So how sure are they of their climate model predictions? So sure they demand we pay billions but when it comes to betting their own money, the modelers are all bravado over the chance to bet on any warming “above zero” 20 years from now.
Some of Australia’s top climate scientists, including those from the CSIRO, have said they will be willing to bet Tony Abbott’s business adviser Maurice Newman $10,000 that the world will warm over the next 20 years.
These gutsy scientists are offering bets that the climate “might” warm, and which might pay out to a man who will be 95 at their completion. The Guardian takes them seriously?
Here’s an offer to those climate scientists, yes I’m interested in a bet, for sure, but I won’t be offering you a shot at winning in a situation where you predict (and we pay to prevent) far more warming than you are willing to bet on. Hypocrisy what? Your own models are abject failures, and we are forced to pay for policies fueled by your failures and your salary as well.
So show you have the balls and come and talk about a real bet — one that demonstrates you honestly really do think your models work, and you understand the climate.
There are many readers here who are keen as well, and I’m happy to arrange things. I’m already been party to a serious bet, and you can read the details there, we are happy to negotiate on volcanoes, prefer 5 year smoothing, or decadal trends, and talk about a neutral range where the bet is draw because we all know there are error margins.
I offered Brian Schmidt a bet based on the weak outcomes he talked about, but climate modelers don’t deserve to bet on anything except their own predictions.
Which brave scientists are we talking about?
All of these ones, who insult taxpayers by offering to accept a “win” if they fail as scientists:
The CSIRO’s Dr John Church, who is also an IPCC lead author, said he would take up the $10,000 bet, while Dr Tony Hirst, deputy research program director, said he would bet $500 based on “clear terms” of a three or five-year temperature average.
The other scientists include David Karoly of Melbourne University, Will Steffen of the Climate Council, and Dave Griggs, director of the Monash Sustainability Institute.
Prof Andrew Blakers, director of the centre for sustainable energy systems at the Australian National University, said he would be willing to bet $10,000, placed into an escrow account along with a “legally binding agreement” over the payment of the funds.
“Let’s put real money on the table and do this properly,” said Blakers.
Ian Lowe, emeritus professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University, said only a “catastrophic meteorite impact” could avoid the “inevitability” of higher temperatures in 20 years’ time. Lowe said he would be willing to join Schmidt but questioned the viability of the wager. He said: “He [Newman] was born in April 1938, so he is nearly 76.
Dr Alex Sen Gupta, of the University of NSW’s climate centre, said it was a “pretty safe bet” and that he would have “no chance” of losing his $10,000, based on his understanding of climate science.
In addition to the scientists, economist John Quiggin said he’d be prepared to bet $10,000 to prove Newman wrong. — The Guardian
I’m willing to be serious, the question is — are these scientists serious too, or are they media-show-ponies who think betting on “anything above zero” is worth discussing as a bet while other days they stand in front of cameras to tell us they are 90% sure we are headed for cataclysmic warming. “Pay us your money”.
How weak is Schmidt’s bet? As I said:
“How times have changed. In 2007 the IPCC seemed to be 90% confident that the world would warm by about 0.4 degrees over the next two decades. Now Brian Schmidt braves up to offer a bet of “anything above zero”. Is he really a sceptic? It appears so.”
They want to shift the goal posts and hope no one notices:
“Twenty more years of nothing would make it 37 years of no climate trend. This would be far beyond utter and complete failure, but anything above that is being dressed as success.”