Climate Alarmist Dana Ready To Bet Again On Global Warming. I’m In.

Not surprisingly, climate alarmist and Guardian contributor Dana Nuccitelli reported in to brag about winning the recent bet.

Then one day later he mustered the courage to express his willingness to bet again:

Okay Dana, I’m in against you and will bet 100 USD, applying the same conditions of the previous bet. I say the 2021-2030 decade will be same or cooler than the 2011-2020 decade.

If you’re right again, then I might have to concede man is causing a significant part of the surface warming – depending on what the data suggest and the conclusions reached by objective scientists.

22 responses to “Climate Alarmist Dana Ready To Bet Again On Global Warming. I’m In.”

  1. The Atmosphere Guy

    It would be useful if those involved in disputes of this nature would produce data to prove their point. We have historical records such as those shown in … ..
    which may be used to support any argument but we rarely see this type of data used in political style discussions.
    Would it be relevant to request those involved to “Up their game” and give good scientific data ?

  2. bonbon

    Proves yet again Goreball Warming was and is all about money.

    Now, if Nuccitelli had the faintest clue what is going on she would use BitCoin.
    Mark Carney, Ursula and Lada Gaga’rd all promise digital green currency.

    Anyway the Grauniad will be vetted for green behavior under Biden’s or Kamalla’s GND – it better watch it’s step!

  3. oebele bruinsma

    I read somewhere this and it may help: There is a confusion of terms because temperature should not be the metric used for heat content. The correct metric for heat content of the atmosphere is kilojoules per kilogram. This is due to enthalpy of air which changes as humidity changes and latent heat content specifically in the lower atmosphere.
    Terms like hotter/warming/cooler are colloquial terms and should not be used. The concern with climate change is heat content and heat being ‘trapped’. Temperature does not tell you how much heat is in volume of air. A volume of air at the surface at 75F and 100% humidity has twice the heat content in kilojoules per kilogram as a similar volume of air at the surface at 100F and 0% humidity.
    It follows that small changes in humidity close to the surface can lead to large changes in ‘air temperature’. Comparative charts showing air temperatures/temperature anomalies/temperature averages to hundredths of a degree are displaying ignorance of enthalpy and are really just playing with numbers and as meaningless as an average phone number with a precision of two places of decimals.

    1. Yonason

      Yes. Very nice elaboration on the fact that temperature is an intensive property, as opposed to Heat content, which is extensive.

    2. Petit_Barde

      You are right, as Yonason mentioned, temperature is indeed an intensive property.

      But as far as I know, the global lower troposphere temperature (at least from satellite data elaborated at UAH) is based on the distribution of heat on the lower troposphere.

      T is an intensive parameter,
      but cdT is an extensive one.

      c: specific heat.

      1. Yonason


        I think you mean Heat Capacity?

        Even so, that would be an even bigger can of worms. I’ll see if I can write something intelligible on that in a bit, if I can untangle enough of the worms.

        1. Petit_Barde

          Yes, I meant Heat Capacity, I used the translation of the former french name “chaleur spécifique” I’m used to.

          c units: J K−1 kg−1

          Actually, the extensive property is mcdT (with m: mass of a given air volume which temperature “anomaly” is dT).

          1. Yonason

            I suspected something like that. 🙂

            But, since heat capacity differs for different materials, computing actual changes in heat content for the entire atmosphere would still require knowledge of moisture content and temperature changes of all parcels in the atmosphere at all times.

            Another problem?
            “Latent Heat Flow – Latent heat is the heat, when supplied to or removed from air, results in a change in moisture content – the temperature of the air is not changed”

            If we had data loggers everywhere, we might be able to monitor changes, but I don’t see how we could ever model them for the entire atmosphere.

            Getting back to what oebele bruinsma wrote, I think it is an excellent summary of why temperatures alone are a poor and misleading proxy for heat content.

  4. Yonason

    “if you’re right again, then I might have to concede man is causing a significant part of the surface warming” – Pierre

    Regardless, Pierre, you will NOT have to concede that it is or will be catastrophic, since similar warming in the past was totally beneficial to the biosphere and humanity.

  5. AlexS

    Silly. Seems more emotional than rational.

  6. Petit_Barde

    Actual data does not show that CO2 causes any warming (see left side of the CO2 – T cross-relation diagram below) :

    So the fact that Dana won this challenge does not mean anything but that you have been scammed 🙂

  7. Dana Nuccitelli

    Can we do a little better than $100 here? I mean, on the last bet we climate “alarmists” (realists) put up $14k and the deniers only put up $5k (most of which probably won’t even be delivered).

    You guys talk a big game, but you seem a bit frightened to back it up with anything tangible. To be fair, if I were denying basic physics I wouldn’t want to put my money where my mouth is either. But that’s why I’m not a science denier.

    Also I love the comment that this proves “Goreball Warming was and is all about money” when the money is going to charity. Real quality people you have hanging around here, Pierre.

  8. Mack

    Nah, Dana… you’ve only got a piece of crap science on your side… old, outdated, unreal,crackpot “greenhouse” theory…start here…
    Further down in that thread, this comment clarifies the LACK of any “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s atmosphere…
    In this thread, discover that adding more CO2 to Earth’s atmosphere, actually has a very slight COOLING effect…
    Here’s a comment not to be overlooked….
    Here’s a thread to prove I’m real, because my name is revealed…
    And finally , this important comment…. and thread…
    With a wee bit of follow up….
    So, tough luck for you, Dana. All bets aside, you were on the wrong side of history. Cheers.
    Sky Dragon Slayers Chief Public Relations Officer.

    1. Dana Nuccitelli

      Put your money where your science-denying mouth is, Mack 2.

  9. Mack

    Read the links you ignorant, AGW brainwashed loon.

  10. Mack

    Not a dog’s show, Dana, I wouldn’t bet on anything …especially a rigged election issuing in a corrupt, senile geriatric as leader of the free world. Your country has gone right down the toilet.

    1. Dana Nuccitelli

      No, I believe you’re confused. Donald Trump lost.

  11. Mack

    A querulous clown…what colour is a red parrot, Dana.? That’s right, it’s blue, isn’t it. Norwegian Blue.

  12. Berynn Schwerdt

    I’m in for US$1000 for the coming decade to be warmer than the previous. But on one condition. I want a ‘skeptic’ to match my bet.

    Will any ‘skeptics’ match me?

    Each decade has been warmer than the previous since the 1950s.

    That’s 6 decades in a row.

    If you think this is a coincidence, and/or that AGW isn’t real, please put up and make me give my money to charity. Surely it’s time for a cooler decade after so many coincidences!

  13. Mack

    Oh! it’ll be warmer alright. It’s always warmer… it’s always the hottest year evah! The lying, troughing climate “scientists” will see to that. And if you point out Roy Spencer’s UAH graph… yes, even that.
    But here’s a strange thing … Here’s a quote from the 1985 Times Atlas of the World, which had a lot of “Greenhouse” spiel at the front of the book, when the climate scam was in its infancy and developing.
    Eg. “Man is now so powerful, however, that he could himself suddenly upset the whole balance, changing the climate and composition of the atmosphere” (clever cross-over of deceptive verbiage)
    But here’s a thing, they say …”In the last fifty years the increase in the level of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere caused by the burning of fossil fuels has not been enough to raise the Earth’s temperature”
    So prior to 1985 there was 50 years of no warming. .. they were honest enough back then, to admit that fact… not so much vested interest back in 1985.
    So your claim that “Each decade has been warmer than the previous since the 1950s” is a load of tripe. Some of us have been around long enough to remember the 1950s climate,..sorry, no different from now.
    No, I wouldn’t bet with any “climate change” believing loon.

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