Ivy League Professor Bets Al Gore $10,000 He’s Wrong About Global Warming

[proud2BlibKansan]

Posted by Noel Sheppard on June 22, 2007 - 10:22.

As most right-thinking people are aware, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore has refused to debate scientists and politicians that disagree with his views on manmade global warming.

Of course, as you know, the debate's over.

Potentially realizing that Gore has turned down such challenges in the past, a Wharton professor is willing to put his money where his mouth is that Gore’s cataclysmic planetary predictions are wrong.

more . . .http://newsbusters.org/node/13662

[Vincardog]

1. What will his $10,000 be worth when the planet is uninhabitable?

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Good point!

[Nikki Stone1]

19. The "Ivy League Professor" is a professor of MARKETING (ie NOT a scientist)

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

Marketing. The prof knows how to train folks who will work at ad agencies and public relations departments. Messaging.

Gosh, put "Ivy League" in front of something and everybody bows in adoration.

[entanglement]

28. I know - it's exasperating and a bad trend among experts these days

Having a PhD in one discipline DOES NOT make one an expert in something totally unrelated - this kind of stuff dilutes the credibility of the academic community. It's a mis-use of credentials.

[Richard Steele]

3. And I bet a nickel that the "challenge" is inherently DISHONEST.

I didn't even read the story at the link- I'll go in -BLIND-
and wager that this "bet" is based on non-sequiteur strawman arguements,
or some sort of tricky, weasel-word non-provable arguements.

Fellow DUers, tell me I'm wrong, and a shiny new nickel is YOURS!

[bananas]

You're wrong

some details of the bet:

The general objective of the challenge is to promote the proper use of science in formulating public policy. This involves such things as full disclosure of forecasting methods and data, and the proper testing of alternative methods. A specific objective is to develop useful methods to forecast global temperatures. Hopefully other competitors would join to show the value of their forecasting methods. These are objectives that we share and they can be achieved no matter who wins the challenge.

Al Gore is invited to select any currently available fully disclosed climate model to produce the forecasts (without human adjustments to the model’s forecasts). Scott Armstrong’s forecasts will be based on the naive (no-change) model; that is, for each of the ten years of the challenge, he will use the most recent year’s average temperature at each station as the forecast for each of the years in the future. The naïve model is a commonly used benchmark in assessing forecasting methods and it is a strong competitor when uncertainty is high or when improper forecasting methods have been used.

Specifically, the challenge will involve making forecasts for ten weather stations that are reliable and geographically dispersed. An independent panel composed of experts agreeable to both parties will designate the weather stations. Data from these sites will be listed on a public web site along with daily temperature readings and, when available, error scores for each contestant.

Starting at the beginning of 2008, one-year ahead forecasts then two-year ahead forecasts, and so on up to ten-year-ahead forecasts of annual “mean temperature” will be made annually for each weather station for each of the next ten years. Forecasts must be submitted by the end of the first working day in January. Each calendar year would end on December 31.

The criteria for accuracy would be the average absolute forecast error at each weather station. Averages across stations would be made for each forecast horizon (e.g., for a six-year ahead forecast). Finally, simple unweighted averages will be made of the forecast errors across all forecast horizons. For example, the average across the two-year ahead forecast errors would receive the same weight as that across the nine-year-ahead forecast errors. This unweighted average would be used as the criterion for determining the winner.

<more>

[Richard Steele]

15. Bookmark my post and remind me of it when and if I owe you the nickel. nm

[bananas]

16. I don't think Al will take the bet

Mainly because he's not a betting kind of person.
Also the media would turn it into a horse-race,
which is exactly what Al argues against in his new book.

Ehrlich took Simon's bet because it was his own predictions being challenged,
Gore is making policy recommendations based on what a large group of scientists are saying.

[Richard Steele]

18. I'm not betting Mr. Gore; I'm betting that the "question" in question is no question at all.

My "bet" itself is really a sarcastic rhetorical question;
the only real "bet" was whether or not I could properly
assess the validity of this person's challenge to Gore
without bothering to read the full article at the link.

Without doing so, I wager a nickel that it's BULLSHIT.

[bananas]

22. I know that's what you're saying

I was just rambling about whether or not Al would take any bet, even if it was a no-bullshit bet.
I don't think he would.

[Richard Steele]

24. And, also rambling, I agree. Al is way too smart to ever become entangled in such nonsense. nm

[LoZoccolo]

4. This guy is very likely to be dead before the bet is settled.

I found his CV at Wharton (dialup warning: it's a PDF file):

http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/Marketing_Content_Management/Marketing_Files/Faculty_CV/ResumeJSA6-05-07.pdf

He was in the Army in 1961. Let's assume he was 17 then, which would put his birth at 1944...he'd be 62 or 63 now.

[LoZoccolo]

7. I was wrong; he's actually older than that.

He's apparently seventy years old:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Scott_Armstrong

[bananas]

12. so what?

The money is held in escrow and donated to charity.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. Well, a Business School *Marketing* Professor. Clearly he's an expert.

I'm sure he's been to Venus and felt the cool, refreshing 800 degree breeze that is provided by the CO2-laden atmosphere there.

[Cha]

6. So this prof is not going to

do his part in turning our polluted plantet around?

There are many accredited scientists who see the Global Warming/Climate Change situation besides Al Gore. Gore's just the one who's been trying to get the World to see it for 30 or so years.

This prof should have tea with james inhofe.

[Turbineguy]

8. College Professoring pays

better than it used to. Talk about disposable income.

[deminks]

9. Exactly, who has 10 grand throw away money?

I don't know anyone.

Exxon maybe has that kind of throw away money.

What is wrong with being a good steward of the environment? What would Jesus do? Be a good steward.

[Lisa]

10. yeah, you could hire a sessional lecturer (like me) to do 3 classes for that much!

(Truth is, sessionals are teaching more than half of the courses at most of the universities on the continent ...)

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. It's a fucking disgrace, truly

You're in geography, yes?

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. Business school professoring, anyway

Lotsa consulting dollars in it, you know?

[Ezlivin]

11. Al Gore is betting his life - who's got the higher ante?

I'll side with Al Gore, thank you. Or else we'll all experience "Oceans 2020" with waves lapping at our feet while we are miles inland.

[GeorgeGist]

17. Isn't $10,000 exactly what Exxon/Mobile is offering ...

to academics willing to sell their souls.

[BlooInBloo]

20. (shrug) The present value of an annuity for 10k is somewhat less - about a small...

... yearly charitable contribution. Go for it.

[MasonJar]

21. Wharton is not a member of the Ivy League.

[karlrschneider]

23. Yep, not even close.

:grr:

[Nikki Stone1]

Wharton is University of PA's business school. And yes, Penn is Ivy League. But a MARKETING prof

is no expert on global warming.

[Hamlette]

27. his expertise is how to predict things, including weather n/t

[Nikki Stone1]

29. His expertise is in predicting typically human-based phenomena. It's like marketing behavioral

science. He borrows mathematical theories like game theory (game theory and chaos theory are in fashion right now, even in fields where you wouldn't think they'd show up) to predict human politics, human behavior in business and advertising areas. He's at best an applied social scientist, not an expert in climate change.

http://www.jscottarmstrong.com/

Planetary change, while not a slam dunk in predictablity, is also not based on human behavior. I wouldn' t bet the farm on his application of game theory to a potential planetary disaster.

[Hamlette]

31. nor would I

My guess is his model, as in the Simon Erlich wager, takes into consideration that we, as humans, will adapt. And...we'll adapt by lowing our emissions.

[Hamlette]

26. Wharton is the business school at Univ of PA which is one of the 8 Ivy league schools.

According to Wiki anyway

[malaise]

30. Ivy League Business school

but I didn't know they were climate experts.

[BlooInBloo]

32. It's part of Penn, isn't it?

[proud2BlibKansan]

33. LOL Don't tell.

:rofl:

[Hamlette]

25. The professor will win but it will be because Gore has raised the issue

(and others like Gore).

In the Simon-Erlich bet Erlich lost because man adapts. (The price of copper went down because as copper got scarce and more expensive, we found alternatives like fiber optics and plastic plumbing.)

We will not all starve as once predicted because population will start decreasing in about 2040. Population will decrease because more and more of us recognize the earth has enough people.

Is the professor saying there will be no more global warming because of people like Gore who bring about change to stop it? Seems like it to me.