Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Taking Keating’s $30,000 skeptic challenge seriously

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • John Reece
    replied
    Continued from the OP above ↑

    From Watts Up With That?
    Taking Keating seriously part 2: the IPCC’s human-attribution claim is prima facie unscientific

    Posted on July 26, 2014

    by Alec Rawls (see part 1)

    Ex-physics teacher Christopher Keating, who strongly believes that human activity is causing dangerous global warming, is offering $30,000 to anyone who can prove that “claims of man-made climate change” are not supported by the science. What claims? He gives as an example the IPCC’s central assertion that: “It is extremely likely (95-100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” Easy money (if he would actually give it, but that is secondary). There are several grounds, already laid out by a variety of skeptics, why this claim of extreme scientific certainty is prima facie unscientific. Continue reading →

    Leave a comment:


  • Jedidiah
    replied
    Looks more and more as though honesty is not a big part of the Global Warming crowd. Money is much more important to them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Taking Keating’s $30,000 skeptic challenge seriously

    I think this thread deserves a five star rating. If anyone follows it closely and comes to agree, I hope the five star rating will be forthcoming.

    The focus of this thread is clarification, of which there is certainly need re the global warming/climate change controversy.

    The thread will consist of several parts, of which the first follows in this post.

    From Watts Up With That?
    Taking Keating’s $30,000 skeptic challenge seriously, part 1

    Posted on July 25, 2014

    Guest post by Alec Rawls

    Contradictory contest criteria have been rectified via Keating “clarification” clarification

    At first glance retired physics teacher Christopher Keating’s challenge appears to be an obvious bait and switch. It opens as an invitation to “global warming skeptics” who charge that “the science doesn’t support claims of man-made climate change.” The central “claim of man-made climate change” is the IPCC’s assertion in AR5 that: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century” (AR5 WGI SPM p. 17, upped from “very likely” in AR4 and “likely” in the Third Area Report). So wait a minute. All we have to do is demonstrate that this assertion of great certainty that human activity caused most late 20th century warming is clearly unsupported by the available reason and evidence and Keating will give us $30,000? That is easily done. But then the first stated rule of his contest asserts a very different criterion: [continue reading →].



    Last edited by John Reece; 07-26-2014, 10:45 AM.

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by seer, Today, 09:32 AM
4 responses
50 views
1 like
Last Post seer
by seer
 
Started by Sparko, Today, 08:25 AM
67 responses
374 views
0 likes
Last Post Cow Poke  
Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 08:15 AM
6 responses
31 views
0 likes
Last Post CivilDiscourse  
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 02:13 PM
49 responses
227 views
0 likes
Last Post kccd
by kccd
 
Started by mossrose, Yesterday, 12:22 PM
5 responses
37 views
0 likes
Last Post mossrose  
Working...
X