Professor Peter Wadhams will not bet on his own sea-ice predictions

Remember back in September 2012 Professor Peter Wadhams famously said that Arctic sea ice would disappear within four years? He also had another prediction in 2013, saying that due to the “methane emergency”, Arctic Sea ice would disappear within 2 years. Even Gavin Schmidt thought that was bollocks. Of course, he [Wadhams] was wrong. Now, his four year prediction from 2012 is being tested this year, and while sea ice has in fact melted faster than usual in May (partly due to El Niño boosted global temperatures), it is still a long way from disappearing right now [and] is within 2 standard deviations of normal for this time of year:

N_stddev_timeseries-21-july-2016

Don Keiller writes:


Professor Wadhams has past form with his Arctic sea ice extent predictions. Only last year he predicted that sea ice would vanish
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/16/peter-wadhams-was-wrong-arctic-sea-ice-still-there-no-record-low-this-year/

He’s up to his old tricks again, so i called him out and bet him £1000 his prediction for this year was wrong;

—–Original Message—–
From: P. Wadhams
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 11:42 AM
To: Don & Selina
Subject: Re: Arctic ice free by September

Dear Mr Keiller, Thanks but I don’t gamble. Nor do I make many of the definitive predictions attributed to me by newspapers, who, as the Brexit campaigns demonstrate, have little interest in truth and much in sensation. The area trend is certainly on the way down, and before long the area will drop below 1 million sq km, but not definitely this year,

Yours sincerely,
Peter Wadhams

On Jul 21 2016, Don & Selina wrote:

> Dear Professor Wadhams, I read this article with interest and a degree of
> scepticism.
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/arctic-could-become-ice-free-for-first-time-in-more-than-100000-years-claims-leading-scientist-a7065781.html
>
> Are you prepared to put money on “an (ice) area of less than one million
> square kilometres for September of this year’?
>
> I am.
>
> I challenge you to a Public bet of £1000 that Arctic sea ice will remain
> above 1 million square kilometres at any point up to the end of
> September.
>
> Should be a sure thing for you, after all you are Professor of Ocean
> Physics and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge
> University.
>
>And who am I? Dr Don Keiller, MA, PhD, Cantab.
>
> I have also posted this email at “Tallbloke’s Talkshop”;
> https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/07/20/hottest-june-not-according-to-the-satellites-roger/#comments
>
>Best regards,
>
>Don Keiller


Personally, I think Professor Wadhams has issues with determining reality versus fantasy. After all, he thinks big oil assassins are out to get him.

Note: about 15 minutes after publication, this post was updated to clarify Wadhams vs Schmidt in the first paragraph, fixed a typo, and some missing punctuation was also added in the same paragraph.

103 thoughts on “Professor Peter Wadhams will not bet on his own sea-ice predictions

  1. “After all, he thinks big oil assassins are out to get him.”

    More likely a sinister plot by prof. Wadhams to eliminate his opponents by making them laugh to death.

    • He thinks big oil assassins are out to get him? That sounds suspiciously like actor Randy Quaid’s claim that Star Whackers are out to get him. Is this a form of me-tooism?

    • Wadhams also predicted this June that we would set a new record low Arctic sea ice extent, below 3.4 square kilometers this September.

      “It is very likely that this will be a record low year. I’m convinced it will be less than 3.4 million square kilometres.”

      So he doesn’t “predict” or guarantee, he says “very likely” and “I’m convinced”.

      On the “ice free” Arctic:

      “I think there’s a reasonable chance it could get down to a million this year and if it doesn’t do it this year, it will do it next year.”

      So “it will do it” in 2017. That’s a prediction.

  2. “it is still a long way from disappearing at right now is within 2 standard deviations of normal for this time of year:”

    Anthony, should “AT” be “AND” ?? Or do I need more coffee and less beer ?

    [no, while that is a good correction, you need less one-liner snarky comments here, perhaps more beer would help. – Anthony]

    • ..Sorry, it was not meant to be “snarky”…it was intended more as a personal cut down on myself ..

      [no, I’m speaking in general about your comments, not this one. -Anthony]

  3. “After all, he thinks big oil assassins are out to get him.”
    ============
    It’s usually just the ex-wife, but:
    “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.”.

  4. The severely ethically-challeneged Peter Gleick says “We’re on a runaway train, scientists are blowing the whistle, but politicians are still shovelling coal into the engine.”
    The only “runaway train” is the Climatist movement, which has “scientists” and politicians blowing whistles, clanging bells, and tooting horns, all while shovelling loads of brown stuff and calling it science, and trying to scare the bejeebus out of people, just so they can keep riding that train.

  5. He doesn’t gamble. H probably thinks his ideas for cooling the earth are more in line with “insurance” than “gambling”. Check out any local anti-gambling ordinance … there is a qualifier stating that it doesn’t apply to the regulated insurance market. Insurance/gamble … gamble/insurance; the professor isn’t the underwriter (bookie), he’s more like the runner (win or lose he gets paid to do his part).

  6. I wonder why Professor Peter Wadhams is not sailing around the Northwest passage in the artic, taking advantage of the ice-free conditions he predicted.

    I read where some of his fellow “ice-free” travelers are trying to sail through the Arctic’s Northwest Passage, but are currently stuck because there is too much ice.

    I wonder if they were depending on Professor Wadhams’ predictions when they made their sailing plans?

  7. “The area trend is certainly on the way down, and before long the area will drop below 1 million sq km, but not definitely this year”

    I will give him credit for admitting the ice will not disappear this year. However, in the same sentence he makes a silly assertion that it is valid to extrapolate a linear trend. Pure nonsense.

    • Statistics is for dependent variables. X is the independent variable. Y is the dependent variable, and is dependent on X. The function is then Y = f(X), Y is a function of X. That is the basis of linear regression and correlation coefficient for that line or any other function. So, X is time and Y is ice extent or volume. PIOMASS and others have fit a function to this line. Okay, is ice a function of time? Does time make ice? No. Okay, so the trend has no meaning. This is why these predictions keep failing. They are correlating independent variables. This is also why all X values for these kinds of predictions are time, because if X was something that actually correlated to Y, then they would have discovered a causative agent to study. Also note, if X is CO2, which is supposed to drive climate, the correlations of dependent Y variables such as ice and temperature are very low, indicating random noise. So, we know why the Al Gore, et al. statistical predictions failed–time does not make ice, and CO2 is not strongly correlated to temperature for purposes of public policy. I would put a correlation coefficient minima at 0.7 for causative correlations sufficiently strong for purposes of public policy. In other words, they have no concept of how statistics works. It was not designed to operate on independent variables. It also proves why prediction of this type cannot work. They must fail, and we know why they will.

    • Most climate patterns have a significant sinusoidal component.

      Claiming a trend on a period less than a cycle long (and preferably many cycles long) is absurd.

      Further, the current sea ice is pretty clean and the trend this year has been to follow the two deviant line. So if I had to guess in September the ice will be 2 standard deviants below the 1981-2000 average. The sea ice volume is comparable to 2010 which had a minimum 2 standard deviants below the average.

      • Hello PA

        “standard deviants” – I love it, and I will start using it.

        IMHO the long-term temperature trends during the current ice age don’t look particularly sinusoidal. It looks to me like alternation between two states – a warming state and a cooling state. I suspect (said this before and I have to keep saying it because I do think it’s important) that the duration of the warming state is determined by how long it takes for the NH ice cap to melt, and the duration of the cooling state is determined by how long it takes to accumulate the NH ice cap with 120 metres’ worth of water from the oceans via evaporation and precipitation. Then something happens, probably caused by falling ocean level, to switch to the warming trend.

        That’s just my opinion, based on looking at the long-term temperature plots from ice cores and thinking about the mechanics of accumulating those huge volumes of ice.. It doesn’t offer an easy explanation of “why”.

      • A sinewave is basically the projection of a rotating process onto a flat surface. Hence, sinewave climate variations result from orbital effects. It is also why electricity supplies are sinewave, being produced by rotating magnets.

        The ice age cycle is not sinusoidal. That has a characteristic more like a sawtooth wave, which is typically produced by a relaxation oscillator. This suggests that ice ages do have some kind of trigger event that causes them. Although, that trigger event would have to be at the temperature minimum, whilst we are currently at a maximum.

      • Sawtooth eh? There is about 510 million km2 of earth’s surface. 150 million km2 is land. 15 million km2 is covered in permanent glaciers.

        During the ice age the glacial extent was 50 million km2, and that is about 5-7% less net energy than 15 million km2 of permanent cover, and 10-14% less energy during the northern hemisphere summer (doesn’t make a lot of difference during the NH winter). Plus the Himalayas are rising 5 mm/Y and the glacial cover of these subtropical mountains is increasing.


        The “out of ice age” insolation is 460-470 W/m2, the back to the cooler insolation is 420-430 W/m2.

        So there is about a 10+% difference in insolation between into, and out of, ice age conditions. When we look for a cause of 10+ hysteresis, viola (that is French for “oh there” or something and is pronounced “wooley”), there is our ice sheet.

        And that is how you get a sawtooth. Once the insolation (peak NH) hits 420-430 the ice sheets build and stick around until the insolation hits 460-470.

  8. After the neo-Malthusians lost the Simon-Ehrlich bet, they no longer want to bet their own money on their fantastical predictions of catastrophe. But they still know people should impoverish themselves so academic eggheads can pretend they saved the world from imaginary catastrophe. Evil.

    • Nay, not impoverishment, just “planned austerity” for those who are guilty of “middleclassness”.

  9. The “climate bets” or “refusals to bet” were school-yard childish in the past, and are still school-yard childish in the present.

    Grade-school kids shouting “Betcha five dollars you’re wrong….”

    • Ah but Mr Wadhams has been wielding a crystal ball for years, extremely poorly yet still have too many naive ones paying a ticket for him to re-issue his ‘readings’. Charlatan’s and bullies must be called out or they won’t stop and won’t ensaring the feeble minded or weak of body.

    • I’m not so sure I agree.

      Warmists are always happy to spend OPM (other people’s money, usually taxpayers) on their cockamamy schemes, it is quite interesting to see a small bet demonstrate they don’t believe their own bovine excrement.

      • SMC ==> You, sir or madam, understand the only value of such bets — it is a spectator sport at best.

    • We are not talking here about a foolish bet based on the random outcome of flipping a fair coin. We are talking about a bet based on his specific expertise. He holds himself out as an expert on sea ice. He ought to have an edge when it comes to bets about changes in sea ice. He apparently has said there will be less than 1 million square kilometers of sea ice in the Arctic by September. Assuming terms can be defined (is “slush” ice?), it seems like a binary outcome. There will either be less than 1 million square kilometers of Arctic sea ice or there won’t. He should be willing to make the bet because he has an expert edge on the information. But he won’t. That calls the value of his expertise into question. Yet he wants the very expertise he is unwilling to back with his own money to be relied on to influence public policy that affects us all. That’s the whole point of the post and the comments. Sorry for being pedantic but it seems obvious to me.

    • re: Climate bets ==> James Annan started this silly business of Climate Bets in 2005 or so, making a big deal out of who would and wouldn’t bet about what, as if it were proof of his position in the Climate Wars. Of course, it is entirely meaningless.

      It was meaningless when Annan did it, it is still meaningless today.

      I may have misstated my position in my original comment — actually, these climate bets (and the ‘all-so-significant’ non-bets) are far more childish than 6th Grade children betting each other about nonsense on the school-yard — “My Pa could beat your Pa!” and “My dogs smarter than yours! Betcha five dollars!”

      • It is important to highlight the predictive failures of the warmists and IGPOCC. But pointing them out after the fact is ineffective, because the audience realizes that the supposed losing side might have an excuse to wiggle out of it. And indeed they do, as we have seen. For instance, Hansen claims he merely overestimated future emissions of methane, and thus his 1988 predictions haven’t been disproven. If he had made a bet back then, he would have no wiggle room. Ditto Wadhams, etc.

        The winner of a bet gains a tremendous talking point. If the climate skeptics movement had focused on setting up a betting mechanism back in 2005 (thru Switzerland?) it would have done more for its cause than anything else, or maybe everything else, it has done since. It would be able to crow about predicting the Plateau, no Antarctic warming, no increase in US hurricanes or tornadoes, etc., etc., etc. It tries to boast now, but the other side has slippery counters, and our side has no “news peg” (like a photocopy of a canceled payoff check) to get the media to pay attention. All we have is a “claim”–and those are a dime a dozen. A payoff is a FACT–and facts are stubborn things.

        The average man respects people who are willing to put their money where their mouth is, and respects those who have a winning record. Please, Heartland, or Koch, or someone, at least act now!!

  10. he definitely does not dispute the quotations in the newspaper.
    he deflects with irrelevancies about brexit.
    he is a liar, that’s all.
    wadham is a liar. he lies. he lies about lying. he’s a liar to the bone.
    he’s a gambler, all right. he’s gambling he can get away with being a bald faced liar every day of his life and pay no consequences.

  11. Somebody needs to ask him if he can actually name the law of chemistry for solving temperature of gas or atmospheric mixes.

    Tell him ”gimme the formula, the equation – and tell me what all the factors stand for,

    or you’re a fake atmospheric chemist.

    End-0 of his hillbilly bullshoot Story-0.

  12. you know….
    It’s really a shame…if sea ice had started being measured for the first time….10 years ago
    ..except for a couple of storms….everything would be perfectly normal

  13. Frozen green plants are being uncovered as various ice fields melt. That means we have been here before. When the ice melt reveals nothing, no plants or animals, just nothing but rock, I will panic. Or not. Probably I will panic, or at least my future kin will. Why? Because they will be closer to the downward slide to ice covered frozen northern latitudes.

    • I would rather see all the climate slush funds (no pun intended) go towards finding and preserving the various organic archaeological artifacts that are being exposed by retreating glaciers. It would be a much better use of the money. There actually is a time limit to being able to collect these items, as soon as the air hits, the decomposition clock starts ticking.

      Little coverage of the situation, as it reveals reality: as you said, we have been here before! But the narrative that “weareallgoingtodie!!!!”must be preserved, so we let things of historical and academic value be destroyed by the elements. Blerg.

      I just hope that any descendants who may emerge from my line get the hardy Scandinavian genes. They must be recessive in me. ;)

    • Do you have site (other than Quelccaya) and what C14 dating the plants, please? Interested here.

  14. ye, i could have told you that two years ago. jim hunt was the only person i could find willing to bet on arctic sea ice metrics ,and even then he chose ct area :) , the bet runs to 2022. it was also for £1000.

  15. My local meteorologist compared this current heatwave in Oklahoma to the “hottest year evah” of 1936, (around here, anyway) and he said Oklahoma had 65 days over 100 degrees during 1936 (36 *straight days* over 100), which compared to 38 days in 2012, and 7 days in 2013, and 7 days in 2014, and three days in 2015. Do you see a trend? Today, we hit our first 100+ temperature of the summer at 101 (107 heat index).

    It’s laughable to claim the 21st century is hotter than the 1930’s. Too bad the original surface temperature database got hijacked by nefarious characters posing as climate scientists. If we had that, we could draw temperature charts that didn’t look nearly as scary as the hockey stick charts, and looking at them, people wouldn’t be fooled into thinking the world is about to come to an end from overheating, because it would be obvious from the chart that we were not overheating. Like the chart above, which is a better representation of reality than any current NASA or NOAA surface temperature chart.

    • Well, isn’t that the Blues! I posted this to the wrong thread. Was meaning to post it under Lord Monckton’s article.

    • “people wouldn’t be fooled into thinking the world is about to come to an end from overheating,”

      That’s exactly why you don’t get unadulterated data.

    • It’s laughable to claim the 21st century is hotter than the 1930’s.”

      Oh, If you say so….

      “Changes in land area (as percent of total) in the contiguous 48 U.S. states experiencing extreme nightly low temperatures during summer. Extreme is defined as temperatures falling in the upper (red bars) or lower (blue bars) 10th percentile of the local period of record. Green lines represent decade-long averages. The area of land experiencing unusually cold temperatures has decreased over the past century, while the area of land experiencing unusually hot temperatures (red bars) reached record levels during the past decade. During the Dust Bowl period of the 1930s, far less land area experienced unusually hot temperatures.”
      Source: NOAA NCDC Climate Extremes Index (2011) (Ref. 38).

      • These are adjusted temperatures. NOAA has taken so much freedom in adjustments, homogenization and infilling that I cannot trust this graph. You would get a different graph if you used actual temperatures. Look at actual temperatures for over 100 degrees, and you will see the opposite trend on the red line. Nevertheless, in my personal experience, we are getting fewer spells of extended cold weather even as we are getting fewer spells of extended hot weather.

      • Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. Reno, NV, where I live, is a poster child for UHI. Weather station was surrounded by wetland and agriculture in the 1930s. Wetlands drained, and airport was built but still surrounded by agriculture. Over decades the surrounding agriculture was replaced by airport expansion (concrete), a large casino hotel complex (acres of parking), housing developments, and commercial strip malls. And the adjacent highway US 395 widened from 2 to 6 lanes of concrete. The weather station is now at the hottest place in the metro area, but it hasn’t moved.

    • When you nominated the numpties I couldn’t figure out whether you were referring to the Ship of Fools, the bozo’s who were going to cross the Arctic Ocean by kayak or the Northwest Passage expeditions.

  16. Professor? Does that mean that somebody pays him for his pathetically inaccurate predictions? If so, surely his employer needs no more such publicly nonsensical humiliation to dispense with his services?

  17. I will be keeping a close eye on the big cruise ship set to traverse the NW-Passage in Aug…
    Will be interesting to say the least. Depends on which way the Ice does blow/concentrate….

    • Most of Greenland is high land, so there will never be much warming in other areas than near the costline. Even models tells us that more CO2 in the air will not affect the temperatures very much.

    • A cold current carries ice down the east coast of Greenland. It actually has less ice this year. That means more ice is left up at the Pole.

      On the other side of Fram Strait, towards Svalbard, a milder current heads north. If the ice in the south-bound current gets blown east by west winds into the milder north-bound current., it can melt fairly quickly. This is why the ice always seems to hug the coast of Greenland.

      If a whole lot of the south-bound ice gets blown east, it can chill the north-bound current and cause it to sink beneath northern waters earlier, which means ice to the north is not melted by the north-bound current.

      And that is only three variables in a small area called Fram Strait. Trying to model all the variables is a bit like trying to get a computer to tell you which kernel of your popcorn will pop first, when it is still in the bag…..in the store.

      Peter Wadhams doesn’t need no stinkin’ models. He just tells you the entire bag of popcorn will explode before you put on the stove. Of course, he is wrong, year after year, but I have to give the guy credit. He gets paid a heck of a lot more than I do.

      The people who get no credit are the fools who pay him.

    • Greenland has a very peculiar topography with a lowland plain in the middle surrounded by mountain chains on all sides. This means that the Greenland ice can only calve into the sea through a few narrow fjords which makes the icecap exceptionally stable. Both the Laurentid and the Eurasian ice-sheets calved out into the Sea (Hudson Bay and the Baltic respectively).
      And that peculiar topography is because Greenland has relatively young rifted oceans on both sides. The only other continent this is true for is Africa, which is, fortunately, in the Tropics.

  18. Professor Wadham is a typical warmist he’s always willing to spend the taxpayers money, for his junkets and climate party’s but he’s worse than Scrooge when it comes to his own money or walking the talk.

  19. How very bizarre that he brings the EU referendum vote into the conversation and then questions the integrity of those who wanted to leave the EU. I assume that upset him too.

    • I thought that too but if you read it again slowly it says campaigns so that would refer to both sides and in that he is correct. However, I suspect that your assumption is probably correct as well.

  20. This is really funny! ” The area trend is certainly on the way down, and before long the area will drop below 1 million sq km, but not definitely this year,”
    Yours sincerely,
    Peter Wadhams”
    In his own forecast for 2015 the EXTENT was down to below 1 Mio km²:

    So it doesen’t make me wonder that the AREA won’t drop below this threshold in 2016… it was in 2015! ( In the bizarre mind of Mr. W.) who should have lost every credibility.

  21. “This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates”.

    Public pronouncement. But in discussions, he says “only” a million square kilometers remaining. In climate science:

    1,000,000 = 0

  22. Why should he bet? He’s a climate scientist, which means he gets to make outrageous claims for cash and is never held to account for said claims. None of the luke-warmers (you know who you are) find this particularly disturbing because you wish you were on the same gravy train. Modern “Science” has more to do with snake oil than a quest for knowledge.

    • It is always curious when a specific charge, you said “sea ice would be gone, and then defined gone as less then 1 million kilometers as.”
      With a non specific defense of, “not everything said about me is true.”

      In the mean time US SOS, John Kerry is saying air conditioners are more dangerous then Islamic terror due to global warming.

      Another warmist, arguing from Kerry’s own level, (which is about one inch above 6 feet below) told the SOS, “but if warming is the problem we can just run all the A.C. units and open all the doors.” Kerry was last seen, still considering this, thoughtfully stroking his long chin.

      • That is because, as a result of the Montreal Protocol we now use HFCs as a refrigerant instead of CFCs. Problem is, HFCs have “thousands of times” greater warming effect than CO2. Oops. But have no fear, because they are even now trying to get rid of HFCs. I don’t know what they’ll be replaced with, but, rest assured, it will make cooling costs go up – skyrocket even.
        Progress.

  23. Wacky Wadhams doesn’t predict; he prognosticates. The end is always just nigh. It’s coming, just wait and see.
    That is the mark of a snake-oil salesman. He’s selling something, and it most certainly isn’t science.

  24. actually the more the graph is progressing, the more it looks like a “normal melt season for a lowest maximum ever that was below the -2 standard deviation.

    unless a big storm over the arctic breaking up the ice and tossing it around like in 2007 i don’t see a record september minimum happening. Maybe somewhere between 2007 and 2012 but even then the melt rate is now too slow.

  25. Peter’s response seems correct and well measured.

    Perhaps you should go back to writing about plants at your polytechnic? Oh- looks like you failed at that too.

    • Brian Smith,

      Wadhams said this (verbatim) in June of this year:

      “My prediction remains that the Arctic ice may well disappear, that is, have an area of less than one million square kilometres for September of this year. It is very likely that this will be a record low year. I’m convinced it will be less than 3.4 million square kilometres [the current record low]. I think there’s a reasonable chance it could get down to a million this year and if it doesn’t do it this year, it will do it next year”

      Read that again: “… it WILL do it next year”. That is a prediction, sir. Ice free in September of 2017. Measured and well stated. But he won’t put his money where his mouth is.

  26. yep, could have told you that two years ago .the only person i have found willing to have bet on any arctic sea ice metrics is jim hunt . even then he chose ct area ,the bet runs to 2022 and is also for £1000 .

  27. Professor Wadhams seems to believe that he has been misrepresented in the press.
    “Nor do I make many of the definitive predictions attributed to me by newspapers, who, as the Brexit campaigns demonstrate, have little interest in truth and much in sensation”.
    So I suggested he should ask “The (avidly Warmist ) Independent” to publish a correction:

    Dear Professor Wadhams.

    Many thanks for your prompt reply.

    I assume that since you do not wish to take up my bet, you will be contacting “The Independent” who have “little interest in truth and much in sensation” to make the required correction to the statement on Arctic sea ice extent they attributed to you?

    Regards and best,

    Dr Don Keiller.

    Needless to say, no reply.

  28. Have any of the posters here actually looked at the arctic sea ice recently?

    If extent is not below 2012 in a poor melting season, it is only because the ice has been broken up and spread out – area is looking challenged…

    http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/

    http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/07/asi-2016-update-4-breaking-point.html#more

    which concludes:

    “All it takes, is relatively thin ice after a mild winter and early melt onset (similar to what we saw this year), followed by clear skies and high temperatures during May and June to get that melting momentum going. Then a bit of high-pressure-low-pressure ping-pong during July, followed by a big cyclone during August, et voilà: ice-free conditions. The question is not if, but when all these conditions will line up.”

    Sadly the ice free arctic summer ocean is only a few years away – then the skeptic side is going to says what??

    • Griff: “Sadly the ice free arctic summer ocean is only a few years away”

      Of course it isn’t.

      Stop making stuff up.

  29. As someone who hates gambling, I find the whole business of criticizing someone who refuses to gamble, entirely distasteful. I think it’s a shame that Anthony allows articles like this on his site. If there is valid criticism to be made of the man, then it should be able to stand on its own, without cheap shots like that.

    • As “someone who hates gambling” you should know the difference between real gambling and a gentleman’s challenge to put up or shut up. (And perhaps you should come clean and describe yourself as someone who has had a gambling problem along the way?)

      It would have been once thing for Wadhams to say “Wagering is against my principles, but I stand by my prediction nevertheless, and will stand rebuked if it does not come to pass.”

      But, no, he played the victim by claiming he had never made any such definitive prediction, and was being
      misquoted by those trying to discredit him. Which is a bald-faced lie, and as proof his verbatim words have been quoted here by Your ‘Umble Narrator and others. Unless you feel quotes published in The Guardian and elsewhere are falsified.

  30. Philip Schaeffer,

    As “someone who hates gambling” you should know the difference between real gambling and a gentleman’s challenge to put up or shut up. (And perhaps you should come clean and describe yourself as someone who has had a gambling problem along the way?)

    It would have been once thing for Wadhams to say “Wagering is against my principles, but I stand by my prediction nevertheless, and will stand rebuked if it does not come to pass.”

    But, no, he played the victim by claiming he had never made any such definitive prediction, and was being misquoted by those trying to discredit him. Which is a bald-faced lie, and as proof his verbatim words have been quoted here by Your ‘Umble Narrator and others. Unless you feel quotes published in The Guardian and elsewhere are falsified.

    • Sorry for the duplicate post (even if it is a gem!), more WUWT site quirky browser behavior, which appears to discard a post, only to see it magically reappear later.

  31. firstly: “(And perhaps you should come clean and describe yourself as someone who has had a gambling problem along the way?”

    That’s a load of rubbish. Never wanted to gamble, never had a problem with gambling. My grandparents however had problems.

    secondly: “As “someone who hates gambling” you should know the difference between real gambling and a gentleman’s challenge to put up or shut up.”

    You’re just dressing up school yard rubbish by attaching the word gentleman to it. If the criticism of the man is valid, then there is no need to invoke gambling. If he can be hung with his own words, then do that, and leave gambling out of it.

    • Fair enough, I don’t entirely disagree with your position. But you came on a bit strong with the distasteful label. Such a visceral reaction to a common enough sort of challenge struck me as odd. My main point (I’m sure you’ll concede) was not that he declined to wager, but that he played the victim and claimed never to have made the prediction that the Arctic would be “ice free” no later than September 2017.

    • I love the advertisement on that page for “Green Jobs and Green Careers”. And that’s what it’s all about, ain’t it? Rent seeking.

      If Joe Bastardi was wrong in 2010, he was wrong. I have no idea whether he conceded the point later. But he wasn’t dealing in the currency of “catastrophic” or “unprecedented” conditions, he was predicting the wanderings of a fluctuating graph, and as such probably knew he was rolling the dice. He wasn’t advocating dismantling the world economy to “save the planet”. In essence, by misreading where the data would be a few years ahead, he made his point. Neither he or anyone else can predict the future of a chaotic system about which, let’s face facts, much more is unknown than known, even by as luminous an intellect as Bill Nye’s.

  32. I don’t know who is Professor Wadhams and I don’t care.

    But I see that sea ice is decreasing.

    • Yes, it always does in summertime. But not decreasing as much this summer as in past summers, so no new “record” this September below 3.4M km/sq, and no “ice free”, i.e. below 1M km/sq. (Sorry, Dr Wadhams.)

      Oh, you meant decreasing over decades? Yes, we are still emerging from the depths of the current Ice Age we are in, so gradually decreasing sea ice is perfectly natural and not unexpected.

      • Dont forget to tell me as soon as we have stopped emerging from ice age…
        And meanwile go learn about the more recent Holocene climate optimum, that was warmer than the last millenium ….

        You’re so funny.

      • What’s funny is thinking that A) we really know what’s coming next, and exactly why (e.g. because CO2!) and B) that anything we could possibly do (even quickly revert to a pre-industrial existence) would have more than a fraction of a deg C effect in this century. Even the IPCC in their infinite wisdom acknowledge we can’t really change whatever trajectory we are on much, if at all.

        “But, but … we have to do SOMETHING!”

        No, we don’t.

Comments are closed.