Physicist offers $10,000 for anyone to scientifically disprove climate change

Now obviously there might be some issues ensuring that you get researchers who want to make a real go of trying to disprove it rather than erect straw men and tear them down. But that's probably solvable.

Yes in many respects it would be a big waste of money, but after you poke a million little holes in climate change they will be fixed. And that will strengthen our understanding of the climate and in all likelihood substantially bolster the claim that climate change is real and man-made. And if it takes $100mm or $1b or even $10b worth of very public extra research to really convince people it would be worth it.

The US Global Change Research Program's budget is $2.6b annually so $20mm per year is a joke, $200mm a year is a bit substantial and $2b per year might actually be a reasonable amount.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2012/02/14/presidents-201...

Again I realize that for many people it would be a "waste" of money. But if it was publicized properly (and I do realize that's a big IF) it could go a long way towards garnering the public support necessary to do some economically difficult things. When politicians are happy to kick the can down the road every couple of years it's pretty tough for the public to understand why this is an issue that can't be kicked as well.

EDIT: I also realize it's stupid to waste taxpayer money, something I'm vhemently against. But while I'm dreaming here, let's suppose that the money is taken from the military budget for the duration of the grant period.

Here's a counter-question: why is it that when people who have extraordinary or extraordinarily extreme opinions are questioned or challenged there seems to almost always be an attempt to deflect the discussion toward one revolving around respect and tolerance instead of the merits of the issue involved? (That's kind of a rhetorical question, really--my long and varied experience on topics of this sort has led me to one conclusion if nothing else, and that is this: people who hold such views and attempt such deflection aren't interested in honest dialog.)

"Of all the planets in our solar system, Venus is the hottest one, even hotter than Mercury, the planet closest to the sun. Venus, whose daytime temperature can reach 900 degrees Fahrenheit (464 degrees Celsius), is surrounded by a thick gaseous layer that consists mostly of carbon dioxide. When the sun's rays reach Venus, the carbon dioxide traps the heat within, causing a kind of planetary greenhouse effect."

From http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/venus-hottest-planet

EDIT: Also, you seem to be confused about what the law of the excluded middle says.

According to Socrates it's impossible to disprove anything. That's purely a philosophical theory, but in this case it applies pretty well. You can't prove manmade global warming is NOT occuring because, in theory, the global warming that we're seeing (note that the definition of 'global warming' isn't set in stone, too) could be caused by other factors.

So, proving something isn't possible is impossible, and to top that this person runs a blog on global warming skepticism. I have the feeling he/she could be somewhat biased...

Just to be clear: I'm not debating man-made global warming. It's just that these kind of challenges bug me.

Side note: what is 'scientifically proven' anyway? I wrote a thesis on propaganda, and discovered (among other things) that when you say something is 'scientifically proven' most people stop questioning your claim.