I offered an internet forum that is rife with climate change deniers an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is. The challenge to them was the following:
If so many climate scientists are supposedly influenced by political agendas, then the evidence should bear it out. So let's see that evidence. Now.Watch the hilarity ensue.
Specifically, here is what I am looking for: You find a peer-reviewed study published in the last ten years that supports the theory of anthropogenic climate change and proceed to debunk it. But here is the catch: Only peer-reviewed scientific research papers shall be admitted as evidence. Also, the more recent it is, the better; the older, the worse. Hint: You don't have to limit yourself to American-based studies; climate science is studied globally. Note that if you believe that if an climate change science is just a political ploy or a conspiracy, then this allows you access to other sources of information that are not allegedly tainted.
Since I know some people struggle with reading comprehension, let me repeat something I said earlier: ANYTHING other than a PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PAPER quality work is UNCONDITIONALLY INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE. I don't care how much you think it falsifies the theory: Inferior sources have no place in a scientific discussion. So I don't wanna see any news stories, blogs, conspiracy theories, sob stories from current or former scientists who didn't get their studies accepted, etc. You wanna take on science? Then use science. If you see anything in the study or studies that you select that you believe to be wrong, you MUST use SCIENTIFIC methods to falsify the claim. This means you must produce a refutation that is worthy of harsh peer review. Furthermore, you should EXPECT that harsh peer review to happen. You must thoroughly cite your sources and back up your claims according to graduate-level research standards.
Even if you somehow pass all that, there is one more test your attack must survive: It must clearly imply that the anthropogenic climate change theory is completely wrong, or at the very least, highly questionable. MERELY POINTING OUT THAT THE STUDY HAS ERRORS OR FLAWS IS INSUFFICIENT to your case. You must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this well-established science is likely just a smokescreen.
Good luck! I'll be waiting...and something tells me, for quite some time.
Here is a quick summary about how things went down, by post number.
#1: The OP.
#2: The last decent comment before a sea of failure.
#3: Questioning of my methods (from a self-professed "liberal").
#4: Burden of proof failure (henceforth called BPFs, due to their sheer volume).
#5: Someone thinks he's got me by simply copy-pasting two charts.
#6: BPF and "the climate has always been changing" argument.
#7-9: I respond.
#10: BPF + flailing.
#11: I respond.
#13: Finally, someone tells it like it is.
#14: Conspiracy theory #1.
#15: BPF + flailing.
#16: BPF and failure to understand what "skepticism" truly means.
#17: Truthful commentary about scientific research.
#18: Statistics fail.
#20: Climategate fail #1.
#21: Asking for already-known evidence.
#22: "One should not throw stones inside glass houses."
#25: Confusing a true statement with a logical fallacy.
#27: BPF and asking for already-known evidence.
#29: Climategate fail #2.
#30: A fantastically convincing counterargument. /snark
#32: Truth, although unfortunately an overstated one.
#33: Too much fail in this short post to even count.
#34: I respond.
#35: A denier unintentionally scores an own goal.
And that's pretty much how the thread continues!