Open Submissions: WUWT Climate Change Essay Contest

We erred and did not post this announcement on the first of November as previously announced.

We will officially open the contest to entries on Monday, November 1st by announcing the contest page. At that time, the final official rules and format requirements will be published.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/10/08/announcing-the-first-wuwt-climate-change-essay-contest/

We have been receiving submissions since the November 1st, but because we delayed in putting out this contest start announcement we are extending the deadline until 12/11/21, midnight (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US&Canada).

Because of this extension we are also pushing back the date to announce and publish winners to the end of January.

Despite the frequent accusations from climate alarmists and journalists, we never receive a dime from the fossil fuel industry, and Google has made certain that our ad revenue fails to cover the cost of publishing WUWT.  In fact, now they have doubled down, and announced they are going to cut off any website that publishes any doubt about catastrophic man-made global warming. See this story: Google, YouTube to prohibit ads and monetization on climate denial content.

We believe this essay contest will help to engage a younger set of climate realists and gain more coverage for a rational view of climate change.  So, let me thank you in advance for your help.  Please donate now.

Here is the contest in a nutshell, which we plan to officially announce November 1st. November 11th.

Topic: Is there really a climate crisis?

Write the best arguments against the theory of man-made catastrophic global warming that would convince your neighbors that there is no climate crisis.

Entry categories:

  • General Public: Any reader who does not fall into the two categories below
  • Professionals: Scientists, engineers, graduate students, doctoral candidates
  • Students: College undergrads, high school students, and below

Cash Prizes:

  • First prize for each of the above categories:  $2,000 (Thanks to our generous donors)
  • Second prize for each of the above categories: $800 (Again, thanks to our generous donors)

Contest Rules Summary:

  • Open to everyone, see categories.
  • Essays must question the validity of the theory of man-made catastrophic global warming.
  • All entries must be submitted electronically.
  • 1500 words or less, not including citations.
  • Graphics and tables are welcome.
  • Citations are encouraged.
  • Winners can remain anonymous, but must be verified by WUWT staff.
  • Winning essays will be announced and published end of January, 2022
  • Email entries to wattsup@sbcglobal.net

All winning essays, judged by a panel of climate experts and journalists, will be published here, some non-winning essays may also be published.

A nationwide press-release will also be made to media outlets announcing the winning essays and their authors, if they choose not to be anonymous. I expect these essays and the winners will be picked up by many media outlets.

We have opened the contest to submissions.

It is critical that we help the world to understand that an in-depth understanding of climate science fails to support the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming aka the “climate crisis”.

Thanks for your help, it is vitally important.

Anthony Watts

4.8 18 votes
Article Rating
49 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scissor
November 11, 2021 6:15 am

They don’t like you.

MarkW
Reply to  Scissor
November 11, 2021 7:24 am

Progressives hate anyone who doesn’t worship exactly as they do.
They even turn on other progressives for the sin of not being progressive enough.

J Mac
Reply to  Scissor
November 11, 2021 10:56 am

Funds flung. Good luck to all of the authors that submit essays!

Mark Gobell
November 11, 2021 6:18 am

For some time I have been thinking about asking WUWT for something like this.

I am very new to following this subject and still find it difficult to condense into small, digestible but persuasive chunks for sharing.

I look forward to reading the submissions.

Good luck to everyone.

If anyone has any suggestions for sceptical reading matter suited to the lay folk, I’d appreciate it. Thanks.

Sylvia
Reply to  Mark Gobell
November 11, 2021 10:13 am

You couldn’t do better than watch this film which came out in 2008. All the contributors are scientists in their field and it puts the argument very clearly and understandably for anybody.
The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie – YouTube

TonyL
Reply to  Sylvia
November 11, 2021 3:31 pm

To all interested:
Download this movie now. There is no telling how much longer it will be up.
Actually, I am surprised it is still available. Grab it while you can.
If you have it, you can share it. If you do not have it, that is the end. I can not count the times I saw something interesting and bookmarked it for later, then found it was gone when I finally got around to it.

TonyL
Reply to  Mark Gobell
November 11, 2021 3:43 pm

Jo Nova has “The Skeptics Handbook” vol I and II.
Download from her excellent website.

https://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mark Gobell
November 11, 2021 4:31 pm

The subject of Human-caused Climate Change is a very difficult subject to argue single-handedly because it encompasses just about every scientific discipline, and most people don’t have that range of expertise.

The best bet if you are looking for reality, is to read WUWT. There are experts here in every scientific discipline and are able to address all the nuances involved, and most scary climate change stories are covered here.

Do what I do. When I read an outrageous climate change claim in the news, and that’s every day anymore, I come to WUWT to watch it get torn apart by people who know what they are talking about.

Burl Henry
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 11, 2021 6:58 pm

Tom Abbott:

You have not replied to my last comment to you on the “CO2 and Temperature” thread.

Worth a look.

Reply to  Mark Gobell
November 12, 2021 3:07 am

The following Naptown Numbers piece explains why this layman doesn’t believe the experts:

https://naptownnumbers.substack.com/p/climate-scientists-make-us-skeptical

Nick Schroeder
November 11, 2021 7:11 am

“It is critical that we help the world to understand that an in-depth understanding of climate science…”

in-depth?
in-depth?
In your dreams!

The greenhouse effect theory sits on a pair of superficial, egregious bookkeeping and thermodynamics errors.
When that collapses the entire man-caused climate change, global warming dog and pony, snake oil medicine show stacked on top of it collapses as well.

K-T Budget solar & calcd.jpg
Ed Fox
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
November 11, 2021 9:37 am

The diagram shows huge flows of long wave radiation through the lower atmosphere. But the lower atmosphere is opaque to long wave radiation. Below 5 km the bulk of the energy transfer upwards is via convection.

So why does Climate Science promote a theory that claims you can shine an IR light through a 5 km thick wall?

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Ed Fox
November 11, 2021 1:44 pm

It shows more energy upwelling from the surface than the gross ISR at TOA.
And somehow that does not violate LoT 1.

Reply to  Nick Schroeder
November 12, 2021 10:41 am

The Greenhouse Gas Theory for Global Warming violates the Law of Conservation of Energy

A E Banner

The Greenhouse Gas theory for global warming is invalid because it violates the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can be changed from one form to another. This applies to energy in all of its forms. This is supported by the First Law of Thermodynamics, although this is principally concerned with sensible heat energy.

This can readily be shown as follows.
The infrared energy radiated to space by the Earth’s surface can be absorbed by the atmospheric greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapour. This is then re-radiated, with half rejoining the flow to space, and half flowing back to the surface. This half will be referred to as the “Earth Return”.
Stage 1. Before anthropogenic activities, the output energy from Earth to space was equal to the input energy from the Sun. This is the fundamental energy balance condition, and is accepted by the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) theory.

Stage 2. Anthropogenic activities caused more carbon dioxide to be emitted into the atmosphere, and so more energy was absorbed. Let this extra amount be A. This is then re-radiated, and the amount going to rejoin the output to space is 0.5A, and the Earth Return is also 0.5A.

This means that there is a shortfall of 0.5A in the output required by the balance condition, and so this must be restored. So far, the GHG theory is in line with this.

Stage 3. The GHG theory says that extra energy is radiated from the surface in order to make up the shortfall, and so restore balance.

If this were so, there would then be more energy than before the extra CO2 emission, because the energy to space would have been restored to its initial value as in Stage 1, and also there is now the Earth Return, 0.5A.

So that violates Conservation of Energy, because energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

The GHG theory explains that the extra energy to make up the shortfall arises from an increase in surface temperature, so more energy is radiated in line with the fourth power temperature dependence of Planck’s Law.

But this explanation is too simple, incomplete and incorrect. Firstly, what would make the temperature higher. More energy, of course, and hence more output radiation as required. But if energy is removed from the surface, it will cool down, and so the extra emission needed to respond to the shortfall fails. Therefore, more energy must be supplied to the surface in order to maintain the required higher temperature. But energy cannot be created, so the GHG theory fails too; is still violating Conservation.

Energy cannot be created, so where does this notional amount come from?

In fact, there is a suitable supply mentioned in passing above. It is the Earth Return, and this has been completely ignored by the GHG theory. It is 0.5A, just the required amount to cope with the shortfall, and it has entered the surface. It cannot remain in the surface, because this would aggravate the problem, as above. But it can be re-radiated to space without any need for increased temperature. It cycles from initial absorption, through re-radiation to the surface where it is absorbed, and then re-radiation to space. This maintains the balance condition. And this process is continually repeated.

Therefore, the Greenhouse Gas theory for global warming is not valid.

It was a fanciful idea based simply upon a correlation between anthropogenic activities and temperature measurements.

Enginer01
November 11, 2021 8:16 am

What an opening! Zero Point Energy trolls please ignore.
Please go to https://ecat.com/join-us
Click on Home or Dec. 9 Event tab.
Keep an open mind. This is not the only LENR or ZPE or >advanced< quantum mechanics act< in town. The concept is that by monkeying with the EMF frequency of a proton (hydrogen nucleus) an mass-energy transmutation occurs that results in excess energy, in the case of the E-Cat SKLed, released as photons (or electrons?).

Coach Springer
November 11, 2021 8:16 am

Can the graphs and tables be borrowed / “citations”, or must they be original?

Reply to  Coach Springer
November 12, 2021 8:00 am

Yes, they can.

Coach Springer
November 11, 2021 8:21 am

$2,000X3 + $800X3 = $8,400. Kind of sad that’s all you collected, but …. I doubt the entrants will need a lot of external encouragement.

Reply to  Coach Springer
November 12, 2021 7:59 am

I collected slightly more, but I’m holding some in reserve as I may issue an “honorable mention” prize or two.

Last edited 21 days ago by Anthony Watts
Oldseadog
November 11, 2021 8:59 am

Contest rules: “….. question the validity …..”
Is it a theory or a hypothesis?
But whatever it is I really hope that you get lots of good entries. Getting the winners published in MSM may be a problem, though.

bonbon
November 11, 2021 9:00 am

FLOP26 is climate monetization on steroids – they want $150 TRILLION which even BlackRock chief is balking at.
So be happy – they are not going to get even $100 BILLION.
Meanwhile Google is again pursuing a Pentagon Cloud contract, where Gen. Milley recently declared climate was the worst adversary.
Customer is always king, right?

The timing is everything. Youtube is also removing 10 month old content that trashes geopolitical antics which are often repeated here – rabid attempts to start wars with Russia and China. It is not just Climate, COVID, but the core oligarchical Malthusian narrative of East-West and the Rest imperative that they defend. Trump dumped that and look what Big Tech did to him!

Last edited 22 days ago by bonbon
Ed Fox
November 11, 2021 9:22 am

Winners can remain anonymous, but must be verified by WUWT staff
==============
Would Climategate have happened if the anonymous poster had to be verified by WUWT staff?

A secret is no longer a secret if it is told to one other person. In today’s cancel culture that can be fatal to a promising career. WUWT enjoys no special privilege that allows it to protect anonymous contributors.

Reply to  Ed Fox
November 11, 2021 9:50 am

I doubt we will receive subpoenas to reveal the identify the names of essayists, and we wouldn’t publish an essay that could lead to law enforcement action. I have been contacted by several users to delete years-old comments or posts to ensure that they are not in jeopardy. I have complied promptly every time.

My finances however, are always in jeopardy.

Last edited 22 days ago by Charles Rotter
ed fox
Reply to  Charles Rotter
November 11, 2021 10:59 am

Charles, what is the reason behind WUWT identifying the authors of submissions? Perhaps it would make sense if you were to give the reason behind the policy?

You can be forced via discovery to reveal anonymous authors and it would take substantial $$ to fight.

Police showed up and seized computers during Climategate because there are trillions of dollars to be made via climate policies. Those that stand to make the money don’t like those standing in the way.

Last edited 22 days ago by ed fox
Reply to  ed fox
November 11, 2021 3:46 pm

I have an idea. Don’t enter.

Ed Fox
Reply to  Charles Rotter
November 11, 2021 10:15 pm

So long as people are afraid to speak up no argument will convince anyone.

Ed Fox
November 11, 2021 9:30 am

When was the last time you read this on social medial:

“I see your point. You’ve changed my mind”

Reply to  Ed Fox
November 13, 2021 1:22 am

Hey – you’ve got a point there Ed.
Wow – that completely changes my opinion about climate, US politics and covid-19 vaccination!
Guess I’ll stop watching for aliens every night too.

Last edited 20 days ago by Hatter Eggburn
Latitude
November 11, 2021 9:39 am

Someone do this “sea level rise acceleration” bullcrap…..

it’s easy…..just list all the tide gauges….direct measurements…..that show no acceleration

……unless you cherry pick

Tom
November 11, 2021 10:21 am

Frankly, I think this is just going down the path of “everything has been said, but not everybody has said it.” I don’t see the point.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom
November 11, 2021 4:39 pm

What’s the harm? Some people might be very creative if given a chance.

Tom
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 12, 2021 5:42 am

I don’t think there can be any real harm, but it’s just people recycling the same things over and over. The reality is there is nothing to be done to thwart the onward march of climate alarmism which fully overtaken the establishment, by which I mean all major public and private institutions and governments. The only thing that will stop it is for temperatures to stop going up over a very long period of time, meaning several decades. But, even then it is possible that climate alarmism will not change because of entrenched positions. I supposed if enough economic harm is done, the man in the street will begin to resist. We’ll have to wait and see on that too. Will climate change be an issue 100 years from now; I would like to know the answer to that question.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom
November 14, 2021 4:07 am

“The reality is there is nothing to be done to thwart the onward march of climate alarmism which fully overtaken the establishment, by which I mean all major public and private institutions and governments.”

All our institutions have been corrupted by Michael Mann and his Hockey Stick Team in cahoots with a dishonest UN IPCC.

Read the book “The Hockey Stick Illusion” to see just how currupted our system has become. Michael Mann and his cronies and the bureaucrats at the UN have been lying to us for years about the climate.

The book is also good for people new to this climate change subject as it provides a very good history of what took place ealier in the decade and how we got where we are today.

It’s stunning how Michael Mann continues to get away with his lies about the temperature record, when it is obvious to anyone with any understanding of the subject that he is lying and deliberately distoring the temperature record and he has lots of help from other liars in positions of authority who benefit from this Lie.

Russell Cook
Reply to  Tom
November 11, 2021 4:42 pm

I would have aimed that exact point of yours squarely at the CAGW promoters back in the early 1990s. From that time onward, the global warming issue still boils down to just 3 talking points: “settled science” / “skeptic scientists are on the payroll of Big Coal/Oil to spread lies that undercut the settled science” / “reporters and policymakers may ignore the skeptics because of the prior two talking points.”

Vww
November 11, 2021 12:31 pm

You might want to make explicit that the deadline is December 11th, not November 12th. Any non US person would read the date as the latter, which I assume is incorrect.

Peter
Reply to  Vww
November 11, 2021 8:31 pm

Indeed – I would be one such!

Mike Dubrasich
November 11, 2021 4:42 pm

What format do you prefer: txt, enriched txt, html, docx?

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
November 11, 2021 5:50 pm

docx, but will take most anything.

Reply to  Charles Rotter
November 14, 2021 12:38 am

Charles – can we expect an email confirming successful submission of an essay? Or would that be too time-consuming?

Rhys Jaggar
November 12, 2021 1:51 am

Mr Watts – am I right in assuming that 12/11/2021 means the 11th of December? In the UK, that would mean today, the 12th of November.

leitmotif
November 12, 2021 4:27 am

Topic: Is there really a climate crisis?

Which climate? Tropical, dry, continental, temperate or polar?

stargrazzer
November 12, 2021 12:01 pm

Submission deadline by 12/11/21 means 11th December for us Brits… phew

Alasdair Fairbairn
Reply to  stargrazzer
November 13, 2021 3:07 am

Amid the confusion I submitted my Essay on the 11/11/21 ( that’s u.k. time) : Zunck.🤭
Ah Well- that’s life these days; confusion for all and sundry and especially for experts.
Maybe I will offer it again when things have settled down

Incidently I tried to donate; but someone must have hacked it to make it respond in very weird ways. I gave up eventually- scared that I would get had for a sucker. I’ll try later.

Someone doesn’t like WUWT; but I expect we all already know that and that is why we like it.

Reply to  stargrazzer
November 14, 2021 12:35 am

Alisdair
I thought the same – that the deadline was 12 November, so I also submitted my essay yesterday late at night, with a donation. Anyway that’s done now am at least. Donation seemed to work OK, I used credit card but got a PayPal receipt which seems genuine.

Alec Rawls
November 12, 2021 6:41 pm

Thanks for the update. I thought from the earlier posts that the deadline for submissions was in January, not the announcement of winners.

Ireneusz Palmowski
November 17, 2021 12:28 am

Canada’s colder low could bring lots of snow to the Great Lakes.comment image

Sheri
November 19, 2021 9:19 am

You use a demon organization to support your website, these things are expected. Perhaps more thought would have be useful in this case.

H. D. Hoese
November 21, 2021 1:49 pm

More of a spoken essay, but this one is going to be hard to beat. I rarely listen to podcasts, especially political ones, but did this one for the whole 55 minutes, real spy thriller of sorts. These guys deserve a Nobel, maybe should take it from the Ozone Hole one which I recall had something in it about “saving the planet.” Cherry was getting awfully rotten.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/20/cherry-picking-rpa-climategate-remix/
RPA Climategate Remix: CHERRY PICKINGRPA Climategate Remix: CHERRY PICKING

high treason
November 22, 2021 5:43 pm

Hopefully there are test subjects in the different categories to see which essay technique is most effective in getting the message through. Since the real aim is to determine what tactics work on the brainwashed to wake them up, realistically, the writer themselves could be from any stratum of society.
If I can get the creative juices flowing and the time, I reckon I could have a crack at all 3 categories to appeal to the levels of life experience of different audiences. Like any presentation, it has to be tailored to the target audience. My dissertations will have a similar tactic, but tweaked to match the audience.
Hint- my tactics do not revolve around obvious scientific facts or lack thereof. Climate cultists are driven by emotion, not fact. Interestingly, the same tactics could be used to deprogram COVID quackccine cult members.

%d bloggers like this: