Matt Silver's climate challenge

Chris

Gold Member
May 30, 2008
23,154
1,967
205
Here is Matt Silver's climate challenge....

Selective memory is a powerful thing. I'm not particularly certain when pointing out the fact that it might be cool or rainy in your hometown one afternoon became subject for worthwhile blog material, but you have started to see this all the time on certain conservative blogs, probably led by the example of Matt Drudge.

Therefore, because I'd like to see more accountability on all sides of this debate and because I'm tired of people who don't understand statistics and because I'd like to make some money, I issue the following challenge.

You are eligible for this challenge if:

1. You live in the United States and provide me with your home address and telephone number (I will provide you with mine) and,
2. You are a regular (at least once weekly) contributor to a political, economics or science blog with an Alexa traffic global ranking of 50,000 or lower.

The reason for the latter requirement is because I want to be able to shame/humiliate you if you back out of the challenge or refuse to pay, as I'd assume you'd do the same with me.

The rules of the challenge are as follows:

1. For each day that the high temperature in your hometown is at least 1 degree Fahrenheit above average, as listed by Weather Underground, you owe me $25. For each day that it is at least 1 degree Fahrenheit below average, I owe you $25.
2. The challenge proceeds in monthly intervals, with the first month being August. At the end of each month, we'll tally up the winning and losing days and the loser writes the winner a check for the balance.
3. The challenge automatically rolls over to the next month until/unless: (i) one party informs the other by the 20th of the previous month that he would like to discontinue the challenge (that is, if you want to discontinue the challenge for September, you'd have to tell me this by August 20th), or (ii) the losing party has failed to pay the winning party in a timely fashion, in which case the challenge may be canceled at the sole discretion of the winning party.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/challenge-to-climate-change-skeptics.html

There were no takers.....:lol::lol::lol:
 
Last edited:
Algore Akbarrrr!! -- Cry of the Global Warming Fanatic before he blows himself up with fake science in an effort to destroy Western Civilization
 
Could another reason nobody took is because they don't trust the source?
 
Could another reason nobody took is because they don't trust the source?

No, the reason is they are pussy right wing losers who knew they were wrong...

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought
 
No, the reason is they are pussy right wing losers who knew they were wrong...
Riiiiiiight.

Regardless, there's nothing mankind can do about it even if it is happening since it's not man made.
 
Last edited:
Could another reason nobody took is because they don't trust the source?

No, the reason is they are pussy right wing losers who knew they were wrong...

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

LOL

"base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science"...sure, since we disposed of all the data the "peer reviewed 'science'" is all that's left

LOL

The Dog ate my ManMade Global Warming Homework

I give you credit, ManBearPig, reality hasn't laid a glove on you
 
Could another reason nobody took is because they don't trust the source?

No, the reason is they are pussy right wing losers who knew they were wrong...

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

LOL

"base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science"...sure, since we disposed of all the data the "peer reviewed 'science'" is all that's left

LOL

The Dog ate my ManMade Global Warming Homework

I give you credit, ManBearPig, reality hasn't laid a glove on you

Reality is what you deny.

Melting ice caps, melting glaciers, and rising temperatures have no political agenda.
 
No, the reason is they are pussy right wing losers who knew they were wrong...

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

LOL

"base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science"...sure, since we disposed of all the data the "peer reviewed 'science'" is all that's left

LOL

The Dog ate my ManMade Global Warming Homework

I give you credit, ManBearPig, reality hasn't laid a glove on you

Reality is what you deny.

Melting ice caps, melting glaciers, and rising temperatures have no political agenda.

And all we know for certain is that MnaMade CO2 has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of it, ManBearPig.
 
LOL

"base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science"...sure, since we disposed of all the data the "peer reviewed 'science'" is all that's left

LOL

The Dog ate my ManMade Global Warming Homework

I give you credit, ManBearPig, reality hasn't laid a glove on you

Reality is what you deny.

Melting ice caps, melting glaciers, and rising temperatures have no political agenda.

And all we know for certain is that MnaMade CO2 has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of it, ManBearPig.


The boys from MIT disagree with you.

I think they are smarter than you.
 
Here is Matt Silver's climate challenge....


...

It's Nate Silver and this comment sums it up quite nicely:

Ryan said...
Nate, I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Suppose there is a string of 25 consecutive days above or below average and one of you wants to end the challenge because he/she is now $625 in the money. What have you proven? Absolutely nothing, and you never will in a reasonable timeframe

Local variation can never be extrapolated to a world-wide trend. Second, as average temperatures have only been collected for a century or so (or less), it's not clear the distribution of temperatures we have for a particular area is actually an accurate representation of the underlying distribution. And, even if 100 years happens to be an accurate sample for recent times, we don't know how fast the climate will change (or not).

Even if you could over come all of those problems, the variation about the mean in most parts of the country is large. Several day or month long strings of above/below average weather is not unusual.

Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that because, although the distribution will eventually converge on the average (if the average is accurate), at some point in between either you or your partner is going to go significantly in the money, and when that happens, it doesn't mean diddly squat regarding climate change. It just means the weather varies.

What are you going to do if someone takes you up on the bet and ends up $1000 in the money, then calls the challenge off saying they have proven you wrong? They are going to misuse your own statistics against you, exacerbating the very problem you are trying to bring to light.

July 18, 2009 4:49 PM
 
And all we know for certain is that MnaMade CO2 has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of it, ManBearPig.


The boys from MIT disagree with you.

I think they are smarter than you.

Well you would think that because you're very gullible

No, you are the one who is gullible.

t.g.warm.pic.1.jpg
 

Forum List

Back
Top