Take the $100,000 Global Warming Believer Challenge!

by | Nov 29, 2015 | Videos | 4 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



  1. Are hackers and psychics eligible?

  2. 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.

  3. nosoapradio,

    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…

  4. 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)

Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member