(1) Mr. Georgia (& Dr. Armstrong, apparently) completely ignore overwhelming empirical, historical evidence from many branches of science that demonstrate global warming during the past century or two, especially during the past 50 yrs. or so.
(2) It may well be true that the best predictor of the average temp. at a location is the average temp. the previous year (or some recent year); this is Dr. Armstrongs “naive (no change)” forecasting model. The bet is a set-up. (Note to Al Gore: Don’t be a sucker - you’d be a fool to take the bet.)
HOWEVER:
(3) Even if the “naive (no change)” forecasting model is the best forecasting model from year-to-year, that fact would have LITTLE IF ANY RELEVANCE regarding evidence for, or models of, climate change. Climate is NOT defined by year-to-year changes, it’s defined by changes over long-term (30 years or more) averages. But the bet is limited to predicting average year-to-year temperatures (not climate) over a short time (only 10 years), and doesn’t address climate at all. The relevant questions don’t have anything to do with year-to-year predictions; the relevant questions are like these: Is there a trend (up or down) in annual temperatures over a period of 30 years or more? Is the ave. temp. of one 30 yr (or more) period lower or higher than the ave. temp of the preceding - or following - 30 yr. period (for example: 1941-1970 cf. 1971-2000). I’d bet Dr. Armstrong $10,000 that the answers to both these questions are/will be yes; there’ll be an upward trend (regardless of whether or not his year-to-year forecasting model is the best, or not).

Other notes:

Caveat: I looked at the website referred to by Mr. Georgia to try to find the actual text of the bet, but didn’t find it. Thus, I may not have a clear understanding of the details of the bet.

I don’t put much stock in climate models myself, just like I don’t put much stock in economic models, or models of any extremely complex system(s). However, the models are one way of providing an informed, educated guess about what the future may be like. Also, constructing mechanistic models (as opposed to Dr. Armstrong’s “naive” model) helps identify information gaps, & thus help science progress efficiently. Also, you don’t need a complex climate model to predict fairly accurately what would happen to sea levels if the Greenland ice sheet melted.

Please note that while Dr. Armstrong may be/is an authority on “forecasting,” he is a Professor of Marketing - he has no particular knowledge or understanding of any natural sciences or earth sciences.

Final comment: A common rationale for not taking action to reduce “green house gas” (GHG) emissions is that because it’s not completely certain whether, or how much, human activity has & is contributing to global warming, we shouldn’t work to reduce those emissions. However, doesn’t a “risk analysis” approach make sense here? Compare these risks:
* What are/might be the consequences if (a) global warming is real, (b) human GHG emissions are contributing to it substantially, & (c) we DON’T do any thing about it? Do we run the risk of really de-stabilizing many communities, societies, economies, and nations?
* What are/might be the consequences if (a) global warming is not real (or very severe), &/or (b) our GHG emissions don’t contribute to it much if at all, & (c) we make adjustments to reduce our use of fossil fuels etc. to reduce GHG emissions? How much, & what kind of harm would that cause?

- Richard Evans

First, is climate warming? The answer, though not definitive yet, is probably yes. We can readily see some evidence of that happening.

The Earth is a dynamic system, which means it is constantly in flux. Average temperatures are continually moving up or down. Equilibrium would mean that the system was dead. In spite of what Al Gore says, there never has been a time of equilibrium in the system, and that’s a good thing.

Second, if temps are going up, what is the cause? Is it Man’s contribution of greenhouse gases? Conventional wisdom (as portrayed in most of the media, anyway) says ‘yes’. But the truth is that that is a hypothesis, not even a full-fledged theory yet, and certainly not an established scientific fact. Let me explain:

Obviously we can’t put the Earth into a laboratory and experiment on it. Experiments must be done on climate models. Scientists formulate a hypothesis, plug their assumptions into the model, and then see if the model can predict reality.

Even the best climate models don’t predict reality very well. Thirty-five years ago NASA’s James Hansen was designing climate models that showed an ice age was imminent; today he designs models that show the climate is heating up. But the track record of the models is just as dismal. Heck, the Old Farmer’s Almanac does a better job of predicting weather patterns and climate trends. The assumptions that are programmed into the model must be incredibly complex. In fact, more complex than our understanding of climate at this point. It’s really no big surprise that the models don’t have a great track record. It’s not something to feel too bad about or be embarrassed about. It’s just the way it is.

So what’s going on? Why all the hysteria? Some say that the “reality of global warming” is even worse than predicted. Could that be?

That’s one explanation offered by the manmade global warming enthusiasts, but a simpler, scientific, and less hysterical explanation is simply that one or more of the assumptions programmed into the models are incorrect. That just means the hypothesis is flawed. Perhaps something else is going on than the researcher expected. It does not prove or disprove the scientists’ opinions, or establish cause and effect. Garbage in, garbage out, as the saying goes.

But is there a “consensus”?

I love to point out the fact that there are still scientists studying gravity, and that’s one area most people thought was settled long ago, right? Can I see a show of hands? And another thing to think about is that ‘consensus’ really isn’t a scientific term. It’s more of a political term.

So how do we get from a flawed hypothesis to a sound scientific theory? The short answer is: we don’t. The hysteria is due to politics and propaganda.

How do we get from politics and propaganda to an established scientific fact? Again, we don’t, obviously. What we get is more politics and perhaps public policy.

Why? In two words: money and power.

More taxes. Higher prices on energy (and everything that uses energy to make or transport - Have you noticed what has happened to the price of grain, for instance? Stop and think about the effect of higher food and heating costs on the world’s poor.) Control of energy sources. Sales of books, ‘carbon offsets’, and myriad ‘green’ merchandise.

Does it bother the True Believer that Al Gore has 200 million dollars in the bank from selling carbon offsets, which do nothing to actually help the environment? That his prediction of a 10-foot rise in sea level is echoed by not one scientist anywhere? No, of course not. Some people want to be scared. Impending catastophe is supremely sexy.

Does it bother the True Believer to learn that many of the scientists involved in the IPCC project sued to have their names removed from the report?

Does it bother the True Believer that the grandfather of global warming politics is a man named Maurice Strong, a big UN muckety-muck who happens to be a communist, eugenicist and de-populationist? No, of course not. Those same people craving catastrophe probably don’t understand the implications of those words.

It is an understatement to say there is disinformation and subterfuge coming from all sides on this issue. This very piece you are reading could be chock-full of disinformation, so it’s imperative that you do your own research.

An example of disinformation is Greenpeace members protesting, calling for President Bush to sign Kyoto, when they know full well that the US signed Kyoto way back in 1998 under Clinton/Gore! The fact is, Bush CAN’T sign it, since it’s already signed, but that doesn’t stop the protesting and name-calling does it? And apparently not one journalist has noticed the disparity. (and Bush has never mentioned it, either. Go figure.)

That is disinformation in a nutshell. Watch for it.

Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace and current board member of the Sierra Club, once said “If you don’t know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then … make it up on the spot.”

Al Gore once said something similar: “When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, holler.”

Carl Amery, a founder of the German green movement, has said “We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels.” Read that sentence again and let it sink in. It would take a LOT of propaganda and programming to pull that off, wouldn’t it?

Paul Watson again, says “We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion.” He doesn’t say exactly how he would like to accomplish that, but disposing of 6 billion people would be problematic. Doesn’t he know that rotting corpses give off greenhouse gases?

Lyall Watson (no relation, other than their faith), biologist and author, says that “Cannibalism is a radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.” Yes, he really said that.

I’m sure the majority of environmentalists aren’t this far off their rockers, but these are some of the leaders of the movement. And think again about those higher food and energy costs and billions of poor folks struggling to make ends meet.

Maurice Strong (mentioned above), a senior UN advisor and director of the Temple of Understanding, is a little more laid back: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring about?”

But politics and global evil aside, should we be concerned about climate change? The answer to that is an unqualified ‘maybe’. So wouldn’t it be nice to just let the scientists work without all the propaganda and hysteria?

Bottom line: Don’t let anybody take your money or freedom based on a hypothesis. Real science is not done by a show of hands. Recognize the doomsayers, propagandists, and slanted journalists (and bloggers) for who they are and get on with life.

And think carefully about the people who tell you “the science is settled and it’s time for action”. Please don’t perpetuate the politics and the disinformation at the expense of the science. As Lenin famously pointed out: “A lie told often enough becomes the truth”.

Also, don’t twist anything I’ve said to mean that I’m some sort of anti-conservationist. I’m all for conservation (as we all should be), whether we are talking about energy, or species, or habitat, or preserving air or water quality, or other ‘green’ technologies, or whatever. That’s not really what this argument is about. It’s about controlling energy use, and robbing people to pay for it (okay, TAXING for the ‘progressives’ and other business-as-usual-types) - to create a ’solution’ to a ‘problem’ that is still in the hypothesis stage scientifically.