From William Connelly’s Blog
This year’s story so far: in May, I accepted some bets but was still trying to come to terms with Rob Dekker. In the comments there we came to agreement on the following:
If both NSIDC and IARC-JAXA September 2016 monthly average sea ice extent report are above 4.80 million km^2, RD pays WMC US$ 10,000. If both are below 3.10 million km^2, WMC pays RD US$ 10,000. In all other cases the bet is null and void
What a dumb bet. There is an excellent chance of 4.8, and zero chance of 3.1. PIOMAS BS takes its first victim.
If they can bet $10k, then they’re wealthy enough to throw money away. And isn’t WC a huge warmist? Shouldn’t he be betting for the ice to do poorly?
-Scott
Connolley is a weird one alright. Despite being a co-founder of the discredited RC and Wiki’s Winston Smith of climate he’s not even a catastrophist himself. On his modelling of Arctic ice:
‘So to begin with we did the simplest thing, which was to remove all the Arctic sea ice. We had planned to go on to do more sophisticated things, like take out 10 or 20% of the ice, but as it turned out even total removal of the ice made remarkably little difference, so we never did the more subtle tests. What happens is that the ice just grows back. It was at this point that I lost my belief in the “ah, but once the old ice goes away the new ice will crumble” stuff.’
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/07/sea_ice_throing_in_the_towel.php
Ever hear him speak out against scaremongering? No chance. My guess is he’s just a crypto-totalitarian treehugger and climate is his bag.
Thanks for answering my inquiry! I find that sort of inconsistency fascinating.
-Scott
I remember Rob over at WUWT…was really giving the commentors a hard time for not betting. But while he was arguing for large losses and I even think he said there was a good chance for < 2007, the bet he wanted to make was for NSIDC's minimum at the 5.0 million km^2 mark this year. And he was the one saying skeptics don't put their money where their mouths are (he said "mouth" and "is" though, LOL).
-Scott
I thought it was a silly bet by Rob until I saw it was 2016 and not 2011. He’s still more likely to lose though, but I think it more probable nobody would pay out. With such a large gap between the figures I don’t think either of them is being that brave!
Andy
Does anyone know if this is the same Rob as over at WUWT?
And what I really think it comes down to is more of a bet on the accuracy of PIOMAS. If one believes that PIOMAS trend, a number < 3 million by 2016 is almost certain.
-Scott
Cryosat made it pretty clear that PIOMAS is wrong
For those who don’t know who William Connelly is—he spends his life altering as much of Wikipedia with global warming bias as he can. He is a hardcore green activist, as hardcore as the come. What I wonder since he spends his life on the internet who is paying his bills?
Yes, so why is WC betting that the ice will stay above 3.1 million km^2 if he’s a hardcore believer?
-Scott
He is not a hardcore green?
He has not spent hours and hours a day for years altering Wikipedia?
3.1 million is a very, very low number. You would have to be a little nutty to believe it. I didn’t say he was nuts. I said he is hardcore.
William Connolley, chief citizen propagandist ay Wikipedia
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/14/lawrence-solomon-global-warming-propagandist-slapped-down/
Ever wonder how Al Gore, the United Nations, and company continue to get away with their claim of a “scientific consensus” confirming their doomsday view of global warming? Look no farther than Wikipedia for a stunning example of how the global-warming propaganda machine works……
http://energy.probeinternational.org/climate-change/costs-benefits-and-risks/wikipropaganda-spinning-green
But Amino, a hardcore believer in CAGW should expect the ice to be well below 3 million km^2 by 2016. Extrapolating the current PIOMAS volume trend has it reaching zero around 2016. And with zero volume comes zero extent.
While one might expect some nonlinearities near the end, 3 million isn’t anywhere near the end. Heck, I’d have to double check, but I’d think that the current PIOMAS volume relative to the 2007 value might already give a lower ratio than the extent ratio of 3 million/2007’s value.
I’m just really curious as to WC wouldn’t believe that the Arctic would disappear that fast. The commenters on Tamino’s site surely seem to. It almost makes you wonder if he’s on insider on a conspiracy or something, LOL.
Also, I’m aware of WC’s well-known dealings, so no more need to elaborate.
-Scott
This all surely shows that WC does not really believe in alarmist predictions, or at least the more extreme ones.
Which of course begs the question why he still supports the alarmist agenda. Clearly the answer is that it fits in neatly with his political agenda.
Steve says : There is an excellent chance of 4.8, and zero chance of 3.1.
Do you actually believe the nonsense that you are writing (you would take this bet), or is this just your ego and big mouth speaking (you would not take this bet) ?
3.1? ROFL
What is the answer to my question ?
Steve said There is an excellent chance of 4.8, and zero chance of 3.1,
FYI : Lucia at the blackboard obtains a rather different conclusion than you did :
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/connelly-dekker-bet-actually-robs-got-a-very-good-chance-of-not-losing/
Of course, she actually did some analysis, whereas you seem to simply seem to make up your statements out of thin air.