Who would win the "Climate Bet" – Al Gore or Wharton Professor Scott Armstrong?

Ha - this is a great question!

Note the slight amendment to the settlement details - addition of the word 'annual' before 'forecasts'.

The real question is will any of us still be paying attention to Hubdub in eight years?

"The win goes to the smallest mean absolute error."

But that means that Gore will win if there's global cooling!

Oops. I was hasty and didn't read the material Carefully. Gore won't win if there's cooling.

https://www.intrade.com/index.jsp?request_operation=trade&request_type=action&selConID=680459

June hasn't been this nice since ... 1913
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/06/19/20090619junelovely0619.html
by John Faherty - Jun. 19, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

Meteorologists are reluctant to call a month "nice." They have their data and their science and typically do not describe the weather in such subjective terms.

Except now, because the data prove it.

"It's probably the best June since I've been here, and I've been here most of my life," said the National Weather Service's Valerie Meyers, who is in her late 40s. "It's been really nice."

Possibly the nicest June ever.

It's that type of thing that is fun to say but hard to quantify.

Thursday, however, was the 14th consecutive day to stay below 100 degrees. That's the longest stretch of its kind in any June since 1913.
[More at the link...]

NN - you should know The Arizona Republic prolly has ads in it from big oil, and Valerie Meyers owns stock in exxon so they can't be reliable sources. :O)

I'm not clear on exactly what Armstrong's forecast is. Given that it's such a long bet perhaps you could go to the trouble of putting the actual figures in the description?

Ozone hole smaller in 2009 than 2008: WMO
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.6dc34801599f65f8916891b204ea0026.331&show_article=1

The World Meteorological Organisation said Wednesday that the ozone hole is expected to be smaller in 2009 than a year ago.

"The meteorological conditions observed so far could indicate that the 2009 ozone hole will be smaller than those of 2006 and 2008 and close to that of 2007," said the UN agency in a statement.
[More at the link...]

wow! protecting the environment actually works!

Problem: CFC
Actions: Regulations
Result: Saving the environment (and ourselves)

But, what has the ozone hole to do with, let's say, climate change discussed here?
Since: Although they are often interlinked in the mass media, the connection between global warming and ozone depletion is not strong.

Ohw, wait - I know what notablenotices wants to point out by posting this: We could learn from what happened. At least, we are intelligent people.

Maybe like

Problem: CO2
Actions: Regulations
Result: Saving the environment (and ourselves)

But to draw this simple conclusion, and to take consequences, it's up to all of us.

An inconvenient truth about global warming
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2009/09/an_inconvenient_truth_about_gl.html
The global warming narrative - that mankind's addiction to burning fossil fuels is rapidly changing the climate - may be about to go seriously off message.

Far from suggesting the planet will get warmer, one of the world's leading climate modellers says the latest data indicates we could be in for a significant period of steady temperatures and possibly even a little global cooling.
[More at the link...]

thanks, notablenotices. some comments, straight from that page:

"The journalist says: "professor Latif found the results would bring the remorseless rise in average global temperatures to an abrupt halt." Global warming is going to stop!
Professor Latif says: "...and thereafter will pickup again and continue to warm". Global warming is not going to stop!
Then we hear about "the thorny issue of the media's handling of science." It sounds very much like Tom Fielden is sensationalising and misrepresenting the science... and then telling us how confused things are when the media sensationalises and misrepresents science. Urgh."

"Latif's data is neither a new or shocking discovery. Scientists have been using the title "Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming" for at-least a decade now. It was quickly realized that the complex weather systems on the Earth meant the greenhouse effect caused by human activities would not effect all parts of the world in the same way."

"The media treatment of science is indeed a problem, and the BBC is not exempt from it. The headline of this blog is particularly irresponsible. It is simply not supported by the article it reports on. The timetable for global warming has never been precise anyway, so a single factor that might cause a slight delay of a few years in its otherwise remorseless progress is hardly an 'inconvenient truth' that undermines its credibility. Such sensationalism only serves to provoke responses like that of minuend."

"The evidence is all there in the climate records - tree rings, ice cores, layers of sediment etc. The problem is the people trying to interpret the data. Instead of looking to see what the data is telling them, they try to make the data into a (simpler) story. It just doesn't work if you do that - the data is complex. We must get used to trying to describe its complexity, if we are to avoid accusations of obfuscation, confusion, misrepresentation and falsehood. We could start by dropping the misleading terminology. Climate change does not occur in one linear direction. There is no such thing as global warming, global cooling, global dimming etc. There is only climate change."

"because accepting climate change means accepting that we can't continue to be lazy waste producers consuming far more than the world can product.
Climate change deniers are just people too greedy to accept that they're responsible and that they're going to have to stop being so wasteful and greedy, a bit like bankers and the recent banking crisis really."

There are many scientists who believe there is no global warming and that mother nature takes care of earth in her own way.

yes, mother nature will take care as nature will balance out the sudden increase of CO2 in earth's atmosphere in some way.

but it could be that this way is not the most convenient for large parts of mankind.

simply the risk of this to be happening, and the slightest possibility for us to prevent it from happening or limiting the severity, should be enough to consider according actions.