By J. Sccott Armstrong
On June 19, 2007, Professor Armstrong proposed the Global Warming Challenge to Mr. Gore in an effort to stimulate a scientific approach to forecasting climate change. The Challenge asked that Armstrong and Gore each put $10,000 into a Charitable Trust Fund on December 1, 2007. Armstrong bet that over the next ten years he could forecast temperature change more accurately than any climate model that Mr. Gore might nominate. (Armstrong’s forecast would be that global mean temperature would not change over the ten years.)
On July 6, Mr. Gore sent a cordial reply stating that he was too busy. In response, on November 28, 2007, Dr. Armstrong extended the deadline to March 26, 2008, and made the task easier: Mr. Gore was asked merely to provide a checkmark beside a leading climate model and to sign his name. Mr. Gore’s spokesperson replied on Armstrong’s answering phone on around February 5. The caller apologized for being so late for responding to the November 28 letter. She said, “Senator Gore declines.” No reason was given.
See Green & Armstrong’s paper ”Global Warming: Forecasts By Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts,” Energy & Environment 18 (2007), 995-1019. Armstrong said that this is a scientific issue, not a political issue. Opinion polls do not provide a scientific approach in this situation, even when some of the respondents are climate experts. However, procedures do exist that would allow us to make scientific forecasts. Read more here.
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
Time for an Australia New Zealand Royal Commission on Global Warming. A group of Australian and New Zealand organisations and scientists today called on the governments of Australia and New Zealand to set up an Australia New Zealand Royal Commission on the Science of Global Warming (to be known as “the ANZIG Royal Commission” - the Australia New Zealand Inquiry into Global Warming).
The chairman of Australia’s Carbon Sense Coalition, Mr. Viv Forbes, said that many groups and individuals in Australia and New Zealand had listened with alarm and disbelief to plans of both governments to saddle their people and industries with the burdens of carbon taxes and the risks of carbon trading which he described as “an open invitation to massive fraud”.
“We also fear the enormous costs of taxing and decimating our backbone industries of farming, mining, power generation, cement making, forestry, mineral processing and tourism and subsidising many expensive and ineffective alternate energy proposals. The very high costs to society of the actions being proposed require that we settle the science before forcing the whole ANZ community into a futile and expensive exercise to solve a problem that may not exist. ‘Do it just in case’ is not an option. “ Read more here.
By Robert Bryce on Counterpunch
When it comes to the science of global climate change, I’m an agnostic. I’ve seen Al Gore’s movie, and I’ve read reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I’ve interviewed some of America’s top climate scientists. I’ve also read what the “skeptics” have to say. I don’t know who’s right. Again, I no longer care much about the science. To me, the central question, and the one that few are willing to discuss in depth, is: Then what?
That is, if political leaders agree with Gore and others who believe too much carbon dioxide is bad, then what are we going to do? Fossil fuels now provide about 85% of the world’s total energy needs. Even more important is this corollary: Increasing energy consumption equals higher living standards. Always. Everywhere. Given that fact, how can we expect the people of the world--all 6.6 billion of them--to use less energy? The short answer: we can’t.
Yes, that’s an unpopular conclusion--particularly for those on the liberal/left. Anyone who dares to question the group think about global warming is immediately branded as a heretic/sellout/ignoramus or worse. Questioning the IPCC’s conclusions can be a bad career move for scientists who study climate. Intellectuals or journalists who question Gore or the IPCC are pilloried with the implication being that they must be employed by Exxon Mobil or the coal lobby for daring to question the gospel according to Al. I’m tired of the political correctness game. When it comes to energy issues, I’m a liberal who’s been mugged by the laws of thermodynamics. And those laws have turned me into a realist about energy issues. Read more here.