After I wrote my previous post here at Celsias, someone commented that if I believe in global warming, I should go to junkscience.com, the website of Steven Milloy, and claim my $150,000 prize. This piqued my interest, so I went to go check it out, not because I thought I was going to win anything, but because I knew there was a catch, and I wanted to find out what it was. As it turned out, Milloy has created for himself a very conveniently impossible contest.

The first problem is that Milloy has placed the burden of proof on the wrong party:

$150,000 will be awarded to the first person to prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming. The winning entry will specifically reject both of the following two hypotheses:

UGWC Hypothesis 1

Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling.

UGWC Hypothesis 2

The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered. - Ultimate Global Warming Challenge

Much of this has been scientifically proven, and all of the evidence is available in scientific literature and in the latest IPCC report. However, Milloy has decided that it is up to others to condense over two decades worth of research into one entry for his contest. If Milloy has a problem with the IPCC report or any research that has been performed on the subject, it is incumbent upon him to make such issues known through a convincing scientific argument of his own. If he really believed that he had such a solid case for debunking the theory of anthropogenic global warming, he could surely gain much more than $150,000, as he would've saved the world billions if not trillions of dollars in remediation costs. That he has not done so, despite the obvious incentive, is quite telling.

Secondly, the rules of the contest result in an extremely unfair competition that will almost definitely turn up no winners. Some lowlights:

2. Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the UGWC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. JunkScience.com reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest. 3. JunkScience.com, in its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any, from UGWC entries. All determinations made by JunkScience.com are final. 4. The winner, if any, will receive $150,000 in a single, lump sum payment. JunkScience.com does not promise or guarantee that the UGWC will have any winner.

All of this leaves Milloy in the very convenient position of having publicly offered a large sum of money to anyone who would prove him wrong, which, most likely, no one will take him up on. At the very least, since IPCC report is not good enough, surely no one will be able to convince him that he is incorrect, seeing as he is the judge and all.

Well, Mr. Milloy, I have a challenge for you. Everyone knows you are a shill for big industry, who has argued in favor of secondhand smoke while on the the payroll of big tobacco. Now, it seems that you are being paid by Exxon Mobil, who could also benefit from your arguments. So, why don't you prove to everyone that this time you actually have their interests at heart, rather than those of the industry executives who pay you? I don't want your money, Steven. I want the truth.