Comments on: Climate bet

By: AndrewL

AndrewL — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 03:21:22 +0000

I wasn’t aware that Scott Armstrong – one of the guru’s of forecasting – and Al Gore almost had a bet.

Almost had a bet? In that it was offered and the Gore declined to propose a position?
Armstrong misrepresents the IPCC position in claiming a forecast of 0.3 degrees C per decade. The AR 4 2007 multi-model projection was 0.018 degrees C.

Armstrong also fudges by claiming UAH adjustments improve his side of the bet when they didn’t change the trend, only the baseline for the anomaly. Either he is scientifically ignorant or dishonest. Given he “lost” the password of the site while the El Nino of 2010 was smashing his side of the “bet” I have a fair idea of where my money sits.

By: Helen Armstrong

Helen Armstrong — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 01:38:00 +0000

Continuing on the Global Warming and pollution carbon dioxide theme, along with Europes fabulous carbon di-oxide mitigation - green power everywhere, Donna has this report form da speigal. Europeans are stealing wood to burn wood for warmth as the cost of power escalates. Greeks are chopping trees down in parks - how's that greenies? Wood stoves have a resurgence in popularity and old people are three times more likely to die in cold as in hot.

By: Leigh Lowe

Leigh Lowe — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 10:23:55 +0000

Unfortunately, as we are all aware, Armstrongs cheat

Yep.
Neil’s moon landing was filmed on location in New Mexico.
Lance has ingested more gear than Keef Richard and River Phoenix combined.
Louis mimed most of the shit he recorded.
Kerry Armstrong calling herself an actor? ……. ’nuff said.
But Scotty seem to be the exception that proves the rule.

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 10:10:41 +0000

For the record, there was no bet.

Yes – first sentence of the post

Scott Armstrong … and Al Gore almost had a bet.

The later:

As it turns out Al Gore did not accept the bet.

By: braddles

braddles — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 10:00:33 +0000

For the record, there was no bet. It was offered, but Gore turned it down.

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 08:43:24 +0000

Grey – the issue is that we’re not quite sure what the terms of the bet were. An unusually hot or cold year could deliver the bet either way. That wouldn’t provide any information.

I’m rather surprised at HC’s hysterical response at his blog to what is a straight down the line blog post containing factual information and analysis.

Should point out that Scott Armstrong and his critique are mainstream – Nate Silver discusses it in his recent book. In the end Silver reckons the Armstrong critique (about scientific method) is weak – so do I and told that to Kesten Green when I first saw the paper.

Anyway, this isn’t an invitation to launch into Harry – he is a good guy but has this particular obsession.

By: Steve of Glasshouse

Steve of Glasshouse — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 08:19:18 +0000

Hammy is training to be a fluffer for Gore et al

By: Gab

Gab — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 08:12:34 +0000

I’ll back this fellow versus you any day, Sinc.

Praise the gaia! I’d be mighty concerned for Sinclair if you backed him.

By: Grey

Grey — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 08:10:20 +0000

Since Gore is only backing a 0.3 rise over the decade and the intra-5 year gap is already 0.8 between the min and max, how the graph looks will depend on whether you start or finish on a hot or cold year.

For example if the period had begun in 2008 Gore would be looking good, and if 2013 turns out to be a hotter year he still won’t look bad.
But because 2007 was a local maximum, a possible trend has been obscured temporarily – but in the long run it will be apparent.

By: chrisl

chrisl — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 08:10:02 +0000

Poor Harry has has spelling issues … site not sight
And he bans anybody who disagrees with him…
You just have to wonder if these people live in such a bubble that they can’t countenance any other argument.