Most people think Al Gore would lose the Global Warming Challenge
From July 17 through July 30, visitors to theclimatebet.com were invited to predict who would win the Global Warming Challenge that Scott Armstrong has proposed to Al Gore. We told visitors:
Mr. Gore has made his case in his book and movie both titled An Inconvenient Truth. Scott Armstrong’s case is that climate forecasters are unfamiliar with scientific forecasting methods, and their consequent inappropriate use of complex models provides invalid forecasts. Forecasts from climate models are therefore likely to be less accurate that the naïve forecast that global temperatures will not change. The winner of the Global Warming Challenge will be the party with the smallest forecast error over the next 10 years.
And asked them:
Assume that Al Gore can spare five minutes at some time in the future to accept Scott Armstrong’s Global Warming Challenge. Who do you think would win?
There were 85 respondents from around the world: 82% thought Scott Armstrong would win the challenge, 12% believed Al Gore would win, and 6% believed the Challenge was too close to call.
The winner of a signed copy of Scott Armstrong’s book, Principles of Forecasting, has been emailed.
See:
Time series modelling of two millennia of northern
hemisphere temperatures: long memory or shifting
trends?
Terence C. Mills
Loughborough University, UK
J. R. Statist. Soc. A (2007)
170, Part 1, pp. 83–94
among others….
Chaotic time series models are needed. Serious work is also done at the Univ. of Bristol (Maths dept.). I guess by the time we find out which is the best model, it won’t matter anymore…
Dismal Scientist
Scott Armstrong has a problem, it seems to me. The claim “that climate forecasters are unfamiliar with scientific forecasting methods, and their consequent inappropriate use of complex models provides invalid forecasts” is simply utterly wrong - those developing the models, for example, for the UK’s Meteorological Office do not fit his stereotype by any means… and nor do most others in the field.
However, I also wonder why Scott Armstrong thinks Al Gore would waste his time on such a pointless bet - the way it’s set up, Gore would win providing he chose a temperature 0.1 degrees above the current figure on 50% of occasions EVEN if global warming isn’t happening… which makes approximately 35% of those who responded prior to this email ridiculous unless they think there’s reason to believe that global temperatures are about to fall (against all existing evidence).
Oh, and then there’s the question of WHERE and how you measure the warming…
I agree. Why would Al Gore associate with people representing wealthy vested interests exacerbating our #1 human extinction threat?
This science (not a debate) has already been “won” by those on the side of humanity’s survival. The only debate left is what to do with those in gated communities surrounded by moats of oil, blocking the road to safety.
There is a bias in this survey, because people who frequently visit this page are also more likely to believe in Armstrong.
I suspect that you will get different results if you randomly select participants for the same survey!
Al Gore does have that crazy 3-4 monitor setup in his office.
Well, if we’re seriously talking about humanity’s survival (Phillip Huggan), how far into the future should we be planning? Or do you think our sun is a perpetual source of warmth, infinite in its capacity to spew forth energy?
If you have faith that science will find a way to save us when the sun starts petering out, then you need to make absolutely sure your science is worth putting faith in.
And the science that so many are putting their faith in right now is no longer science, but religious dogma. Our descendants will need more than fervent hyperbole to stay warm when the lights go out. So let’s do our absolute best to make sure that we hear all sides of the debate, and that the debate never ends, shall we? Either that, or fire up the wheels of the Inquisition…