Jump to content


Scientist challenges Gore to $20,000 bet against global warming


JetsMania
 Share

Recommended Posts

Al Gores doom-mongering documentary An Inconvenient Truth - in which he turned his rather drab PowerPoint presentation on climate change into a cinematic warning to the world about mans toxic impact on the planet - has generated miles of newspaper column inches. Hes won widespread praise from greens for converting ordinary people (ie, the previously uncaring popcorn-chomping masses) to the green cause. Hes been given a telling-off by some climate scientists for twisting the data in order to send a moral message about mankinds destructiveness (1). Others have accused him of being a hypocrite: apparently Gore, who has two very big homes, used 221,000 kilowatt hours of electricity in 2006, 20 times the American national average (2). And now, in the latest post-Truth twist, Gore has been challenged to a $20,000 wager that he is wrong on global warming.

 

"The aim of the bet is really to promote the proper use of science, rather than the opinion-led science we have seen lately. Scott Armstrong is professor of marketing at the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania, and an international expert on forecasting methods. Last week he faxed and posted (to be on the safe side) his Global Warming Challenge to Gore. He challenged the former US vice-president to a 10-year bet in which both parties will put forward $10,000. Gore would put his money on his forecasts that temperature will rise dangerously in the coming decade, while Armstrong will put his money on what is referred to as the nave model: that is, that temperatures will probably stay the same in the coming years. Gore says there are scientific forecasts that the Earth will become warmer very rapidly. But I have not found a scientific forecast that supports that view. There are forecasts made by scientists, of course, but they are very different from a scientific forecast, says Armstrong.

 

Armstrong got the idea for the climate change wager from the late Julian Simon, an economist at the University of Maryland who was a friend of Armstrongs. In 1980, Simon bet the population scaremonger Paul Ehrlich that natural resources were not scarce and shrinking, as Ehrlich and other Malthusian environmentalists claimed. Ehrlich accepted: he chose five metals (copper, chrome, nickel, tin and tungsten) and bet Simon that in 10 years time the price of these metals would have risen exponentially due to their continued depletion by human adventure. In fact, when 1990 arrived, the price of all of Ehrlichs metals had fallen. Simon won the bet and Ehrlich handed him a cheque for $576.07. Armstrong expects to win his bet with Gore, too (thats if Gore accepts; he hasnt responded yet). But even if he were to lose, at least I will have started a debate about forecasting, he tells me.

 

Armstrong and his colleague Kesten Green, senior research fellow at Monash University in Australia and also an expert on forecasting, have been conducting research into the global-warming forecasts put out by Gore and organisations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). And they discovered that most climate-change forecasters use bad methodology. They are set to present their findings at an International Symposium on Forecasting in New York on Wednesday. What we have is climate forecasters effectively translating their own opinions into maths, says Armstrong. Their claims are not built on clear and thorough scientific forecasts but on their own outlooks. In Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts the paper they are presenting at the symposium, which spiked has seen Armstrong and Green point out that the IPCCs Working Group One Report predicted dramatic and harmful increases in average world temperatures over the next 92 years, and they ask: Are these forecasts a good basis for developing public policy? The answer provided in their paper is an emphatic no (3).

 

Armstrong and Green whom Im sure wont mind being referred to as forecasting geeks argue that those who predict sweeping changes in the climate break many of the golden rules of forecasting, as laid out in the 2001 book The Principles of Forecasting. In their paper, they assessed the extent to which long-term forecasts of global average temperatures have been derived using evidence-based forecasting methods. They surveyed 51 scientists and others involved in making global-warming predictions, asking them to provide scientific articles that contained credible forecasts to underpin their view that temperature will rise rapidly. Most of those surveyed 30 out of 51 cited the IPCC Report as the best forecasting source. Yet according to Armstrong and Green, the forecasts in the IPCC Report are not the outcome of scientific forecasting procedures rather the Report presents the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing (4). Indeed, in their forecasting audit of the IPPC Report, Armstrong and Green found that it violated 72 of the principles of forecasting.

 

Such as? Well, some of the principles of forecasting can appear counterintuitive, so bear with me, says Armstrong. One of the principles is that agreement amongst experts is actually not a very good measure of accuracy. This is especially true if experts are working closely together, and towards a certain goal, as they do in the IPCC. Such an atmosphere does not tend to generate reliable or accurate forecasts. Another principle of forecasting is that when there is uncertainty, your forecasts should be conservative, you should hedge your bets a little bit. The IPCC and others do exactly the opposite: despite their uncertainty, the fact that they dont know for certain what will happen, they are radical in their predictions of warming and destruction and so on.

 

The IPCC Report violated these two principles of forecasting, claims Armstrong, and 70 more. As an example of why forecasting needs to be done properly, in their paper for the symposium he and Green point to various headlines that have appeared in the New York Times over the past 80 years. On 18 September 1924: MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age. On 27 March 1933: America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776. On 21 May 1974: Scientists Ponder Why Worlds Climate is Changing: A Major Cooling Widely Considered to be Inevitable. (5) Those forecasts were made with a high degree of confidence, too, he says. Where are they now? It is very important that forecasts are built on proper forecasting principles, and that uncertain forecasts are treated as such.

 

Armstrong and Green may have a point about the IPPC Report consisting more of scientists opinions rather than scientifically validated forecasts of temperature change. And it will be interesting to see if Gore accepts their bet. But I cant help wondering if one of the main problems with the debate about climate change today is precisely the focus on forecasting, whether it is the allegedly wild forecasting contained in the IPCC Report or the more principled forecasting proposed by Armstrong and Green.

 

To debate the future on the basis of scientific forecasts about temperature is to denigrate human activity and impact. Humans dont, or at least shouldnt, sit around waiting for the inevitable to occur; we are capable of shaping our world and of addressing and solving problems as they arise. The Forecast View of History which takes climatic developments of the past and measures them against the present, in order to make predictions about the future tends to be fatalistic, viewing humans as objects of history rather than as creators of change. Perhaps we should spend less time forecasting what will (allegedly) happen, like modern-day tealeaf-readers, and more time making things happen in the way we want and need them to. I would put my money on human ingenuity over scary weather forecasts any day of the week.

 

The Climate Bet was launched by Scott Armstrong last week

 

 

Here is the actual paper which is 19 pages long

 

http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Publi...WarmAudit31.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Where did you pull this article from? It sounds like it was written by FOX News.

 

Why does that matter?

 

 

Seriously...

 

 

Its nice to see someone on the otherside making a statement, no matter if who is right or who is wrong. Science has always been built on two sides. Having only one side defeats the purposes of science and can only lead down the path, at the risk of sounding cliche, the dark side. :confused

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know what I side with but I agree with the reason he is doing this

 

"The aim of the bet is really to promote the proper use of science, rather than the opinion-led science we have seen lately"

 

FutureGM (not trying to call you out) basically is an example of this. Someone reads something and if its against global warming it must be from so and so. And vice versa.

 

 

 

 

http://theclimatebet.com/

http://www.spiked-online.com/index....e/article/3533/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did you pull this article from? It sounds like it was written by FOX News.

 

Why does that matter?

 

 

Seriously...

 

 

Its nice to see someone on the otherside making a statement, no matter if who is right or who is wrong. Science has always been built on two sides. Having only one side defeats the purposes of science and can only lead down the path, at the risk of sounding cliche, the dark side. :confused

i read on digg a couple of months ago that some proffessor of Oxford (i think) challenged Gore to a bet...never heard anything since..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just the first sentence of the article is enough to make most rational people stop reading. He immediately calls Al Gore a 'doom-monger' for making "An Inconvenient Truth". That's not a good way to start an argument.

 

That is my primary complaint with this article. Granted, I believe in global warming, but that has very little to do with why I find this article unhelpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just the first sentence of the article is enough to make most rational people stop reading. He immediately calls Al Gore a 'doom-monger' for making "An Inconvenient Truth". That's not a good way to start an argument.

 

That is my primary complaint with this article. Granted, I believe in global warming, but that has very little to do with why I find this article unhelpful.

How is that any different from any other article stating that global warming is indeed true and that everyone who doesn't believe it is a mindless twit?

 

 

 

Now I do believe it exists but I harbor serious doubts about a lot of it.

 

:confused

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like something from foxnews

 

I am surprised it doesnt mention finding weapons of mass destruction in there too :)

 

Oh wells, personally I rather see something done about it now instead of 10 years in the future when the problem will be worse.

 

The whole point of the article is just that: how do you know the problem will be worse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the ultimate purpose of this is not to beat Al Gore in a bet, but rather to show how people are biased/opinionated towards science. Instead of looking at actual facts and then determining what is truth and what is not. We are automatically discounting someone if they are saying something we dont agree with. For example, when the director of NASA came out and basically said he didnt agree with global warming you had out cry from the media. The media, who are not scientists, are trying to dispute a guy who has 5 masters and a phd's finds/opinion. Then on the flip side you have people who are showing simulations that illustrate what could happen in the future, and the people who are against global warming automatically call those findings false without analyzing them.

 

I am not totally sure what I believe. Global Warming revolves more around politics than actual science right now. However, I dont see anything wrong with being a little less wasteful. We really dont need to be throwing away 100 million pounds of trash everyday (or whatever it is).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the hell would Gore take this bet? Then people will turn around and say he has a personal stake in things getting worse. This is ridiculous. But somehow Jetsmania and Beinfest think this adds to the debate.

 

Yep, amatuer scientists are restricting debate, so debate should be furthered by using cheap props.

 

And you guys aren't really doing anything to further the debate. You are only saying that you are annoyed with the people who believe global warming is happening. So what's your point?

 

You think this is the first time in any valid debate that people have been condescending jackasses? Look at the tort reform movement and the claims of runaway litigation-based on emotion and not valid proof. I don't see you guys complaining. Same with many other debates.

 

How many times do people call jimmyjack a name without actually addressing his point?

 

Your point is the same that existed for the past 40 years. Environmentalists are annoying to you. Good for you. Sorry to hear that.

 

There is plenty of scientific analysis done on this that says global warming is happening. Plenty. All of them are not part of some conspiracy to dispose of the scientific method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, when the director of NASA came out and basically said he didnt agree with global warming you had out cry from the media. The media, who are not scientists, are trying to dispute a guy who has 5 masters and a phd's finds/opinion.

 

No offense, but can you show me where the media had an outcry against this guy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, when the director of NASA came out and basically said he didnt agree with global warming you had out cry from the media. The media, who are not scientists, are trying to dispute a guy who has 5 masters and a phd's finds/opinion.

 

No offense, but can you show me where the media had an outcry against this guy?

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3229696&page=1

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...global_warming/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19058588/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when its 80 degrees in december in massachusetts, something is wrong...when new hampshire has to brag about all their fantastic snow making abilities(because they cant seem to get any of the real stuff) something is wrong...when we see more major hurricanes than ever before, something is wrong...when there is more and worse brush fires, something is wrong...i dont know what is so impossible about all this to understand...damn...and i noticed you guys skipped over the links i provided for you...here...ill get em again so you can read them more closely this time

 

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is plenty of scientific analysis done on this that says global warming is happening. Plenty. All of them are not part of some conspiracy to dispose of the scientific method.

Then what do you make of the plenty of data and research that refutes the AGW claims? Let's be fair now.

 

Climatologists, the folks that should know about this lil' thing we call the climate, do not share in this 'consensus'. Why is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when its 80 degrees in december in massachusetts, something is wrong...when new hampshire has to brag about all their fantastic snow making abilities(because they cant seem to get any of the real stuff) something is wrong...when we see more major hurricanes than ever before, something is wrong...when there is more and worse brush fires, something is wrong...i dont know what is so impossible about all this to understand...damn...and i noticed you guys skipped over the links i provided for you...here...ill get em again so you can read them more closely this time

 

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm

 

I am just playing devil's advocate, but what about the year with out a summer when it snowed in june and july in MA?

What about a few days ago when it barely broke 60 in Providence? There were a few days in mid may, where the temp was 50, one day didnt even break 48 degrees. Wasnt April one of the coldest months on record for New York state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is sadder than when Dicky Pride tried making a million dollar bet with Anika over a game of golf.

 

It's absurd the lengths some people will go to get attention under the guise of social conscience. Yeah, he's holding the torch for science and I make rap jokes to me friends because I'm trying to use it as a form of social critisism. No, I like attention. We, all like attention but don't try to fool anyone playing it up like your doing it for society, you egotistical jackass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when its 80 degrees in december in massachusetts, something is wrong...when new hampshire has to brag about all their fantastic snow making abilities(because they cant seem to get any of the real stuff) something is wrong...when we see more major hurricanes than ever before, something is wrong...when there is more and worse brush fires, something is wrong...i dont know what is so impossible about all this to understand...damn...and i noticed you guys skipped over the links i provided for you...here...ill get em again so you can read them more closely this time

 

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm

 

I am just playing devil's advocate, but what about the year with out a summer when it snowed in june and july in MA?

What about a few days ago when it barely broke 60 in Providence? There were a few days in mid may, where the temp was 50, one day didnt even break 48 degrees. Wasnt April one of the coldest months on record for New York state?

 

No major hurricanes last year either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when its 80 degrees in december in massachusetts, something is wrong...when new hampshire has to brag about all their fantastic snow making abilities(because they cant seem to get any of the real stuff) something is wrong...when we see more major hurricanes than ever before, something is wrong...when there is more and worse brush fires, something is wrong...i dont know what is so impossible about all this to understand...damn...and i noticed you guys skipped over the links i provided for you...here...ill get em again so you can read them more closely this time

 

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm

 

I am just playing devil's advocate, but what about the year with out a summer when it snowed in june and july in MA?

What about a few days ago when it barely broke 60 in Providence? There were a few days in mid may, where the temp was 50, one day didnt even break 48 degrees. Wasnt April one of the coldest months on record for New York state?

 

No major hurricanes last year either.

Not true, there were a couple.

 

 

But the thing that annoys me most is when people say global warming is responsible for increased hurricanes and intensity. HOW CAN ANYONE BE SO ARROGANT AS TO SAY THAT WHEN THERE IS VERY LIMITED DATA ON INTENSITY ESPECIALLY.

 

/endminirant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when its 80 degrees in december in massachusetts, something is wrong...when new hampshire has to brag about all their fantastic snow making abilities(because they cant seem to get any of the real stuff) something is wrong...when we see more major hurricanes than ever before, something is wrong...when there is more and worse brush fires, something is wrong...i dont know what is so impossible about all this to understand...damn...and i noticed you guys skipped over the links i provided for you...here...ill get em again so you can read them more closely this time

 

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm

 

I am just playing devil's advocate, but what about the year with out a summer when it snowed in june and july in MA?

What about a few days ago when it barely broke 60 in Providence? There were a few days in mid may, where the temp was 50, one day didnt even break 48 degrees. Wasnt April one of the coldest months on record for New York state?

That was due to one of the largest volcanic eruptions in modern history. But I get your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is sadder than when Dicky Pride tried making a million dollar bet with Anika over a game of golf.

 

It's absurd the lengths some people will go to get attention under the guise of social conscience. Yeah, he's holding the torch for science and I make rap jokes to me friends because I'm trying to use it as a form of social critisism. No, I like attention. We, all like attention but don't try to fool anyone playing it up like your doing it for society, you egotistical jackass.

He isn't getting any attention though, which is also saying something about the media bias on this issue. Not one major news publication is covering this from what I can see. He might be an idiot (the jury is still out), but rarely do the voices of dissent in regard to AGW make headlines. Instead I see articles about how global warming is destroying the tourism industry. I even read an article not too long ago about global warming raising the level of depression in American youths.

 

links?

 

Not that I don't believe you saw the articles, I just want to read how one could justify such absurdities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is sadder than when Dicky Pride tried making a million dollar bet with Anika over a game of golf.

 

It's absurd the lengths some people will go to get attention under the guise of social conscience. Yeah, he's holding the torch for science and I make rap jokes to me friends because I'm trying to use it as a form of social critisism. No, I like attention. We, all like attention but don't try to fool anyone playing it up like your doing it for society, you egotistical jackass.

He isn't getting any attention though, which is also saying something about the media bias on this issue. Not one major news publication is covering this from what I can see. He might be an idiot (the jury is still out), but rarely do the voices of dissent in regard to AGW make headlines. Instead I see articles about how global warming is destroying the tourism industry. I even read an article not too long ago about global warming raising the level of depression in American youths.

 

links?

 

Not that I don't believe you saw the articles, I just want to read how one could justify such absurdities.

 

I can only speak to the tourism article, and I was a local paper (probably the Sentinel because I despise the Herald), and it was during the mild winter a couple years ago. Basically it said that people aren't coming to Florida until it gets cold up north and global warming will make such periods less common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

There is plenty of scientific analysis done on this that says global warming is happening. Plenty. All of them are not part of some conspiracy to dispose of the scientific method.

 

And theres just as much showing that its not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is sadder than when Dicky Pride tried making a million dollar bet with Anika over a game of golf.

 

It's absurd the lengths some people will go to get attention under the guise of social conscience. Yeah, he's holding the torch for science and I make rap jokes to me friends because I'm trying to use it as a form of social critisism. No, I like attention. We, all like attention but don't try to fool anyone playing it up like your doing it for society, you egotistical jackass.

He isn't getting any attention though, which is also saying something about the media bias on this issue. Not one major news publication is covering this from what I can see. He might be an idiot (the jury is still out), but rarely do the voices of dissent in regard to AGW make headlines. Instead I see articles about how global warming is destroying the tourism industry. I even read an article not too long ago about global warming raising the level of depression in American youths.

 

links?

 

Not that I don't believe you saw the articles, I just want to read how one could justify such absurdities.

 

I can only speak to the tourism article, and I was a local paper (probably the Sentinel because I despise the Herald), and it was during the mild winter a couple years ago. Basically it said that people aren't coming to Florida until it gets cold up north and global warming will make such periods less common.

 

I read a list somewhere that had winners of global warming. Canada was #1. It said that by 2050 canadas toursim will increase by 200%! Greenland was also up there.

 

I think in general Florida will be safe. Orlando is still a huge draw. Miami/Miami beach draw a lot of people year round. Spring training brings in people during march.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...