Video: Anyone want to make $100,000? Update: Goracle assails the vast GW-denialist conspiracy

posted at 12:56 pm on August 7, 2007 by Allahpundit

A perfect platform for Newt. It’s called the Ultimate Global Warming Challenge and it’s sponsored by JunkScience.com, a website run by Fox News commentator Stephen Milloy. If Gingrich is serious about “green conservatism,” he should take Milloy’s challenge and leverage the buzz that would come with a clash of conservatives on this issue to get his message out.

Of course, he won’t.

Update: Another opening for Newt. Do I detect a climbdown there, incidentally, in the Goracle’s comments about China? He’s on the record as saying they shouldn’t have to go green until the U.S. does even though they’re set to become the world’s biggest carbon emitter next year. Now he’s emphasizing the role they have to play while paying lip service to the need for America to lead example. What’s it all about, Alfie?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I wonder if anyone will enter and if so will their work be published at Junk Science. It should make for interesting, if not amusing reading.

Pulchritudinous Patriot on August 7, 2007 at 1:01 PM

Just sent you that Al Gore is claiming that large polluters are launching a global propaganda campaign

Newt in on the conspiracy I see

William Amos on August 7, 2007 at 1:06 PM

I’m sure they will publish all entries for the entertainment value.

db on August 7, 2007 at 1:06 PM

I wonder if JunkScience would accept the theory that if the Goreacle and his minions would just shut their pie holes and stop letting out all that hot air, global warming would almost immediately cease.

Kowboy on August 7, 2007 at 1:21 PM

Heh.

Allah, now that you have browbeaten the Tommy Thompson for President! campaign into taking part in the exciting GOP debate at YouTube, maybe this can be your next conquest.

How many iPhones would $100,000 buy?

Jaibones on August 7, 2007 at 1:21 PM

I baked pizza for dinner last night and it heated up the kitchen by at least 15 degrees. Where can I collect my $100K?

windbag on August 7, 2007 at 1:34 PM

Didn’t Gore’s Lalapollution tour do enough eco-damage already?

James on August 7, 2007 at 1:34 PM

At least we can be pretty sure Al won’t be running for Prez. The height of speculation about his running was enhanced by his dropping a few pounds, which was thought to be image burnishing. But in the “Update” photo, looks like he’s packed ‘em back on. *whew*

eeyore on August 7, 2007 at 1:44 PM

The warming hysteria peaked a couple of months ago… let’s try not restart it.

The fad is over…

Opinionnation on August 7, 2007 at 1:46 PM

“Can anyone save ALGORE” is the wrong question.

“Does anyone want to save ALGORE” this is the question.

Helloyawl on August 7, 2007 at 1:55 PM

I baked pizza for dinner last night and it heated up the kitchen by at least 15 degrees. Where can I collect my $100K?

windbag on August 7, 2007 at 1:34 PM

Considering that the sun probably puts a little more heat into the earth’s atmosphere each day than your oven… I’m thinking you should not get too excited about all the ways you could spend that 100 grand. But that’s just me.

Maxx on August 7, 2007 at 1:59 PM

Dosn’t green peace protect the whales like Al gore.

Mojack420 on August 7, 2007 at 2:04 PM

“Celebrity climatologist.” Heh.

I wonder just how funny Al Gore and his minions are going to seem to our great-grandchildren?

Never mind. I keep forgetting we’ll have long moved on to some other scare by then, and no one will ever actually hold these people accountable for their scaremongering.

I just hope some of them live long enough to realize just how foolish they were.

Professor Blather on August 7, 2007 at 2:06 PM

Damn my luck. I bought a V8 SUV on Thursday hoping that typically hot August days would prove that SUVs cause global warming. Since I bought it, it’s been a good 10 degrees cooler outside on average. No 100 grand for me.

Hollowpoint on August 7, 2007 at 2:07 PM

Love this bilge from Al Gore…

“This is one of the strongest of scientific consensus views in the history of science,” Gore said. “We live in a world where what used to be called propaganda now has a major role to play in shaping public opinion.”

Consensus in science is irrelevant. As a matter of fact, the consensus of scientific opinion has frequently been wrong. Occasionally with horrifying results.

Mike Honcho on August 7, 2007 at 2:09 PM

Of course, he won’t.

Is that cynicism re Newt, or just saying that the Challenge won’t be his particular approach? I think Newt has the possibility of cutting through the right’s appropriate resistence to hippie–collectivist–anti-corporate environmentalism with some sound ideas. I’m certainly going to be checking Newt.org a little more frequently for what’s up.

eeyore on August 7, 2007 at 2:11 PM

Does anyone remember Y2K? Remember the pending doom? The good thing about Y2K was that we knew the answers at 12:00:01 AM January 1, 2000. Those of us who actually were involved with those issues from a software engineering point of view knew from the moment the issue raised its ugly head. But no one would listen. My finical advisor told me to take precautions. I told him there was no need and tried to explain. His response was to had me the latest book on the subject… I could not get past the intro… I was all garbage. Now I see much the same in this issue. My problem is I’m not as close to the subject and must depend on more knowledgeable people. The question is whom do you believe… Certainly not Sir Al. His creditability was gone long ago but it seems people have very short memories.

vulcannomad on August 7, 2007 at 2:14 PM

Hollowpoint on August 7, 2007 at 2:07 PM

Heh.

Jaibones on August 7, 2007 at 2:14 PM

“This is one of the strongest of scientific consensus views in the history of science,” Gore said.

Gee Al… what about these Seventeen-Thousand scientist, engineers, meteorologist and various other people with advanced degrees that disagree with you?

Maxx on August 7, 2007 at 2:16 PM

Opinionnation on August 7, 2007 at 1:46 PM

The lefty douches at Live Earth did seem to let a little air out of the room, didn’t they?

Jaibones on August 7, 2007 at 2:16 PM

I fall in the “skeptic” camp on anthropogenic climate change, but this is sort of a cheesy gimmick built on a ridiculous premise, and I think it actually hurts the skeptic cause more than helps it, because it just reinforces the perception held by many that skeptics are either a) scientific illiterates or b) manipulative and taking advantage of those who are scientific illiterates.

The idea that someone should be able to conclusively “prove” that human activities are responsible for the majority of measured warming is ludicrous. It would be more beneficial to the skeptic cause if anyone at all could merely “prove” that there is another viable potential cause of the warming beyond CO2.

We intuitively know that the climate is complex beyond the comprehension of arrogant scientists like Gavin Schmidt, who like to pretend that they understand every little nuance and that there is absolutely no room for doubt… but the fact is that noone can actually say what the mechanism for the warming MIGHT BE aside from CO2 “greenhouse”.

DaveS on August 7, 2007 at 2:18 PM

You might hate Al Gore for exaggerating and being a hypocrite, but why is no one pointing out that this is just a stunt by JunkScience? The contest is pretty much setting itself up so that it can’t lose.

The terms are extremely strict, and require a proof that reasons about “global social, economic and environmental effects.” Is there any proof of anything (even if it involves a scientific law that everyone is sure of) regarding social and economic considerations?

And of course, JunkScience is free to interpret the terms and judge the validity of the proof as it chooses:

Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the UGWC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. JunkScience.com reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest.

Why not set up the contest in a much more fair and scientific way (for example, defining the terms strictly and having a pre-specified panel of experts judge) so that no one can complain about it being illegitimate?

tneloms on August 7, 2007 at 2:26 PM

DaveS on August 7, 2007 at 2:18 PM

Didn’t see your post as I was posting. Well said.

tneloms on August 7, 2007 at 2:29 PM

I have just two comments:

1. Al Gore is a false prophet.
2. Mohammed is a false prophet.

When replying please indicate whether you object to number one or number two. Sometimes its hard to tell just from the objections.

TunaTalon on August 7, 2007 at 2:34 PM

The terms are extremely strict, and require a proof that reasons about “global social, economic and environmental effects.” Is there any proof of anything (even if it involves a scientific law that everyone is sure of) regarding social and economic considerations?

There should be. The global warming zealots have been claiming all along that a temperature rise of .5 degrees farenheit will be catastrophic for humanity. I say force then to prove that global warming is A) Actually occurring and that it is anthropogenic and B) That it will result in the dire consequences that they have predicted.

Mike Honcho on August 7, 2007 at 2:41 PM

JunkScience.com, in its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any, from UGWC entries.

JunkScience.com does not promise or guarantee that the UGWC will have any winner.

Isn’t this a conflict of interest? JunkScience has a vested interest in no one winning. More to the point, what burden of proof are entrants supposed to meet? Does JunkScience want a non-circular, deductively valid argument with true premises? Or will an inductive argument with true premises suffice? What if someone can show that the evidence makes it more probable than not that man-made global warming is taking place? Will that suffice?

Bill Ramey on August 7, 2007 at 2:42 PM

t would be more beneficial to the skeptic cause if anyone at all could merely “prove” that there is another viable potential cause of the warming beyond CO2.

The sun? Climate cycles? The same weather that’s existed (and changed) for five billion years? I can think of a few candidates besides SUVs and John Edwards’ palatial mansion.

The idea that someone should be able to conclusively “prove” that human activities are responsible for the majority of measured warming is ludicrous.

I very much see your point. However, the problem is that – thanks to Gore’s mindless propaganda – millions of people DON’T believe that’s ludicrous and DO believe its already been proven to be true.

I think the idea of this campaign is precisely to point out how little real proof is really out there. I don’t think this is aimed at scientists or leftists – I think its aimed at the average Joe out there who hasn’t heard enough to even question the unquestioned claims of “proof.”

Gore said. “We live in a world where what used to be called propaganda now has a major role to play in shaping public opinion.”

If he managed to say that with a straight face, you can color me impressed. That’s some whopping irony and a rather large lack of self-awareness, don’tcha think?

Professor Blather on August 7, 2007 at 2:44 PM

The warming hysteria peaked a couple of months ago… let’s try not restart it.

The fad is over…

Too true. Nothing is more powerful than hype, and the hype machine stops for no one. And reporters get bored too.

Michael Moore bet on health care (“Sicko”) and lost big time. Is that Oscar buzz I hear? Or the sound of no hands clapping?

Al put all his eggs in the global warming basket, which paid off big for a few months. But it’s already played out. Even stupid Live Earth was too late to cash in.

He seriously thought he could keep some fictional catastrophe set 1,000 years in the future on the front burner?

saint kansas on August 7, 2007 at 2:52 PM

Isn’t this a conflict of interest? JunkScience has a vested interest in no one winning. More to the point, what burden of proof are entrants supposed to meet? Does JunkScience want a non-circular, deductively valid argument with true premises? Or will an inductive argument with true premises suffice? What if someone can show that the evidence makes it more probable than not that man-made global warming is taking place? Will that suffice?

Bill Ramey on August 7, 2007 at 2:42 PM

Hey Bill… relax. This is 100 grand up for grabs, easy money, right? Al Gore says there is total consensus. If you want the money, all you got to do is cut and past a few paragraphs out of the UN report on climate change…. right?

Or are you trying to say this might be a political stunt by Junkscience to show there actually is no consensus and that all the “proof” goes against global warming. Oh my, in that case, I’m aghast.

Maxx on August 7, 2007 at 2:52 PM

Why not set up the contest in a much more fair and scientific way (for example, defining the terms strictly and having a pre-specified panel of experts judge) so that no one can complain about it being illegitimate?

tneloms on August 7, 2007 at 2:26 PM

How about a completely objective test?

It wouldn’t really work – because it’d take 20-50 years, and that wouldn’t be very entertaining! – but how’s this:

You pick a spot on the globe. Your choice. Now tell me to within some predetermined range exactly how much the average annual temperature in that location will increase by the year 2050?

If there is any science involved in the global warming hysteria – they ought to be able to provide some degree of reliability in a predictive model, right?

So, fine. Tell me how much warmer it’ll be in Nashville, Tennessee on August 7, 2050. Not exactly, of course; but show me you can validly predict the trend.

If not – admit you’re just wild-ass guessing the whole thing.

That’s the challenge I’d like to see. Just show me something objectively verifiable.

How about predicting hurricane numbers? The global warming crowd failed miserably in that last year, of course. But how about over the next 40 years – what percentage increase in severe weather will we see?

The bottom line: if there is real science here, they should be able to provide SOME degree of predictability of future weather patterns.

If they can, I’ll listen. If they can’t, maybe we can all get back to dealing with reality.

Professor Blather on August 7, 2007 at 2:54 PM

…the fact is that noone can actually say what the mechanism for the warming MIGHT BE aside from CO2 “greenhouse”.
DaveS on August 7, 2007 at 2:18 PM

Huh? Let’s see. There’s Global Warming on Mars, GW on Jupiter, GW on Neptune, GW on Neptune’s moon Triton, GW on Pluto, significant evidence that Earth temperature has correlated with sunspot activity.
Hmmm, any theme there? Guess not.

eeyore on August 7, 2007 at 2:54 PM

The sun? Climate cycles?

It’s one thing to make that hypothesis, but its another to provide some evidenciary support for it and to explain the precise mechanism by which it would work, in a manner that explains any inconsistencies in past observations in solar output and in global temperatures. THAT is the problem.

I think its aimed at the average Joe out there who hasn’t heard enough to even question the unquestioned claims of “proof.”

And that’s why its a bad idea, because–as I said–it reinforces the idea that skeptics are trying to exploit scientific illiteracy. The Gore crowd has established the narrative–they are “modelled up” and have convinced everyone that the IPCC represents the views of all of the scientists who submit papers (rather than the summary authors, etc). They have always done exactly what I’m accusing Malloy of doing, but at this point it only HURTS the skeptic cause to retaliate using the same techniques, because the public is conditioned to think that only skeptics use those techniques. Ironically, they were conditioned to think that way using those very techniques.

DaveS on August 7, 2007 at 2:55 PM

Consensus in science is irrelevant. As a matter of fact, the consensus of scientific opinion has frequently been wrong. Occasionally with horrifying results.

Exactly. Facts speak for themselves…nobody has to ‘vote’ on it.

Asher on August 7, 2007 at 2:57 PM

There’s Global Warming on Mars, GW on Jupiter, GW on Neptune, GW on Neptune’s moon Triton, GW on Pluto, significant evidence that Earth temperature has correlated with sunspot activity.

I agree. Now prove that its the cause.

DaveS on August 7, 2007 at 2:57 PM

Hmmm, any theme there? Guess not.

eeyore on August 7, 2007 at 2:54 PM

Yes. There is a theme. Jupiter global warming – like that on Mars and Triton – have all advanced notably since 2000.

Thus it is clear that George Bush causes global warming. He hates cool globes almost as much as he hates Black people. Regardless of which globe you’re talking about, he’s gonna warm it.

That’s what you get for misunderestimating his power.

Alternate theory: Karl Rove is purposely causing Martian global warming as a smokescreen for Earth global warming. Google it.

Professor Blather on August 7, 2007 at 2:59 PM

I’m not a scientist, so I guess this is naive, but do we actually know what the earth’s temperature is today?

NellE on August 7, 2007 at 3:06 PM

There’s Global Warming on Mars, GW on Jupiter, GW on Neptune, GW on Neptune’s moon Triton, GW on Pluto, significant evidence that Earth temperature has correlated with sunspot activity.

I agree. Now prove that its the cause.

DaveS on August 7, 2007 at 2:57 PM

Don’t have to Dave… it’s the global warmers that are trying to foment all the hysteria and get into our pockets in the process…. the burden of proof is on them.

Maxx on August 7, 2007 at 3:11 PM

Now prove that [sun activity is] the cause.
DaveS on August 7, 2007 at 2:57 PM

DaveS, sorry to have to recap your previous comment again but

…the fact is that noone can actually say what the mechanism for the warming MIGHT BE aside from CO2 “greenhouse”.

You said “MIGHT BE”, not “proven”. Can you prove CO2 “greenhouse” is the cause?

eeyore on August 7, 2007 at 3:35 PM

Just sent you that Al Gore is claiming that large polluters are launching a global propaganda campaign

Newt in on the conspiracy I see

William Amos on August 7, 2007 at 1:06 PM

Fat Al learned something from 8 years with Billy Jeff: ignore your opponents’ arguments and instead attack their motives.

Labamigo on August 7, 2007 at 3:51 PM

You said “MIGHT BE”, not “proven”. Can you prove CO2 “greenhouse” is the cause?

No, I explicitly said it was ludicrous to demand that it be proven. I said that skeptics would benefit more by proposing a hypothesis (like the sun, which has been mentioned 428 times in this thread), and then explaining what MIGHT BE a mechanism by which the sun would have caused the warming. An intuitive hunch that its the sun based on anecdotal (though compelling) warming on a few solar bodies is nothing more than a hunch.

The greenhouse scientists have very complex models explaining the mechanisms behind the warming that they predict. There is no model so far that explains any mechanism by which the sun causes the observed warming.

I believe its the sun, primarily–I think it takes a moron, Ph.D. or none, to believe otherwise…it’s called common sense–but there is, thus far, no way to explain why.

DaveS on August 7, 2007 at 3:59 PM

Save Al Gore? IMO it would be worth 100 grand just to see him drown in the flood of his own hypocrisy.

infidel4life on August 7, 2007 at 4:02 PM

I’ll get interested in this contest when they actually put AlGore on a melting iceberg surrounded by actual sharks. Then I’ll root for the sharks.

Buzzy on August 7, 2007 at 4:06 PM

Maxx,

The only thing I’m trying to say is that the contest is dubious, as are all contests of this kind. They rely on the dubious premise that a failure to win the contest is definitive evidence against whatever phenomena the contest is about.

Bill Ramey on August 7, 2007 at 4:06 PM

BTW, I just got my copy of Newsweek. The cover story discusses the global warming disbelievers, and certainly not in a positive light. I haven’t read it yet so here’s my initial summary of the cover story: the global warming disbelievers are paid by the eeevvvvilll corporations.

mram on August 7, 2007 at 4:09 PM

Global warming is Al Gore’s Mohammad.

Except I don’t think that Mohammad ever said anything about Carbon credits.

MB4 on August 7, 2007 at 5:18 PM

If ya wanna see something rich about global warming check out this fiasco
Bancroft / Arnesen Explore now don’t confuse these whackos with the intrepid Ernest Shackleton.

TheSitRep on August 7, 2007 at 5:19 PM

There is no model so far that explains any mechanism by which the sun causes the observed warming…
DaveS on August 7, 2007 at 3:59 PM

Actually, in The Great Global Warming Swindle, the mechanism was proposed that increased solar activity drives away some of the cosmic ray particles which act as condensing surfaces for clouds, which are one of earth’s cooling forces. Thus, more solar activity, fewer clouds, more warming.

eeyore on August 7, 2007 at 5:34 PM

An intuitive hunch that its the sun based on anecdotal (though compelling) warming on a few solar bodies is nothing more than a hunch.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566

Go to 26:00 in the video for the scientific evidence that the sun drives the climate. If only this video was disseminated more widely.

Watch the whole video. It is damning.

jihadwatcher on August 7, 2007 at 5:41 PM

The Great Global Warming Swindle
eeyore on August 7, 2007 at 5:34 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566
jihadwatcher on August 7, 2007 at 5:41 PM

Da same. Hope DaveS takes a look.

eeyore on August 7, 2007 at 6:01 PM

TheSitRep on August 7, 2007 at 5:19 PM

Hilarious. Someone might have warned the girls that it’s really, really cold up there…despite what they may have heard from Leo and George.

I saw the Swindle vid some months ago and got a good laugh. The GWHysterics claim to have debunked it, but I thought British scientists had Absolulte Moral Authority?

Jaibones on August 7, 2007 at 6:30 PM

I can’t wait until the skeptics get the chance to sink their teeth into this one. The skeptical movement, that is, not the “global warming skeptics”.

starflyer on August 7, 2007 at 6:31 PM

Maxx,

The only thing I’m trying to say is that the contest is dubious, as are all contests of this kind. They rely on the dubious premise that a failure to win the contest is definitive evidence against whatever phenomena the contest is about.

Bill Ramey on August 7, 2007 at 4:06 PM

Sorry for all the snark Bill, I see what you are saying now and I agree. No doubt, Junkscience has stacked the deck high in it’s favor. They have set the bar so high that it would probably be unachievable even if global warming wasn’t a monstrous hoax.

No one will be winning this contest, that’s for sure. But it will serve to challenge all of those “true believers” in global warming. Perhaps some of the fully indoctrinated will see this and think… “well that shouldn’t be so hard to prove”. Ha ! So, if this contest motivates even a few of those types to do some independent thinking and research, then the contest will have served it’s purpose.

Maxx on August 7, 2007 at 6:41 PM

I haven’t read it yet so here’s my initial summary of the cover story: the global warming disbelievers are paid by the eeevvvvilll corporations.

mram on August 7, 2007 at 4:09 PM

What ??? You mean the eeevvvvilll corporations are suppose to be paying me ? Are the rest of you guys getting paid and I’m not ? Now I’m really upset ! Where’s my check ?

Maxx on August 7, 2007 at 7:02 PM

The war on global warming is lost.
Hollywoods illegal war on climate change has developed into a quagmire.
All this war is accomplishing is a greater global footprint.
We are not safer from the earth, going green has made us more vulernable.
The planet won. All is lost.
Don’t buy the talking points…
If we dont fight there, the earth will follow us home.
The weatherman has to be right 99% of the time, the planet only has to be right once.
The Battle of climate change is not part of the War on global warming.
The Earth won’t cooperate when subject to an illegal OCCUPATION.
General Gores surge has failed.
Support hollywood and bring the stars home.
You people need to put the u back in human.

christophercube on August 7, 2007 at 10:46 PM

…the mechanism was proposed that increased solar activity drives away some of the cosmic ray particles…

I’ve seen it, and it’s an interesting theory. But there are no empirical, observed data from which the process can be modelled. It’s entirely theoretical, and–at least to some extent–observed temperature trends don’t correlate with what that theory would predict over the last few years.

I think there’s something to that theory, personally, but… it’s not quite there, yet.

DaveS on August 7, 2007 at 10:47 PM

AGW advocates have actually got their goalposts on automated tracks that switch positions at the touch of a button.

“It’s settled, there’s no question, no scientist believes…”

Prove it.

“That’s silly, there’s no such thing as absolute proof, it’s a ridiculous standard…”

THE QUESTION IS:

Is there sufficient proof that AGW is correct AND that the proposed solutions will have meaningful effect to justify the MASSIVE economic toll and dislocation and waste that will go along with the proposed solutions? Is there any guarantee that excluded 3rd-world nations won’t simply “take up the slack” in the carbon cycle?

In other words, should we assume that it’s “our fault” and punish ourselves (in the West, only, it seems) for it, or should we assume it’s a natural cycle and see what we can do to compensate for it, and stay on top of trends and changes so we can learn how to react?

‘Cause while it’s better to be proactive than reactive, if it’s mostly driven by the sun, there’s not a lot we can do to prevent it – but we can sure waste a lot of resources (that we need to compensate) in the process!

Merovign on August 7, 2007 at 11:32 PM

christophercube on August 7, 2007 at 10:46 PM

I like that.

Maxx on August 8, 2007 at 12:56 AM