We've been having exactly that contest since the site was launched. It's called "the forum".

The Hall of Fame should really be based off +1s instead of points.

Ok, thread created. Challenge made. Now go vote!
Remember, it doesn't matter who you vote for. All that matters is that you vote!

We all know Bo would the funniest looking....:p

I'm not exactly beautiful but I guarantee you I am not the worst.

I demand photographic proof!

I took some shirtless selfies today. Want those?

I. Need. This.

Watch it, Jamiet99uk. MadMarx is going to pounce on you. It's the Forum.

Watch it, JECE. "MadMarx" is a registered trademark of webDip. Any unauthorized use can and will be punishable by the court of law.

An amusing thread, but I have some questions... when are we going to judge the Global Warming theory on the basis of the claims of its proponents? Weren't coastal cities supposed to be underwater now on account of melting ice caps? Wasn't there supposed to be a torrent of mega-hurricanes? Shouldn't global temperatures be rising? Wasn't the Western united states supposed to see increased rainfall? Instead we have record cold weather, a non-existent hurricane season, polar ice caps still exist, cities are not under water, and the Western United States is in the midst of a serious drought. Doesn't science require theories to have supporting evidence any more? Or have such quaint notions been tossed aside?

Yes, because you can make up straw men like "polar ice caps still exist", science is nowadays a sham. We're actually all liberals just making up reasons to steal more of your money.

valis, i say this out of concern for your intellectual well-being, having now seen you make the same glaring mistake in multiple threads.

you are really, really, really bad at being charitable with opponents' arguments and engaging them on their merits.

in the process of accusing tolstoy of making a straw man argument you have managed to straw man his argument

If I gave merit to every Global Warming skepticism argument, much less every argument that I came across, life would be rather unfun and tedious. But I appreciate the concern for my intellectual well-being.

Are we going to go back to "every statement on this forum must be derivable via first principles" again, or is this a new one?

Wanna learn why and how and what global warming theory predicts and what results have been? Educate yourself. Go on Quora or wiki if you don't want or understand primary literature.

Why do I have to pretend these sarcastic accusations such as "or have such quant notions been tossed aside?" as actual arguments, more ones I should fully bother engaging in?

I theoretically could, but am certainly not going to, be, to say, charitable with someones argument and engage on merits, someone who goes "If the theory of evolution was true, why are there still monkeys?". This idea that all ideas and arguments regardless of tone or content are worthwhile is fairly silly.

oh look, another straw man.

i just don't even see the point of your response at all. why even bother engaging tolstoy's comment if you're not going to do so properly? you're just shitting up the discussion with bad faith misrepresentations of what he's saying. it's clearly not an attempt to search for truth or further your own understanding. why waste your considerable time and intellect by making arguments that don't come close to living up to your potential?

Alright Valis, can you please provide this anti-science simpleton with some predictions of the Global Warming Experts from ten or fifteen years ago which have, in fact, come to pass?

Because its fun? Because I can show disdain without writing an essay with sources to prove correctness? Because I truly, honestly PE, don't think that s/he contributed in good faith?

If it makes you feel better, I clearly think the idea of what and how much should be engaged on deserves to be engaged on...

@tolstoy: i'm sorry i don't have time to engage in a discussion right now since i'm in a hurry, but a while ago i found some questions on the internet that from then on i asked every climate change denier, so if you have the time to answer those, please do. they're not mine, and copy-pasted, so some of this may seem out of context:

. What specific evidence would climate scientists have to produce to convince you that human caused GHGs are a significant contributor to the current global warming?

. Do you believe there is a difference between long-term trend and variability?

. Name the title of one published paper that was corrected or retracted as a result of "climategate"

. Why haven't any scientific papers been challenged for manipulation or fraud by Heartland, Watts, Singer, Inhofe, Curry, Spencer, Bastardi, Morono or any of the other deniers?

. Name the title or author of one climate science paper that was rejected by a reputable journal because it contradicted the theory that human caused GHGs are a significant contributor to the current global warming.

. After all the screaming about not having access to climate data (i.e. the "hide the decline" data that wasn't licensed for redistribution), why has nothing been done by the "skeptics" since it was made available to them?

. Name the published science paper(s) that used the "hide the decline" source code in their analysis

. Why is it permissible for UAH to alter climate data before publication without any outcry at all, but similar alterations are not permissible for anyone else?

. If the climate science data is being faked/altered, then why do anti-science wackos cherry pick the climate science data to try to "prove" there is a global conspiracy?

. Every national academy of science on planet Earth (I believe there are 22 of them) has published a statement agreeing that human produced GHG emissions is the most likely explanation for current warming. How did they all arrive at the wrong answer?

. Why does the profit motive only affect climate science? Why doesn't it affect condensed matter physics, or ag science or geophysics?

. Why doesn't the profit and personal gain motive affect sensationalist media websites like Watts, Singer, Inhofe, Spencer etc. the same way it supposedly affects climate science?

Climate Change scientists have predicted almost perfectly the state of the climate we are currently experiencing, although this is in no small part because they have predicted virtually every scenario you could possibly imagine :p.

A difficulty with the theory in the UK (and I dare say in many other locations) is that locally there is little evidence of it. Weather has not become more extreme (indeed, the winter of '63 and summer of '76 in my parent's generation are far more extreme than anything experienced in my lifetime), the rate of sea-level rise has not increased, summers are not noticeably warmer and neither are winters. It is difficult to argue the case for climate change when the evidence experienced by people every day is that nothing is happening.

So my grandkids will never get to see polar bears. I never saw a dinosaur..

Abge - who's missing? I guess there could be some from before my time who aren't on there, although I was under the impression Kestas was the only admin before you.

Did this turn into an actual debate about global warming?

Come on, guys.

But ghug, we're searching for truth or further our own understanding.

Why are you shitting up this thread with your bad faith?

STOP FUCKING CALLING IT GLOBAL WARMING!

CALL IT CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why?

Octavious, because the theory being disputed is climate change, and it is not global warming?

Valis, you are seriously damaging your own argument. Don't be insulting, if you're going to address a comment, do so politely. You're more likely to be heard that way.

Tolstoy, the predictions you reference are either horribly outdated, worst-case scenarios or meant for about 20, 30 years in the future. Also, we have had very strong hurricane seasons, the polar icecaps are demonstrably melting at an alarming speed, and weather patterns have changed. That's pretty solid evidence for man-made climate change. As for "It's cold", that part of your argument is simply based on not knowing what climate change predictions are. They do predict more extreme temperatures.

All of the top 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998 (http://tinyurl.com/poh7qds)

2014 on Track to be Hottest Year on Record (http://tinyurl.com/kpfunre)

But yeah, since there's been some snow at some locations last week, let's disregard all other weather data from the last two decades.