Just hand over the money. It already has been proven. Look outside.
it’s a safe bet there is no “proof” that he will accept
Exactly who will decide whether the challenge has been met and the prize won??
A physicist knows you can’t prove a negative. It’s a trap!
You can’t prove a negative so it must be true. Same for Santa and the Easter Bunny.
trick question - the climate does indeed change - winter, spring, summer and fall, just to name a few changes
My minimum charge for proving a negative is $200,000. Let me know when you raise the money.
I'll offer $100 to the first person to prove that CO2 is a pollutant.
I'll offer $200 to the first person who can prove that increased global atmospheric temperatures never preceded an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
I'll offer $300 to the first person who can identify all the variables necessary to computer model global climate change.
I’ll offer $1,000 to the first person who can prove that mankind can accurately measure and apply the variables’ data to the model.
I’ll offer a $1.50 to the first person who has the courage to identify that perfect global atmospheric temperature expected by taxing carbon.
After reading this, I am thinking a money offer may be necessary to prove this man is a physics professor. Perhaps he is a physics professor in the same fashion Obama was a constitution law professor. Lots of wiggle room.
Anyone involved in science understands that only facts determine science, not consensus. The consensus of a perception can determine politics but science is not so malleable.
How do you prove a negative?
That’s a sucker bet. You can’t disprove climate change because it’s been changing constantly since God set the whole thing spinning, and it won’t be stopping.
That is the basic problem with AGW theory. You can’t falsify predictions of a future event.
In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality. — Karl Popper
CC