Betting, politics

Joe Romm Defines “Anyone”.

41 Comments

While I was away, Joe Romm evidently has provided an idiosyncratic definition of “anyone”.

As readers know, two people, Les Johnson and Svempa, stepped forward to accept Joe Romm’s bet. Both were willing to take the bet as posed. Based on the normal dictionary definition of “anyone” both would appear to qualify as “anyone”.

However, after two people stepped forwards to accept his bet, Joe evidently felt a need to clarify his definition of “anyone”.

UPDATE2: So far, no serious players in the denier-sphere have stepped up to take this bet. I should make clear that I am, of course, using the the Nate Silver rule:

You are eligible for this challenge if:

1. You live in the United States and provide me with your home address and telephone number (I will provide you with mine) and,
2. You are a regular (at least once weekly) contributor to a political, economics or science blog with an Alexa traffic global ranking of 50,000 or lower.

The reason for the latter requirement is because I want to be able to shame/humiliate you if you back out of the challenge or refuse to pay, as I’d assume you’d do the same with me.

I’ll extend that to Alexa below 100,000.

I bet you are wondering what sorts of bloggers do and do not qualify to accept Joe’s bet?

Here’s a list of climate bloggers who could not bet because their Alexa is too high. (Low Alexa ranks mean more traffic. So, the #1 alexa rank is Google). Below, I show a list of bloggers and the Alexa I read off my browser display. (I added the Alexa plugin to Firefox. It sometimes misreads, so … no guarantees. ):

  1. The bloggers at Real Climate 111,552.
  2. Lucia, aka “me”, at “The Blackboard”:138,774.
  3. The bloggers at Ice Cap: 151,564.
  4. Jennifer Marohasi: 196,694.
  5. Roger Pielke Jr. 214,543.
  6. Lubos Motl at The Reference Frame: 239.642.
  7. Tamino of Open Mind: 246,419
  8. Jeff Id at The Air Vent 324,136.
  9. Anyone at CO2 Science: 566,739.
  10. Climate Skeptic: 566,812.
  11. Rabett Run: 628,904.
  12. Zeke at Yale Climate Forum.
  13. James Annan: 1,029,354.

Admittedly, many of these bloggers would not take up Joe’s bet for a number of reasons. For example, though I think some projections are likely biased high, I think a 50/50 bet taking the low side of a 0.15C rise for the decadal average temperature is too risky. Plus, I don’t bet real money. But, as you can see, the list of bloggers who Joe excludes for the bet is rather large.

Here’s is an incomplete list of bloggers who can bet based on their Alexa rank:

  1. Andy Revkin at Dot Earth.
  2. Regular bloggers at AccuWeather: 706.
  3. William Connolley at Stoat: 4,974
  4. Any regular blogger at Planet Gore 5,766.
  5. Regular bloggers at WUWT 34,386.
  6. Steve McIntyre orbloggers at Climate Audit (Update: Steve does not qualify; he is Canadian): 69,837.
  7. Mark Morano of Climate Depot.: 93,597

Readers might wonder how in the world William Connelley’s Alexa at Stoat is lower than the Alexa at Real Climate, suggesting more people read Stoat than RC. Can that be true? Well, probably not. William Connelley blogs at “scienceblogs.com”. The Alexa rank applies to the entire domain, so all bloggers at “scienceblogs.com” have the same, low, alexa rank. Similarly, global-warming.accuweather.com happens to share an Alexa rank with “accuweather.com”, a heavily visited weather site.

Honestly, I’d be surprised if William Connelley takes up Joe’s bet. I also doubt Joe’s intention was to elicit a bet with William. I’d also be surprised if SteveM took up the bet. However, they happen to fall on the fairly short list of climate bloggers who managed to qualify for Joe’s bet.

What you can see is that Joe’s criteria excludes the overwhelming number of climate blogs, while also permitting a few fairly lower traffic climate bloggers to bet while excluding blogs that get traffic equal to “Real Climate”. Now, I doubt the guys at Real Climate were going to accept Joe’s bet either. But this is an “interesting” cut off Alexa rank for a bet on climate.

So, what is the purpose of qualifying betters based on the alexa rank of their blog? Recall Joe modified the “Nate Silver Rule” to permit Alexa ranks below 100,000 instead of 50,000. The cynic in me suspects his reason was to qualify Mark Morano. Although, it’s also possible Joe changed the “Nate Silver Rule” when he realized his own blog with an Alexa of 60,845 does not qualify based on the “Nate Silver Rule”.

Of course one might imagine that some non-climate bloggers might step forward. But do they qualify? Well, here are a few people who blog about climate but who may or may not qualify depending the definition of “political, economics or science blog”:

  1. Jonathan H. Adler or Jim Lindgren at The Volokh Conspiracy, which is technically a law blog, not a political, economics or science blog.
  2. George Will a journalist who does not blog.

So, one might wonder: Is the bet open to these people? Or not? Who knows?

Plomo_1What we do know is that, Joe oferred a bet to “anyone” and then edited his initial offer to bet “anyone”. When two people accepted his blogger, he edited the offer to apply to “any blogger who is anyone” using a mysterious criterion that eliminates the vast majority of climate bloggers. Hhhhmmm…

PS. My posting and monitoring of comments will be light. I still need to run the script on the UAH temperatures– but my father is visiting and I mostly need to stay away from the computer. Things didn’t go too well… but we are recovering from a big SNAFU. (This is actually why I am home today instead of Saturday.) Details will not be forthcoming. But everyone is doing fine right now.
Still, Dad is resting, and while he rests, I thought I’d surf a bit, I had to laugh when I read this and I just had to post.

Oh. Dad met the new cat. I asked what we should name her and Dad suggested “Plomo” based on her color.

41 thoughts on “Joe Romm Defines “Anyone”.”

  1. Pero, ¿es un plomo el gato (la gata)?

    (Where I’m from “un plomo” is not just a lead weight, it’s also a person who is a bore. I guess a cat can be a bore also.)

  3. Not sure–
    So far, Plomo is not a bore! We think Plomo is a she, but we aren’t actually sure. In a few days I’m getting a collar and putting a note on her to see whether she visits anyone who claims her.

    She wandered in and seems to have adopted us. But we aren’t sure if there isn’t some other family who thinks she’s theirs! One of our cats now sits in the same room with her with no hissing and spitting. The other one makes weird howly noises, and then leaves the room. So we think they are all going to get along.

    Zeke–
    I suspect at this point a number of people just want to discover whether Joe is actually willing to bet someone, somewhere. I have to admit I want to see whether Joe ever does bet at any level.
    But for those who think this in terms of “investment”, those are good options.

  4. Joe keeps moving the goal posts. Perhaps a strategy the Detroit Lions can emulate. It sure couldn’t hurt. Maybe goal posts on wheels? But I digress.
    .
    In spite of being a Canadian resident, I can provide a US address, phone number and even a US tax payer ID.
    .
    Of topic, but its FREAKIN’ SNOWING here. HARD.
    .
    But, at l least we are going to share it with our American neighbours, as its headed south.
    .
    All the best to your dad, Lucia.

  5. “The reason for the latter requirement is because I want to be able to shame/humiliate you if you back out of the challenge or refuse to pay, as I’d assume you’d do the same with me.”

    Hmm, betting on the imminent end of the world but wanting to be sure of collecting on the winnings…

  6. Les,

    It’s a bit crisp here too. But the weather is in no way unusual for October in Illinois. (Given that I dragged my Dad up from Florida, I wish we had a heat wave. His 1/2 Cuban blood hates the cold. I think that’s why he took so many jobs in Latin America when we were young. But then Mom wanted to be back in the States and he endured Chicago winters for sake.)

  7. Lucia, sorry to interrupt in such an off topic way, but why is the Tip Jar there, saying “Help pay peer review fees etc.”? Are you on to some paper? What is it about?

    Thanks

  8. Luis–
    I do have one paper submitted with co-authors. I’m planning another one. But there is no urgent need for funds right now. But the tip jar is staying up, and I’ll be using those should something get accepted.

  10. It’s cold and rainy here in “Kentucky.” 😉

    Yesterday, it was just cold. My nephew and I made a bonfire last eve upon which I chucked my old sofa and loveseat. We were forbidden (much to our chagrin) by his mother to throw anything other than wood pieces on the fire. (Gee, I wonder what would happen if we threw this blue cushion foam stuff on?) Needless to say at first the fire was about 3 stories high, and we got yelled at anyway. Something about the neighbors calling the fire dept.

    Andrew

  12. Lucia, how about adding a “Click here for info” link on the fee jar, for the benefit of newcomers? I think you announced it with an article which you can link to.

  13. I am a bit surprised you consider a 50/50 bet on below 0.15 degrees/decade to be too risky. I have the impression that you consider a 0.2 degree trend to be a definite overestimate. So either you believe in what I would consider a fairly narrow band for the likely result, so that 0.2 is unlikely and 0.15 is quite likely, or I’ve overestimated your disagreement with IPCC projections.

    Or you are rather risk adverse and mean that you would only take a bet if it was heavily stacked in your favour. Not to say thats a bad thing as I’d be similarly risk adverse. I believe the IPCC is reasonable and I wouldn’t want to take a bet on the warm side of 0.15 as I’d perceive the odds would be stacked only slightly in my favour.

  14. Scooter–
    I’ll do that!
    Michael– I don’t bet real money because it makes me nervous. Plus, if I did bet, I’d hate a long term bet. So… I would only bet substantial amounts of real money if I thought something was a sure thing. That is, I need to think I’m much more likely to win than 50/50 on a 50/50 bet!

    I think 0.15 may be a fair bet. But I consider it too risky for me!

  16. Here in Vienna we had the hottest October day in decades (28C high 16C low on Wednesday) but now it’s back to normal 16C high 10C low.
    With changes in average temperature like this from one week to another how can you possibly deal with the horror of a climate increase or 0.15C per decade.

    It’s back to Tucson next week for a nice, predictable winter for us snowbirds.

  17. Andrew_FL–
    I actually tried to wrack my brain to come up with the higher ranked blogs. The fact is, we are to believe that “of course” he intended us to understand he intended the “Nate Silver Rule” to apply, then we would conclude that his definition of “anyone” is “practically no one”. After all, the original “Nate Silver Rule” required an a blogger with an Alexa of 50,000 of less. I don’t know all the reasons no one took Nate Silver up on his offer, but the fact is that practically no one who posts a lot about climate qualified. Joe boosted the Alexa up to 100,000 (and based on the comments over there, that may have happened, after someone pointed out that even he didn’t qualify under the Nate Silver Rule). But even at an Alexa of 100,000 practically no one qualifies.

    So… if Joe is pretty much willing to bet practically no one. Not only that, he defined “anyone” after a few people stepped forward.

  18. Hal–
    Being from Chicago, that change in temperature falls in the normal range of wild oscillations we’ve always had. (But, if it’s unusual for you, it is a pain in the neck.)

    My Uncle from NY moved to the midwest and later to the west coast. He and his wife marveled at midwestern weather, saying it was truly life threatening in so many ways. One of the ways is the quick temperature oscillations. (Other ways are: Freezing rain, horrible sub-zero F temperatures in winter, over 100F humid days in summer, tornadoes, etc. No one moves to Chicago for the weather! Still, it’s not all hell. We do have nice days.)

  19. Therefore, can we conclude that ANYONEâ„¢ can win the Nobel Peace Prize too?

    Oh, wait… 😉

    Andrew

  20. Andrew_KY–

    Hmmm… The White House has a blog. I don’t think the current NPP winner is a regularly blogger at any blog with an Alexa rank below 50,000!

  22. Tom–
    Are you rich? Do you like to gamble? I’d say the bet is a bit risky– that is, you aren’t sure to win taking the low side (or the high side either.) And it’s a 10 year bet which is an awful long time for money to just be sitting.

    But, otherwise, it’s up to you. If you do take the bet up, let us know. It will be interesting to see if Joe thinks of yet another reason to turn down an offer to accept his challenge.

  23. Just posted on Climate Progress:

    Tom Fuller says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    October 9, 2009 at 8:58 pm
    Mr. Romm, I’ll take your bet. Examiner.com is rated by Alexa as site number 151 in the U.S. and number 476 in the world. I post pretty much every day on it. I live in the U.S. and will happily provide you with my address and telephone number if you’ll reciprocate.

    Hubristically yours

    Tom Fuller

    Funny thing is, I think there will be at least 2 degrees Celsius warming this century. But he’s such a jerk…

  24. Tom Fuller: Agreed on both accounts. I think there will be 1-2 deg C warming by 2100, but he is a jerk, so naturally I had to take the bet too….

  25. Les, what’s the status of your offer? Did he accept/decline, is he still waiting? Since you’re in first, if he only wants to take one bet, you of course can make the call.

  26. Hi all,

    This is Romm’s response. Should I ask for another dataset? How many volcanoes should he get?

    [JR: Well, I’m guessing we can probably dispense with the address and phone numbers, given our respective profiles, though I’m happy to do so. The bet is “the 2010s [2010 to 2019] will be the hottest decade in the temperature record, more than 0.15°C hotter than the hottest decade so far [i.e. the 2000s, from 2000 to 2009] using the NASA GISS dataset.” I am gonna ask, as I have for other bets, that “if two or more volcanic eruptions with the energy level equal to or greater than the 1991 Mount Pinatubo shall occur between now and the end of 2019, then the bet is voided.” Let me know if that’s ok — this is a bet about AGW, not the vagaries of volcanoes. We also didn’t settle on an amount. I have a lot of $1000 bets out there. I’m game at that level or less. Your call.]

  28. Pingback: Born Every Minute… « Hypothesis Testing

  30. Tom–
    You let him add the volcano out? Given his level of 0.15 C rise instead of the IPCC level, that’s going pretty dang easy on him!!!
    Lucia

  31. Tom Fuller,

    You might want to clarify the dataset more extensively. I believe GISS uses a combination of HadlSST1 and Reynolds v2 for sea temperatures in addition to the GISS land dataset. Is the bet for land combined with sea, or only land?

  32. I should say good luck too!
    Bob Koss- Sounds like the negotiations are over. I think this is a close to 50%/50% and then Joe gets the weasley volcano out. But at least it needs to be BIG eruptions.

  33. Who thinks that today’s blogs will be around in 10 years or that this bet will be remembered?

    As an aside, Steve McIntryre is not elgible since he does not live in the United States.

  35. And Ross McKitrick does not qualify for the bet as well since he is another Canadian. Mann indicated that the McIntyre and McKitrick are “two Canadians”

    Mann wrote “Barton’s report, written by statisticians with no apparent background at all in the relevant areas, simply uncritically parrots claims by two Canadians”

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-discovery-of-global-warming-update/#comment-15618 (as quoted in the reply to comment 2)

    Canadians should know better than to move above their station and capabilities to criticize a scientific paper by a professor of Climate Science at the University of Pennsylvania – heir to the Academy of Athens with every professor a new Solon.

  37. Tom: Good job. I see you are willing to lay off some your bet. Put me down for 500.

    As for moral support, no problem there. If you need something more substantial, I have a database of references to AGW, that I started in about 2000.

  38. Two big volcanoes in ten years isn’t very likely, so that’s a fair out, especially as it’s over just ten years. I am curious if anyone thinks volcanic eruptions are part of the feedback for global warming?

    The overall bet comes out to a .14 growth from 2009 to 2019.

  40. The Volokh Conspiracy is not just a law blog; a few of us blog more about politics than law.

    But it’s a sucker’s bet for 2 reasons:

    (1) The urban heat island effect, and

    (2) the base period, which for most cities is over a hundred years.

    I expect most US cities to be warmer in the next 10 years than they were on average over the prior hundred years because of the urban heat island effect and the gradual warming since then because of natural variation and increasing economic development.

    Now if the bet compared current temperatures to those of the prior 15 years, that would be a closer bet, but still not a smart one given economic development.

    Jim Lindgren
    volockh.com

  41. Hi JIm,
    I know you guys blog about politics and technology. But would Joe have counted that? I don’t know. . . But I’m not surprised you didn’t take the bet!

Comments are closed.