The Global Warming Challenge

Professor J. Scott Armstrong responds to Andrew C. Revkin’s April 1st New York Times article, “Gore Group Plans Ad Blitz on Global Warming” through Google News Comments:

Gore’s Global Warming Campaign Raises Ethical and Legal Questions

As a professor who has taught advertising at the Wharton School since the 1970s, I wonder whether Mr. Gore’s advertising campaign raises ethical and legal concerns.

Advertisers should be able to support their claims. Yet, as I have pointed out to Mr. Gore on numerous occasions since June 2007, there are no scientific forecasts to support claims of global warming. Details on this conclusion can be found in a paper that I and Dr. Kesten Green published titled, “Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts,” (available in full text at http://publicpolicyforecasting.com). Advertisers should be expected to support their claims. In this regard, on June 19, 2007, I asked Mr. Gore to participate in a Global Warming Challenge to test his theories (see http://theclimatebet.com ). He has not agreed to the challenge.

On page 10 of his book, The Assault on Reason, Mr. Gore stated:

“We must . . . stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of
science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudostudies
known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the
public’s ability to discern the truth. . . . The climate crisis, in
particular, could cause us to reject and transcend ideologically
based distortions of the best available scientific evidence.”

Consistent with this, in March of this year I asked him: “When and under what conditions would you be willing to engage in a scientific test of your forecasts?”

I am still waiting for an answer.

I expect that Mr. Gore’s campaign will avoid two-sided messages such as might might be found in educational programs or in messages related to health (e.g., pharmaceutical advertising). Instead they will be based heavily on innuendos, anecdotes, emotion, and repetition of claims. These are approaches that are commonly used for propaganda campaigns that lack scientific evidence.

J. Scott Armstrong

The extended due date for the Global Warming Challenge passed with no word from Mr. Gore. Although he and Professor Armstrong have had a number of communications, Mr. Gore offered no response to the key question:

“When and under what conditions would you be willing to engage in a scientific test of your forecasts?”

Validation of forecasting methods is a key issue in climate change because, although we know that climate varies, we have been unable to locate a single scientific forecast that supports global warming. If Mr. Gore or anyone else is aware of such a forecast, they should reveal the source to the scientific community. Claims that science supports global warming forecasts have, to date, failed to provide sources.

A history of the Global Warning Challenge is provided at http://theclimatebet.com. It includes all correspondence between Scott Armstrong and Al Gore. The site will post all papers that purport to provide scientific forecasts of global warming. The papers must provide full disclosure on how the forecasts were made, as full disclosure is one of the basic principles of science.

Scott Armstrong’s letter to Al Gore follows:

March 28, 2008
Honorable Albert Gore
2100 West End Avenue,
Suite 620
Nashville, TN 37203
Fax: 615-327-2227

Dear Mr. Gore,

The extended deadline for the Global Warming Challenge has passed and, despite the fact that I have responded to all of your concerns to date regarding the challenge, you have not been willing to engage in a scientific test of your forecasts of dangerous global warming.

Despite our literature searches and our appeals both on the Internet and in our published paper on climate change, my colleague and I have been unable to find a single scientific forecast to support global warming. If you are aware of such a study, I appeal to you directly to reveal it to the scientific community so that it can be subject to peer review and so the public can see the scientific basis for your claims.

In addition we need to continue scientific studies. Thus, I pose this question:

“When and under what conditions would you be willing to engage in a scientific test of your global warming forecasts?”

I look forward to your responses. By your own words, the global warming issue remains an important one for the future of the world. Given the enormous expenditures on this issue, I hope that as a concerned and influential citizen, you will take an active role in encouraging the application of science to this issue.

Sincerely,

J. Scott Armstrong

On June 19, 2007, Professor Armstrong proposed the Global Warming Challenge to Mr. Gore in an effort to stimulate a scientific approach to forecasting climate change. The Challenge asked that Armstrong and Gore each put $10,000 into a Charitable Trust Fund on December 1, 2007. Armstrong bet that over the next ten years he could forecast temperature change more accurately than any climate model that Mr. Gore might nominate. (Armstrong’s forecast would be that global mean temperature would not change over the ten years.)

On July 6, Mr. Gore sent a cordial reply stating that he was too busy. In response, on November 28, 2007, Dr. Armstrong extended the deadline to March 26, 2008, and made the task easier: Mr. Gore was asked merely to provide a checkmark beside a leading climate model and to sign his name.

Mr. Gore’s spokesperson replied on Armstrong’s answering phone on around February 5. The caller apologized for being so late for responding to the November 28 letter. She said, “Senator Gore declines.” No reason was given. She said to call if there were any questions. Attempts to reach her by phone failed despite leaving callback messages. Armstrong then contacted her by email with questions for Mr. Gore:

“You have made dramatic forecasts of a dire future and have asked people to make big sacrifices on the basis of those forecasts. I would be grateful if you would explain:

1. Why are you unwilling to back your forecasts in a challenge intended to promote scientific forecasting of climate change?

2. Under what conditions would you be willing to back your forecasts in a challenge against my forecasts from a simple scientific method that is appropriate in situations of high uncertainty: the naïve “no change” method?”

The spokesperson said that with respect to question #1, “Mr. Gore simply does not wish to participate in a financial wager.” Armstrong responded that it was fine by him and that we could “merely do it for its scientific value.” The spokesperson said that she would ask Mr. Gore. Armstrong asked if Mr. Gore would also respond to question #2.

The second question is of particular importance given that we have not been able to find any scientific forecasts to support global warming –or any that would support negative effects from global warming –or any to support the notion that efforts to reduce man-made CO2 would have a favorable impact on the climate. See Green & Armstrong’s paper “Global Warming: Forecasts By Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts,” Energy & Environment 18 (2007), 995-1019.

Armstrong said that this is a scientific issue, not a political issue. Opinion polls do not provide a scientific approach in this situation, even when some of the respondents are climate experts. However, procedures do exist that would allow us to make scientific forecasts.

Meanwhile, Professor Armstrong awaits Mr. Gore’s response to the revised challenge.

Scott Armstrong and Kesten Green are two of the over 400 prominent scientists featured in a Senate Report debunking the scientific “consensus” on global warming. The report was released December 20th, 2007, and can be accessed at the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works site. The following is a selected excerpt citing Armstrong’s climate challenge to Al Gore, scientific forecasts versus forecasts by scientists, and the recent study of polar bear prediction methodology.

Internationally known forecasting pioneer Dr. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School at the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania and his colleague Kesten Green of Monash University in Australia challenged Gore to a $10,000 bet in June 2007 over the accuracy of climate computer models predictions. “Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.” According to Armstrong, the author of Long-Range Forecasting, the most frequently cited book on forecasting methods, “Of 89 principles [of forecasting], the [UN] IPCC violated 72.” Armstrong and Green also critiqued the Associated Press for hyping climate fears in 2007. “Dire consequences have been predicted to arise from warming of the Earth in coming decades of the 21st century. Enormous sea level rise is one of the more dramatic forecasts. According to the AP’s Borenstein, such sea-level forecasts were experts’ judgments on what will happen,” Armstrong and Green wrote to EPW on September 23, 2007.

(more…)

It’s been over 2 months since Armstrong sent a simplified challenge with extended deadline to Al Gore. We’ll be keeping track until Mr. Gore responds.

After a series of cordial exchanges, Al Gore had said that he was too busy when the challenge was first offered. As a result, Scott Armstrong extended the deadline and simplified the process such that the only actions required of Al Gore are to 1) sign the letter and 2) deposit $10,000 in the Challenge Fund. The letter below explains the new simplified process.

November 28, 2007

Honorable Albert Gore
2100 West End Avenue
Suite 620
Nashville, TN 37203

Dear Mr. Gore,

Thank you for your previous emails and your letter concerning the Global Warming Challenge. You had mentioned that you were looking forward to reading my book, Principles of Forecasting; I believe the principles are critical to making accurate forecasts for global warming.

In earlier communications, your staff mentioned that you were too busy at the time to enter in the Global Warming Challenge. As a result, I am happy to extend the deadline beyond December 1st, 2007, to March 26th, 2008. In addition, I have found a way to make your task much easier. I propose that you place $10,000 on the Hadley Centre Forecasts.

This would merely require that you sign on the “I agree” line at the bottom of this letter. Each of us would then arrange to transfer $10,000 to a trust of your choosing. The money would be invested in mutual funds, and the proceeds would go to the winner’s charity on March 26th, 2018.

As a brief reminder, here is an overview of the original Global Warming Challenge (details can be found at http://theclimatebet.com):

Al Gore is invited to select any currently available fully disclosed climate model to produce the forecasts (without human adjustments to the model’s forecasts). Scott Armstrong’s forecasts will be based on the naive (no-change) model; that is, for each of the ten years of the challenge, he will use the most recent year’s average temperature at each station as the forecast for each of the years in the future.

Details on the 10-year bet would be handled with discussions between me the Hadley Centre. I would ask an independent board to aid in this process of finding an appropriate design and to monitor the progress of the bet. You would be kept up to date, and you would have the right to ask the board to consider changing aspects of the design.

In The Assault on Reason, you stated your interest in the use of science in addressing global warming:

“We must, for example, stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudostudies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public’s ability to discern the truth. Americans in both parties should insist on the reestablishment of respect for the rule of reason. The climate crisis, in particular, could cause us to reject and transcend ideologically based distortions of the best available scientific evidence.” p. 10

I believe we have a common goal. Although I expect to win, the purpose of the challenge is to promote interest in a scientific approach to forecasting. Climate experts have done much useful work to explain the past, but their approach to forecasting does not adhere to scientific principles.

Sincerely,

J. Scott Armstrong

For the signature of Mr. Gore:

____________________________________________
I agree to the terms of the Global Warming Challenge with the variations specified in this letter

October 26, 2007: Senator Inhofe addresses the Senate floor for two hours on the tipping point of climate alarmism (full text| video clip 1 | video clip 2). Scott Armstrong’s Global Warming Challenge to Al Gore, along with the Green and Armstrong’s global warming paper (2007) were both mentioned when citing challenges to climate model accuracy:

Internationally known forecasting pioneer Dr. Scott Armstrong of the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, challenged Gore to a $10,000 bet in June over the accuracy of climate computer models predictions. Armstrong and his colleague Professor Kesten Green of Monash University’s in Australia, found: “Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.” According to Armstrong, the author of “Long-Range Forecasting,” the most frequently cited book on forecasting methods.: “Of 89 principles [of forecasting], the [UN] IPCC violated 72.”

Bonner Cohen’s article on TCS Daily, “Gore Dodges Repeated Calls to Debate Global Warming” covers the increasing numbers of skeptics who have challenged Bush, including Armstrong. Does understanding both viewpoints change public opinion? Below is an excerpt summarizing a recent debate between skeptics and alarmists, and audience reaction:

“Gore’s reluctance to go toe-to-toe with global warming skeptics may have something to do with the - from the standpoint of climate change alarmists - unfortunate outcome of a global warming debate in New York last March. In the debate, a team of global warming skeptics composed of MIT scientist Richard Lindzen, University of London emeritus professor of biogeology Philip Stott, and physician-turned novelist/filmmaker Michael Crichton handily defeated a team of climate alarmists headed by NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt. Before the start of the nearly two-hour debate, the audience of several thousand polled 57.3 percent to 29.9 percent in favor of the proposition that global warming is a “crisis.” At the end of the debate, the numbers had changed dramatically, with 46.2 percent favoring the skeptical point of view and 42.2 percent siding with the alarmists.”

Thank you for thinking of Mr.Gore and inviting him to join you on June 27th. I apologize for the late response, but Mr.Gore has an extremely busy schedule and was not able to make it. I also read that you have a book called “Principles of Forecasting”, please feel free to mail that to Mr.Gore’s office at the address listed below. Thank you for understanding and good luck with everything in the future.

Sincerely,
Kathryn Ankner

Office of the Honorable Al Gore & Mrs. Tipper Gore
2100 West End Avenue
Suite 620
Nashville, TN 37203

Click through for Scott Armstrong’s reply.

(more…)

Scott Armstrong said that he selected ten years because he wanted to be pretty sure that he would be around to see how things turned out. Interestingly, this fits well with Gore’s position, as stated in his book, Assault on Reason (page 204):

“Many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several “tipping points” that could - within as little as ten years - make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage of the planet’s habitability for human civilization.”