Will the 2011-2020 decade be warmer or cooler than the last one?
That’s the bet.
The warmists are cock-sure it’s going to be warmer. The coolists say: not likely! If you are interested in joining this bet, you can read how to:
JOIN THE CLIMATE BET FOR CHARITY
It’s very uncomplicated. Just leave a comment making your pledge, and I’ll put your user name, e-mail address and amount on a list. That’s it! We’ll come knocking at your door in 2021 (if you lose). And hey – it’s for a good cause.
All winnings will be donated to a charity organisation for children in dire need, yet to be decided.
Here’s the latest list of pledges so far (user names and amounts in US$) in the order they came in. If you want to make changes, just let me know. Newcomers are welcome! Amounts are in US dollars. The $1000 pledged by Neil M is genuine.
The Cool Side
1. speake $10
2. Ed Caryl 10
3. R. de Haan 10
4. Mindert Eiting 50
5. BargHumer 10
6. Ike 100
7. Scotchman 70
8. B. D. 5
9. ArndB 25
10. Freddie Stoller 100
11. Asim 70
12. Norman Agran 100
13. Neil M 1000
14. Peter Whale 50
15. Ross Kaminsky 100
16. Vita de Waal 50
17. P Gosselin 200
The Warm Side
1. Rob Honeycutt $ 1760.00
2. dana (skepticalscience.com) 100
3. Dappledwater 100
Total: $ 1,960.00
Please note that Rob Honeycutt has pledged to match all the bets from the cool side, up to $5000.00. That’s very generous of him. And if we can get that many pledges from the coolists, then he’ll start looking for more (gullible 🙂 ) warmists to join in to up the ante. Let’s see how high we can get this.
Payment will be made 2021, and so if you think inflation and/or lack of interest paid, etc. will erode the amount, then please just add a little more to your pledge. Again, we want to keep it simple.
I’ve also added a permanent page for the bet, see side-bar, and have a new category called Climate Bet For Charity where you’ll find all posts, updates, etc. related to this bet.
There’s a lot more room for more bets. Hope more will join in on the fun and excitement for a good cause. Thanks!
25 responses to “Honeycutt Climate Bet For Charity – Update 2”
I wish to pledge $20 , may i suggest” Doctors without borders” as the charity, a good organization that helps children around the world and one that does not use donations for adminsration.
PG: Thanks. That’s a good suggestion…as many charities seem to have high overhead costs. I’ve seen a number of reports about Doctors without borders and I think they alleviate a lot of pain and suffering. It’ll be near the top of the list.
You know, if everyone who put in less than $100 would just round up to $100 you’d be over half way to the $5000. I mean, come on, the pay out is in 10 years (the price of one dinner out for two), and will go to a good cause.
I’m going to be very disappointed if I lose and have to pay out less than $5000… not that there’s much chance of that happening.
I raised my pledge to $ 100. There is still my $ 20 on the list. 😉
PG: sorry, and thanks – that puts us over the 2K mark, I think. Rob appears to be pleased about parting from his money! This helps.
Fixed, now the numbers add up. With grayman’s pledge, we are now at $1980. So who is going to be the one to push the ball over the 2K mark?
Here is one of the reasons I’m confident about this bet….
Note, this is presented as radiative forcing, not temperature.
You should read and understand the disclaimers printed inside the front covers of publications.
Bodies like the IPCC and meteorological offices offer advice with no guarantee. The disclaimers say (paraphrasing) that you should check the facts for yourself as they take no responsibility for what’s been published.
From Joe Bastardi (for the record of course, please visit his blog)
MONDAY 4 P.M. LONDON TIME
GREATEST OCTOBER-DECEMBER POSITIVE SOI ON RECORD.
The SOI value of around 20.4 for October-December looks to be the strongest positive ever for that three-month period, defeating the “La Freaka” of 1917 for the same period, though that was the strongest yearly value ever. This strong signal for cooling assures us that the Earth’s energy budget is such that continued cooling of the global temp to beyond the reaction to the previous ninos, such as 1997-98 and 2006-07 is highly likely and the coldest monthly and yearly global temp since the 1990s are indeed possible in 2011 and/or 2012. I may need to adjust down a bit my forecast for normal for next year.
Ciao for now.
CHECK THIS BAIT AND SWITCH OUT!!!
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from Nov. 2, 1922. As reported by The Associated Press and published in The Washington Post – 88 years ago!
CIAO FOR NOW!
Can most of the rise in the satellite era surface temperatures can be explained without anthropogenic greenhouse gases?
bin mit 50 $ dabei .. cool side.
look at this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2011/01/coal-takes-the-strainagain.shtml
PG: Vielen Dank, Roger. Ich glaube sowieso nicht, dass wir bezahlen müssen.
Please put me in for $50 on the Cool Side.
I agree the medecins san frontieres is a good choice for the charity to receive the money.
PG: Great! Thanks for the pledge. MSF seems to have a good rep. I’d like to see the money go for kids / education…
Pierre, Rob is right switch my pledge to $100.00-cool side.
PG: Thanks! It will appear in the next update.
Perhaps I’ve missed this but who will be determining the 2011-2020 temperature? Will it be based on raw or adjusted data and where will that data come from?
I’d put money on it being actually cooler.. but I’d also put money on the record being manipulated.
PG: Hi John. We will take the average between UAH and RSS (Don’t worry – we are not going to use GISS).
Pierre – then, please put me down for $100 on the cool side.
PG. I like it! Will do. You’ll appear on the list in the next update at the end of the week. Thanks!
I would like to repeat my suggestion that when Rob wins, the money go to a non-profit working to address global warming, such as Environmental Defense Fund or Union of Concerned Scientists. It’s only logical that if folks like yourselves are succeeding in causing damaging global warming, the ‘penalty’ should be to pay to reverse that behavior.
You’re also missing $100 from Neal J. King on the ‘warming’ side.
PG: Thanks! He’s back on the list and will reappear in the next update. On the choice of charity, it was agreed that it would be a children’s charity. I think they are in much greater need of the money than the EDFor UCS. That point is not up for discussion.
It seems to me that those who are putting up the money on the ‘warmer’ side should have a say as to where the money goes when we win. Rob, Neal, and I all agree that an organization like EDF or UCS makes sense.
Why don’t you let us pick the charity if we win, and you pick the charity if you win?
Dana has a point here .. if they win, they may choose the “charity” of their favour IMHO. Even if we may think (and i do, as a geoscientist) it is nuts to spend money for those organizations. But i am strongly confident that the kids will get the money of course 😉
The point is that when we win, the evidence will be even more abundantly clear than it already is that spending money to fight global warming isn’t a waste.
Answer: I know some things are difficult for some to grasp in life. There are such people among us. But we have to be patient with them, and so I will do my best to explain it.
1) Rob offered to bet.
2) I accepted the bet on the condition that the money go to children in dire need, and invited others to join in.
3) Rob enthusiastically accepted that, saying it was a great idea.
4) Contract – an agreement – something that is to be honoured (unless you are scum).
5) Based on that, others pledged bets knowing that if they lost the bet, the money would go to these children.
6) Dana, with his $100, then comes and says: Hey, if we win, let’s steal that money from the kids, and give it to our already well-financed activist pals.
Don’t worry folks, if we lost the bet, that wouldn’t happen, as the losers of the bet will pay directly to the charity, and not through the hands of the winners. For the last time, No more discussion on who gets the money.
But hey, if you feel breaking a contract is okay, then don’t get angry if your health insurance, or any other service provider, one day decides to use your money for something else other than for paying the services they promised to render.
I agree with you Pierre, a children charity was agreed to and should stay that way.
PG: And it WILL stay that way.
The winner takes it all. That is good practice.
So please let the winner(s) decide, what to do with the money.
Especially ROBHON should have an important say on that issue.
I am waiting for an as brave “coolist” as ROBHON is a “warmist”, who will risk an amount of 5000,–$ or more. Until now there seem to be much more starvelists and nickel nursers than broadminded competitors on the cool side.
If you (Coolists) are really convinced of your prophecy, where is the problem?
Perhaps you could add a thrill to the bet: Only every Dollar exceeding 5000,–$ will be used only for charity, the first 5000,–$ the winners will decide, what to do with.
I think we’re being too logical for Pierre. I don’t know why he’s being such a dick about it, saying that I want to “steal that money from the kids”. I’ve donated plenty of money to children’s charities, but for this wager, it makes much more sense when the ‘skeptics’ lose for the money to a non-profit fighting to address global warming.
I suspect that when Pierre loses the bet, he’ll try to make some excuse that the warming is still natural. Donating the funds to EDF or UCS would effectively be admitting that he’s wrong about anthropogenic global warming, which as a person in denial, he cannot do. He’s hedging his bets that even if he’s forced to admit the planet is warming, he can still pretend the warming is “natural”.
It is a traditional and honourable way to settle a bet where the winner has no need to gain at the others expense, simply knowing that he/she is proved right being all that matters. Thus the looser pays a forfeit – in this case as a donation to a children’s charity in which neither party has a vested interest.
I hope that helps you to understand that this is not about reward or punishment. It is about being proved to be right and acknowledged as such by the looser.
I’m in with $500, betting that 2011-2020 will be warmer than 2001-2010.
PG: You’re on the list and will appear in the next update.