The Global Warming Challenge

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.”

A Congressional Briefing about forecasts of global warming given by Scott Armstrong on Thursday, Sept 13 is now available on YouTube (Part 2 and Part 3). The briefing was based on the Green & Armstrong paper, “Global Warming: Scientific Forecasts or Forecasts by Scientists?” The global warming paper is the first of what they hope will be many forecasting audits of global warming studies to be presented on the new Special Interest Group page at http://publicpolicyforecasting.com.

By J. Scott Armstrong

Our findings that there are no scientific forecasts to support global warming does not mean that all of the proposals by the global warming community are fallacious. But it does illustrate the dangers of using global warming as the reason for change, as is done for example, by Al Gore.

The lack of a scientific basis for global warming forecasts might be detrimental to global warmers who advocate change. People are likely to falsely assume that because the premise is false (i.e., no scientific forecasts support global warming), the proposed policy changes are also false. Consider the flowing faulty logic: “If there is global warming, higher gasoline taxes are needed. There is no global warming. Therefore there is no need for higher gasoline taxes.” The case for changes in gasoline taxes should be based on its own merits.

A more sensible approach would be to make forecasts about the costs and benefits of each public policy proposal.

At one of the concluding sessions of the 27th Annual International Symposium on Forecasting (ISF) titled “Auditing Public Policy Forecasting: Climate Change, Gun Control, and Other Issues”, Scott Armstrong, Paul Goodwin, and John Lott each gave presentations during the hour-long session. Below is information on the speakers as well as talk summaries.

10:45am-11:05am
Scott Armstrong on Climate Change
Professor of Marketing, University of Pennsylvania

Click for a brief video of Armstrong’s talk.

Presented his and Kesten Green’s findings from the paper, “Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts,” where they applied forecasting principles to Section 8 of the 2007 IPCC report, revealing that scientists did not adhere to proper forecasting procedure. These critical violations of forecasting principles led them to conclude that they have been unable to identify scientific forecasts to support global warming. The presentation concluded with an explanation of the challenge to Al Gore, as well as theclimatebet.com.

11:05am-11:25am
Paul Goodwin on Business Forecasting
Professor of Management Science, University of Bath (UK)

How do models fit in with business forecasting? Goodwin explained how the use of ‘the system’ and high-tech software analytics creates models that are merely used to support desired forecasts, instead of the back-and-forth relationship that should exist between models and forecasters’ interests. He left the audience with the question: in a world where billions of dollars are at stake, how to firms stay afloat if they only see what they want to see?

11:25am-11:45am
John Lott on Gun Control
Senior Research Scientist, University of Maryland

Controversial economist John Lott concluded the session by highlighting the strength of emotion against the facts, present in most major public policy debates. His issue? Gun control. Lott explained why we are much more likely to see violent gun crimes in the mass media, and why we rarely hear of the use of guns in self-defense or to ward off criminals. Though the first is much more memorable, the latter is far more common. These facts must be used when making public policy decisions that are emotionally charged.

The session concluded with questions and discussion, as well as this impromptu photo of Armstrong and Trenberth encouraging scientists to facilitate discussion across opinions: