Free Money Offer to James Annan and William Connolley

I have proposed a bet on the charitable organization known as Long Bets.  It is Long Bet #181.  My bet isthat my own “midpoint” projections for methane atmospheric concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resulting temperature changes from 1990 to 2030, 2070 and 2100 will be more accurate than the "midpoint" values in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR... temperatures as calculated by Wigley and Raper in their Science magazine article in July of 2001.)

I will pay $4 to James Annan and William Connolley (collectively), up to a maximum of $200 (i.e., for up to 50 signatures), for every English-speaking IPPC TAR primary or secondary author they can persuade to come to the Long Bets website and register a vote on the bet ("Agree" or "Disagree").  I will pay the $4 for the vote, regardless of the way the IPCC TAR authors vote (i.e., for my position, or against my position).

I will send a check to William Connolley, or to James Annan, or I will send separate checks to both of them with their fair share.  Again, I will pay up to $200 total, divided among William Connolley and James Annan, as they tell me is appropriate.  I will send the check whenever they tell me they are finished gathering votes.

I ***challenge*** both of them to make me the same offer:  that is, to pay me $4 for every vote from an IPCC TAR primary or secondary author, up to a total of $200 (i.e., up to 50 primary or secondary TAR authors).

In fact, I will send each of them $20 if they will make me the same offer.

Comments

[Dano]

Ah, yes.

Mark, you often confidently assert what the future will be.

That is the root of my comments.

Thank you for all the additional hand-waving. It makes it much easier to see what you're up to.

Best,

D

[Mark Bahner]

Dano writes, "I would rather you either explicitly accept or reject James' bet, rather than do this shuck-and-jive, Mark."

Hi, Dano. As I told you on Real Climate: "All in good time, my pretty. All in good time."

While you're waiting for my reply to James' "offer," here's a little something for your amusement. This is something David Appell pulled from his site. It was a response to your ignorant ululating about how predicting future atmospheric methane concentrations, CO2 emissions, CO2 concentrations, and resultant temperatures is like predicting future Powerball results. (Heh, heh, heh! What a maroon!)

This is where your and my comment used to be on David Appell's site, at least according to my records:

http://www.davidappell.com/archives/00000512.htm#comments

This was my comment to you:

Dano wrote, on December 16, "I reiterate my request, made for a long time, and in many places: Mark, what are the Lottery numbers for next drawing?"

Yes, Dano, you write that time and time again. And each time, you show yourself to be the very model of, in your own words, "a slack-jawed dip---- Googler."

It's hard to imagine an educated man--even a poorly educated one--writing something more stupid and ignorant than, "Mark, what are the Lottery numbers for the next drawing?"

Dano, you think predictions of future methane atmospheric concentrations, future anthropogenic CO2 emissions, future atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and future temperatures are equivalent to predicting future lottery numbers?

Apparently you're too ignorant to know that millions of taxpayer dollars are being spent to predict...future methane atmospheric concentrations, future anthropogenic CO2 emissions, future atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and future temperatures! How do you explain that?

And are you really so stupid and/or ignorant that you don't know the difference between a set of random numbers and trends in atmospheric methane concentrations, anthropogenic CO2 emissions, atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and temperatures?

Here are recent 10 Powerball numbers: 39, 33, 4, 19, 15, 30, 39, 15, 19, 7.

And here are the 10 most recent years' CO2 concentrations (in ppm): 357, 359, 361, 363, 364, 367, 368, 369, 371, 373.

Those two sets of numbers don't look different to you? You think it's just as difficult to predict what the atmospheric CO2 concetration will be 10 years from now, as it is to predict what the Powerball number will be 10 lotteries from now?

If so, get someone who has gone through some high school to make the CO2 predictions for you. If you can't predict what the atmospheric CO2 concentration will be 10 years from now, to within +/- 3 percent, then you're either phenomenally ignorant, or phenomenally stupid, or both. Similarly, if you can't predict the atmospheric methane concentration 10 years from now to within +/- 3 percent, then you're also phenomenally ignorant, or phenomenally stupid, or both.

So rather than repeatedly asking me about what future Lottery numbers will be, Dano, you ought to simply post, "I'm a slack-jawed dip----! I'm a slack-jawed dip----! Google, Google, Google!" :-/

[Dano]

I would rather you either explicitly accept or reject James' bet, rather than do this shuck-and-jive, Mark.

D