Close this search box.

Gore Losing: No cause for alarm at 5-year mid-point of Armstrong-Gore climate ‘bet’ — ‘Gore should be pleased to find concerns about a ‘tipping point’ have turned out to be unfounded’


Climate Depot Exclusive

No cause for alarm at five-year mid-point of the Armstrong-Gore climate ‘bet’

By forecasting pioneer Dr. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Armstrong is the author of ‘Long-Range Forecasting’, the most frequently cited book on forecasting methods. He publishes the website

January 18, 2013

In 2007, University of Pennsylvania Professor J. Scott Armstrong’s attention was drawn to former VP Gore’s concerns about global warming. Having spent five decades studying the science of forecasting, Armstrong decided to examine the basis for the forecasts of global warming. He was unable to find a single scientific forecast to support the claim that the Earth was becoming dangerously warmer or colder. Instead, he found that some scientists were using improper forecasting methods to make forecasts. Professor Armstrong alerted Mr. Gore of this fact and suggested that they cooperate in a validation test of dangerous global warming forecasts. He suggested a 10-year bet for which he would forecast no long-term trend in climate, while Mr. Gore could chose forecasts from any climate model.

After a series of emails, Mr. Gore declined, apparently sticking with his claim that no time could be devoted to further study, because we were near a “tipping point,” a position backed by James Hansen of NASA. Professor Armstrong claimed that nothing new was happening, so there was neither cause for alarm nor need for government action.

Professor Armstrong nevertheless determined to pursue his proposed test of the alarmist forecast. By using the commonly adopted U.N. Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change forecast—3°C of warming per century—to represent Mr. Gore’s position, the has tracked the Armstrong-Gore “bet” with monthly updates.

Mr. Gore should be pleased to find that his grave concerns about a “tipping point” have turned out to be unfounded. As shown on, Professor Armstrong’s forecasts have been more accurate than Mr. Gore’s for 40 of the 60 months to date and for four of the five years. In fact, the latest global temperature is exactly where it was at the beginning of the “bet.”

Professor Armstrong was not surprised. With some minor exceptions, his forecast was consistent with evidence-based forecasting principles. In contrast, the IPCC’s forecasting procedures have been found to violate 72 of the 89 relevant principles.

When he proposed the bet, Professor Armstrong expected to have a somewhat less than 70% chance of winning given the natural variation in global mean temperatures for a ten-year period. In light of the results to date, he expects an even better chance of winning, but as Yogi Berra said, “It’s not over till it’s over.” Furthermore, policy decisions will require validations testing for hundreds of years, not for just one decade. At the time of writing, there has been no trend in global mean temperatures for 16 years.

Related Links:

Flashback 2011 Congressional testimony: Forecasting Expert Prof. J. Scott Armstrong audited IPCC’s temperature forecasting procedures and found they ‘violated 81% of the 89 relevant forecasting principles’ — The warmists ‘argument for predictive validity is based on their claim that nearly all scientists agree with forecasts…errors for IPCC model long-term forecasts were 12.6 times larger than ‘no change’ model…’We have identified 26 historical alarmist movements. None of forecasts for alarm proved correct. In the 25 alarms that called for gov’t intervention, gov’t imposed regulations in 23. None of 23 interventions was effective and harm was caused by 20 of them’

Forecasting Expert slaps down NYT’s Paul Krugman: ‘Global warming alarm is based on improper forecasting procedures’ — Dr. Armstrong in 2011: ‘We developed a simple model that provides forecasts that are 12 times more accurate than warming-alarm forecasts for 90 to 100 years ahead…I recommended an end to government financing for climate change research and to associated programs and regulations’