Quote Originally Posted by rbstern
Amazing. The forecasting expert calls for a dramatically simplified approach to a particular forecasting problem, and this blog expert says it's a trick, and explains that the problem defies a simplified approach. Which is actually part of the logic the forecasting expert used to impeach the "forecasting" of global warming in the first place. The blogger is engagged in doublespeak to cloud the issue.

Translation: Global warming specialists don't know how to forecast over 1 to 10 years. But you can only ask them to forecast over 100 years. They don't have a clue what will happen next year, but they are 90% sure what will happen in 100 years.

Publicity. Hollywood. Academy Awards. Can't have any of that. Pot. Kettle. Black.

P.S. Read the forecasting paper yet?

Honestly, I don't think I could get through it and really understand it. I'm not trying to cop out here, but I will give it a try.

But if Armstrong wants to take a bet why won't he do it with Annan? Annan has put out bets to a number of global warming skeptics and most either want greater odds in their favor or they don't want to take a bet at all.