An inconvenient bet?

For the past year, Al Gore has been the darling of environmentalists, as his popular documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, made their case about the dangers of global warming to people worldwide.

But now, Scott Armstrong, a Wharton Marketing professor, wants Al Gore to put his money where his mouth is.

Armstrong has challenged the former vice president to a 10-year bet, in which $10,000 from the two would be set aside in escrow as Gore pits his forecast of how much global temperature will increase during that time against a so-called "naive model," in which temperature would be expected to stay the same.

The winner would get to donate the $20,000 and accumulated interest to the charity of his choice.

Armstrong explained that the idea of a bet arose out of research a colleague and he - both specialists in forecasting - had done on global-warming forecasts put out by Gore and organizations like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations-sponsored entity formed to help achieve scientific consensus on climate change.

Armstrong said that he discovered that most climate-change forecasts use bad methodology.

"We've been unable to find any scientific forecast, and what we have are forecasts by scientists," he said.

Armstrong and his colleague, Keston Green of Monash University in Australia, are presenting their findings in a paper to the International Symposium on Forecasting on Wednesday, but Armstrong said the bet is meant to serve as encouragement to his peers in the field "to start making forecasts for important problems" and not to question whether climate change is occurring, per se.

However, splitting hairs about forecasting models still hasn't convinced many that Armstrong's argument poses a serious threat to the science behind global warming.

Carl Wunsch, a professor of physical oceanography and climate-change expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said that though different forecasting models show different outcomes for the planet as a result of global warming, most which are taken seriously by climate-change experts do show the world overall becoming warming and wetter because of human activity.

"They should be regarded as possibilities . that need to be taken seriously," he said.

Wunsch also questioned whether someone who is admittedly unversed in the scientific principles of meteorology and geology could provide a better forecasting model than experts in these fields.

Since Armstrong says that one of the goals behind this bet is to provoke debate, rising College senior Kelly Jin, Armstrong's research assistant, has started up a Web log - theclimatebet.com - which will chronicle the outcome of the bet.

Though the site has only been up for a couple of days, Jin says it's gotten about 1,000 hits in the past two days.

She does admit, though, that most of the other blogs that link to the site are critical of Armstrong.

While Gore has yet to respond to his challenge, which was sent out Tuesday, Armstrong says he "wouldn't expect him to respond right away."

Gore and his associates at Participate, an organization that promotes his message, couldn't be reached for comment.

Comments (10)

The most important idea here seems to be the concept of debate. There are serious scientists on both sides of this issue and despite what some say about our government and big oil etc... funding those who disagree with the doomsday crowd of Al Gore and others one has to look at the other side of this picture as well. How much funding goes to those who say man is the major culprit in climate change? These people get money from both the public and private sectors and if those who disagree were actually right they stand to lose their celebrity, funding etc... Perhaps we are a bit too cocky in thinking that we have so much power over the earth. I teach history at a local private school and enjoy reading anything and everything I can while observing the world around me. I find what impact the "Little Ice Age" had on society for hundreds of years as fascinating. I also find the so called "open minded" among us at times to be rather biased and obtuse. Far too often they are only open in mind and heartif you agree with them! Joe

What is $10,000. to now rich Algore?

Well said Joe, the debate MUST be encouraged it is essential...people out there of all kinds just do not realize that forcasting 'climate change' is the most difficult challenge ever tackled by 'man' and the science/technology is still in its' infancy! People like the one that just reponded w/ a 1 liner of insult (all too common) are a dime a dozen & should serve as encouragment. If 1 was to compare funding to the pro and cons scientists it is astoundingly not even close! Let the science stay within the scientific community and close the doors to polititions, hollywood and media I say, this is the only reason we are talking about this...if the media would stop mongering on just the bad the picture would be highly uncertain as it should be, truth is almost NONE of the GW forcasts are 'certain' and even the IPCC's lvl of understanding is 'very low' on ~80% of KNOWN CLIMATE FORCINGS, dont believe me? go look it up....thanks Joe, don't let jerks like that EVER discourage you!

[QUOTE id="fd64ae80-9beb-4469-bae9-342cdbbb2cab"]The most important idea here seems to be the concept of debate. There are serious scientists on both sides of this issue and despite what some say about our government and big oil etc... funding those who disagree with the doomsday crowd of Al Gore and others one has to look at the other side of this picture as well. How much funding goes to those who say man is the major culprit in climate change? These people get money from both the public and private sectors and if those who disagree were actually right they stand to lose their celebrity, funding etc... Perhaps we are a bit too cocky in thinking that we have so much power over the earth. I teach history at a local private school and enjoy reading anything and everything I can while observing the world around me. I find what impact the "Little Ice Age" had on society for hundreds of years as fascinating. I also find the so called "open minded" among us at times to be rather biased and obtuse. Far too often they are only open in mind and heartif you agree with them! Joe[/QUOTE] I suppose you are one of those "open minded" people I spoke of in my comment. I take pride in the fact that I encourage my students to look at both sides of every issue and read and research while being careful to understand objectivity versus subjectivity. This past year we used a supplemental textbook, which I chose, from the Taking Sides series which examines the yes and no responses to serious questions and people such as Al Gore were contributors. I will keep encouraging my students to study and draw their own inferences. Thanks for the inspiration! Thoughtfully, Joe

Reality has a liberal bias No, the marketing of "scientific consensus" on "anthropogenic global warming" has a liberal bias.

This string points out how weak the argument against "anthropogenic global warming" really is. Scott Armstrong is a Wharton marketing professor, not a meteorologist or someone remotely qualified to offer a meaningful opinion on the subject. Yet you losers are so desperate for some kind of validation that you jump all over it. I'm sure you're all the same kind of morons who believed for decades that there was an actual debate around whether cigarette smoking caused cancer.

Man-Made Global Warming and Climate Change Truth or Fiction? Open letter to the global warming true believers. There are many good reasons to conserve energy. Nearly every light bulb in my home has been changed to the new fluorescent ones. Unlike Al Gore and many Hollywood elitists, the house I live in is relatively small and is not a huge energy consumer. I drive a vehicle that has 250,000 miles on it. The reason for this is that I believe in conservation for its own sake. I grew up during a time when hand-me-downs were common and being wasteful was a sin. Why be wasteful anyway? So much of our oil is supplied by countries that hate and wish to destroy America. These range from the left wing government of Hugo Chavez to the fundamentalist Islamic states like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Every dollar we spend importing oil is added to the resources of these people which they use to try to hurt America. New energy sources and conservation are in the national security interest of all patriotic Americans. However, it is not hard to see that some of those who have attempted to perpetrate this myth about man-made global warming are more interested in climate change as a way of increasing the power of government over all of our lives instead of implementing a sensible energy policy. if you read the "you should conserve, so they don't have to," page you will see illustrations of the wasteful and hypocricital lifestyles of some of these people including Al Gore himself. Some on the left believe in a government command and control economy and are willing to use global warming as a way to accomplish this. They also wish for higher taxes on carbon dioxide emissions. This is a clear indication of their wish to avoid conserving. They can afford a higher tax and keep on with their wasteful ways. Al Gore's mansion in Tennessee used 20 times the amount of electricity than the average American home. However, if the taxes are implemented, the average person would have to cut back on their energy use or have to install expensive alternatives to keep up their standard of living. Others seem to be motivated by ideas about a mystical and mythical past where people supposedly lived in harmony with nature. Read the "in their own words" section to see some extreme ideas about humanity. Ask anyone who has really lived in nature without modern medicine and insect repellent about the benovolence of the natural world. Read "global warming as a religion," to see how certain ideas concerning climate change are taken on faith. Religions in the past have punished heretics and read how the Church of Global Warming is no exception. Still others, perhaps many in the entertainment community, live extremely materialistic and pampered lives and wish to add a new dimension of meaning. They have chosen this cause because it fulfills a need to be doing something that they consider in the best interests of humanity. Have they really investigated this particular cause and read the literature so that they can answer questions about what they believe? I have noticed that from Laurie David on down they do not seem to wish to debate their ideas. Many use phrases like"the debate is over." Columnist Ellen Goodman has even compared global warming dissenters to Holocaust deniers which I have responded to. The "global warming as a religion" section covers how heresy is dealt with. Some are the true believers who have embraced a cause not by reason and evidence but through faith. Faith is really a matter of believing what someone else has told you whether from the distant past or the present. Read the "scientists who disagree with the orthodoxy," page for other ideas about global warming and climate change. This presents information from credentialed scientists who dispute man-made global warming. Like Al Gore, Laurie David, Sheryl Crow, and Leonardo DiCaprio, I am not a credentialed scientist. The mission of the website is to bring the other side of the debate, which should not be over, to the public. There is an advanced organizer at the top so that a fuller understanding of the issues about climate change and global warming are presented in an organized way. Check the video page also. Nat Trayger Ed.D (Doctor of Education, Curriculum and Instruction)

I cannot believe that a "Doctor of Education, Curriculum and Instruction" [Nat Trager] wrote the above submission! If legit., he must be a masochist.

m0pi0l4b0xg@yahoo.co.uk

Comments are closed for this item.