Taking Keating’s $30,000 skeptic challenge seriously

[John Reece]

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 →

[Jedidiah]

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

[John Reece]

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 →].