Gambling on global warming

Betting the heat

Posted by Andrew Dessler (Guest Contributor) at 1:19 PM on 13 Apr 2007

Read more about: climate | climate change impacts | climate science

Here's an excerpt from a great article on global warming:

In 2005, Annan offered to take Lindzen, the MIT meteorologist, up on his bet that global temperatures in 20 years will be cooler than they are now. However, no wager was ever settled on because Lindzen wanted odds of 50-to-1 in his favor. This meant that for a $10,000 bet, Annan would have to pay Lindzen the entire sum if temperatures dropped, but receive only $200 if they rose.

"Richard Lindzen's words say that there is about a 50 percent chance of [global] cooling," Annan wrote about the bet. "His wallet thinks it is a 2 percent shot. Which do you believe?"

Talk is indeed cheap.

For story: Gambling on global warming
10 Comments | Post a Comment

He Should Have Taken The Bet

Crypto-Malthusians ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-malthusian ) are already asking every one of us to gamble hundreds of dollars: our tax money.

There have already been commissions, reports and soon their will be regulatory agencies and regulations based on the absolute believe of CMs in forecasts of temperature and its consequences.

Quite frankly...I think we're all forced into the role of losers on this.

by jabailo at 3:17 PM on 13 Apr 2007

The Revolution Will Not be Cable Televised

Don't worry your pretty little head, jabailo. As long as the U.S. election system requires gazillions of dollars in fund-raising from corporate special interests before a candidate to have even a prayer of a chance of getting elected, something tells me that there will be lots of talk and very, very little action on this issue in my lifetime.

Now, I get to rail about my pet peeve: a heliocentric universe! Why do scientists insist that the Earth revolves around the sun?! They just try to squash any counter-viewpoints. The "fact" that the Earth revolves around the sun is in fact only a theory. Therefore I am insisting that my local school district give equal time to the theory that the universe revolves around planet Earth in our local science classes.

by GonzoDon at 6:18 PM on 13 Apr 2007

Go To The Back of The Class

The "fact" that the Earth revolves around the sun is in fact only a theory.

Yes, it is a theory...but it's a very good one, one that provides lots of predictive power. You can also develop mathematics for planetary movement as if the earth were fixed and everything revolved around it, but these equations are far less elegant.

In physics, the "frame of reference" is extremely important. That's how Einstein racked up so many points...by showing there is no absolute frame of reference in the universe (at one point physicists thought that the center was an absolute frame of reference).

As far as this thing of such-and-such is only a theory. Well, that's not the point. A theory is as good as its predictive power. Its utility is not so much how it explains the past -- that just justifies its development, as how it can predict what will happen based on certain conditions.

So yes, the heliocentric theory is a theory, but it's a very good one, and it gives us some very nice math (Kepler). The geocentric theory can also have utility -- if you're an astrologer, you still look at the celestial sphere rotating in the heavens around a static Earth.

Same with evolution. Yes, "natural section" is a theory, but it has a lot of power for predicting. If you want to through "intelligent design" or "Bible Science" in the ring as theories, you can...you can always do that. The question is who's block is going to get knocked off when it comes time to placing bets and getting the right picks.

by jabailo at 12:09 PM on 14 Apr 2007
[ Parent ]

Short-lived Wikipedia articles

Jabailo wrote:

Crypto-Malthusians ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-malthusian ) are already asking every one of us to gamble hundreds of dollars: our tax money.

Have you read the discussion section of that Wikipedia article?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crypto-Malthusian

This guy has been posting on the website grist.org for a while to all of the stories.
An example: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/4/10/171745/455
First comment, links here.
[...]
I recommend this entry "Cryto-Mathusian" be deleted.

by Nucbuddy at 2:08 PM on 14 Apr 2007
[ Parent ]

Lorentz's Theory of Special Relativity

Jabailo wrote: Einstein racked up so many points...by showing there is no absolute frame of reference in the universe

Actually, that was Hendrik Lorentz in 1892.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Lorentz#Electrodynamics_and_.22relativity.22

by Nucbuddy at 2:18 PM on 14 Apr 2007
[ Parent ]

The Truth Cannot Be Suppressed

Luckily I retained the definition in my own site:

http://you-read-it-here-first.com/viewtopic.php?t=510

A Crypto-Malthusian is someone in the long line of philosophical-societal thinkers who believe that the artifices of Man will lead to a natural constraint of resources and result in the doom both of Nature and Man.
This line of thinkers includes Malthus himself as well as the Club of Rome, Peak Oilers, Peak Coalers, Anthropogenic Ice Agers and Silent Springers as well as current Anthropogenic Global Warmers.

by jabailo at 9:35 PM on 14 Apr 2007
[ Parent ]

References

I added these references to the Wikipedia article:

The term is used as a reference to Marx, here:

http://www.global-samizdat.org/Global-Samizdat/GS1_Toward ...

And is made reference in a religio-political reference here:

http://www.hermetic.com/bey/millennium/millennium.html

by jabailo at 9:42 PM on 14 Apr 2007
[ Parent ]

That's so unfair

Have you read the discussion section of that Wikipedia article?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crypto-Malthusian

It says there that

fyi. jabailo is a wannabe troll.

Frankly, I can't believe they refer to you as a "wannabe troll." That's so unfair --- have they not read your posts? There's no "wannabe" about it. You're an accomplished troll.

by Andrew Dessler at 10:20 PM on 14 Apr 2007

Wikipedia dangers and guidelines

Jabailo,

Wikipedia editors need to log in when they make edits, or else others can see their IP addresses (which, in turn, can be used to discover personal information) by looking at the requisite article Revision Histories.

These are the Wikipedia guidelines on article creation:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article

If you feel your article-subject qualifies as appropriate for Wikipedia, on the article Discussion Page you can explain your reasons for that.

by Nucbuddy at 1:17 AM on 15 Apr 2007

Delete

The jabbering one. Dualies and all. It is hurting the blog.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 7:15 AM on 15 Apr 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.