Take the $100,000 Global Warming Believer Challenge!

11/29/201521 Comments

Do you believe in the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis? Want to help the IPCC with an embarrassing little statistical problem in their latest report? Want to win $100,000? Today James introduces you to Douglas J. Keenan’s $100,000 contest to identify trend-driven time series. Details are in the show notes. Good luck!

IPCC 5th Assessment Report

Statistical Analyses of Surface Temperatures in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

$100,000 Contest: identify trend-driven time series



Filed in: Videos
Tagged with:

Comments (21)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Myers says:

    In the sketch [from Monty Python] Michael Palin pays to have a five-minute argument with John Cleese. Despite his protests, all he gets for his money is rapid-fire contradction. Visibly agitated, he complains that he is dissatisfied.

    PALIN: An argument’s not the same as contradiction. An argument is a collected series of statements to establish a definite proposition.

    CLEESE: No it isn’t.

    PALIN: Yes it is! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just an automatic gainsaying of anything the other person said.

    CLEESE: No it isn’t.

    Like Cleese, many climate “contrarians” have no overall argument. Rather, they offer a series of inconsistent contradictions to specific statements, projecting an overall sense of umbrage instead of a reasoned critique. They claim that the observations are junk, and in the next breath that the observations disprove the models. They claim that temperatures aren’t rising, then that warming is caused by the Sun, or that the non-existent warming is good for us. They remind us that arguments from authority are unscientific, then ask us to respect the authority of retired NASA managers.

    Nobody (even at Heartland, it seems) disputes that CO2 molecules emit measurable heat, or that heat warms things up. But when contrarians assert that burning vast amounts of coal to power new industrial societies of billions of people won’t warm the climate, the onus is on them to provide a mechanism, a reason Earth’s climate should not warm when heat is applied though our everyday experience and common sense screams that it will.


    • nosoapradio says:

      In direct response to Myers’ extract of a Scott Denning article:

      “…Writing on the Yale Forum, Warmist “scientist” Scott Denning wrote an article quoting not one scientific fact but claiming that it is “commonsense” that global warming is going on — and accusing skeptics of irrationality for denying it.

      Lord Monckton wrote a comprehensive reply to Denning which was not published by the Yale Forum. The Forum did however summarize Monckton’s reply as follows…

      Denning in that piece singled-out Monckton and two other climate science skeptics as unlikely to have been swayed by Denning’s 2010 and 2011 presentations before skeptical Heartland Institute annual meeting audiences. He was right on that point, Monckton confirmed in a 10-page 4,547-word essay he submitted for posting.

      * He says “the true difference between [what he calls] the true-believers and the skeptics” is found in temperature feedbacks, which he concludes will be “somewhat net-negative, attenuating rather than amplifying the direct warming and removing the climate problem altogether.” This leads him to conclude that “this century’s CO2–driven warming will be just 0.5 Celsius,” about .8 F…

      * He accuses Denning of setting up “a number of straw men” and maintains that the actual consensus is that “a degree or two [Celsius] of warming would indeed be good for us.”

      * He criticizes Denning for providing “not a single quantitative argument,” but rather for providing a commentary “full of politics and polemics and emotion and a startling number of fallacies.” “This does not impress,” he writes…”



      • Myers says:

        I have written a few posts under these recent articles by James about AGW. I promise this is my last.

        I agree with Denning in that most of what I read or hear on the side of climate skepticism has no overall theory. The only real theory that I do read as to why climate science has grown to be such a large concern within the scientific community, is that it is a liberal conspiracy of gravy-trainers chasing government grants, and faking research on a colossal scale in order to do so. That and/or a mega plot inspired by elites to depopulate the Earth, impose taxes on Carbon.

        One question I keep asking and that I have not read a response to is ‘How does the story of Exxon’s own research findings fit into these theories’? They are not part of the academic world, yet they concluded the same risk in the burning of fossil fuels. They kept it secret, in a way directly analogous to other cases of disputed science (smoking, acid rain, ozone depletion). They went further to deliberately spread disinformation, spending vast sums of money in the process in an act of commercial damage limitation.

        If there is a genuine reason as to why most scientists who work in Earth sciences consider AGW a serious threat/risk (other than that they are convinced by the scientific literature on the subject), then what is that reason and how does the Exxon story fit with it?

        • nosoapradio says:

          The IPCC’s raison d’etre is to prove that human activity causes climate change.

          A fossil fuel company would appear to have a strong impetus to prove the contrary.

          Unless both organizations are founded and funded by the same Rockefeller family. An extract from your article:

          “…However, Exxon’s public position was marked by continued refusal to acknowledge the dangers of climate change, even in response to appeals from the Rockefellers, its founding family…”

          No smoke without fire, right?

          If I wanted to discredit so-called “climate deniers” I’d light the fire of a cover-up scandal (in the media I own). I’d promote far and wide the idea that they’re all funded by petrol and cigarette companies and that these all-knowing petrol companies had been hiding the truth for decades.

          However, there is Zero science in the MSM articles “exposing” Exxon’s alleged shocking cover-ups and that is for one simple reason:

          There is NO scientific evidence whatsoever that increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to heat up or that climate change with all its more or less spectacular phenomena has ever been anything but perfectly normal obeying the cycles of the past hundreds of millions of measured years.(including over the last 150 years of warming (minus the last 19 years which have seen infintesimal cooling)).

          However well-connected they may be, Exxon cannot hide what doesn’t exist

          even if a UN government agency was created for the specific purpose of saying it does with all it’s rewrites and intellectual terrorism.

          (created by many of the same forces that created Exxon and the UN itself…)

          • Myers says:

            OK that is an answer to my question.

            I am interested in the assertion that there is ‘Zero science in the MSM articles “exposing” Exxon’s alleged shocking cover-ups’.

            There are documents on the web if you are interested, that refer to the alleged scientific findings of Exxon researchers back in the 70’s and 80’s:

            All of the leaks refer to some degree to Exxon’s unpublished (science based) findings and projections.

            The article at the same site which also details the heavy investment in promoting counter claims to that early (alleged) research is here:


            I think that your answer confirms for me the notion that for these revelations to make sense in terms of AGW being some kind of hoax, there would have to be an extremely sophisticated and far reaching conspiracy to deceive – perhaps one running over several decades and involving a huge number of individuals and institutions. A ‘meta-conspiracy’.
            I regard myself as a conspiracy theorist, I wear that badge with some pride, but I do not believe that the Exxon revelations and the funding of front groups by petrochemical interests is a thirty five year double bluff as you seem to.
            I guess that the forthcoming court cases might tell us who is right on that one at least.

            • nosoapradio says:

              Well thanks for those links that I’ll confess I only took a quick look at to find the data but…

              There’s no data proving human industrial activity has raised temperatures.

              There’re faulty predictions, suspicion about a possible greenhouse effect causing warming, remarks about the inadequacies of climate models, future research project descriptions to NOAA, letters etc.

              But no scientific demonstrations suggesting higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere (man-made or otherwise) causes increasing temperatures. No top secret scientific info…

              I’ll take another look when I get home…

              • Myers says:

                I didn’t say that Exxon’s research provided categorical proof that CO2 emissions had raised the temperatures of Earth.

                They did conclude (unless the documents are an elaborate fraud) through working with scientists outside the company at the time that there was risk, that there is a link between burning fossil fuels and CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and that there is a link between Co2 levels and temperature. When it became a public issue and pressure was put on governments to limit emissions, they switched gears and started promoting contrary findings and deliberate obfuscation through front groups. This is the story that is passing round the media, the net, the alt media.

                There is an alternative to all that which I read here; it is that the Rockefeller company did none of that, i.e. they did not research back in the 80’s, funded no propaganda campaigns in the 90’s and 00’s, then this year spun the whole tale of an in-house research program as a double bluff to egg on the gullible liberals who hate corporate power. They managed to sell this story that has put them in court, plant the documents all over the place and pay lots of people to lie.

                Or, they devised the 35 year plan to hoodwink everybody back in the mid 70’s, created their own extensive pseudo-science program, then dropped that and invested millions in promoting genuine science from the 90’s, all so that they could turn round in 2015 and look guilty as hell, and that that was always the long term plan -i.e to convince us with a deception that climate change is real when it is not.

                Do either of those really make sense, or is there some other way it fits together?

  2. hankblackgraphics says:

    Are hackers and psychics eligible?

  3. jamesbagshawe says:

    James, isn’t the bigger point about climate change that it’s a no-brainer to support it *even if it isn’t true*? Regardless of man-made climate changes, coal or gas power plants bring substantial issues with them in terms of human health risks, a thoroughly corrupt money trail around the fossil fuel economy and so on.

    Transitioning away from fossil fuels both in power generation and in transportation would have a huge positive impact on our health and general wellbeing of our society. It also removes the possibility that we *are* causing global warming.

    In short, it’s a modern day Pascal’s wager of sorts. If you are right, all you get is to say “I told you so” and feel smart. If you are wrong, it’s calamitous. Plus, of course, there are the greater benefits to leaving fossil fuels behind outlined above.

    • candideschmyles says:

      You make a good point but I doubt you will get much support in your logic here. The perennial issue of climate change is denied here and backed by the demented rantings of verifiably paid shills of the oligarchs James usually appears to detetst. I have given up looking for logic on this matter here. But I do offer ¥100 to anyone who can prove the sky is blue. All I ask is $10 to read your thesis.
      It’s like all this nonsense about voluntarism and agoraism. Both, if you think about it, are actually the working models of those elites we come here to learn about. They translate as selfishness and the marketplace. The trumpet call of the ultracapatilists.
      Meanwhile he will call a man who has spent 5 years as a fugitive in the Ecuadorian Embassy yet continues to publish thousands of secret documents, including just last week over 60k secret Saudi Embassy memos, a CIA stooge. Would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad.
      But don’t care point out the hypocrisies and bad arithmetic. He has his bible thumping morons to call you a shill if you do.

    • Apollo Slater says:

      The “ends justify the means” thinking you propose is why people are so skeptical of the global warming hysteria. They sense that the whole theory is a hoax, or at best, willful ignorance, to achieve a certain political agenda. If there are benefits to using other forms of energy, promote those benefits. Don’t rest your arguments on a lie.

      Pascal’s wager? That’s a bit silly. I’ll claim that lightning will strike you tomorrow and kill you, unless you pay me $10 today to spray you with anti-lightning spray. If I’m wrong, you’re just out $10, but if you’re wrong, you’ll be dead. Again, not very convincing support for a supposedly “scientific” theory.

  4. nosoapradio says:

    How can anyone support or not support climate change? Climate change is a billion-year phenomenon existing with or without human…approval.

    If by *even if it isn’t true* you mean

    -“even if currently there’s no proof of CO2 driven AGW,

    -the IPCC and carbon taxing campaign has been and will be drawn up by fraudsters controlled by murderous eugenistic war-mongers

    -and anyhow these manipulators would do the same job of transitioning humanity towards “renewable energies” as sane and relatively honest people who loathe human suffering”

    well… I personally have to disagree.

    The money trail corruption cannot be fixed by the very same mafia leading transitioning into a new renewable energies paradigm.

    Transitioning away from fossil fuels will not have a huge positive impact on our health and general wellbeing if the true agenda behind the transitioning is locking humanity into ambiant intelligence “smart grids” for example, or some continuation of a long-standing eugenistic agenda or the wide spread use of some other truly dangerous technology involving nucleii manipulation.

    Everyone’s happy to leave fossil fuels behind and develop renewable energies into something reliable and efficient (which apparently is not yet the case)

    as long as it doesn’t kill or unnecessarily harm anybody.

    As for Pascal’s wager, when you look at the history, the science and the manipulation in PR and media concerning climate change, though the science is definately not settled there is no longer any question of some sort of random bet- you see what’s going on.

    Having said that, any secret geo-engineering programs will complicate attempts at understanding the true drivers of climate change.

  5. nosoapradio says:

    So this is a reply to MYERS as we’ve reached the six-box limit so to speak. Specifically to this passage:

    “…There is an alternative to all that which I read here; it is that the Rockefeller company did none of that, i.e. they did not research back in the 80’s, funded no propaganda campaigns in the 90’s and 00’s, then this year spun the whole tale of an in-house research program as a double bluff to egg on the gullible liberals who hate corporate power…”

    Strange remark.

    Here is that passage from the book The First Revolution with the tagline: A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome

    published in 1991, that has appeared more than once on this site:

    “…In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.” …page 75

    According to wikipedia: “…The goal of the book was to outline a strategy for mobilizing the world’s governments for environmental security and clean energy by purposefully converting the world from a military to a civil economy, tackling global warming and to solve the energy problem, dealing with world poverty and disparities between the northern hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere…”

    According to wikipedia: “the book follows up the earlier 1972 work-product from the Club of Rome titled “The Limits to Growth.”

    What is “The Limits to Growth”? According to wikipedia:

    “…The Limits to Growth is a 1972 book about the computer simulation of exponential economic and population growth with finite resources supplies…”

    It was, according to wikipedia, commissioned by the The Club of Rome and funded by the Volkswagon foundation.

    So if as early as 1972 Rockefeller and Co. were using companies to fund research into environmental concerns, and Rockefeller founded Exxon, there’s nothing surprising about Exxon having funded and/or participated in studies about global warming. That is to say, studies establishing cause and effect or (as is apparently the case) the lack thereof between human industrial activity and global warming.

    Yes, as has been repeated several times, Rockefeller and Co., as owners of multi-nationals, media outlets, as think-tank founders, as founders of international governmental organisations and environmental movements have been funding and controlling both sides of the debate for at least a half-century.

  6. BennyB says:

    I did myself a favor and browsed over several articles on whattsupwiththat.com’s website (including websites they link to) and confirmed for myself that the anti-AGW is just as much a BS politically minded movement at its core as the enthusiastic proponents of the AGW hype. My impression is that this argument is part of the gospel of the superficial capitalist Republican, quasi-conservative component of the Libertarian movement. It’s the same thing as the superficial pseudo-capitalist so-called socialist, liberal Democrat “progressive” movement, just the flipside of the same coin. (btw: wtf is “progressive” supposed to mean? I’m not a fan of “conservatism”, but at least the term sort of makes sense…)

    I tend to agree with much of the rationale in which James bases his opposition to the AGW movement, but the topic is always something that’s pressed here in a way that’s never stopped bothering me, as feeling like it’s part of a “package”, which is in contrast with the general perspectives expressed at the Corbett Report. (i’m not going to try to define what those “perspectives” are, but I trust that just about anybody reading this will both have a sense of what I’m getting at and that this overwhelmingly a positive thing =)

    I’m not going to try to change anybody’s mind and who knows, my opinion may change over time as I continue to evaluate information as I encounter it and challenge myself to remain open minded and think critically about the issue from different angles. I feel that I have a more nuanced view of the subject than I originally had when I initially encountered it here at the Corbett Report many years ago, due to James’ critical analysis. However, at this point I feel like I have a moment where I can lament with a certain sense of clarity that (unfortunately) I feel that James is in some ways doing a great deal of the legwork for those arguing disingenuously on the topic for their own set of selfish and wrongheaded ideals. Of course this is just my opinion though and it’s not aimed at being issued as a “put down”, or meant to equate James’ perspective and analysis with those I implied as “disingenuously” benefiting off of his work. Hopefully this much has been stated at least relatively clearly.

    This is not the first time I’ve looked at whattsupwiththat or other sites and individuals who aren’t “the most viewed site on climate change and global warming”, but somehow I feel that I approached the analysis this time around with a more clearly informed method for critique, based on the views I’ve arrived at through my own wrestling with the issue and not just somebody else’s talking points.

    This isn’t an argument which can be “won” on factual basis. If this were the case, I’d say James has probably “won”. I’m honestly not interested in arguing further here at the moment or tasking myself with responding to rebuttals on quotations of what I’ve said here (particularly the previous statement). There’s an ideological component to this argument which (at least partially) transcends the “facts” whether one likes it or not, or agrees/disagrees one way or the other. For what it’s worth, at least for the time being, knowing what sort of underlying “ideology” I don’t relate to, provides me with a momentary sense of peace of mind on this. Perhaps I’ll ruin that by stating as much as I have here, but somehow I feel like there’s some value in sharing this.

    • Apollo Slater says:

      I like your attitude and hopefully no one feels the need to “shut up” on this forum for fear of offending people, if their approach is sincere and respectful.

      My biggest problem with the global warming crusade is that I can see with my own brain and two eyes significant logical and empirical holes in the theory, yet I am told to shut up because the “science is settled”. There can be no debate, I’m a heretic, I’m a denier, and by the way, all the experts disagree with me. That doesn’t make for a respectful and scientific discussion.

      So right off the bat, the media, activist groups, politicians, and governments, have essentially ruled out a reasoned discussion of this topic. No wonder it’s devolved into a religious war!

  7. nosoapradio says:

    I feel it’s important that I share how I differ with you BENNYB.

    Having myself spent long hours perusing sites such as Wattsupwiththat and their comment boards trying to understand the debates one thing quickly became clear:

    The AGW commenters are more often than not intellectual bullies regularly employing agressive insulting tones, ad hominem attacks and bandwagon reasoning.

    Skeptics express themselves most often with much more poise, pleasant tones and scientific method.

    If you have the impression of a package deal with this recurrent topic maybe it’s because this AGW scam is central to the globalists’ world government strategy.

    Finally, Mr Corbett is doing the legwork for truth. Disingenuous manipulators will instrumentalize anything by definition.

    Not revealing the truth is doing the legwork for the eugenicist globalists.

    • BennyB says:


      I pretty much agree with everything you’ve said here, so it’s interesting that you feel that your intention is to state where you differ. I mean that sincerely.

      I object to the AGW hype for reasons both you Apollo addressed. I’d even go as far as to say that I feel there’s a fascistic quality to the AGW rhetoric, where everybody who expresses skepticism is somehow a “denier” and, to paraphrase Apollo; should shut up, because “the science is settled”. The science is far from settled in my mind and I feel that the politicized nature of the research on climate science on the part of the AGW movement is lacking on fundamental concepts of scientific integrity. Hype like the “95 percent of scientists agree” BS only heightens my skepticism.

      That said, I believe climate change is occurring and that there are risks associated with these changes. I think human activity is contributing to detrimental changes to the environment and this evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive (and is manifested in ways which are largely unsung in the MSM climate gospel…). I’m honestly not certain whether or not or how much various forms of pollution and environmental degradation may be contributing to changes in temperature, but I view the various forms of this degradation itself as serious threats to our survival regardless, so I tend to agree with the emphasis environmentalists put on moving away from fossil fuels, even if it bothers me that opinion on these matters tends to wind up getting corralled into the C02 agenda, instead of looking at the underlying issues more broadly. I think “cutting emissions” is a political buzzword which ought to be replaced with “divestment” and there are other more immediate steps which ought to be prioritized, such as rebuilding depleted coastal wetlands which act as a natural buffer against powerful storms. This is just one example, but this is the type of “investment” which should be committed to countries “on the front lines of climate change” and not just some BS emission standards ought to be scrapped in favor of transitioning from the environmental destruction associated with every step of extracting and burning fossil fuels.

      I’d like to come back and attempt to articulate what aspects of the specific type of Libertarian views I saw represented at WUWT (and elsewhere) on the subject matter which I have a problem with, but this will require more time and though. Hopefully I’ll be able to revisit the topic soon, because I feel that expressing the rationale behind what it is that I’m reacting to would be of value to the discussion, but for now I’m going to have to leave it here…

      • nosoapradio says:


        The reason every environmental question evoked gets coralled into the Climate scam is because the environmental movement, as amply and eloquently explained by Mr Corbett, has been institutionalized by Globalists with Globalist agendas. The environmental movement was usurped by globalists so as to be instrumentalized towards globalist projects like one world government.

        The environmental movement has been institutionalized by an intergovernmental organization for the primary purpose of institutionalizing said intergovernmental organization as a World government organization.

        War, Nuclear waste, ubiquitous endocrine disruptors, GMOs, fluoride in the drinking water, pesticides, unnecessary cruelty to animals and even burning fossil fuels, by all existing evidence, are NOT raising temperatures on Earth or changing the climate.

        The HUMANS are F….D!!! (as Carlin eloquently pointed out).

        So before saving the environment, lets save the people which won’t happen if globalists are pushing lies to achieve globalist agendas. We have to find another way.

        Personally, except for blowing off a lot of hot air, I don’t do much but I have neither a drivers licence (anymore) nor a car. I buy locally grown produce and meat. I try to avoid plastics and synthetic fabrics as well as GMOs and bizarre additives and most vaccines…

        and I spend time trying to understand the crux of the scientific argument, for or against AGW, in an effort to minimize the religious belief-based aspect of the question.

        The globalists are counting on the fact that most people will respond to emotional manipulation, intellectual bullying and propaganda and won’t try to understand the problem as well as a layman possibly can.

        Unfortunately, they’re right about that.

        There are risks associated with obligeing eugenistic globalists.

  8. vumxmx says:

    Excellent short explanation of “Climate Change”,given by the co-founder of Greenpeace. It’s worth the 4.5 minutes. For those of us who don’t accept the globalists’ thesis of anthropogenic climate change.


  9. If a model fits randomly generated data and the actual real data then that model is a ‘curve fit’ that does not predict the effects of what was intended to be modeled. But is now a model that is as predictable as the random data that it ‘curve fits’.

    Kids in the Hall – Directions (I speak no English)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top