Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Undeniable: Dialogues on Global Warming Paperback – April 26, 2014
See the Best Books of 2017
Looking for something great to read? Browse our editors' picks for the best books of the year in fiction, nonfiction, mysteries, children's books, and much more.
Author interviews, book reviews, editors picks, and more. Read it now
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
The format was based on a book that got Galileo into serious trouble with the inquisition, with three characters holding a discussion about the idea that the Earth goes round the sun. One argues for the proposition, one against it with the third one being neutral. The format has been updated with the discussion being by email.
Professor Keating presents the idea that the evidence for global warming is easily available for anyone who takes the trouble to research on the internet themselves. It is my opinion that he overestimates the majority of people, but there is no doubt that the evidence presented in this book is convincing if approached with an open mind.
Although I found his evidence for global warming overwhelming, he failed to fully convince me that the solutions suggested would be very effective in reducing it.
JCT: Professor of Physics Charles Keating bet $30,000 no one
could disprove climate changes. Whether it goes up or down,
he wins! Quite the bad bet. Guess no one was dumb enough to
take a "no-lose" type of bet Keating was dumb enough to
Now, when he was pushing global warming, before adopting
both ways of change, we could bet on degrees of temperature.
But notice there are no units with which to measure climate
change! 1 clime up or 2 climes down? What? So I decided to
put him on the spot for his scam bet on both ways at his own
blog site to which he responded. Our conversation:
Jct: A lesser scientist, Charles Keating, wants people to
bet him climate didn't change. Ask Professeur Inferieur what
units of climate change he wants to use! Har har har.
Professor of Physics is an incompetent. Har har har.
Christopher Keating: Mod: Mr. Turmel apparently can't read
very well or he would have seen the challenge is for people
to demonstrate what they are already claiming - that man
made climate change is not real and they can prove it. If
you want units of climate change I suggest you address your
question to the people making the claim.
Jct: You flaunted a bet without any parameters. I'm the
Great Canadian Gambler, TajProfessor, do you think someone
flashes $30Gs in my face and I wouldn't take it just by
showing temperature is now lower than in 1998? Tell me about
your CO2 rise!! But you don't have any units for your
"climate change," do you? About as incompetent a bet as I
can imagine. I'll bet you a lousy $100 that temperature is
now lower than in 1998! Notice, my bet is provable with
degrees! That's why I asked how your bet could be provable
without units. Besides, climate always changes, are you also
worried about global cooling in there. No units, bet on
something that changes but bet on both ways? You're a joke,
probably why I scored 100% in Physics and you didn't.
Christopher Keating: Please do. I will quickly show how you
are wrong. You are like the street dude who things you can
outsmart the pea under the cup gambler. Deniers make the
claim, I'm just saying they can't do what they claim they
can. If you think you can, make a submission. Otherwise,
stop acting like you are someone cool. You're not.
JCT: Aha, deniers make the claim that climate doesn't change
more than 2 or 3 climes per year? Notice him back away and
blame the lack of units on deniers who could never make such
a silly claim?
Jct: I guess you missed the point. Without units of
measurement, how can you expect to prove a bet? I offered
you a $100 on something I can prove. Temperature is now less
than it was in 1998. Is the http://johnturmel.com/gambler
supposed to take you seriously when you can't take my bet
with units you can prove? I get to use the line: "Flash the
cash, bye bye trash."
Without any units, http://johnturmel.com/tajprofessor says
your flashing the cash is a rigged game. Did you not notice
when I asked you what climate change you were worried about,
global warming or cooling? You claim to win either way,
don't you? I'm a real engineer challenging you to a real bet
with real units of measurement. You're a sad excuse for a
Christopher Keating Mod: I love when deniers show how stupid
they are. I won't hold you to it, but if you want to send me
that $100 simply because you feel so much shame for you
ignorant statements, please feel free to do so.
JCT: And if you visit his site, there stands the debate. I'm
stupid, I owe him $100 after he flashed his two hold cards
and I could not respond. Right? But I had responded:
Jct: Before I show you my cards, I'm just restating our $100
bet. You bet temperature has risen and I bet it's gone down
JCT: So he deleted my response to make it look like he won.
I reposted the terms of my bet. Again, he deleted it. Wants
everyone to think he made the Great Canadian Gambler fold on
his nuts hole cards. So I went back and re-posted my
Jct: I notice my reply doesn't show. You didn't get the last
word though it may look that way. Again:
"Jct: Before I show you my cards, I'm just restating our
$100 bet. You bet temperature has risen and I bet it's gone
down since 1998."
Jct: No response since yesterday and my reply has been
removed. Guess Mr. High-Roller Physics Prof couldn't fade
the $100 bet. Okay, the Great Canadian Gambler will bet you
$1,000 that the temperature is now less than it was in 1998
after all that rise in CO2!!!
Are you going to erase this challenge too? Guess
TajProfessor cows PhysicsProfessor!
JCT: And sure enough, this third response he deleted too. So
if you go check global warming hoaxer Christopher Keating's
$30,000 challenge, you'll see it ends with him making me
back down. Before I play my card, I did one of my favorite
moves on loudmouths, giving them better and better odds they
have to back down to. My next post:
Jct: Okay, you deleted my posts to make it look like your
flashing your two hole cards made me back down from my bet.
Of course, you know I did not. Given I bet you $100 and then
$1000 that global yearly average temperature is now lower
than in 1998 to put the lie to your claim that we're in
danger from global warming due to rising man-made CO2, tell
you what. I'll give you 2:1 on the bet. TajProfessor bets
$1,000 on my scientific integrity and PhysicsProfessor only
has to bet $500 on yours! Are you going to delete this
fourth one too? You can run but you can't hide.
JCT: Of course, Professor of Physics deleted my fourth
Jct: Wow, four times you delete my post so you can make it
appear like you made the Great Canadian Gambler back down!
My bet of $100 and then $1,000 was that the temperature
today is less than 1998. Then I even offered you 2:1 odds,
$1,000 to $500. And you still delete my post so you look
like you cowed me. Well, how about I give you 10:1 odds. I
bet $1,000 on my scientific integrity and you only have to
bet $100 on yours. Come on chicken, cluck cluck at 10:1. Or
better yet, delete this again to leave the impression the
PhysicsProfessor beat the TajProfessor on a bet. You're
quite the shameful fraud if you think you're going to get
away with faking beating me. 10:1, how can you coward out?
JCT: And of course, he deleted my fifth response too. So:
Jct: Looks like TajProfessor has PhysicsProfessor on the run
with the simple bet that it's colder now than in 1998. 5
times he deleted my response to make it look like I folded
to his two links. Tell you what. I'll give you 100:1. I bet
$1,000 on my scientific integrity, you only have to bet $10
that it's colder now than in 1998 despite all the rise in
temperature you claim is going on. 100:1. That's how
confident I am in my cards and your continued backing down
gives us an idea of how confident you are in yours.
JCT: So he deleted my 6th response and but explained why:
Christopher Keating Mod: To John Turmel:
Your comments are being deleted because you have decided to
engage in a juvenile and irrelevant attempt to hijack this
blog. If you ever have anything worthwhile to say or wish to
make an honest submission to the challenge, it will be
accepted. I am very confident you will do neither because
you have demonstrated you have nothing. If you want to be a
troll, that is your choice, but do it somewhere else.
JCT: I've responded:
Jct: How does this post you deleted hijack your bloc?:
"Before I show you my cards, let's be clear you bet it's now
warmer than in 1998 and I bet the average global temperature
Jct: So tell me how that hijacks your blog? Confronting you
with a bet you can't take sure does win the debate but how
does that hijack your blog? Oh right, you have no answer so
you call that high-jacking..
CK: "you have demonstrated you have nothing."
Jct: Notice I said I was not going to "demonstrate" my cards
until the bet was established. So of course, I have not yet
shown my cards and until you accept the terms of the bet,
why should I?
Regardless, that my merely simply stating the terms of my
bet results in what you call the hijacking of your blog does
indicate the power of my bet and the cowardice of your
deletions that make it seem the PhysicsProfessor beat the
TajProfessor! Har har har.
JCT: Note he has told everyone on the blog:
CK: If you ever have anything worthwhile to say or wish to
make an honest submission to the challenge, it will be
JCT: But when I tried to make my last post:
<We are unable to post your comment because you have been
blocked by http://dialoguesonglobalwarmong.blogspot.com ?
JCT: So he made it look like I may still post my response if
I have one he thinks is worthy enough right after preventing
any more of my posts! What a lying hypocrite.
PhysicsProfessor cows TajProfessor! What a fraud.
I think he saw what was coming. I was going to give him
1,000:1 next, make him back down from betting $1 against my
$1,000! Then I'd give him 10,000:1, making him back down
from betting 10 cents against my $1,000. Then I'd give him
100,000:1 and make him back down from betting a penny on the
integrity of the PhysicsProfessor against the $1,000 I was
betting on the TajProfessor. And since I do have cards
proving I'm right, you know Hi-Roller Climate Hoaxer would
have to back down again.
Not only will I show you my cards, I'll do a little
destruction of his first. Here is the temperature graph he
JCT: Notice that the temperature on his own graph in 2014 is
lower than in 1998! Har har har har har har. Maybe he
noticed too. Har har har har har har har har har.
His next card: Opinion from Forbes Magazine of Peter Gleick,
Dr. Gleick received a B.S. from Yale University in
Engineering and Applied Science, and an M.S. and Ph.D. from
the Energy and Resources Group of the University of
California, Berkeley. He is the recipient of numerous awards
for his work, among them the prestigious MacArthur "genius"
Fellowship in 2003. He was elected to the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences in 2006.
"The most consistent, highly respected, and regularly
analyzed and updated data on global surface temperatures are
available from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Sciences,
NOAA's National Climate Data Center, and the United
Kingdom's Met Office Hadley Center."
JCT: Remember, his own graph shows temperature now lower
than in 1998 so have fun explaining the danger of rising
CO2! But his expert is citing the NASA and NOAA data set!
Notice that there is no way to prove a "not." I'll give
anyone $1,000 who can prove Martians are not planning an
invasion of the Earth. How can call? But if someone raises
me $100 they won't invade this year, what can I do?
Do you get his fraudulent bet? He flashes his $30G bet like
he's some kind of winner when there's no way for anyone to
call him where only a raise can prove him wrong when he has
to back down.
So I defeated him with a raise. I bet him something provable
that trumps his bluff. And I think the Professor knows that
the TajProfessor has won his $30 Grand with a mere $100
raise. As he retreats in shame, having to delete every
reference to my winning raise, it sure does exemplify the
fraud and cowardice of the global warming hoaxers to have
their top hi-roller having to back down from a $100 raise
after flauning a $30,000 bet.
I think he realizes I've won his $30,000 challenge, not with
a Call which no fool could make, but with a raise only the
TajProfessor could make. Engineering trumps Philosophy every
Finally, my best hole card (his own graph proving it's
colder now is funnier but this is stronger):
Dr. Don Easterbrook lays global warming hoax to rest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI and my post
JCT: Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western WA University
Don Easterbrook is a real climate scientist under oath using
the original data. Note how many times the politicians ask:
"Are you telling us the NASA and NOAA data is manipulated?"
And all he can say is "Mine is the original data, theirs is
adjusted!" Har har har har har har. I guess doofus
PhysicsProfessor didn't notice a real GeologyProfessor with
the true data in the news. Oops, it didn't make the
mainstream news be probably focuses on.
Still, TajProfessor knows PhysicsProfessor's own graph shows
that despite his fear of precipitous rise in temperature, it
happens to be lower now that in 1998! Har har har.
So now you know why the Global Warming Professor is on the
run and his blog makes it look like the PhysicsProfessor
beat the TajProfessor on the bet and only you know he's
lying. Only you know the Professeur Inferieur didn't win and
ducked and suppressed the raise that he couldn't call. That
fold shows him wrong and his deletions show that he knows
Professor Fraud on the data and Professeur Inferieur to the
TajProfessor Great Canadian Gambler on the bet. Isn't it
neat how a mere $100 raise could so cow him into hiding his
You see, the good doctor believes that even through the weather data used in climate models is fundamentally flawed (60% to over 90% margin of error in the raw data) that somehow "climate scientists" are correct, that the Earth is warming due to man.
At one point in time, just in the USA, there were over 5,000 weather monitoring stations. Upon examination, less than 500 were compliant with NOAA standards. As a result of complaints from real scientists, NOAA established a brand new network of 114 brand new compliant monitoring stations. The result? Over the last 10 years, using data from brand new compliant monitoring stations shows the USA is COOLING, not warming.
Go figure, when you combine garbage data with garbage "predictive" models, the result is always 100% GARBAGE.