Can you trust the guy offering $25,000 for proof global warming is real?

I have always found advocates of climate bedwetting to be slippery. See what you think.

You can read Mark Boslough’s entire column, excerpted above, here.

It concludes with this dig at Wharton prof Scott Armstrong:

But Armstrong says:

Contrary to the impression one might get from reading Mark Boslough’s news item, I did answer him — on December 12 (see, below) and he thanked me for doing so.

I am pleased to see that this exchange is doing more to promote interest in assessing predictive validity.

As for the criteria, that is indeed a good question and it will be interesting to see Boslough’s analysis of the outcome of the winner of the bet at the end of this year. The paper that I referred him to was “Forecasting Global Climate Change” by Kesten Green and me, published in “Climate Change: The Facts.”

I appreciate Boslough’s admiration of my persuasive skills. After all, I did write a book that summarized a century of experimental research on persuasion.


Hi Mark,

You are missing the point of the bet. The purpose was to stimulate an interest among the global warming advocates to test predictive validity against other reasonable hypotheses about long-term temperature changes. Ten-years is much too short a period. Our simulations prior to the Gore bet were that I would have a 1/3 chance of losing the bet due to natural variability. As you can see from this paper we compare three reasonable hypotheses using data back to AD116.

We use the UAH satellite data, for the reasons we describe on

Surely everyone realizes that climate is always changing, so an examination of one year is of no significance.

There were many times in the past that will far exceed whatever will happen in 2017, so your bet will not be the highest in history unless you exclude data. Look at the long-term series that go back centuries and those that go back thousands of years.

Scott Armstrong
The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

We report. you decide.


And hey, buy my book. Read. Learn. Be smart. Click the image, below.

11 thoughts on “Can you trust the guy offering $25,000 for proof global warming is real?”

  1. “Will 2017 set a new record for global temperatures?” If the present trend continues, yes–for cold. All of the US, Europe and Northern Asia

  2. If you would take the time to investigate some FACTS, you should be able (hopefully) to discern that even in the “recent” (5 or so centuries) historical records there has been well documented some substantial swings of decades to a century or more in the global climate record, swings from warm to cold, and cold to warm etc.. These are even described in another post on this subject if you would trouble yourself to review the comments here just a bit. There may not be thermometer records, but there are documented observations of such things as established viniculture in Northern Great Britain (you couldn’t grow a grape there now if your life depended upon it–climate is much too cold), and then there is Greenland. The Vikings obviously did not name it that for the ice and snow which now covers most of it–and they successfully farmed there for quite a while until the climate took a swing to the present colder one. Geological & Biological SCIENCE has confirmed the numerous glacial and interglacial periods (warm to cold and back to warm and back to cold etc.) that the earth’s climate has historical undergone over the past several millions of years. This climate history is readily available if you’d care to learn about it before making more comments.

  3. ^ The current rate, we are told, is 1 F per century. If i were to take your statement that the warming has gone on for 20,000 years, then that would be a 200 F rise, is that what you are claiming?

    We do not know the behaviour of the land surface temp averages, reliably prior to 150 years ago. I understood that to be accepted science and will continue to do so unless you publish something sensible in response.

  4. Spoken like a true-blue Alarmist, but I hope in “tongue-in-cheek” sarcasm (?). For any who might take your wit seriously, though, the massive continental ice sheets that the science of geology confirms were present during the last glacial period are no longer with us. (Just looked outside to confirm.) Therefore, logic compels me to presume that they melted (which geology also attests to). Absent a massive chemical application that sufficiently lowered the freezing point of water (no trace of which is extant), the remaining cause is a rise (increase) in the climate’s temperature, warming the northern hemisphere (in which I reside) sufficiently to a) melt the massive ice sheets; and b) create the temperate climate in which we find ourselves. Archeology, anthropology, and zoology all confirm that this increase in climate temperature took place somewhat before the advent of the use of fossil fuels and the industrial revolution, and humans could not have been a cause. QED: the increase was a NATURAL phenomenon !

  5. Actually, the temperature has been rising since the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), some 20,000+ years ago.

    We did not have thermometers then, what you say is not reliable.

  6. well guys, there’s also the Little Ice Age that ended around 1850 plus or minus a bit.
    So their disingenuous use of “since the beginning of the Industrial Age” and other phraseology like that is meant to confound the lazy and the ignorant. So let me see… Ice Age = cold; not Ice Age = warm. Duh.
    Of course then there’s the Roman Warm Period, the Middle Ages Warm Period, and others. In point of fact they grew grapes in northern England where today it is STILL to cold to do that. But then, I’m preaching to the choir here.

  7. Actually, the temperature has been rising since the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), some 20,000+ years ago. We presently are in an interglacial period in what paleogeologists have termed the Quaternary Ice Age. So far, this ice age has had five identified glacial periods (each tens of thousands of years in duration marked by extreme cold with glaciation and continental ice sheets) each separated by an interglacial period such as we are in now, with natural global climate warming that melted much of the ice. (Humans were not around then to get blamed,)

  8. Given the penchant that NASA has demonstrated for revising actual observed data to meet their need to “confirm” a continuing rise in global temperature, I sure wouldn’t bet against EVERY year in the future as being officially shown as warmer than the past. The HCN has so many NASA induced bandages on it, it’s a basket case, but dutifully “proves” that human-caused global heating is alive and going strong.

  9. Since they claim to be warming, and at it’s coolest the claim of the sceptic is that warming is so small that the long term trend is zero. Statistically, even at its most extreme any reasonable sceptic is predicting a series of “highest evah” years. So, an infrequent “highest evah” year does not in any way invalidate our claim (especially when we’ve got >18 years with no significant warming).

    In contrast, when you are predicting around 0.3C warming per decade and at least 0.14C warming, the fact that 2017 is not going to be 0.3C warmer than the 1998 El Nino peak is strong evidence against their daft theory. Indeed, the warming trend from El Nino peak to peak is about 0.3C/century or 20% of the predicted LOWEST trend.

    In short: busted!

  10. This guy should not be a (so called) scientist but a politician or perhaps a candyman the way he fudges english grammer

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.