The Climate Guy

Peter Laux, Locomotive Engineman from Australia, “will pay $10,000 (AUS) for a conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming.”

See Peter Laux’s signed and authorized Statutory Declaration (affidavit) to this effect HERE.

The Statutory Declaration is a legal and binding document: “a false declaration is liable to the penalties of perjury.” The authorising witness is Constable Jack Armstrong 37499 of the Victoria Police, Australia.

As stated in the Statutory Declaration, all submissions for the “$10K Climate Challenge” must be made using the submitter’s true identity and must be submitted as a comment to the present Climate Guy blog post.

It is understood that $10K (AUS) will be paid to the first person to send a complete submission. This challenge is open for 20 years from the date of this post.

Warmists of the world: The ball is in your court. The $10K Climate Challenge is declared open.

-Climate Guy

Not the first such offer. Dr. Economides of University of Houston had a similar standing offer for his students for years with no winners. Steve Milloy of Junk Science had a much larger offer for a few years without a winner. See the Climate Guy post.

A commenter Adam said…
I suspect that some warmists will try and use John Cook’s unskeptical website to try and do this challenge. Jo Nova has done a good rebuttal to Cook’s ‘empirical evidence’ here and Lubos has debunked the whole site here. Anyway, good luck Mr Laux. I doubt anyone warmist will be able to meet your challenge.

-----------

John Cook: Skeptical Science
By Lubos Motl, The Reference Frame

John Cook, a former student of physics in Australia, has constructed an interesting website trying to attack the opinions of climate skeptics.

Skeptical Science: Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism

It’s been in my climate bookmarks for quite some time but no one really cared about it so I didn’t want to respond. However, his talking counter-points were recently adopted by an iPhone application. Moreover, Andrew Revkin promoted the website, too. So let us look at his points and counter-points.

See Lubos’s point by point debunking here.

-------

An Icecap commenter, Jerry Orr asks the following:

I have been following the AGW dispute for some time now, but have not found anyone who posed, or answered, the following question that I consider quite
basic. To wit:

“It is settled science that at some time in Earth’s distant past there was abundant CO2 in the atmosphere.  Over time, a profusion of plant and animal life
absorbed some of this CO2 and sequestered it in the biosphere.  By some mechanism this sequestered Carbon was turned into fossil fuels and stored until
recent times.  Now we are told that releasing some small portion of this Carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2 would cause catastrophe to plant and animal life on Earth rather than a return to abundance.  Why is this reasonable?”

Respond back to me at jsdaleo@yahoo.com if you can respond.