You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

buybuydandavis comments on The insularity critique of climate science - Less Wrong Discussion

9 Post author: VipulNaik 09 July 2014 01:17AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (39)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 11 July 2014 03:07:20AM *  1 point [-]

Is this what it comes down to, that Gore refused to bet, so they presumed to make a pretend bet for him?

Boo. Lame. Worse than lame. Deceptive. (On their part.)

Tell me it aint so.

http://www.theclimatebet.com/?p=206&cpage=1#comment-229

“Now, assume that Armstrong and Gore made a gentleman‟s bet (no money) and that the ten years of the bet started on January 1, 2008. Armstrong‟s forecast was that there would be no change in global mean temperature over the next ten years. Gore did not specify a method or a forecast. Nor did searches of his book or the Internet reveal any quantitative forecasts or any methodology that he relied on. He did, however, imply that the global mean temperature would increase at a rapid rate – presumably at least as great as the IPCC‟s 1992 projection of 0.03°C-per-year. Thus, the IPCC‟s 1992 projection is used as Gore‟s forecast.

Comment author: VipulNaik 11 July 2014 03:11:38AM 0 points [-]

The full correspondence is here:

http://www.theclimatebet.com/?page_id=4

Maybe it's lame (?) but I don't think they're being deceptive -- they're quite explicit that Gore refused to bet.

The fact that he refused to bet could be interpreted either as evidence that the bet was badly designed and didn't reflect the fundamental point of disagreement between Gore and Armstrong, or as evidence that Gore was unwilling to put his money where his mouth is.

I'm not sure what interpretation to take.

btw, here's a bet that was actually properly entered into by both parties (neither of them a climate scientist):

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/06/bauman_climate.html