Calling out the climate change deniers...

I KNOW we've still got a few on this forum. Here's a chance to make some $$$. OR, more likely, further embarrass yourself :) But hey, you can't win if you don't play.

Come on deniers. Win $10000. This is your big chance . . . (Crickets).

Bunch of panty-waist low forehead imbeciles fronting for carbon fuels trying to confuse other low information idiots.

Your days are numbered.

Why is heterodoxy of opinion so offensive to you? Why the dogmatism with labels like 'deniers?' Why do you care?

Just curious.

Bluntly, not all opinions are created equal. I don't trust Jenny McCarthy to tell me about the relative safety of vaccination, and I don't really put a lot of stock in economists insisting that climate change doesn't exist or has no anthropogenic aspect. The longer we cater to the demand for insincere or misinformed debate on something that's essentially settled science, the lengthier, costlier and more complex any remediation is likely to be.

It's telling to me that there's a lot of overlap between the group of scientists who are climate change deniers and the group that insisted that cigarettes were perfectly safe. Not philosophical overlap; the same people. Being paid by entities that have a vested interest in denial of the issue, again.

C Greg, nobody came up with special pejorative names for evolution deniers, tobacco deniers, vaccination deniers etc.

I am just curious why this issue provokes such an emotional response.

My thoughts.... evolution, carcinogens, vaccination etc are all subject to validation by designed experiment. Climate predictions on the other hand rely on very dirty data (eg temperature measures in locations where surrounding development environment has changed from rural to built up) and global scale simulations. Many very drastic proposals to reverse the pollutants have been forwarded. Climate predictions take so long to come home, and the effectiveness of countermeasures is so difficult to assess, that many people feel that the potential to reduce long term harm, when factored by uncertainty, doesn't justify the immediate pain.

This is the same calculation someone makes when they resist going on a diet, in a way.

But the vitriol expended to suppress this kind of cost benefit analysis feels to a lot of people like dogma... suppression....which makes many folks feel like the science must be weak. Which it is, in that there is no way to do experimental validation.

Those of us who own Teslas are proud to be leading the world towards sustainable energy that does not hold the potential of disrupting the earth's climate.

That said, there's been plenty of bad science used in the climate change debate. The debate has become politicized, which is too bad because it hinders careful scientific inquiry.

I salute those on both sides of this topic who offer rational arguments and listen to rational arguments from the other side. While the extent of man's involvement in climate change is debated, I'm pleased to be part of the solution, just in case the link between CO2 and global warming actually exists to a substantial degree.

DTSea: "there is no way to do experimental validation."


So. Do we keep polluting the planet knowing pollution is harmful, or do we DO SOMETHING to reduce pollution?

Those skeptical of climate change and the scientists who have researched it nine ways from Sunday, do not have science to say "no, nothing is happening at all." They only question data, say results are bad, question the validity of the person delivering the message, or dismiss any data out of hand.

There may be ways to make the world productive AND cleaner, but the health implications (and costs) for humans if the climate science turns out to be correct is difficult to calculate.

The question does not stay "is it happening or not?" The question becomes "What should we do about it?" ("we" being humans globally, not just a single country.)

Too many people just come up with "DO NOTHING" as the answer.

That is the wrong answer.

I sincerely do not share that perception. To me "denier" is bland and neutral. It carries no implication of rationale or intelligence. It only says that the person rejects the hypothesis that an event occurs. Better than calling someone an idiot or a shill when you don't know their motivation, no?

As DTSea points out, the challenge is meaningless since climate change cannot be verified experimentally.

Thus, the only tools available are models describing the climate, and predictions made from those models. As the Wikipedia entry on the scientific method helpfully notes, the scientific method is based on:

...supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false.

Given the vast number of false predictions made by the climate alarmists-- and I would parenthetically note here that I consider the term "alarmist" to be bland and neutral; an accurate description of what they're doing-- everything from snow-free winters in England by 2010 to rising ocean levels and temperatures that stubbornly refuse to rise to the predicted levels, I'd say that the current consensus on AGW at the very least based on a lot of very poor models.

Not that I'm impugning the abilities of the people who came up with the models; it's just that climate is, you know, really, really, complex. Heck, I can't even accurately measure the average temperature of my office to 0.1 degrees Celcius (it's rather warm behind the computer but quite cool by the A/C vent), but these people claim to be able to measure the average temperature of the entire globe to that level of precision. How cool is that? But apparently it's not enough.

We already know the climatistas-- I hasten to note that this is another completely innocuous term-- have lied about things like declining polar bear populations and glacier retreats. Really, do they have any credibility left?

Heck, they've even worked for years to switch the name of the thing from "global warming" to "climate change" because the globe wasn't warming fast enough.

I'd also point out to CT-Greg that climate alarmists are being paid too, but generally by governments rather than private entities. Whether this makes them intrinsically more moral or reliable is a question I'd leave to you.

Climate Change can ABSOLUTELY be falsified. You could;

- Prove CO2 DOES NOT absorb IR light (sorry, it does)
- Prove humans don't add 30GT of CO2 (sorry, we do)
- Show that 30GT is a pittance compared the mass of earths atmosphere (sorry, it's 5ppm)
- Prove that CO2 blocks as much visible light as IR (sorry it doesn't)

The fact that Climate Change hasn't been falsified doesn't mean it's not falsifiable... like evolution... that just means that it's probably true. In science, a tested hypothesis becomes a theory and theories are FACTS.

Very well said Dramsey.

The climate change deniers of today are engaged in a campaign that is very similar to the one waged by tobacco advocates to deny a link between smoking and lung cancer in an attempt to deceive the public into thinking man made global warming isnt real, according to a professor of physics. Dr. Christopher Keating, author of Undeniable: Dialogues on Global Warming, said, Global warming deniers are using the same tactics as the tobacco advocates. In fact, some of the people involved today were involved in the tobacco campaign. They are very good at deceiving people and they learned from their mistakes. Of course, we know how the tobacco campaign turned out and they are working very hard to make sure this one doesnt end the same way.

Keating has been involved, at some level, with climate change for 30 years. He has been a professor of physics for over 20 years and has taught at the U.S. Naval Academy and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.

Keating points to the claims of deniers as supporting evidence. Compare the claims of deniers of today to the people that denied a link between tobacco and lung disease and see how similar they are. The tobacco people funded certain scientists to undermine valid research. At the same time, they called into question the ability of scientist receiving government funding to remain unbiased. They claimed lung disease was just a natural event. Climate change deniers today are making the same arguments about global warming.

Keating also points to the funding source for much of the deniers. A recent study done at Drexel University showed that denier organizations have received nearly $560 million over an eight-year period. They traced this money to about 140 different organizations, including many with ties to the fossil fuel industry. These are the people that stand to lose money if we do something about climate change. It simply shatters any credibility the deniers might have ever had.

The ironic thing about people not believing in climate change is that they have to pay for it, says Keating. Its always the consumers that have to pay the costs and this is no exception. As the costs go up, those added expenses will be passed down as higher prices. We are already seeing increases in the cost of utilities, insurance, food and many more things due to climate change. The businesses dont pay those expenses. We do. So, every time you say climate change isnt real, you need to take your checkbook out and write a check to the people running the fossil fuel industry.

Keating says the results of climate change science are so overwhelming that the only way you can deny global warming is to deny science. Greenhouse gases are on the rise and the effects are evident: The earth is getting warmer, weather everywhere is changing, the oceans are warming at an alarming rate and ice caps are melting. Every where you look you see evidence of global warming. This isnt something that is only going to occur in the future, it is happening right now.

Keating demonstrated this point in his new book, Undeniable: Dialogues on Global Warming. Written in the style of Galileos Dialogues on Two New Sciences, Keatings book consists of three friends debating the issues surrounding global warming. Just as in Galileos works, one friend acts as an advocate of global warming, one acts as a denier and one sits on the fence and goes back and forth. This is a nice style because it presents both sides of the argument in a debate format. The premise of the book is that there is now so much science that anyone, not just scientists, can prove man made global warming is real. There is simply no science to support the claims of the deniers, but massive amounts of science proving man made global warming is real. All that anyone needs to do is a little homework. Everything is available to the public, said Keating.

Keating is so sure of his claim that he has issued two challenges to the deniers, one that will pay $10,000 to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method that man made climate change is not real; and one that will pay $1000 to anyone that can provide any scientific evidence at all that it isnt real. The challenge is open to anyone over 18 and there is no entry fee. I will judge all entries and show why they fail or succeed in the challenge. Entries dont even have to be original. They just have to be first.

Keating says he is more than willing to pay the money but doesnt believe it will happen, Im a scientist and I have to go where the science leads me. I have been studying climate change for a long time and I am certain my money is safe. They are in the business of denial and deception, not science. But, if someone could give me a scientific proof global warming isnt real, it would be worth the money.


Go claim your $10,000. Oh wait you don't have ANY science on your side. Oops.

"I'd also point out to CT-Greg that climate alarmists are being paid too, but generally by governments rather than private entities. Whether this makes them intrinsically more moral or reliable is a question I'd leave to you."

You might note, though, that the alarmists actually do research - the deniers for the most part just say, 'nun-uh,' - and for the most part have actually been understating the predictions of their models specifically because they don't want to be dismissed as kooks. Meanwhile, so far the models themselves have generally turned out to be conservative.

"Not that I'm impugning the abilities of the people who came up with the models; it's just that climate is, you know, really, really, complex."

This is true. And that being the case, should I grant more credence to the climatologists and those in related fields who overwhelmingly lean one way, or people rejecting those claims who overwhelmingly come from unrelated fields?

Spot on CT-Greg... funny how nearly ALL of the actual researchers say AGW is real and AGW is a threat. Always amused by the "science is for sale" argument because mercenaries usually go to the highest bidder and last time I checked the Oil lobby has a lot more money than the renewable lobby.

Carbon lobby (Coal, Oil, Natural gas) or CON, represents 80% of all energy usage in the U.S. They have started wars, curbed legislation and funded fake science.

But just like with tobacco, they are going to pay the piper.


SamO: Right on target. I concur. I've been against tobacco products even longer than I've been for electric cars. Excellent comparison of the techniques used by the denial regime.

Reminds me also of the tried and true techniques that were used against Tucker and DeLorean, that have been attempted once again to attack Tesla. The difference is that the world has greater access to actual truth, instead of the 'alternate version of the approximate truth', thanks to this wonderful thing called the internet.

Why do we need science to figure this one out? What ever happened to peoples ability to think for themself? What ever happened to common sense? The earth is a closed system. Your garage or house can be a closed system. Close windows and doors, plug vents, start your ICE car or gas heater and see what happens. You have just figured out what 86 million barrels a day, plus gas and coal, will due to the earth. If ice is melting it is warming, If it is increasing it is cooling.
The same people believe the smoke that wealth trickles down. Common sense would tell you that if the working class can't buy the oil and products from the large corporations then they are not going to do well. Thats why we have high welfare for the rich.


If I don't do this some denier is going to come along and call you out on it... sorry, but the earth is not a closed system. We receive energy from the sun and radiate back into space. The thermal impact of our activities is negligible compared to the amount of heat trapped by the extra CO2 we've added ~1.5w/m^2. For perspective we're trapping ~765TW continuously or 6701400TWh annually vs 120000 TWh of fossil fuels burned. The reason AGW is a problem is actually that Earth IS NOT a closed system and we're keeping more energy in the atmosphere with higher concentrations of CO2.

@nwdiver93 If it is not a closed system open the window and let the CO2 out!

Mass - Yes it's closed (Mostly)

Energy - No, it's an open system.

We can all agree that burning 88 million barrels of crude oil per day is polluting.
Pollution affects our health.

We can all agree that crude oil supplies are finite.
The shift away is inevitable.

Two great reasons to move away from a hydrocarbon based economy.

If co2 levels impact the the earths temperature adversely, with devastating
Consequences, why take the risk.

I don't believe all the global warming crap, but that doesn't change my position that if there is an alternative, why take a chance? If you can drive a better car that you know doesn't impact the environment, why not drive it? I may be unsure about ICE cars being the problem, but, I'd rather err on the side of caution.

And don't bother trying to convince me about global warming. I'm not going to be swayed either way. Just like you will never convince me that vaccines aren't horrible for humans. I won't really even read the argument. But, take comfort in knowing that I support reasonable efforts to reduce co2 emissions. I'm not going to support any laws or regulations that put us all in the poor house and starving, but hey, when you can drive a Tesla and potentially make the world a better place, why wouldn't you. That's a win-win situation!

"We can all agree that crude oil supplies are finite."

The funny thing is that there are people who will, with utter sincerity, not agree with that.

"I don't believe all the global warming crap, .... And don't bother trying to convince me about global warming. ... I won't really even read the argument."

DTsea: You wanted to know why there are strong feelings on this? The quote above is your answer. That's not skepticism, and if you know a better word than denial I'd be happy to hear it.

True CO Greg but the tone was set by the OP by 'calling out' 'deniers.'

Where I grew up calling out either referred to baseball, or inviting someone to step outside for a physical resolution of a disagreement. I think OP meant the latter.

@Samo, +1, great post, another great book worth reading documenting the issue "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreski & Erik Conway (


When someone offers you $10k to prove your position, you're being "called out"....

The Heartland Institute's CEO Joseph Bast to cast doubt on findings from the "Intragovernmental [sic] Panel on Climate Change."

Bast, who claimed in the 1990s that smoking "in moderation has few, if any, adverse health effects."



Led by president and CEO Joseph Bast, the Heartland Institute has a long and disgraceful track record of misleading the public about the overwhelming scientific evidence that cigarette smoking poses significant health risks. The organization has also consistently argued against health-based regulation of tobacco products. Heartland’s scientifically and morally indefensible advocacy on smoking is no surprise given that a significant portion of its funding has come from tobacco companies. In the past two years, Altria and Reynolds American contributed $90,000 and $110,000 respectively.

“Joe Camel Is Innocent!” — Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast, August 21, 1996
“The public health community’s campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science.” — Joseph Bast, April 20, 2007
“People being paid to demonize tobacco products and their users may not be the best judges of whether the scientific debate is settled. Forgive me for believing that what General Carmona says is an accurate expression of the politics and passions of the moment, but not necessarily of the real science of the health effects of secondhand smoke.” Joseph Bast, July 6, 2006
“So whether or not you smoke, you have good reasons to oppose the lawsuits against tobacco companies as well as any proposed settlement.” — Joseph Bast, September 1997
“Debate over the ethics of smoking may never end, but the legal challenges could be, and properly should be, stopped.” — Joseph Bast, January 2, 2002
“Heartland does many things that benefit Philip Morris’ bottom line, things that no other organization does” — Joseph Bast, July 27, 1999
“Smoking in moderation has few, if any, adverse health effects” — Joseph Bast, July 1998
“Anti-smoking groups with a collectivist political agenda, allied with ‘cancer industry’ organizations that rely on fear to enhance their considerable cash flow, have filled the media with claims about secondhand tobacco smoke that are questionable at best, and fraudulent at worst.” — Dennis Constant, October 22, 2005
“No matter what the environmental issue—ozone depletion, acid rain, pesticides, etc.—any and all scientific opposition based on objective facts is blamed on an imagined involvement with tobacco companies. None of this is true, of course. Oreskes and Conway claim to be academic historians, yet they have consistently ignored factual information, have not bothered to consult primary sources, have never interviewed any of the scientists they try to smear, and generally have operated in a completely unprofessional way. The ultimate aim of these attacks has been to discredit skeptics of similarly unsupported global warming fears.” — S. Fred Singer, January 3, 2011
“Millions of dollars have been spent promoting SHS [second-hand smoke] as a killer and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in non-smokers.” — Jerome Arnett, August 2, 2008
“While there is agreement that smoking cigarettes, like most pleasures, is risky, the zealous people who wish to abolish smoking could not have mounted the current antismoking crusade without playing up the risks of so-called 'secondhand smoke' — or, what the scientific literature calls environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Under the flag that the end justifies the means, the purported risks posed by ETS have been used to justify draconian regulations that criminalize and marginalize lawful citizens, pitting children against parents, spouses against spouses, and people against people to the point of raising homicidal animosities against smokers.” Gio Batta Gori, April 1, 2007
“The big bucks go to those who "discover" that ETS causes everything from pimples to piles.” Michael Fumento, September 11, 2001
“So it's time to talk turkey about this secondhand smoke craze to my once-upon-a-time second city, and let you know just how bonkers you are and just how you began the greatest brainwashing of the 20th century.” Sidney Zion, November 29, 2002

I wish I could be a liberal. Just so I could see what that arrogant, obnoxious, all-knowing life is like. I would love to be SO high on myself that I truly believed that everything I thought was automatically true - JUST BECAUSE I BELIEVED IT. I would love to see what it's like to never see the other side because I am SURE I am never wrong. And not even give that possibility a second thought.

Nah...I'd hate to be trapped in that mind.

There's a guy out there that will give anyone that can prove there's no God a million dollars. Guess what, he's never had to pay. I guess that proves that God exists.

I'm not even sure why the moderators let threads like this grow legs. We all have a common interest and that is the success of Tesla - regardless of whether you believe in global warming or not.

Yet, someone on here was just DYING to start an argument and prove they're right. And liberals say it is the religions that start war. Hmmmmm.

Nobody makes a comment on this thread buddy. Go somewhere else if you don't like it. It's better that you don't have to think for yourself and don't understand how science really works.