to the existence of humankind. The two most significant factors that effect & impact global climate are solar & geothermic activity, with these two factors accounting for the overwhelming majority of the impact of any factor on global climate change. Although human activity is a factor, in that humans emit/expel gases/material into our environment, this activity is such an insignificant factor, so infinitesimal, that were it the only factor that could possibly impact global climate change, little to no impact would be felt by humans throughout the course of an individual's lifespan.

    I concur with RPatton in that while neither side can definitively prove to what extent/degree human activity impacts global climate change, it should be duly noted that not one single prediction made by global climate change hoaxers has come to fruition & that certainly hurts their contention enormously, which is what has undoubtedly led to the overall general population throughout the world not believing in the hoaxer's religion of AGW.

    Although I could certainly use the $10,000.00, I would be willing to forgo that reward, having met this challenge, if you will take out an add in a national newspaper simply stating "Dr. Christopher Keating Global Climate Change Fraud!" Thank you in advance for your honest, impartial, & unbiased assessment of my submission. & the topic in general.

  62. 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.

  63. 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

  64. The simple answer for me is the evidence of absence. It should be perfectly reasonable for anyone to take the absence of proof of any hypothetical occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence. In short, while I cannot deny that the global climate is changing, and that man has a role in that change, I can no more prove that man-made climate change IS occurring than I can prove that is IS NOT occurring. Since this is the only true "proof" that you will ever get, please respond and I will gladly let you know how to fill in the blanks on your check. Kind regards.

    1. Read up on carbon isotope analysis. It demonstrates very effectively that human use of fossil fuels is the primary driving force in global warming.

  65. Here is my formal submission, via the scientific process.

    1. Have humans not caused climate change on planet earth?

    2. Indisputable research is not available that shows that humans have caused climate change.

    3. Hypothesis – humans have not caused climate change due to the lack of evidence that all scientist agree on.

    4. Test – able to verify that not all scientists agree that humans have caused climate change. See Wiki list of “List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming”.

    5. Data shows that climate change via human activity is a hypothesis and therefore is not regarded as scientific fact. Therefore, climate change cannot be proven to be caused by humans - the resulting conclusion has to be that humans have not caused climate change.

    6. Process of elimination shows that humans have not caused climate change due to the lack of indisputable evidence that humans have caused climate change.

    1. Did not one person here ever study isotopes in high school chemistry or physics class? The ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere definitively indicates that human use of fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming.

  66. Okay so this is going to be a game of semantics like, Do you still beat your wife? Pay attention people...parse the way the challenge is worded. I will award $10,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring. Undefined is what constitutes global warming and even what man made is defined. For example my body heat can warm a small room, fill a stadium with 50,000 people and you need air conditioning. I build a house and roads I have created building materials that can create heat from our sun that was not there before. The trick is at what point does all this add to the natural environment to cause a change in the climate. How do you quantify this. Truth is man does create heat by breathing, burning things, building things etc. The deniers are saying these amounts are miniscule to the natural forces of earth and the universe as to be negligible (a scientific term) Has anybody been paying attention to the massive solar flares lately that are directed toward us?

    Be that as it may, lets keep focus on the issue. The scientific community is not talking about body heat or building materials or even made made forest fires. They squarely put the onus or burden on CO2 and Methane emissions caused by man. They say we are the tipping point to catastrophic climate change. Now you read reports all the time of how many tons of CO2 autos, factories and generating stations put out. To turn the scientific arguement around...they have not proven that all this CO2 amounts to anything but a negligible increase to the environment.

    So with that said here is my formal challenge to Dr. Keating. The current laws of science and physics and gases do not allow for a scenario where a negligible volume of a substance that is less than one half of one percent by volume can overwhelm 99.5% by volume of a gas so as to create a barrier world wide to trap the radiant heat of the sun and thus cause a significant increase in global temperature.

    Now CO2 and Methane represent approx. .037% by volume of the atmospehere. By the laws of gases and physics there are not enough atoms present to create this layer 24,900 miles in circumference and 30-50 miles high. Keep in mind that man is not causing the heat...we are accused of causing greenhouse gases capable of trapping the suns radiant heat. I await your answer Dr. Keating.

  67. Without getting into the impossibility of disproving a negative regarding the trace gas CO2, I will offer to you scientific proof in the form of pointing out a major error in the interpretation of ice core data. I will first start by highlighting some impossibilities we are asked to believe, and then I'll tell you what really happened.

    As I'm sure you know, many ice core drillings have been taken near both poles, the concentration of isotopes in the layers then used to calculate the temperature at the time that ice was formed. The most famous of these is the ice core from Lake Vostok in Antarctica, which shows dramatic spikes and drops over several hundred thousand layers, giving the impression of an extremely volatile climate. The impossibility we are asked to believe however, is that for some unknown reason the earth shot out of an ice age some 12,000 years ago, and nobody seems to know why. Where would the energy to cause such rapid warming have come from? Keep reading. I'm going to tell you why.
    If the earth did truly shoot shoot out of an ice age as the ice core data suggests, it would be one of the most dramatic climatic events in the history of the earth, and it would be easily found and matched to every other ice core drilling. But this is not the case. None of the ice core records match. By current understanding, they cannot tell us when this event started, when it ended, how long it took, or what caused it. And the various ice core core records are off sometimes by thousands of years.
    Another issue we have is that by geologic records, we know that the ice began forming at the poles 2.58M years ago. Yet the thickest layers of ice to be found only recover some 800,000 layers. Shouldn't there be 2.58M layers if the ice cores are a continuous record?Where's the rest of it?

    Here's what really happened: The ice cores are not a continuous record of past climate. They are comprised of the fragmened sections from much larger climate cycles. The earth did not come out of an ice age 12,000 years ago. The earth has been cooling for tens of thousands of years and continues to do so. The coast of Antarctica was ice free 12,000 years ago, when it once again became cold enough for ice to accumulate in the interior.
    The Woolly Mammoths roamed a subtropical Siberia 30,000 years ago when it was much warmer than it is today and ice was still in a period of melting at the poles.

    Shoot me an email, and I'll tell you where to send the check.

  68. Read all about it. The ice core data has been misinterpreted. It is not a continuous record of past climate.

    1. That is not a valid rebuttal. So I'll ask you one simple question: What is the consensus opinion on when the last ice age came to an end? When did it start, when did it stop, and what caused it? There is no consensus, because none of the ice core records match.

  69. I'd like to be clear what you are truly seeking? Are you seeking a proof that CO2 does not contribute to global warming? That cannot be disproved. CO2 is a GHG. The physics is well-estbalished. Are you asking for a proof that CO2 is not the primary driver of global temperatures? Are you then asking for a percentage of its contribution to global warming -- 10, 20, 30, 40, 50+? Are you willing to have a mutually agreed upon arbiter to decide the proof?

    1. The challenge is to give deniers a venue to do what they claim they can do. They keep saying that man made global warming is not real and they can prove it. I am just giving them an opportunity to do that.

      As long as it is my, and only my, money I will be the only judge. If other sources come in with money then I will be glad to discuss an alternative judging method. But I keep wondering about each denier that complains how I'm the only judge - how many of them have objected to deniers with similar judges and have the same judging system? Are deniers out there objecting to those challenges, or is just me?

    2. If you look at the challenge, comments and replies and this posting here, I think I have answered that question:

      I summary, I am not looking for anything. I am merely providing a venue for deniers to deliver on their claims.

  70. What is the dispositive data set for the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis?

  71. Here is my case to disprove Man Made Global Warming: The Little Ice which occured between 1300ad and about 1850ad was obviously a time when it was colder than it is today. The GW fans point out that the temperature has gone up a degree or two in the last 150 years. Well, of course it has gone up! Thats how you know an ice age has ended--it gets warmer.
    Before the Little Ice Age, it was warmer than during the Little Ice Age. It was quite likely warmer than it is today.
    None of these climate fluctuations had anything to do with man made carbon dioxide.
    Carbon Dioxide may be higher now than it was in the recent past, but its possible that higher temperatures cause the higher Carbon Dioxide and not the other way around

  72. Can the author or anyone else disprove my theory that magical flying unicorns fill our skies? An honest scientist could ONLY respond with the observation that magical flying unicorns have never been observed. And that's the essence of science -- the burden of proof lies on the proponent of a theory, not on skeptics of the theory.

    I'll point to the satellite evidence that there has been no observed global warming for some 19 years. A typical article is here:

    That's what it comes down to. No observed evidence. I am perfectly willing to accept the consensus position that if human activity were to double the level of CO2 in the air, the result would be a 1 degree rise in global temperatures. But with not even that being observed, it seems apparent that the tiny temperature effect of human CO2 generation is being overwhelmed by the much larger effects of solar activity. Or something else that the infant field of climate science does not even begin to understand.

    The global warming alarmists have their theories that the tiny amount of carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere from human activity will cause huge positive feedback scenarios -- resulting in massive increases in water vapor in the atmosphere and a permanent global cloud cover that will trap vast amounts of solar heat.

    Well, like the flying unicorns, this permanent global cloud cover has not been observed. All I can offer as evidence is that I looked out my window this morning and there was no permanent global cloud cover. There were no flying unicorns either. But that doesn't prove they don't exist.

    Not if you believe in them.

    Once again, this challenge is unscientific. The burden of proof falls on the proponents of the theory that human activity is causing massive climate disruption, not on those who question the theory. Your challenge sounds superficially scientific, but it is not. It inverts the scientific method.

  73. Chris - I applaud what you are doing here and the stamina you are showing in the face of some very snarky and derisive commentary.

    As an aside, I remember reading a commentary in the American Institute of Professionl Geologists monthly magazine back in 2001 by Michel T. Halbouty, a noted petroleum geologist, entitled "Why We Are Skeptics On The Global Warming Issue", where touted all the good things that would come from increasing CO2 in the atmosphere - longer growing seasons, and increased crop yields among them. That essay left me with my jaw hanging, and that was 13 years ago. It was also a harbinger of things to come as can be seen by the content here.

    Keep up the good work. I leave you with a quote from the first supervisor I had when I started by brief career as a petroleum geologist back in 1981.

    "Illegitimi non carborundum."

    Don't let the bastards wear you down.

  74. Challenge accepted:
    Steps to the scientific method
    • Ask a Question
    • Do Background Research
    • Construct a Hypothesis
    • Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
    • Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
    • Communicate Your Results

    Question-Using the scientific method, prove that man-made global climate change is not occurring, Is it possible?
    Research- Those who believe the man’s actions can cause the globe to warm, derive this hypothesis from the idea that with an increase in CO2 gases, the sun’s heat is trapped and radiated on to the Earth’s surface. I have not been able to find a signed, published and accredited theory based on an actual experiment with empirical evidence to date, only hypotheses (I think this would be plural).
    My Hypothesis- I think that if I were to increase CO2 production, that there will be not direct effect on the earth’s global temperature. If my experiment is successful I will prove man-made global warming does not exist.
    Experiment- I filled my vehicles fuel tank to the full mark. I then drove my vehicle over live grass (which consumes CO2) while hyperventilating (two part; consumed air diluting oxygen and expelled global warming CO2) until my fuel tank was empty.
    Data and Conclusion- Global Average temperature remained even. I feel that I certainly increased CO2 production. Based on the Scientific Method and considering the results of my experiment; man-made CO2 does not lead to global warming.
    Until proven otherwise via the scientific method; I will assert that my theory, that man-made global warming is not occurring.

  75. IPCC AR5 Fig 6.1. According to the IPCC the atmosphere currently contains 589 GT natural carbon and 240 human carbon. So as a % that is 71% natural and 29% human. A total of 203.5 goes from the atmosphere to the sinks. A total of 208 goes from the sinks (including the human) to the atmosphere. Total human emissions 8.9 GT. Their numbers not mine.
    Now you may be saying I made the assumption that the CO2 from the atmosphere enters the sinks in the same ratio that exists i.e. 71% and 29%. That is not an assumption it is standard logic like saying 2+2 = 4. Since all CO2 is the same there is no bias.
    With regard to the human carbon in the sinks which returns with the 208 GT considering the sinks contain 40 000 GT of carbon and the same ratio logic applies the returning human carbon is minute. If you challenge this statement quantify your challenge with numbers and not vague rhetoric
    Thus of the 203.5 GT 144.6 GT natural enters the sinks and 59 GT human enters the sinks. But only 8.9 GT is emitted by humans each year. Therefore if the 71 to 29 ratio is correct 50.1 GT more human carbon is leaving the atmosphere than is entering.
    This totally falsifies the IPCC claim that human carbon is causing the increase and that there is 240 GT human carbon in the atmosphere.

  76. According to the RSS data the global average temperature from 1999 to 2014 went down .05 deg C. However the global average CO2 level went up from 366 to 400 ppm .
    That means 261.8 Billion tonnes of CO2 was added to the atmosphere, but there was no increase in temperature.
    Now heat content equals Mass x Specific Heat x temperature.
    None of those 3 values have changed so there has been no increase in heat.
    So my question is how much heat has been “trapped” by 261.8 Billion tonnes of CO2.
    The answer is zero, so how does the term “heat trapping gas” apply to CO2.

  77. Thank you Prof Keating for trying to engage deniers constructively.

  78. I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to make a submission that is a little out of the realm of what you seem to be asking us to submit. I choose not to base my perspectives solely on scientific method but more on the reasoning of what we know and don't, as many cases in the science community tend to become skewed from simply not taking in possibilities that may or may not be definite.

    In this case, my argument is going to reference the idea of external factors as grounds for disproving the theory of Global Warming.

    While it is obvious that temperatures have been changing and the climate conditions have been twisting in turning in all different sorts, you have to realize that not everything on Earth is limited to dependency of factors from within the planets ecosystem. Factors from tidal waves, to heat, to the functionality of electricity are known for being dependent of objects in space. Tidal waves are greatly impacted by the moon, such as heat is most heavily impacted by the suns rays and electricity is impacted by the magnetic properties of a solar flair.

    These things, tidal waves, heat and electricity, are all important in our ecosystem here on Earth and in many applications of which we employ every day. But they are not dictated solely by what we do or what happens here. Same could be said about the climate. While it is evident that a large portion of the impact is caused by environmental conditions in our ecosystem, it is indefinite which factors and objects of interest may be caused by something from outside our planet. In many cases, you'll note that the amount of outlying change and outstanding conditions is very few. These are conditions that we claim the ability to track through our experimentation, but are not able to confirm solely because we cannot disprove their reliance upon outside factors.

    For instance, when you notice the temperature is 2 degrees above what it should be according to the existing factors. You may come to the conclusion that this is due to a certain gaseous chemical in the air, or an excess in electrical currents in the air. But there is some chance that somewhere out there, there is a small percentage of radiation caused by the explosion of a star, that had the luck of traveling through space to our planet and causing this condition that we are exhibiting.

    My point is, no matter how preposterous it may seem, there could be something out there that is causing it, and until we can prove global warming or disprove every other possibility there is no way to have a definite answer.

    So I am choosing to disprove global warming based off the idea of such hypothetical external factors. The universe is much more vast than that of what we know, and I'd find there a greater possibility that something near or far is causing the conditions you call proof rather than some chain reaction that we don't have the full story on.


    Article links melting of glaciers to changes in geothermal activity.

  80. I have been reading these comments to try and learn more about the issue. But as I read I'm noticing a trend. Mr. Keating, I understand this is your challenge and everyone read the guidelines before they posted, but you are being a little unfair. I understand you are solidly standing your ground on the issue, and that you obviously have far more knowledge on the matter then most if not all the people reading this blog. But still to say there is nothing others can say to prove your thesis wrong is a bit drastic. Atleast that is what I'm getting from your comments that say things like "When I made the challenge I knew I was totally safe because I knew deniers did not have any science to back them up. And, yes, false and mythical things can be disproven. Its done all the time. " I seen a few more, but all I' am trying to say is give people a chance, if they are willing to take the time and build on the debate take the time to dig into their comments and give them a chance. Even if it is for $10,000, their chances are slim, and their giving it a shot. And maybe there are a few people on this blog that you may be able to learn from as well. Again it's your challenge, I would just like to see this be a fair challenge like you had said.

  81. Christopher Keating, were you aware of the $500,000 challenge offered to anyone who could prove Man's emissions are the primary cause of global warming?

  82. Alright bro, you want me to prove via the scientific method that man-made global climate change is not occurring? As you wish.

    First, the scientific method. Not everyone agrees exactly on the steps, but I will go with the commonly agreed upon steps in the hopes that this is sufficient.
    1) Observe a situation.
    2) Form a hypothesis regarding a question related to what has been observed.
    3) Test the hypothesis via experiment.
    4) Analyze the results of the experiment to determine whether or not it can be determined whether or not the hypothesis is correct, and if it can, then also whether or not the hypothesis is correct.

    The first step, of course, is something we have all been doing our entire lives. We experience climate change. We experience human activity.

    The second step is to form a hypothesis. In this case, that hypothesis is that man-made global climate change is not occuring.

    The third step is to test the hypothesis via experiment. In this case, I am going to test my hypothesis via thought experiment.

    First, consider what it means for a process (such as global climate change) to be 'man-made'. Everything in this Universe is connected to everything else in this Universe, be it directly or indirectly. For something to be 'made' or caused by something else, that cause has to be the direct cause or the root cause. The reason I specify both 'direct cause' and 'root cause' is because they are not always the same, while there are other in-between factors that are not themselves the cause but rather something related to the other factors. Consider, for example, a line of one hundred dominoes. The first one falling ultimately leads to the last one falling. The first domino falling is the root cause of the last domino falling. The ninety-ninth domino falling is the direct cause of the last domino falling. Of course dominos two through ninety-eight are all part of the process as well, but to say that any one of those is not simply a part of the process, but rather the cause itself, for the final domino falling, is absurd. We are talking about a single cause, not every step.

    Now, the question here is whether or not man-made global climate change is occuring. If man's effect on global climate change is neither the root cause (domino one) or the direct cause (domino ninety-nine), but rather a piece along the way (say, domino sixty-six), man is not the cause of global climate change, rather, global climate change is 'made' by either the root cause or the direct cause, depending on your interpretation.

    Now then, what is the root cause and what is the direct cause? Is man one of those, or is man, in fact, not the true culprit?

    First let's consider the direct cause. Climate is directly caused by factors such as heat (the amount of kinetic energy in the atmosphere), humidity (the amount of dihydrogen monoxide in the atmosphere), and other such factors. This is on a molecular, atomic, and subatomic levels. A change in climate is caused by a change in the factors that cause climate. For example, a change in the amount of kinetic energy in the air, or a change in the amount of dihydrogen monoxide in the air, will result in climate change. This is the direct cause; even if man is responsible for this, man is not the direct cause.

    It is clear, then, that man is not directly responsible for global climate change, but it was already determined that, depending on your interpretation, something could be considered 'man-made' if man is the root cause as opposed to the direct cause. What, then, is the direct cause for global climate change? Is it man? In this case, of course, the word 'man' means 'mankind', or the human species, as opposed to 'adult male'. Our question, then, is whether or not the human species is the root cause of climate change.

    4096-character limit for post, so this will be continued in a second and a third post.

  83. Part 2/3

    For the human species to be the root cause of something, there must not be something else that cause the human species to be responsible, in the same way that domino two is not the root cause because domino one made domino two do its part. That leads us to question whether or not there is something that causes the human species to act in ways that lead to global climate change (given that the human species does act in ways that lead to global climate change, which I believe we can agree on). Many human activities are a piece of the domino chain leading to global climate change. For example, the production of oil, and the use of gasoline. But is there something else that causes us to produce oil and to use gasoline? What about to create factory farms, one of the biggest contributers to global climate change? Or to build and fly airplanes? Did we, humans, simply decide one day 'Hey, let's make gasoline and farms and cars and airplanes!'? If you put a baby in a confined environment, giving it only what it needs to live, would it make these things? Would it even contemplate making this things, desire to make these things, or even fathom the possibility that these things could exist? No. Rather, we, humans, made these things because of a cause. Multiple causes, actually. We created gasoline to power vehicles, we created vehicles for transportation. This is a result of our desire for transportation. Of course, our desires could be considered a part of us, but there is a root cause beyond our desire: The magnitude of the planet we live on. We develop vehicles for transportation because of our desire to travel, and we desire to travel because of the vast size of this planet, being too big to walk on foot to our destinations. Of course there are factors other than vehicles, but what about power plants? Humans build power plants so we can have electricity. Why do we want electricity? For heat, light, communication, among other things. Why do we want heat? Because of the climate where many of us live. It is and always has been too cold for humans to live comfortably without artifical heating in many areas of Earth. Why light? Because nowhere on Earth is always naturally lit by a star or any other source. Why communication? The same reason as travel, Earth is too vast for us to simply walk over to whoever we want to talk to. Simply put, every single thing that humans do that contributes to global climate change is caused by another factor, that factor being something about the nature of Earth. It might be Earth's size or Earth's climate or something else. Regardless, it is not humankind itself.

    The final step of the scientific method is to analyze the results of the experiment. Analysis: The root cause is the nature of this planet, and potentially other factors that influence us, our lives, and our decisions. The direct cause is molecular, atomic, and subatomic factors like kinetic energy and humidity. Does that analysis answer whether or not global climate change is man-made? Yes, it identified what global climate change is actually made by, that not being man, and therefore that global climate change is not man-made.

    4096-character limit for post, so this will be continued in a third and final post

  84. Final post, pastebin of whole thing as one part rather than split into three posts is here:

    Of course some might find this insufficient so let me provide a second experiment. Back to step three. Another thought experiment of sorts.

    The question is whether or not man-made global climate change is occuring. The article 'is' refers to now. It is not future like 'will' or past like 'has'. Time is quantized. Therefore, 'is' refers to this exact Planck time. The question, then is whether or not man-made global climate change is occuring at a given Planck time when the question is to be answered. Of course it takes far more than a single Planck time to analyze and answer the question, but that is due to the limits of information processing; 'is' still refers to the present which is always, at any instant, that exact instant, that exact Planck time. Then is man-made global climate change occuring at the current instant, at a single Planck time? Global climate change is a process. A process is a change, an event. An event is subjective to time. It occurs over time. The quickest of events happen over the change from one Planck time to the next. Therefore, they are subjective to at least two Planck times, not a single Planck time. Therefore, at any given one Planck time, not a series of Planck times but at a single Planck time, no process is occuring or can be occuring. Because our question is whether or not man-made global climate change IS occuring, not will occur or has occured, it clearly cannot be because no event IS occuring at this present Planck time.

    Analysis: Global climate change, man-made or not, IS NOT occuring. Global climate change will occur, and has occured. But at a single Planck time it IS NOT occuring, and therefore man-made global climate change is not occuring.

    There, two proofs that man-made global climate change is not occuring. You might reject one but you can't reject both!

    Pls send over $9,000 to, thank you very much and I will live you forever <3

    pls respond

  85. The way i see it we were all born of this earth. This earth created us and intended for us to live and evolve or else it would of never let us get this far. We then built machines...from the earth that admit things into the air that may or may not have had an impact. So the way i see it is, man didn't create global climate change. The earth did. And it will naturally restore order to itself and work itself out. Wether we survive or not is up to our planet. This host planet we live on in retrospect our time here is a spec relative to its entire existence and foreseeable future. So again, man is not responsible for climate change, the planet is.


  87. The Coming Ice Age - 1978:

    Above video made in 1978 about the 30 years prior being global cooling. But at the same time they say it got hotter. You cant have it both ways. The question isn't is there global warming? The question is exactly what is the right temperature for the earth if its that important to you? 70 degrees in the house is perfect for me but too cold for my wife. But ask a penguin or a camel what's the right temperature and you'll get 2 ends of the spectrum. I like this theory better, God designed it, we wont destroy it, he will when he's good and ready. Life's too short to worry about something thats millions of years old. She still be here millions of years from now with just as abundant life. Hopefully smarter than its current inhabitants.

  88. This whole challenge is a joke. The mere existence of man and every other animal on Earth contributes in a small way to global warming through our bodily emissions. That being said the scientific community cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that man is the main cause of global warming or that anything we do can reverse it. No matter what is or isn't causing Global Warming our efforts should be on developing more efficient energy sources and not on these petty squabbles or trying to force everyone to pay more to use what we already have available.

  89. Regarding the scientific method....if I create a hypothesis but actually want a certain end result, is any evidence I find through my research not already tainted?

    I would like you to answer that simple question Mr. Keating before I even begin to debate you on why you are wrong that man can cause parametric changes in the earths temperature.

    I expect nothing less than insults knowing your kind, and I also expect you to answer my first question with something along the lines of "thats irrelevant blah blah blah"....No...I want you to re-read my question if you have made it this far and really THINK about what im asking you..and then think about the JOB of a climatologist.

    One of the first things one of my high school science teachers told me years ago was that its not wrong to be skeptical, but it is wrong to not allow skepticism.

  90. The scientific method has been violated to show warming. The data is being 'corrected' to match theory. The details vary between data sets and the methods used to expose it vary, but rather than risk getting mired in such arguments, I'll just use NOAA's own plot:

    If you impose hockey stick warming through data "corrections" you get hockey stick warming.

  91. No way is the Earth round, I'd prove it but it's not necessary as my mind is made up. Instead of being awarded 10k by proving the Earth is indeed flat instead here's a list of stuff that I wrote that won't change anyone's opinion but gets me pumped up!

    1.If you throw a boomerang it comes back.
    2. If Earth was round than lakes, oceans and stuff would roll off the side.
    3.Al Gore is stupid
    4. Anyone can submit stuff on Wikipedia
    5. Pirates of the Caribbean

  92. You have to wonder why he hasn't gotten a higher grade of denier in here yet. The attempts I read were pretty weak. I understand that climate change is real, but you want me make to try the other side out with this poor showing, guys. Step it up a little. Google some cosmic rays or something.

    in Australian dollerydoos thanks

  94. I would love to try, I need the $10,000, warming is real, and humanity's use of fossil fuels is the primary cause.

  95. The earths temperatures and weather patterns are dictated by the earths axial tilt. How do we know this? Well, if we believe in science, we only need to turn to Paleontologist Paul Sorino of the University of Chicago and his work that was well documented in the National Geographic film, "Skeletons of the Sahara."
    2 distinct times where life existed in the desert, one 5000 years ago and the other 2000 years ago. This study concluded that the weather changed with the earths axial tilt producing changes that allowed the formation of a lake and vegetation. The areas human remains determined that their diet consisted of fish and vegetation. When the earth again tilted, the weather pattern changed allowing the lake to evaporate with no replenishment.
    You may wonder, does the earth actually tilt on it's axis? Well, we only have to turn to the early to mid 1940's for this answer. During WW11 the Army taught mapping classes for the invasion of Normandy...Declination, or offset of true and magnetic north was 19 degrees at the time. The declination of magnetic and true north in 2013 was 22 degrees. This information is critical to apply the add/left, right/subtract method of orientating your position with the use of a map...A GPS is so much easier...!
    So, how does the earth's axial tilt cause such swing in the earths temperatures and weather patterns 5000 and 2000 years ago, yet today it is only at the hand of humans. The answer is simple and has been repeated by many, heard by few..."follow the money...!"

    1. You have mixed up two things. The offset used on maps is not because true north has moved, but because there is a difference between magnetic north and true north. The magnetic pole wanders (drifts) quite a bit. It changes very slightly, but it takes a long time for any appreciable change to occur (thousands of years). There was a real fruitcake that made the claim that the Earth's axis did a sudden shift and the government kept it secret. Right, such a shift would have toppled buildings and that would difficult to keep secret. Here's a discussion on the topic:

  96. Why would my submission to the competition missing, I provided absolute proof last night, via the scientific method. Yet there are blog submissions that are time stamped after my submission.

    1. Look in the archive section. Its probably there.

      Mr. Keating, I asked you a question yesterday regarding the daytime temperatures on the atmosphere deprived moon. I asked why they are so much greater than those on the GHG laden atmosphere of the earth. When you answer that question, you will know that your supposed theory is little more than ludicrous. Its like comparing the temperature extremes of a desert to those of a lush and verdant paradise.

      There is a reason that astronauts wear pressurized suits with impressive HVAC systems on their moon walks and trips beyond the confines of their space transports.

      Increasing GHGs will render the atmosphere a better refrigerator, limiting those extremes one may find in a desert.

      As by the very laws of physics, how does one heat oneself up by placing a blanket over their body? With or without a blanket, my body's temperature sits at roughly 98 degrees. A blanket will only slow my rate of heat loss. it will not increase my temperature.

      Lastly, if the pitiable amount of CO2 circulating in the atmosphere has such a potent effect on heating up oceans and lands masses far greater in size, then why are there no CO2 heat generators? If 380ppm can heat up the earth, think of what 500,000ppm could do in heating up a house. But there are no such heat generators, are there?

      Gary Marshall

  97. Where did you submit it? Nothing gets deleted and all comments that had been submitted by late last night were moderated and published before I retired for the night. If it got to me last night (before 1 AM CDT), it has been published.

    1. Challenge accepted:
      Steps to the scientific method
      • Ask a Question
      • Do Background Research
      • Construct a Hypothesis
      • Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
      • Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
      • Communicate Your Results

      Question-Using the scientific method, prove that man-made global climate change is not occurring, Is it possible?
      Research- Those who believe the man’s actions can cause the globe to warm, derive this hypothesis from the idea that with an increase in CO2 gases, the sun’s heat is trapped and radiated on to the Earth’s surface. I have not been able to find a signed, published and accredited theory based on an actual experiment with empirical evidence to date, only hypotheses (I think this would be plural).
      My Hypothesis- I think that if I were to increase CO2 production, that there will be not direct effect on the earth’s global temperature. If my experiment is successful I will prove man-made global warming does not exist.
      Experiment- I filled my vehicles fuel tank to the full mark. I then drove my vehicle over live grass (which consumes CO2) while hyperventilating (two part; consumed air diluting oxygen and expelled global warming CO2) until my fuel tank was empty.
      Data and Conclusion- Global Average temperature remained even. I feel that I certainly increased CO2 production. Based on the Scientific Method and considering the results of my experiment; man-made CO2 does not lead to global warming.
      Until proven otherwise via the scientific method; I will assert that my theory, that man-made global warming is not occurring.

    2. I have a 3 page Word Document I would like to submit. Please email me at My approach is 100% mathematical and would love to see your reply.


    A little dated but the content can be applied to this argument. There is a lot of excess in the film but because there have been a few things refuted on the film there are the following points that are still valid:

    Raising levels of CO2 and water vapor are a result of increased temperature from sun/cosmic rays

    Human activity accounts for a miniscule amount of total CO2 produced per year

  99. Does disproving Jim Hansen's claim that Venus is an example of a "runawy greenhouse effect" count ? It certainly is a major "boogeyman" used to scare the hoi polloi , and sets mark for nonscience in this absurdity .

    If so , I'll be looking for my $10k after my presentation at the upcoming Heartland conference .

  100. I hope I get to read your comment to my post a little while ago. I did not click the box (actually was not able to click it) "Notify Me"

  101. No Doubt Dr. Keating C02 warming is real, but is it the primary driver of Climate change? I believe that should be central question don't you? I submit recent findings from Nasa on Electrical and Plasma Asteroids! energy from space can no longer be ignored we clearly see other planets heating up in our solar system. Energy from our star is shown to increase rotation in storm fronts and cause an increase in earthquake activity.
    Why "Global Warming" Failed & Why Climate Change is Real:

  102. Hi Christopher!

    To disprove, with scientific proof is here.........

    Science is not a "given truth/proof" it is considered a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and PREDICTIONS. Therefore, without being able to guarantee this phenomenon, past or present, a prediction, within itself, is self defeating.

    Money please and thank you!!!!!

  103. When will my contest submission be reviewed?

  104. It's cold here and I used blanket whole June. Obviously, it's getting colder, not warmer. Hahaha. :D

  105. The polar vortex is where cold air comes from. It is the footprint of the magnetosphere that funnels cold molecules and ions down to the polar surface of the earth. This is where -138C comes from.
    Therefore the climate is not controlled by humans or the earth... It is controlled by heat loss at the poles otherwise you wouldnt be able to get -138..

  106. The challenge is to disprove a negative which everyone knows is impossible. So I ask one simple question that Mr. Keating or any other climate scientist should be able to answer: When did the earth come out of the last ice age? When did that process start? When did it end? And what caused it? What is the consensus opinion on this? That would be easy, if only you could find ice core records that matched.

  107. My knowledge of the theory is basic, but here is what I understand: The theory is that broadband sunlight hits the Earth's surface, IR radiation is sent spaceward and bounced back by excess CO2 to the surface, thus warming it. If the CO2 is such a great reflector of IR then is should be reflecting an equal and opposite amount of IR back into space. If you don't believe this then ask any Astronomer how many IR telescopes are based in the midwest. I looked at several of the entries and there was much discussion of CO2 IR absorption. But as you well know, any molecule cannot just keep absorbing radiation without releasing the energy it absorbed, so absorption isn't the issue, it is just the vehicle. The issue is the released energy and where it goes. If you say it is Earthbound, I say there is just as much spacebound. The net energy gain is zero.

    If you wish to change the discussion to "it changes the insulation factors of the atmosphere, consider this. CO2 has about the same specific heat capacity as the O2 that it is replacing. Once again, the net gain is zero.

    Now for the truth of the matter: When we are talking about a temperature rise, we are talking about thermal dynamics. Consider the number of BTUs produced by the average citizen in the industrialized world. It is a bunch (not very scientific, but understandable to all). I believe that the true cause of any global warming (the theory so true, you had to rename it), is the heat of day to day living. Unfortunately for those of us being subjected to nonsense like carbon exchanges and such, an electric car will produce the same amount of heat as a fossil fuel one (Physics 101, professor).

    I believe that I am right about the CO2 issue, but by definition, I was supposed to disprove man made global warming, I will compromise, just send $5000.

  108. My submission =

    Deforestation & Farming techniques are responsible for the short term temperature rises especially around the 1930's...

    Why change the data if its really happening?

    Or just google these words "Global warming Fabricated by NASA and NOAA"

  109. Mr. Keating, I'll gladly give you $10,000 if you can prove that the ice core data show continuous records of past climate and at no time did any ice ever melt away so as to be missing from that record.

  110. or here

    Why change the data if global warming is indeed real?

  111. As a scientist, I must speak up here.

    Dr. Keating, you are offering a reward for someone to prove the null hypothesis. No self-respecting scientist would ever do this. The default position is that climate change is NOT man-made, and it is up to anyone who would claim otherwise to present demonstrable evidence to the contrary. One cannot prove that something does not exist, and in asking someone to do so, you are incorrectly shifting the burden of proof. This is extremely unscientific -- and you should have learned this as an undergraduate.

    Your offer is ridiculous, and is identical in logical structure to me offering you $10,000 if you can prove that I am not a dragon

    You should be ashamed for becoming publicly recognized for this stunt. I fear for your reputation, and it is hard to imagine you will be taken seriously in the future.

  112. Dear Dr. Keating,
    I think you are to be lauded for the sincerity with which you offer your challenge, because it takes such an enormous amount of patience and time. It must feel rather self-masochistic, however :). The comments so far only demonstrate the fundamental irrationality of deniers and the futility of your patience and time. I don't believe deniers can be convinced by logic, rationality, or reasoned discussion. They have moved climate change into the realm of faith and belief--it's like arguing with a religious zealot that God did not create the earth in 7 days. As dissenters to that belief (about God), we can't gain traction by using reasoned argument or any other means.
    Your exercise with this challenge serves to highlight to the rest of us the ideological nature of the beliefs of deniers (but we knew that already), but will fail to change the opinions of any deniers. Nor will it open their minds to their own hypocrisy in cherry picking the science they choose to accept as valid (are computers powered by magic? do they accept the Higgs Boson discovery? Did man land on the man?) They won't even understand the point you are making--unfortunately, the only folks who get it are folks that don't need to be convinced.
    I'm sorry--this is a rather depressing comment given what is at stake, and how successfully deniers have blocked attempts to address climate change. Shame on us, I guess, for letting a vocal minority drive an agenda.

  113. Global warming?.the earth obivously goes on cooling and warming trends. Ex: ice age. We are at the peak of a warming trend. To say it is global warming is to deny basic physis exist. Weather trends happen, cant stop them.

  114. Evidence: Some very interesting research has been done on Antarctic ice core samples. These samples were obtained by drilling into the ice at the Vostok station at a depth of over 3600m. This allows scientists to essentially go back into our earth’s history the deeper they drill as the layering of snow & ice accumulates over time. These findings are something different than what many would expect. The prevailing thinking of today is that there is a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature. Factually this is true; when CO2 levels are high, so is the temperature. What is so surprising are the findings from the samples. The results show that higher temperatures ARE THE CAUSE of the increased CO2 levels; not what we’re hearing from the IPCC and others who say that the opposite is true. This happens due to the release of CO2 from the oceans as temperatures rise. There is an approximate 800 year lag behind when this occurs as the Antarctic Ice Core shows. So, from this data, the temperature rises before the CO2 does. It should also be noted that the CO2 drops in advance of the temperature. The climate is staying warmer despite the drop in CO2 for a few thousand years.
    It needs to be said that these findings are not new. They have been around for several years, so why haven’t we heard about it? Possibly because it doesn’t fit into what climate science is trying to push today; it weakens the purpose behind the agenda.

  115. The Young Turks have increased your reward by $30,000