Sunday, January 15, 2012
The perils of gambling
A "warmist" and a "skeptic" four years ago bet that global temperature would, or would not (respectively), have set a new record high by the end of 2011. Results here.
Forecasting with an attached wager does have the benefit of forcing some measure of commitment, certainly more than prognostication in the air. For one thing, there is more publicity when you lose a "bet" than when merely proved wrong.
3 Comments:
By 
Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sun Jan 15, 04:17:00 PM:
Standstill. Not especially conclusive for the overall question, but it does confirm what I have said for years. If there's warming, there's no evidence it's catastrophic or going to be.
By 
, at
Sun Jan 15, 06:02:00 PM:
Standstill may not, as you say, be conclusive as to the underlying question but it is conclusive evidence that the "anthropogenic warmers" are superstitious Luddite fools. The present day field of climate studies may have been irreparably politicized, but one hopes that over the next fifty years or so science can make a comeback. First, the field needs to call to account the loonies who have so corruptly tried to make facts fit their predetermined conclusions.
By , at
Mon Jan 16, 08:47:00 PM:
As with financial markets, the big question you have to ask is: Trending or Ranging? Climate has been ranging for several million years. That was the safe bet even over a short time frame.
