Guest essay by Steven Burnett
Most of my income is derived from tutoring, with part being tied into the Google helpouts system. One of my most loyal customers for my physics and mathematics tutoring sent me a link to a $10,000 reward challenge for skeptics. Which is now up to $30,000, seen here.
Below is what I wrote back with minor edits. While I could have added more links, or graphs, I feel that this synopsis is the most compact skeptic’s case, without dropping off too many details. Perhaps I should submit it for $30,000.
These kinds of challenges pop up all the time here’s one for creationism:
The problem with the climate change challenge is that no one is denying that there is likely an anthropogenic signal. The question is how much.
This article probably offers one of the better overviews of the issue
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/06/20/global-warming-of-the-earths-surface-has-decelerated-viewpoint/
You can demonstrate in a lab that CO2 absorbs IR wavelengths within the same range as the earth gives off. The data shows that the northern hemisphere has had a shift in the mean temperature since before the industrial revolution.
Overwhelmingly the people pushing the issue like to try to box skeptics in by presenting it as an all or nothing issue, which those who don’t read skeptic statements take on faith. In reality the skeptic’s side has a much larger range of stances on the issues, I have tried to bold them out. There are some people who make ridiculously stupid claims that there is no anthropogenic signal but it’s a very small minority. Many skeptics feel that they are just internet trolls, we try not to feed them.
A better way to examine skeptics is to look at them as scientific critics, and more specifically to evaluate the criticisms as issues with each step of the scientific method in climate science fields. The standard scientific method goes:
Observations->Hypothesis->Experiment->Analysis. If we were to go back to the ’90’s Then we could state that this was doled out as…
Observations: A warming/CO2 concentration correlation and CO2 absorbs IR spectra, the same trend in the ice core data existed,
Hypothesis: Emissions cause global warming,
Experiment: Climate Model,
Analysis: a close approximation of the hind cast, statistically significant temperature increases, hockey sticks, etc. Through the late 1990’s and early 2000’s the conclusion that global warming is real was scientifically acceptable. The next stage is usually peer review and scrutiny and this is where the theory ran into problems.
The Problems:
The observations aren’t very good prior to the late ’70’s and they get worse as we go back to the earliest records. We weren’t looking for tenths of a degree trends and we weren’t controlling our instruments for them. Stations have been moved, cities have grown etc, all of which would induce a warming bias on those stations, the data is frankly of poor quality. But there are other problems that came up. The ice core data, using better instrumentation, actually shows CO2 lagging behind temperature changes. More importantly temperatures stopped rising on all data sets, but CO2 levels continued their upward expansion. We also have not detected the “hot spot” that was sure to be proof of an anthropogenic contribution.
Our Hypothesis for how the climate system operates is essentially coded into the climate models. There are 114 of them that are used by the IPCC all of them are going up, all of them are rising faster than observations and most of them have been falsified. But the work falsifying them is very recent.
This paper falsifies the last 20 years of simulations at the 90% confidence interval, within that blog entry you can find another paper that falsifies them at the 98% confidence interval. That paper cites a third that falsified at the 95% confidence interval. What this means is that there is less than a 10%, 2% or 5% chance that the models are wrong by chance.
As the models are mathematical representations of how we think the climate system operates, that means climate scientists were wrong. In response there has been a flurry of activity attempting to attribute the pause and explain it, but explaining a problem with mathematical models after it occurred and claiming that your hypothesis will still be born out requires its own period of time to validate.
There are well over 10 different attributions at this point for the pause, most of them entirely explaining it away. This means the pause in its current state is over explained and more than one of those papers is wrong. In science we aim for a chance at being wrong of 5%, apparently climate science gets a pass.
This divergence also has impacted the metric known as climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivities note a thermal increase of 1.2-1.5 C per doubling of CO2, as in if we went form the current 400ppm CO2 to 800PPM CO2 the temperatures would rise approximately 1.2-1.5 degrees, climate simulations produce much higher results typically between 3 and 4.5 degrees per doubling.
Digging even further there are major issues with the models, our experiments, themselves. Depending on the compiler, operating system and even hardware modeling output can change due to rounding errors. They can’t predict clouds. Nor do they have the resolution to see many of the atmospheric processes that transport heat. But that’s only the climate models themselves. The impact models, or integrated assessment models have almost no data upon which to base their claims. That’s why the IPCC stated that the costs of climate change for 2.5 degrees of warming range from .2%-2% of world GDP. This is again for predictions almost 100 years in the future, which at this time are untestable and unfalsifiable.
When evaluating the cost of a ton of CO2 emissions the integrated assessment models depend very heavily on the discount rate. The current administration cites a discount rate of 3% at 37$ per ton but the most appropriate discount rate, and the one which long term assessments are supposed to be performed at is 7%. This means the actual social cost of carbon is about 4-5$ per ton. As was discussed in an EPW senate hearing, the current administration has failed to produce the 7% discount rate as is required and instead produced 5%, 3% and 2.5% rates. The reason the cost varies so much is partially due to uncertainty in the integrated assessment models which are fed the outputs of the GCM’s. A common coding colloquialism is GIGO garbage in garbage out.
But the worst issue is the analysis. As part of the attempts to preserve the theory there have been some gross statistical practices and data torture employed. The first monstrosity to be slain was Michael Mann’s hockey stick which used a special algorithm to weight his tree samples. That was taken down by Steven McIntyre a statistician who proved not only the weighting issue, but also found the splice point of thermometer data when the proxy and thermometer temperatures diverged.
There have since been several other hockey-sticks, all of which go down as giant flaming piles of poo. Trenberth’s hockey stick, also from dendrochronology, died when it was pointed out that he was using a special sub-selection of only 12 trees, and that when his entire data set was used the hockey-stick disappeared. In 2013 Marcott et al published a hockey-stick on his graph that averaged multiple proxies except the the blade portion was generated using only about 3 of the proxies, that weren’t statistically robust, had some proxy date rearrangement issues, which coincided with the industrial revolution.
You have mentioned the 97% consensus papers which do exist but they are atrocious. Cook et al. has been rebutted several times actually I recommend further reading some of the issues that Brandon Schollenberger has pointed out as well, though it’s not peer reviewed. The earlier 97% paper by Doran and Zimmerman was equally stupid the wallstreet journal touched on both but I recommend this site for a thorough critique. Truthfully the number of abstracts and methodologies I have read that are complete garbage from this field is astounding so I’m not going to try to link them all.
The question ultimately becomes what piece of evidence is required before admitting that climate may not be as sensitive to anthropogenic emissions as once thought?
Outside of the problems with their scientific methodology there’s also some ethics issues that seem to keep cropping up. A statistician working for a left leaning think tank was just terminated because he wrote a piece about the statistically weak case for anthropogenic warming. About a month before that Lennart Bengtsson, a climate scientist tried to join a more conservative and skeptical climate change think tan. He had to resign due to threats, authors withdrawing from his papers and general concern for his safety and wellbeing.
A paper of his, focused on the discrepancy between models and observations, was rejected with the rejecting review stating they recommended it in part because they felt it might be harmful. The reviewer also mentioned that climate models should not be validated against observational data. A few years ago it was climate-gate.
A psychology paper tried to name skeptics as conspiracy nuts, when it was retracted citing ethical reasons, the researchers and their community cited it as being perfectly ok to debase your opponents and that the retraction was due to lawsuits. The clamoring defense got so antagonistic the publisher had to reinforce the rejection was due to the papers ethics violations, language and the failure or unwillingness of the authors to make changes. There’s also the paper that says lying and exaggerating results is OK.
If you read skeptical science they try to rebut skeptic claims but nine times out of ten they use strawmen, ad hominems or other logical fallacies. For instance a good argument can be made that cheap affordable fossil fuel energy can greatly improve the poorest nations of the world, and that denying them access to this resource is harmful. They rebut it by pointing out that projected climate damages, impact the poorest nations the most. That might be true but it’s not the same argument. Depriving impoverished nations of the energy they need to grow, enforcing poverty and mandating foreign dependence for 85 years, so that the poor might not have to suffer from as many storms in the future is frankly asinine.
But let’s say you’re not skeptical of the ethics, or their methodological flaws. Let’s say you decide you want avert the future risk now. You can still be skeptical of the proposed solutions. For instance let’s look at energy policy. The cheapest, most effective and simplest energy policy would be a carbon tax. Again 4$ per ton accurately prices future damages. It also allows countries and markets to work instead of hoping bureaucrats don’t screw it up. Essentially a carbon tax penalizes carbon for its actual cost instead of giving enormous power to unelected officials like what the EPA just did.
But maybe you don’t believe in markets, maybe you believe the government isn’t as incompetent as they seem to keep trying to prove. That’s fine, you can still be skeptical of how the money is being spent. In the US solar receives an unbelievable amount of market favoritism, you start by getting a 40% tax credit on every installation. Additionally while all sectors recoup their capital investments over time as the assets depreciate, solar recoups 100% of its cost in under 5 years, that’s less time than an office chair. With these perks solar is still the most expensive form of electricity generation.
When you correct for just the tax credit solar costs increase to almost 140$/mwhr for standard installations, that goes up for thermal solar. Correcting for wind’s tax credit this goes up to about 88$ MwHr. The intermittancy on the grid is an externality that should be accounted for, from there you have to factor in the degradation of wind and solar as a cost factor, which when integrated over their life span multiplies their cost by almost 4.5.
Nuclear at an approximate 96$/MWhr is substantially cheaper, has a lower life cycle carbon emission, lasts longer and is safer. But we only hear about improving renewable contributions when they are literally worse in every way.
These are issues that we can have with the scientific authenticity of the theory. The next step would be falsification, but It’s difficult to find a piece of falsifying evidence. No matter what happens now or in the future global warming/climate change seems to predict it. We have both warmer and cooler spring/summer/fall/winter. There’s droughts and floods, cold/hot. Literally in 2009/2010 we were hearing how climate change will totally cause more snow in winter when just a few years before it was the end of snowy winters. Hell that was four years ago and they were still blaming crappy Olympic conditions on global warming this year, ignoring entirely that the average temperature for that part of Russia in February is above freezing throughout the whole damn record.
We have almost 2 decades of no temperature trend, and a net negative for a little over a decade. That’s apparently not enough. There are periods within this interglacial that have been warmer, and periods that have been cooler. So what is the reference period of a climatic normal? A few hundred years ago temperature spiked without greenhouse gas emissions, the period of 1914-1940 showed a similar rate and trend as the 1980-200 period, why is the latter anthropogenic and the former not? How is CO2 the driving force this time when there is scant to no evidence that it has ever been the major force in the past?
Why should we believe the corrections or explanations for the pause, the same individuals hyping them were the same ones pointing out how perfect the models were just a few years ago? there is no mechanism by which heat remitted in the lower atmosphere magically descends to the deepest layer of the ocean. the one we just started to measure a few years ago and from which there still aren’t reliable measurements, also the region that is bounded by warmer upper oceans and geothermal heating. How does it get there without being detectable in the upper atmosphere, lower atmosphere or upper oceanic level? Nor is there a mechanism to describe how it could possibly all concentrate in the arctic where we also don’t have any measurements.
Where do we draw the scientific line between natural or artificial trends, and how do we know that line is accurate? Why shouldn’t climate science be required to validate? What is falsifying evidence? Faced with the mountain of problems surrounding uncertainty, poor methodology, awful ethics and analysis, most skeptics, myself included just call the whole thing bullshit.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Kurt says:
July 7, 2014 at 11:21 pm
——————————–
“To what are you referring when you say “radiative gasses?” “
Very simply, gases that have a far higher ability to absorb and emit IR than N2 or O2. Hair splitting about the limited IR emissivity of N2 and O2 is no use.
“If you’re trying to say that without IR absorbers like CO2, methane, and water vapor,..”
That would be IR absorbers and EMITTERS like water vapour, methane and way, way down the list …CO2. If you can’t admit that radiative gases increase the atmospheres radiative cooling ability, that tells me a lot.
Kurt, the atmosphere would superheat without (strongly) radiative gases. No planet or moon in our solar system has managed to retain an atmosphere without strongly radiative gases.
But at the end of the day there is no way around it. Empirical experiment proves that without atmospheric cooling, regardless of DWLWIR, surface Tmax of the oceans would hit 80C or beyond.
Climastrologists falsely claimed the ocean surface to be a “near blackbody”. They falsely claimed the surface temperature of the oceans would be -18C in the absence of DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling. These false claims can never be erased or hidden. They are the very foundation of the AGW hoax.
@konrad
give it up
I think there is no hope for Kurt
as I said before
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/06/about-that-30000-to-disprove-global-warming-contest/#comment-1679038
they all think they know something yet they simply donot understand that without the GH gases we would probably fry. It is years of misinformation, even the use of the wrong term for a radiative gas, (i.e. GHG) that keeps the people moving into the backward direction..
Mi Cro says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/06/about-that-30000-to-disprove-global-warming-contest/#comment-1680027
@Mi Cro
I would therefore be interested in hearing from you why minimum temperatures are falling naturally?
see graph at the bottom of the tables
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWa.pdf
[snip -slayer stuff -mod]
HenryP says:
July 8, 2014 at 7:34 am
What I think the data I’ve looked at says, is that the Continents go through period where the Min temps fall for a while, then go back up. The only explanation for this I can think of is that there are Ocean “cycles” where large pools of colder water (?) cools the continental surface temps for a while, then don’t. If the Arctic and Antarctic ice extent ping-pongs back and forth, that would to me, have to be caused by changes in the water, not the air. Or it’s an orbital effect, but I’ve not heard anyone suggest that before.
I’ve generated lots of slices of data from NCDC’s GSoD here :
http://sourceforge.net/projects/gsod-rpts/files/Reports/
This is now about 122M records of data, From some 20 thousand stations. All of the temp graphs here :
http://www.science20.com/virtual_worlds
Are based on various bit of data from the first url. I now have averages by continent, latitude bands, and 10 x 10 lat/lon blocks there.
HenryP says:
July 8, 2014 at 4:38 am
——————————–
“@konrad give it up”
Never.
Anthony does not go down under any circumstances. I have my reasons.
@Micro
the reference “slices” I do not get from the links?
a 100% correlation on the quadratic drop of the speed of minima on a random sample of 54 weather stations simply means: there is no man made global warming
whatsoever
@HenryP
this data set is 10 degree Latitude bands http://sourceforge.net/projects/gsod-rpts/files/Reports/10DegreeLatBands.zip/download
@MiCro
following your lead I got here:
http://www.icelotto.org/LotteryTickets.aspx?lang=en&bta=21307
please
ET
\want to go home
The [text] listed in the post is what I get, and the lat bands automatically pops up a save file as box to save the zip file. Maybe the popup blocker or ??
You should be able to cut and paste?
Sorry, “text listed”
@Mi Cro I posted my comment at his site. The response I got was “how many false statements can you make in one comment” I’m waiting for him to actually tell me which statement was false. He seems to be claiming temp=heat.
Here is his submissions page
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/07/challenge-submissions-page.html
It is interesting that many commenters, and the original essayist Steven Burnett, seem convinced that GHG molecules like CO2, or H2O, O3, and others, can absorb LWIR in some relatively broad bands, and can also radiate a variety of photon energies, different from the originally absorbed photon energy.
A bent (not linear) molecule like H2O clearly has a permanent non zero electric dipole moment, because of the charge asymmetry. So this makes them very good LWIR absorbers, and emitters.
Another very interesting bent molecule is that of Ammonia; NH3. So it clearly has a dipole moment and can radiate LW radiation, and absorb it.
If you look at the molecule of NH3, you will find that it has a tetrahedral shape.
The three hydrogen atoms form an equilateral triangle base of the tetrahedron, and the nitrogen atom sits on the top of the tetrahedron, equally spaced from the three hydrogens.
Well you could also draw the tetrahedron sitting on top of the N atom, with the hydrogen triangle on top of that.
Well it turns out, that the nitrogen atom, can pop through the triangle base hole, and invert the molecule. Well it actually can pop back and forth at a very high frequency, in the microwave region. This actually was the first so-called “atomic clock.”
The point is, that this kind of mechanical oscillator, like the 15 micron bending mode of CO2, has a very precise resonant frequency, because it depends on the fundamental physical properties of atoms. Their masses, electric charges, bond arrangements and bond strengths, etc. This is not like cating a bell out of bronze, and wondering what frequency it is going to boom at.
Every ammonia molecule built out of a 14N atom, and three 1H atoms is exactly the same as any other one. All of its components are identical, and if you make a bunch of them, they are all identical.
Well you can end up with a 15N atom I suppose, or a 2D atom might creep into your molecule.
So these “bells” all ring at exactly the same set of frequencies, just like the ammonia maser early atomic clock.
So nyet on a CO2 molecule just emitting any old frequency of photon. The true frequencies can be determined to parts in 10^8 or better. The Hydrogen maser is accurate to something like parts in 10^15 or so.
When GHGs capture LWIR radiant emissions from earth’s surface, the do so at some very specific frequencies and wavelengths. Doppler motion of the capture molecule, can slightly shift the frequency (line broadening), and the captured photon will eventually get ejected, and this process neither “heats”, nor “cools” the CO2 molecule.
The escape to space of the original surface emitted photon energy, is delayed by this absorb / emit process, which slows the energy loss rate, but the local Temperature doesn’t change appreciably.
The photon absorption process is an INDIVIDUAL molecule event. In earth’s atmosphere, a typical CO2 molecule is completely unaware, that another like it even exists. There’s about 13 layers of air molecules, on average, between a CO2 molecule and its nearest look alike.
The air Temperature on the other hand, is a massive effort by huge numbers of molecules, of any, and all species.
The equi-partition principle doles out an equal kT/2 to each degree of freedom of any molecule, regardless of its species. More massive molecules (O3) move slower than less massive ones (H2).
The molecular absorption / emission lines are quite different from the thermal continuum radiation that is black body like, and purely a function of Temperature.
There are literally dozens of cheap (but monumental) paper back books that anyone can buy at a Barnes & Noble bookstore, or Amazon, and learn this stuff for themselves.
So far as I know, none of those books carries an explanation of Konrad’s definitive selective surface experiment.
Every time I read a comment by george e. smith I learn something!
george e. smith says:
July 8, 2014 at 6:15 pm
———————————-
“So far as I know, none of those books carries an explanation of Konrad’s definitive selective surface experiment.”
You need to know were to look. Nothing new, plenty old. –
Harris, W. B., Davison, R. R., and Hood, D. W. (1965) ‘Design and operating characteristics of an experimental solar water heater’ Solar Energy, 9(4), pp. 193-196.
This graphic may also help –
http://oi61.tinypic.com/242a6b7.jpg
When illuminated with SW, block B reaches the lower average temperature as much absorbed SW is immediately re-radiated as IR from the surface without conducting into the block. Block A heats more as almost all SW is absorbed at the base, and must slowly conduct back to the surface to be radiated. Climastrologists went and treated our oceans as Block B instead of A.
-18C for the oceans in the absence of DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling? Totally false.
Konrad says:
July 8, 2014 at 7:34 pm
….
This graphic may also help –
http://oi61.tinypic.com/242a6b7.jpg
When illuminated with SW, block B reaches the lower average temperature as much absorbed SW is immediately re-radiated as IR from the surface without conducting into the block. Block A heats more as almost all SW is absorbed at the base, and must slowly conduct back to the surface to be radiated. Climastrologists went and treated our oceans as Block B instead of A.
-18C for the oceans in the absence of DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling? Totally false.
Correct, thank you for that.
This shows the wrong base assumptions of the CAGW theory, where climastrologists start allocating all warming to greenhouse gases, ignoring the oceans, in reality assigning all warming that results from the oceans behaviour to greenhouse gases.
I just got into Keating’s blog via comments to his latest rebuttal of a Roy Spencer submission, except that Spencer didn’t make a submission, someone else did as per Keating’s definition of “submissions”. The submitter apparently just linked to Roy’s whole blog. So I invited Keating to examine the submissions empirical reality has made in comparison to what CO2 “climate change” has predicted, noting what I think is its 100% Prediction Failure record, “meaning it’s falsified”. At first he didn’t seem to know what I was talking about – “???” – but I’m hoping to get a correct prediction pretty soon.
People can’t change unless they’re more than half right in a situation.
AGW and CAGW are wrong, deadly wrong, having killed myriads of Arabs in food riots, and thousands or more in many countries from freezing to death or in heat waves deprived of air conditioning (see Indur Goklani’s work); and have crashed our economy.
But Keating is very, very right. His careful measurements over several decades established beyond a reasonable doubt that our atmospheric [CO2] is rising. The years and graph almost certainly show an anthropogenic effect. It is logical that all that fossil fuel burning would be the cause. But I think the real cause is the killing of small and microscopic soil organisms from chemical agriculture, and from dams for “clean renewable, green” energy that is anything but.
When we understand what chem-based agriculture is really doing to our future farming ability, we will switch to Sonic Bloom and other “organic” methods more in harmony with Earth’s evolutionary history. We can explode the Overpopulation lie that is even more deadly than CAGW, raising more humans than ever–sustainably in the best sense of the term–and much more of every other kind of life to boot.
Properly understood, Keating’s Mauna Loa work can be a major contributor to that life-increasing outcome.
ladylifegrows says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/06/about-that-30000-to-disprove-global-warming-contest/#comment-1681666
henry says
I am really not following you, my lady. You lost me. The climate is changing:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
it is due to nature, divine design. The CO2 – and GHG stories are all red herrings.
adylifegrows says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/06/about-that-30000-to-disprove-global-warming-contest/#comment-1681666
henry says
I am really not following you, my lady. You lost me. The climate is changing:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
it is due to nature, divine design
Jct: A lesser scientist, Charles Keating, wants people to bet him climate didn’t change. Ask Professeur Inferieur what units of climate change he wants to use! Har har har. Professor of Physics is an incompetent. Har har har
” will totally cause ” — juvie slang.
Your defenses of skepticism are fine, but do not per se “disprove” AGW. Which of course is a demand to prove a negative. “Prove you are not the Queen of the Space Unicorns, in disguise”.
Not only will I show you my cards, I’ll do a little
destruction of his first. Here is the temperature graph he
cited:
http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/climatechange/2013/590x425_12210049_fig.a2.jpg
JCT: Notice that the temperature on his own graph in 2014 is
lower than in 1998! Har har har har har har. Maybe he
noticed too. Har har har har har har har har har.
His next card: Opinion from Forbes Magazine of Peter Gleick,
Dr. Gleick received a B.S. from Yale University in
Engineering and Applied Science, and an M.S. and Ph.D. from
the Energy and Resources Group of the University of
California, Berkeley. He is the recipient of numerous awards
for his work, among them the prestigious MacArthur “genius”
Fellowship in 2003. He was elected to the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences in 2006.
“The most consistent, highly respected, and regularly
analyzed and updated data on global surface temperatures are
available from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Sciences,
NOAA’s National Climate Data Center, and the United
Kingdom’s Met Office Hadley Center.”
JCT: Remember, his own graph shows temperature now lower
than in 1998 so have fun explaining the danger of rising
CO2! But his expert is citing the NASA and NOAA data set!
Notice that there is no way to prove a “not.” I’ll give
anyone $1,000 who can prove Martians are not planning an
invasion of the Earth. How can call? But if someone raises
me $100 they won’t invade this year, what can I do?
Do you get his fraudulent bet? He flashes his $30G bet like
he’s some kind of winner when there’s no way for anyone to
call him where only a raise can prove him wrong when he has
to back down.
So I defeated him with a raise. I bet him something provable
that trumps his bluff. And I think the Professor knows that
the TajProfessor has won his $30 Grand with a mere $100
raise. As he retreats in shame, having to delete every
reference to my winning raise, it sure does exemplify the
fraud and cowardice of the global warming hoaxers to have
their top hi-roller having to back down from a $100 raise
after flauning a $30,000 bet.
I think he realizes I’ve won his $30,000 challenge, not with
a Call which no fool could make, but with a raise only the
TajProfessor could make. Engineering trumps Philosophy every
time.
Finally, my best hole card (his own graph proving it’s
colder now is funnier but this is stronger):
Dr. Don Easterbrook lays global warming hoax to rest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI and my post
https://www.facebook.com/john.turmel/posts/10153284211177281
JCT: Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western WA University
Don Easterbrook is a real climate scientist under oath using
the original data. Note how many times the politicians ask:
“Are you telling us the NASA and NOAA data is manipulated?”
And all he can say is “Mine is the original data, theirs is
adjusted!” Har har har har har har. I guess doofus
PhysicsProfessor didn’t notice a real GeologyProfessor with
the true data in the news. Oops, it didn’t make the
mainstream news be probably focuses on.
Still, TajProfessor knows PhysicsProfessor’s own graph shows
that despite his fear of precipitous rise in temperature, it
happens to be lower now that in 1998! Har har har.
So now you know why the Global Warming Professor is on the
run and his blog makes it look like the PhysicsProfessor
beat the TajProfessor on the bet and only you know he’s
lying. Only you know the Professeur Inferieur didn’t win and
ducked and suppressed the raise that he couldn’t call. That
fold shows him wrong and his deletions show that he knows
it too.
Professor Fraud on the data and Professeur Inferieur to the
TajProfessor Great Canadian Gambler on the bet. Isn’t it
neat how a mere $100 raise could so cow him into hiding his
loss.
Jct: Did Professor Keating delete anyone els’s challenge?
TURMEL: TajProf $100 raise folds Prof Keating’s $30,000 Warming bet
JCT: Professor of Physics Charles Keating bet $30,000 no one
could disprove climate changes. Whether it goes up or down,
he wins! Quite the bad bet. Guess no one was dumb enough to
take a “no-lose” type of bet Keating was dumb enough to
offer.
Now, when he was pushing global warming, before adopting
both ways of change, we could bet on degrees of temperature.
But notice there are no units with which to measure climate
change! 1 clime up or 2 climes down? What? So I decided to
put him on the spot for his scam bet on both ways at his own
blog site to which he responded. Our conversation:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.ca/2014/07/30000-challenge-submission-no-evidence.html#comment-1480383483
Jct: A lesser scientist, Charles Keating, wants people to
bet him climate didn’t change. Ask Professeur Inferieur what
units of climate change he wants to use! Har har har.
Professor of Physics is an incompetent. Har har har.
Christopher Keating: Mod: Mr. Turmel apparently can’t read
very well or he would have seen the challenge is for people
to demonstrate what they are already claiming – that man
made climate change is not real and they can prove it. If
you want units of climate change I suggest you address your
question to the people making the claim.
Jct: You flaunted a bet without any parameters. I’m the
Great Canadian Gambler, TajProfessor, do you think someone
flashes $30Gs in my face and I wouldn’t take it just by
showing temperature is now lower than in 1998? Tell me about
your CO2 rise!! But you don’t have any units for your
“climate change,” do you? About as incompetent a bet as I
can imagine. I’ll bet you a lousy $100 that temperature is
now lower than in 1998! Notice, my bet is provable with
degrees! That’s why I asked how your bet could be provable
without units. Besides, climate always changes, are you also
worried about global cooling in there. No units, bet on
something that changes but bet on both ways? You’re a joke,
probably why I scored 100% in Physics and you didn’t.
Christopher Keating: Please do. I will quickly show how you
are wrong. You are like the street dude who things you can
outsmart the pea under the cup gambler. Deniers make the
claim, I’m just saying they can’t do what they claim they
can. If you think you can, make a submission. Otherwise,
stop acting like you are someone cool. You’re not.
JCT: Aha, deniers make the claim that climate doesn’t change
more than 2 or 3 climes per year? Notice him back away and
blame the lack of units on deniers who could never make such
a silly claim?
Jct: I guess you missed the point. Without units of
measurement, how can you expect to prove a bet? I offered
you a $100 on something I can prove. Temperature is now less
than it was in 1998. Is the http://johnturmel.com/gambler
supposed to take you seriously when you can’t take my bet
with units you can prove? I get to use the line: “Flash the
cash, bye bye trash.”
Without any units, http://johnturmel.com/tajprofessor says
your flashing the cash is a rigged game. Did you not notice
when I asked you what climate change you were worried about,
global warming or cooling? You claim to win either way,
don’t you? I’m a real engineer challenging you to a real bet
with real units of measurement. You’re a sad excuse for a
“science” major.
Christopher Keating Mod: I love when deniers show how stupid
they are. I won’t hold you to it, but if you want to send me
that $100 simply because you feel so much shame for you
ignorant statements, please feel free to do so.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/global-warming-has-not-stopped/21199576
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/
JCT: And if you visit his site, there stands the debate. I’m
stupid, I owe him $100 after he flashed his two hold cards
and I could not respond. Right? But I had responded:
Jct: Before I show you my cards, I’m just restating our $100
bet. You bet temperature has risen and I bet it’s gone down
since 1998.
JCT: So he deleted my response to make it look like he won.
I reposted the terms of my bet. Again, he deleted it. Wants
everyone to think he made the Great Canadian Gambler fold on
his nuts hole cards. So I went back and re-posted my
challenge:
Jct: I notice my reply doesn’t show. You didn’t get the last
word though it may look that way. Again:
“Jct: Before I show you my cards, I’m just restating our
$100 bet. You bet temperature has risen and I bet it’s gone
down since 1998.”
Jct: No response since yesterday and my reply has been
removed. Guess Mr. High-Roller Physics Prof couldn’t fade
the $100 bet. Okay, the Great Canadian Gambler will bet you
$1,000 that the temperature is now less than it was in 1998
after all that rise in CO2!!!
Are you going to erase this challenge too? Guess
TajProfessor cows PhysicsProfessor!
JCT: And sure enough, this third response he deleted too. So
if you go check global warming hoaxer Christopher Keating’s
$30,000 challenge, you’ll see it ends with him making me
back down. Before I play my card, I did one of my favorite
moves on loudmouths, giving them better and better odds they
have to back down to. My next post:
Jct: Okay, you deleted my posts to make it look like your
flashing your two hole cards made me back down from my bet.
Of course, you know I did not. Given I bet you $100 and then
$1000 that global yearly average temperature is now lower
than in 1998 to put the lie to your claim that we’re in
danger from global warming due to rising man-made CO2, tell
you what. I’ll give you 2:1 on the bet. TajProfessor bets
$1,000 on my scientific integrity and PhysicsProfessor only
has to bet $500 on yours! Are you going to delete this
fourth one too? You can run but you can’t hide.
JCT: Of course, Professor of Physics deleted my fourth
response too:
Jct: Wow, four times you delete my post so you can make it
appear like you made the Great Canadian Gambler back down!
My bet of $100 and then $1,000 was that the temperature
today is less than 1998. Then I even offered you 2:1 odds,
$1,000 to $500. And you still delete my post so you look
like you cowed me. Well, how about I give you 10:1 odds. I
bet $1,000 on my scientific integrity and you only have to
bet $100 on yours. Come on chicken, cluck cluck at 10:1. Or
better yet, delete this again to leave the impression the
PhysicsProfessor beat the TajProfessor on a bet. You’re
quite the shameful fraud if you think you’re going to get
away with faking beating me. 10:1, how can you coward out?
JCT: And of course, he deleted my fifth response too. So:
Jct: Looks like TajProfessor has PhysicsProfessor on the run
with the simple bet that it’s colder now than in 1998. 5
times he deleted my response to make it look like I folded
to his two links. Tell you what. I’ll give you 100:1. I bet
$1,000 on my scientific integrity, you only have to bet $10
that it’s colder now than in 1998 despite all the rise in
temperature you claim is going on. 100:1. That’s how
confident I am in my cards and your continued backing down
gives us an idea of how confident you are in yours.
JCT: So he deleted my 6th response and but explained why:
Christopher Keating Mod: To John Turmel:
Your comments are being deleted because you have decided to
engage in a juvenile and irrelevant attempt to hijack this
blog. If you ever have anything worthwhile to say or wish to
make an honest submission to the challenge, it will be
accepted. I am very confident you will do neither because
you have demonstrated you have nothing. If you want to be a
troll, that is your choice, but do it somewhere else.
JCT: I’ve responded:
Jct: How does this post you deleted hijack your bloc?:
“Before I show you my cards, let’s be clear you bet it’s now
warmer than in 1998 and I bet the average global temperature
is lower.”
Jct: So tell me how that hijacks your blog? Confronting you
with a bet you can’t take sure does win the debate but how
does that hijack your blog? Oh right, you have no answer so
you call that high-jacking..
CK: “you have demonstrated you have nothing.”
Jct: Notice I said I was not going to “demonstrate” my cards
until the bet was established. So of course, I have not yet
shown my cards and until you accept the terms of the bet,
why should I?
Regardless, that my merely simply stating the terms of my
bet results in what you call the hijacking of your blog does
indicate the power of my bet and the cowardice of your
deletions that make it seem the PhysicsProfessor beat the
TajProfessor! Har har har.
JCT: Note he has told everyone on the blog:
CK: If you ever have anything worthwhile to say or wish to
make an honest submission to the challenge, it will be
accepted.
JCT: But when I tried to make my last post:
<We are unable to post your comment because you have been
blocked by http://dialoguesonglobalwarmong.blogspot.com ?
JCT: So he made it look like I may still post my response if
I have one he thinks is worthy enough right after preventing
any more of my posts! What a lying hypocrite.
PhysicsProfessor cows TajProfessor! What a fraud.
I think he saw what was coming. I was going to give him
1,000:1 next, make him back down from betting $1 against my
$1,000! Then I'd give him 10,000:1, making him back down
from betting 10 cents against my $1,000. Then I'd give him
100,000:1 and make him back down from betting a penny on the
integrity of the PhysicsProfessor against the $1,000 I was
betting on the TajProfessor. And since I do have cards
proving I'm right, you know Hi-Roller Climate Hoaxer would
have to back down again.
Not only will I show you my cards, I'll do a little
destruction of his first. Here is the temperature graph he
cited:
http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/climatechange/2013/590x425_12210049_fig.a2.jpg
JCT: Notice that the temperature on his own graph in 2014 is
lower than in 1998! Har har har har har har. Maybe he
noticed too. Har har har har har har har har har.
His next card: Opinion from Forbes Magazine of Peter Gleick,
Dr. Gleick received a B.S. from Yale University in
Engineering and Applied Science, and an M.S. and Ph.D. from
the Energy and Resources Group of the University of
California, Berkeley. He is the recipient of numerous awards
for his work, among them the prestigious MacArthur "genius"
Fellowship in 2003. He was elected to the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences in 2006.
"The most consistent, highly respected, and regularly
analyzed and updated data on global surface temperatures are
available from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Sciences,
NOAA's National Climate Data Center, and the United
Kingdom's Met Office Hadley Center."
JCT: Remember, his own graph shows temperature now lower
than in 1998 so have fun explaining the danger of rising
CO2! But his expert is citing the NASA and NOAA data set!
Notice that there is no way to prove a "not." I'll give
anyone $1,000 who can prove Martians are not planning an
invasion of the Earth. How can call? But if someone raises
me $100 they won't invade this year, what can I do?
Do you get his fraudulent bet? He flashes his $30G bet like
he's some kind of winner when there's no way for anyone to
call him where only a raise can prove him wrong when he has
to back down.
So I defeated him with a raise. I bet him something provable
that trumps his bluff. And I think the Professor knows that
the TajProfessor has won his $30 Grand with a mere $100
raise. As he retreats in shame, having to delete every
reference to my winning raise, it sure does exemplify the
fraud and cowardice of the global warming hoaxers to have
their top hi-roller having to back down from a $100 raise
after flauning a $30,000 bet.
I think he realizes I've won his $30,000 challenge, not with
a Call which no fool could make, but with a raise only the
TajProfessor could make. Engineering trumps Philosophy every
time.
Finally, my best hole card (his own graph proving it's
colder now is funnier but this is stronger):
Dr. Don Easterbrook lays global warming hoax to rest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI and my post
https://www.facebook.com/john.turmel/posts/10153284211177281
JCT: Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western WA University
Don Easterbrook is a real climate scientist under oath using
the original data. Note how many times the politicians ask:
"Are you telling us the NASA and NOAA data is manipulated?"
And all he can say is "Mine is the original data, theirs is
adjusted!" Har har har har har har. I guess doofus
PhysicsProfessor didn't notice a real GeologyProfessor with
the true data in the news. Oops, it didn't make the
mainstream news be probably focuses on.
Still, TajProfessor knows PhysicsProfessor's own graph shows
that despite his fear of precipitous rise in temperature, it
happens to be lower now that in 1998! Har har har.
So now you know why the Global Warming Professor is on the
run and his blog makes it look like the PhysicsProfessor
beat the TajProfessor on the bet and only you know he's
lying. Only you know the Professeur Inferieur didn't win and
ducked and suppressed the raise that he couldn't call. That
fold shows him wrong and his deletions show that he knows
it too.
Professor Fraud on the data and Professeur Inferieur to the
TajProfessor Great Canadian Gambler on the bet. Isn't it
neat how a mere $100 raise could so cow him into hiding his
loss.