American Enterprise Institute offers $10,000 to dispute climate study

[danarhea]

First, the background, which is this article, detailing the report by the world's leading scientists that climate change is man made, and that we have already passed the tipping point. Climate change is now unstoppable, and what man has done will affect earth for centuries to come.

So what is the response of the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank which has ExxonMobil as its major funder? To offer a $10,000.00 bribe to anyone willing to come out in opposition to these facts.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Well good. I can think of about 6 people on these very forums who could make an easy 10 grand by showing how all the experts somehow overlooked the fact that the earth's climate naturally fluxuates. :roll:

 

[Binary_Digit]

It's amazing how silent the critics are now that someone is willing to pay them to prove what they say.

So how about it Stinger, Cold Dirt, uNdeRdOg, Just Me 2, are you all planning to make an easy $10,000 by pointing out the elementary mistakes that people with pHDs have made? It's so easy, just tell the AEI that earth's climate has always been fluxuating and that the current warming trends are just part of the natural process. I'm sure nobody in the scientific community ever considered that before. After paying you good money to point out the obvious, you may even be nominated for the Nobel Prize!http://www.debatepolitics.com/members/underdog.html

 

[danarhea]

It's amazing how silent the critics are now that someone is willing to pay them to prove what they say.

So how about it Stinger, Cold Dirt, uNdeRdOg, Just Me 2, are you all planning to make an easy $10,000 by pointing out the elementary mistakes that people with pHDs have made? It's so easy, just tell the AEI that earth's climate has always been fluxuating and that the current warming trends are just part of the natural process. I'm sure nobody in the scientific community ever considered that before. After paying you good money to point out the obvious, you may even be nominated for the Nobel Prize!

Nah, some whackjob already nominated Rush Limbaugh for that. LOL.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Nah, some whackjob already nominated Rush Limbaugh for that. LOL.

What a coincidence. Some whackjob also nominated Al Gore.

Oh look, you called Limbaugh a name and then I came along and called Gore a name.

Next, you might come along and call me a name

and then....

What does any of this get us?

:roll:

:stooges

:neener

 

[danarhea]

What a coincidence. Some whackjob also nominated Al Gore.

Oh look, you called Limbaugh a name and then I came along and called Gore a name.

Next, you might come along and call me a name

and then....

What does any of this get us?

:roll:

:stooges

:neener

Actually, Gore was nominated by the Nobel Committee. However, considering some of the past Peace Prize winners, I don't put much stock in this particular prize. But one of the past winners, Shirin Ebadi, definitely deserved the prize.

Now, with that out of the way, let me ask you this: If global warming is not caused by man, and is not a problem, why are people attempting to bribe others to dispute global warming, when the world's leading scientists, who were NOT paid for their findings, and therefore have no monetary stake in the outcome, already said that human-caused global warming is real?

 

[Binary_Digit]

If global warming is not caused by man, and is not a problem, why are people attempting to bribe others to dispute global warming, when the world's leading scientists, who were NOT paid for their findings, and therefore have no monetary stake in the outcome, already said that human-caused global warming is real?

Because they exaggerated the facts to get more funding, of course! :roll:

 

[Cold Dirt]

Oh the days when idiots told us in the 70's that we were in store of the next ice age..............:roll: wonder what happened to that?

Funny thing is, we have all these environmental wackos like the ones posting this junk science...............but none of them can agree how long we have before doomsday.................some say 10 years, some say 50 years, some say 5 years............funny how all of them know the "End is Near" yet cannot prove any of their junk science..............its become a religion for these morons............

 

[Cold Dirt]

Now, with that out of the way, let me ask you this: If global warming is not caused by man, and is not a problem, why are people attempting to bribe others to dispute global warming, when the world's leading scientists, who were NOT paid for their findings, and therefore have no monetary stake in the outcome, already said that human-caused global warming is real?

BS...............not one govt grant? ......prove it bucko

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Oh the days when idiots told us in the 70's that we were in store of the next ice age..............:roll: wonder what happened to that?

RealClimate » The global cooling myth
​

Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn't stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.
I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we're only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try Science-type stuff.
​

 

[Simon W. Moon]

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No

If you can find me a reference saying otherwise, I'll put it here.
​

 

[Hatuey]

This is nothing more then a desperation move. Think of it as the White House paying ID proponents to prove their "theory". They cant because of the mountains of overwhelming evidence Evolution has against them.

 

[Cold Dirt]

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No

If you can find me a reference saying otherwise, I'll put it here.
​

Beware: long intro...] A long while ago, in the mid-70's, there was a minor kerfuffle about the "coming ice age". A good summary of the episode comes from the words of noted Alarmist Richard Lindzen (warning: I'm being ironical) the scientific community never took the issue to heart, governments ignored it, and with rising global temperatures in the late 1970s the issue more or less died as written in the journal of the notoriously pinko Cato Institute. The only lasting influence of the episode was in the powerful, but self-contradictory, lyrics of the Clash's Londons Burning: "The ice age is coming, the sun is zooming in". See Science-type stuff for a badly organised but very detailed look at various sources; or [[Global cooling]] for a better-organised but briefer version; or RC:94 for a general blog-type survey (all those are essentailly mine).

Stoat: Back to the ice ages: Ice, by Fred Hoyle

Crow BBQ on Super Bowl Sunday

 

[Stinger]

It's amazing how silent the critics are now that someone is willing to pay them to prove what they say.

So how about it Stinger, Cold Dirt, uNdeRdOg, Just Me 2, are you all planning to make an easy $10,000 by pointing out the elementary mistakes that people with pHDs have made? It's so easy, just tell the AEI that earth's climate has always been fluxuating and that the current warming trends are just part of the natural process. I'm sure nobody in the scientific community ever considered that before. After paying you good money to point out the obvious, you may even be nominated for the Nobel Prize!

"offering 10,000 dollars (7,700 euros) to scientists and economists to dispute a climate change report set to be released by the UN's top scientific panel, The Guardian reports Friday"

I don't think I'd qualify any more than you would or I'd go for it.

Are you making a prediction that they don't have any takers?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Stoat: Back to the ice ages: Ice, by Fred Hoyle
Crow BBQ on Super Bowl Sunday

So how is your crow?
You know that the you cite linked to linked to the cite I linked to, right?
The one that says:

Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? NO
​

Also, you realize that your cite says this: "the scientific community never took the issue [the "coming ice age"] to heart," right? (emphasis in original)

You do realize these things, right?

 

[Kandahar]

The world is warming, and only idiots dispute this fact.

The world is warming because of human activity, and MOSTLY only idiots dispute this fact.

However, there is a legitimate point of contention to be made here, that has nothing to do with being anti-science. Is it cheaper to solve the problem of climate change, or to simply accept the consequences of climate change and adapt to them? I strongly suspect the latter. As the economic study I posted in a recent thread points out, solving the problem of global warming is one of the LEAST cost-effective ways of saving lives.