Climate Bet Of The Decade – Update 4

PDO how entering the cool phase. Will it cool the planet in the decades ahead?

Will the new 2011-2020 decade be warmer or cooler than the last one?

That’s what we’re betting on (FOR CHARITY).

This bet is also known as the Honeycutt Climate Bet for Charity, after Rob Honeycutt who first proposed this bet. You can find the entire background here.

First of all Charles Zeller has also pledged $5,000 for the warm side, and has already paid half of it to Doctors Without Borders. So whatever happens from now on, I will consider that this blog has led to some kind of succees in that it has played a role in leading to this generous donation. The money will no doubt alleviate much pain and suffering among those of us who happened to be born in unfortunate economic and social conditions. It may even save a life or more. So hats off to Charles.

If you wish to join the Climate Bet of the Decade, i.e. Honeycutt Climate Bet For Charity, click here to see how. It’s real easy: just leave a reader comment and I’ll put your name, e-mail address, and amount on a list. That’s it. You’ll appear in the next update.

Here’s the latest list. I have to admit that the warmists, though small in number, are a generous bunch.

They have pledged over $14,000.00 so far. The coolists have also made a good number of pledges, and have in fact far surpassed all my earler expectations. No matter who wins, some good will surely come out of this.

The cool side: (I hope my math is correct).

And the warm side:

If you wish to up your bet, just say so. If you wish to cancel it, well there I can’t help you. Pledged is pledged! 🙂

16 responses to “Climate Bet Of The Decade – Update 4”

  1. Rob Honeycutt

    Nice work on both sides for putting up money! It’s all in good spirit and for a good cause.

    Need to point out, the PDO graphic is 2 years out of date. The data running up to 2010 can be located here.

  2. Dana

    Good for Charles Zeller donating half the funds ahead of time even though he’s going to win the bet 🙂

  3. itsfaircomment

    Ladles and Gentlemen, some time in the future there might be, shall we say, differences on whether the data – whatever used – is representative. So, who or what is in the interests of impartiality is going to be the elected ‘official referee’ ?
    Better get that out of the way now. Regards.

    PS…. dodgey satellites or UHI ?.. just asking.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      I think we’ve been clear and are agreed about how the bet will be measured. Pierre and I have agreed it will be an average of both the RSS and UAH satellite data. Both groups seem to be honestly trying to present the data. One group is representative of coolists (UAH) and one representative of warmists (RSS).

  4. Don B

    Put me down for $250 USD on the cooling side.

    I want to be on the same side as 1) Livingston and Penn, 2) Svensmark, 3) Jasper Kirkby, 4) Mashnich and Bashkirtsev, and 5) Abdussamatov. [ I hope they don’t mind being placed in the same group. 🙂 ]

    Has Doctors Without Borders been selected as the official charity?
    PG: Thanks Don, I got you down. The charity is not yet set, and will be one that helps children in dire need. Potential charities: DWB, Hospice International, SOS Kinderdorf, to name a few. I think there will be a selection to choose from. Just want to be sure most of the money is actually used for helping kids.

    1. Dana

      Don’t worry Don, there are so few on their side, I’m sure they’ll take whoever they can get 🙂

      1. Don B

        The language of my quip was imprecise. I meant I hoped the listed scientists didn’t mind being grouped together.

        For example, Livingston and Penn do not have a public position on climate, as far as I know. The Tucson, Arizona astronomers have been measuring declining sunspot magnetism for nearly 2 decades, and if the trend continues, sunspots will not be visible in a few years. Sunspots were largely invisible from 1645-1715 (the Maunder minimum) during the Little Ice Age.

  5. Roger L.

    Hi Pierre,
    please increase my bet (made by a humble and poor geoscientist) to 100 …
    Cheers, viele Grüße

  6. Chris Frey

    Hello together,

    to say it in an nutshell: I will not pledge! As it is quite unclear what the temperature has been so far this century – how can we conclude for the next decade? Apparently records are biased in different ways, but all in the same direction. How can be made sure this will not go on during the next decade? If in fact it became cooler the last decade, but due to fraud we were given another impression – at least as long as there is no proof that all that fuss by IPCC & Co has NOT been a fraud – how can we tell anything?

    Questions and more questions… by the German writer

    Chris Frey

    1. DirkH

      At least for the terrestrial thermometer record, we can say, it is impossible to give an accurate global average; it has no meaning to compute it as the Nyquist theorem is grossly violated. Even before things like the fraudulent GISTEMP come into play. (I promised to use that word more often; it’s warmist vocabulary)

      1. Bernd Felsche

        Nyquist? What’s Nyquist got to do with it?

        In climatology it’s sufficient to have one thermometer calibrated (once) to within ±2°C every 2000 km or so, when convenient. All other temperatures can be extrapolated and interpolated, including the polar regions, to produce a global average surface temperature accurate to within ±0.01°C over the past 180 years.

        It also doesn’t matter that when cities and airports and their traffic grow around the thermometers; or if the thermometers have to be moved several times by a couple of kilometres over time. Or if the staff at the local monitoring office have their BBQ’s in summer, right next to the thermometer; where they park their cars. One can produce a continuous, representative temperature record over many decades by homogenizing the temperature data with simple adjustments.

        Your problem Dirk is that you aren’t a climatologist and will therefore not understand how this can be so.

  7. Viv Evans

    Interpolating from the sums pledged by either side, might one conclude that the sceptics are obviously not receiving the huge pay-checks from Big Oil?
    The money looks to be going to the other side …


  8. Brian H

    Yes. Read up on Bruce Benito de Musquita, or find his online lectures on Democracy and Tyranny. When the “Selectorate” backs an Inner Circle, they lock onto the jugular of Public Goods, transferring them to their own Private Goods vaults. This is a huge flow; even a destitute state like NK can support an Inner Circle in great luxury.

    And now you know why so many strange bedfellows are working the AGW scam for all it’s worth.

    1. Brian H

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy