Take the global warming challenge

Dear Editors,

On Jan. 20, 2008, I issued a “global warming challenge” in theDurango Herald. My offer was a $5,000 flat wager that the Earth would be cooler in the year 2017 than it was in 2007. Along with other details laid out in the offer, I stipulated that my winnings will be donated to a local charitable organization promoting science education. Since the offering, the outpouring of interest, questions, attacks, defenses, proposed modifications, and, well, unintended whimsy has served my purpose of focusing attention on what is really important in the global warming issue: future climate and our ability to predict it.

I want to clarify one apparent issue brought up repeatedly in connection with the challenge. Judging by several responses (Herald, Feb. 3), some are hiding their lack of confidence in the climate “consensus” under a cloak of statistical distractions. While I am delighted that people are thinking seriously about the randomness of climate and its fundamental unpredictability, statistics is not the key issue here.  If anyone had bothered to check the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report, they would have found that, according to them, the odds of 2017 being warmer than 2007 are about 10:1. Why? Mainly because IPCC computer climate models predict with high confidence such a strong upward trend. Furthermore, if anyone had thought to look up the actual historical data, they would have found that in 29 of the last 30 ten-year periods, the Earth was warmer at the end than at the beginning of the period. Therefore, it is clear that the Las Vegas betting line would be overwhelmingly against me. So what’s the problem?

I have little doubt that humanity is contributing to climate change, but the IPCC’s assignment of recent warming primarily to anthropogenic causes is scientifically shabby, intellectually dishonest and skewed. Empirical evidence points to a much smaller human impact on climate, in sharp disagreement with computer climate mod

els. Yet IPCC computer climate model projections are the basis of attempts to mandate worldwide restrictions on energy use, with major consequences to economic and health progress. Someone who accepts the IPCC’s findings and believes its projections will consider the wager with a high level of confidence. But caveat emptor: I grew up in a town with lots of pool halls, where one quickly learned to spot a hustler … and a little about how to hustle. Those who don’t accept the panel’s findings will wisely conserve their capital.

Finally, I would like to reiterate that, as stated in my Jan. 20 offering, interested parties should respond by mail (P.O. Box 3162, Durango 81302) within 20 days (Feb. 9) of the original publication. “Public acceptances” in any other medium will be considered public posturing and not be in the running.

– Roger W. Cohen, Durango