If You Hear Many Quacks - It Will Be the Sound of Thousands of Scientists Ducking

Here is another significant opportunity for the fools who have fallen for the Climate Change farce to offer a little proof that 1) It is a real and serious problem and 2) It is worth spending tons of American money to fix it.

The Junkscience.com website is sponsoring a contest where the first person able to provide proof that debunks the following two hypothesis will get a lump sum payment of $100,000:

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.

Yes, it is the Ultimate Global Warming Challenge! Yeah, yeah. I know. The science is settled and the debate is over. But hey, who can resist such an "easy" proposition when the "science" is behind you? Here is an opportunity to get a fast hundred grand to throw at your favorite globe saving enterprise (or to greedily pocket for yourself - after the government takes half).

The fact is that there will likely be no takers and there certainly will not be any winners. In order to win, the submitter must do what the Climate Change crowd has been most unwilling to do: a cost-benefit analysis. They will have to provably answer the first four of my 5 questions on global warming:
1) Has it been proven that Global Warming is actually happening?
2) Has it been proven that Global Warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gases?
3) Has it been proven that Global Warming will cause catastrophic conditions that will result in massive human casualties?
4) Has it been proven that if 1-3 are correct that it is possible for man to prevent #3 by reducing or eliminating their output in greenhouse gases?
5) Just because 2-4 are unproven and likely a crock, does this excuse man's irresponsible polluting of the earth?