Physicist offers $10,000 to anyone who can disprove "man-made global climate change"

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Phage

I said you can't prove real warming. I stand by that position. There are trends in climate, which are normal. There is no man-made "global warming", however.

What makes you so sure of your statement 'there is no man-made global warming, however', where does the certainty in which you make this statement come from?

There is no real evidence of "global warming" at all, much less man-made. Temps a century ago, in rural areas, are basically the same.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Found these on the first page of google;

www.skepticalscience.com...

ossfoundation.us...

en.wikipedia.org...

motherboard.vice.com...

climate.nasa.gov...

a reply to: ImaFungi

Read it all, not convinced. And, no, won't try for his reward, either. When a lot of data isn't available online any longer, the average person can't really research the matter.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: ChesterJohn

remember they just concluded that the Antarctica Ice shelf melt was do to geothermal volcanic activity and not made made global warming.

WOW that is news to me. Do you have a link to a reliable source? I thought it was just for the Thwaites Glacier but are you saying it is for all of Antartica?

Underwater volcanoes, not climate change, reason behind melting of West Antarctic Ice Sheet

You have the right source but apparently you wern't reading it with an open mind. The main glacier is Thwaites but the melt is not limited to Thwaites. The point is that it is Thwaites that the global warming alarmist use as proof of man made (anthropological) global warming. When in fact their proof was just proven to be false. Volcanic activity under Thwaites is not limited to just Thwaites to infer that is just, well, NUTS!

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: ImaFungi

Read it all, not convinced. And, no, won't try for his reward, either. When a lot of data isn't available online any longer, the average person can't really research the matter.

Well I dont know if 'climate change' says anything about the sand going anywhere, but you should be safe with your head kept in there.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Phage

I said you can't prove real warming. I stand by that position. There are trends in climate, which are normal. There is no man-made "global warming", however.

What makes you so sure of your statement 'there is no man-made global warming, however', where does the certainty in which you make this statement come from?

There is no real evidence of "global warming" at all, much less man-made. Temps a century ago, in rural areas, are basically the same.

True but there is more to it.

urban areas where man lives are a bit warmer do to the activity of man in those areas. But those warmer temps are limited to local areas. the larger the Urban ares like the greater Los Angeles area and the the Greater Manila Area, or Pairs France area to warmer the Local temps. All of these areas have higher local temps do to anthropological activity but as the warmer air temps move out of those areas they quickly cool down before hitting another urban area. The only thing that hold together whether hot of cold is smog. I have been to the greater Beijing China in the winter and it was smoggy the temp was -19c. Smoggy and very cold. Smog was not holding in temps it was affected by the cold air front that brought snow and Ice to the area.

Smog is anthropological by-product of any concentration of people in urban areas. And it will move from one area to another but it doesn't seem to cause global warming as Global Warming Alarmist would have us believe. But as it is observed (true science) the mass is cooled down as it leaves one urban area and travels to another. Once it mixes into the area of another anthropological urban mass the temps warms back up but that is because of the Anthropological mass in the area not gases. Once it moves out in the weather cycle it cools, when it cools some of the gases separate from one another some are lighter and move upward and some are heavier and move downward this allows some of the gases to liquefy and settle with the due in both Urban and Agri areas, but they don't hold heat as the Alarmist claim, the temp of a smog mass changes as it goes in and out of an Urban area.

This is why the Global warming only use water temps and melting glaciers to prove man made global warming the air temps are not reliable to prove their points. But the earth is 2/3rds water and covers a large geothermal area of the planet. and Ocean Temps around the world are affected by the heating of the water via the geothermal contact such as what is going on ins Antarctica as well as the Pacific rim, the ring of fire. These warmer ocean waters like the air are cyclic and move around the world causing temp rises and lowering dependent on the volcanic activity.

a reply to: MentorsRiddle

oooooooor...there is a developed industrial society on every planet in the solar system

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Is there any possibility they are right and you are wrong?

Would it be bad or wrong to cut back on waste, pollution and emissions regardless?

Will these factors ever negatively effect the environment if the trends continue?

a reply to: ImaFungi

Would it be bad or wrong to cut back on waste, pollution and emissions regardless?

that would be the correct way to go. For me...we have to go green as much as possible. Still, is imposing carbon tax a step in that direction ? No it isn't.

It a money making scheme. Why not subsidize green tech instead..to the point that everyone would want to install it. But no...going green is "not financially feasible".

I don't believe in AGW...but I support fully going green.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
True but there is more to it.

urban areas where man lives are a bit warmer do to the activity of man in those areas. But those warmer temps are limited to local areas. the larger the Urban ares like the greater Los Angeles area and the the Greater Manila Area, or Pairs France area to warmer the Local temps. All of these areas have higher local temps do to anthropological activity but as the warmer air temps move out of those areas they quickly cool down before hitting another urban area.

Do you accept the Conservation of Energy as a valid law?

If so, what do you think happens as this heat disperses?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: ChesterJohn

remember they just concluded that the Antarctica Ice shelf melt was do to geothermal volcanic activity and not made made global warming.

WOW that is news to me. Do you have a link to a reliable source? I thought it was just for the Thwaites Glacier but are you saying it is for all of Antartica?

Underwater volcanoes, not climate change, reason behind melting of West Antarctic Ice Sheet

You have the right source but apparently you wern't reading it with an open mind. The main glacier is Thwaites but the melt is not limited to Thwaites. The point is that it is Thwaites that the global warming alarmist use as proof of man made (anthropological) global warming. When in fact their proof was just proven to be false. Volcanic activity under Thwaites is not limited to just Thwaites to infer that is just, well, NUTS!

My mind is open but not so open it falls out. I have no idea how you can claim one glacier is causing an entire continent of ice to melt. That is like saying its snowing in Canada aren't you cold in Florida. Now that would be NUTS. BTW here are some pictures to give you the scope Thwaites.

BTW Thwaites is about the size of Florida.

Of course global warming is man-made, with all that farting we do. lol Can't wait til they tax us for it.