Yup, RC have covered it and there's money at stake.

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2008/05/jumping-on-betting-bandwagon.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/global-cooling-wanna-bet/langswitch_lang/in

Part 2

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/the-global-cooling-bet-part-2/langswitch_lang/in

Uncle Ulric. You realise that talking to yourself is the first sign of madness.

I felt it necessary to make a post, so you wouldn't feel lonely and being ignored.

Ulric:

Part 2

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/the-global-cooling-bet-part-2/langswitch_lang/in

This discussion is reasonable enough concerning the science of the paper but I would like to see this discussion in Nature. As for the press misreporting well that happens all the time a colleague fo mine has just written a complaint about a misreporting of his work on Cloud Condenstion nuclei production by sea weed. It's the cosmic ray issue over again but from the bottom up this time.

Waterspout:

I felt it necessary to make a post, so you wouldn't feel lonely and being ignored.

I'm genuinely touched.

Ulric:

I'm genuinely touched.

You Fibber!

Actually, I did follow the debate for a while. It all seemed to boil down to that the large variations in Model Output means that GCM's can never be wrong statistically within a range of +-2.5C in the next 50 Years. So, does this mean turning them all off and rolling a Die instead will tell us just as much and be alot cheaper (plus save on co2 emissions from all those PETAFLOP Supercomputers using all that energy)

P.S. I notice Hadley isn't even in the Top 100 Supercomputers anymore. Infact I don't think the UK has any non-military Petaflop Supercomputers, except for the one at Edinburgh Uni I think.