I wonder if they'd bet on it?

A bit off-topic, but I'm confused on a point here, and was hoping someone could help clear this up for me. A while ago, when the denialist crowd was trying to stir up a flap about the corrected surface temp records for the 48 contiguous US states, it was often stated that 1998 and 1934 were just smidgens apart. But from this graph, they're well distant. What's up with that?

Tony,
Notice the word 'Global' in the graphs title? That is not the temperatrue record of just U.S. 48 contiguous states...which is what got corrected.

This is a far better idea for a bet. Would any of you warmers offer good odds that the world's DGP will not rise in the next 20 years?

I am willing to play if the odds are decent.

Jc:

- What is a "warmer"?

- What is "DGP"?

- What does it have to do with climate change?

- Which end of such a bet are you proposing to take?

I have an open long bet with a colleague about Arctic sea ice, in which I took a radical melting position for the fun of the gamble. I think I bet £5 in 2004 at even odds on "there will be a summer minimum arctic sea ice area less than 40% of the 1979-2000 average, at least once before 2020". Something like that; I should look it up. This position now looks distinctly conservative: I might collect by 2010.

JC, I assume you mean GDP.

Sorry most "warmers" think that the free market and technological advances will solve the problem of global warming at a low net cost and therefore fully expect GDP to continue to rise.

It's the anti-science anti-market denialists who're predicting economic disaster if action is taken to reduce warming.

So here's my alternate bet:

1. by no later than 2010, Australia, the US and several major developing countries will join the current Annex B signatories of the Kyoto Protocol in adopting binding national emission limits;

2. despite (1), average inflation-adjusted global GDP growth in the in the 2023 to 2028 will be HIGHER than for the period 2003 to 2008.

2 should read:

despite (1), average inflation-adjusted global GDP growth in the 2023 to 2028 period, as a percentage of global GDP, will be HIGHER than for the period 2003 to 2008.

Best part of this story is that the only place that pays attention to Ball and Harris these days is the fringy to crazy Canada Free Press.

Nick:

1. Warmer is the opposite of cooler. Word web definition:

Having or producing a comfortable and agreeable degree of heat or imparting or maintaining heat. (hope that helps).

2. What is "DGP"?

Sorry GDP. Thanks for pointing that out.

3. What does it have to do with climate change?

A lot I would have thought. We're gonna be spending a few squizillions in lost and actual GDP to save ourselves from a warmer world, so better you damn well hope it has to do with climate change.

4. Which end of such a bet are you proposing to take?

I will bet that world GDP will be higher in 20 years time than it is right now. Use a proxy. US GDP will be higher than it is now. I expct decent odds.

Hi Gouldie:

"by no later than 2010, Australia, the US and several major developing countries will join the current Annex B signatories of the Kyoto Protocol in adopting binding national emission limits;"

Naaaaa:

1.With Pete (weddding singer) Garret as the minister for the Yarts and the "irvirament" it's odds on. The US not so sure as it still would need to get through the senate even if Clinton wants to push it through. Flip a coin. However I wouldn't be that certain if I were you.

2. "despite (1), average inflation-adjusted global GDP growth in the in the 2023 to 2028 will be HIGHER than for the period 2003 to 2008."

Yea. I agree despite the headwind, it will be a higher GDP. However the rate of growth will obviously be lower than potential. Dunno how to fashion a bet on that.

GDP growth around the world is actually accelerating. It would feel like a recession in the US and Oz these days if the rate of growth is less between 1 and 2%.

Gouldie, I take it that you're supporting a carbon tax and not a wealth destroying cap and trade which is also easy to cheat , right? So you wouldn't be supporting Kyoto I guess?????

1. I didn't ask you what "warmer" means. I asked what a "warmer" was.

2. A number of people who state that the world is warming are prepared to put their money where their mouths are. No-one who claims that the world is not warming is prepared to put any money on it at all. They are all mouth and no trousers. That's what this post is about. Do you believe that the world is warming, or not? This isn't about GDP, or the price of tea in China.

3. On the subject of GDP, onto which you are attempting to side-track us, I refer you to Stern, or to Ian Gould at comment #5. Hardly anyone believes that GDP will be lower in the medium-term than it is today. I certainly don't. I'm not aware of any reputable study which suggests that climate change will have a massive negative effect on GDP within 20 years. The whole point of taking action now, both mitigation and adaptation, is to allow us to continue to flourish far into the future. Various studies suggest that delayed action will be more expensive (maybe much more expensive) and less effective (maybe disastrously so).

4. Global GDP dropping within 20 years is a massive hurdle. A typical growth of 3% over 20 years compounds to 80%. So you're suggesting approximately a 45% drop. What sort of odds will you offer against this very unlikely possibility?

Jc rather obviously has some bet running with someone, that he will manage to derail every single topic with some incredibly stupid remarks.

Jc, we might not all be economists, but most of us are rather rational people.

so far i have seen NOONE argue here,
that global warming will cause global GDP to shrink over the next couple of years.

btw, are you seriously expecting better than 1:1 odds on your stupid bet?

just in case:
i haven t completely figured out the connection to global warming or the topic, but i offer a bet, that the sun will rise again tomorrow! i expect DECENT odds!!!

Please don't conflate climatic change science (e.g., AGW) with world economic development (e.g., GDP). Each presumably has measurable effects on the other, and it seems probable that some of the actions done to increase GDP has lead to (or at least increased the rate of) AGW, but the two are different. One is science, and the other is not.

Some actions to counter AGW could very easily increase GDP. E.g., less wasteful technologies and processes could reduce GHG emissions, and should be more profitable (less fuel is needed for the same amount of energy, reducing running costs ("less money goes up the smokestack")).

Some actions which do not counter AGW could also lead to increased GDP (at least for awhile), which broadly is what's been happening since the start of the industrial revolution.

Some actions to counter AGW could decrease GDP; e.g., the shutting down of coal mines could have a negative effect (it certainly does for the area local to the mines!).

Some actions which do not counter AGW could also have a negative effect.

Conflating the two is silly. Not dealing with AGW because of fears about the effects of dealing with it might have on GDP is sillier. And denying AGW because of fears of what dealing with it might do to GDP is the silliest of the lot.

(I'm sure people can come up with better examples for each of the four combinations of the two independent variables--increase/decrease GDP vs. (not-)dealing with AGW: I'm off to watch today's World Cup Rugby games, and haven't a lot of time...)

Nick

Take a look at the chart Tim has nicely presented us. Why would anyone bet against that trend suddenly changing at evens or at slightly better than even money. It's shit bet for anyone to take a position against that trendline. If you do, you're just an idiot gambler who would get better odds at the casino. In other words the trendline shows it ought to be a 5:1 maybe 10:1 bet against. If I saw a chart on a stock like that I would be looking for a 7:1 bet minimum before I dipped the toe in. In other words I wouldn't touch it unless I thought that I could make 7-10 buck for every dollar I risked.

Trawling out that silly bet and arguing there aren't a lot of people who would bet against indicates to me there aren't as many people on the cooling side who are the complete idiots you want to take them for. In other words maybe those guys understand the interplay of odds and trendlines more so than you.

Let me explain this in simple terms that even you would understand. If that chart were a stock only an idiot would to bet against such a trendine with such limited amount of information unless there were great odds. In other words the trader wouldn't survive long taking silly bets like that on short odds.

If any of the warmers were serious they would be offering 10:1 odds as the risk/reward factor isn't worth it. So is there anyone out there offering 10s?

In other words the bet is simply a slop at trying to make the other side look bad. If you guys are that optimistic shell out the odds and make it attractive, otherwise you just aren't serious.

Get real.

If any of the warmers were serious they would be offering 10:1 odds as the risk/reward factor isn't worth it. So is there anyone out there offering 10s?

Jc, you lack basic reading skills. so let me repeat the quote that Tim posted at the top of this topic!!!!

The world is cooling. Global temperatures have declined since 1998 and a growing number of climate experts expect this trend to continue until at least 2030.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/site/article/122

this puts some more contect into the complete nonsense you wrote:

Trawling out that silly bet and arguing there aren't a lot of people who would bet against indicates to me there aren't as many people on the cooling side who are the complete idiots you want to take them for. In other words maybe those guys understand the interplay of odds and trendlines more so than you.

doesn t it?

BLF

GDP is aboput the best recognized indicator w have that everyone understands. It has serious flaws such as the not recognizing the broken windows fallacy but even that ought to slow down the growth potential. You're thinking is wrong and your assertions are off the planet.

Basically, if GDP is US$200 trillion (in present value terms) in 100 years time the world is a richr place and people's welfare is much better than the present with the world GDP at around $us45 ttillion.

You can shake that can as much as you like but there aren't any peanuts.

btw, how will you square your bet offer with the "betting against trendline" argument in your latest post?

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/globaltrends2015/375953.gif

will you simply admit, that nothing what you say makes any sense at all?

Sod

Nnother example of not reading what people say. Read my comment again. slowly this time. Do you notice I mention the trendline? Do you?

trendlines are very important in setting up bets in terms of the likely future movements. They are also important in how to figure out the payout ratio in a bet.

It doesn't matter how I feel the future market is going to play out, that is if the cooling has stopped. A bet takes into account the interplay of the trendline and the risk reward that becomes the payout ratio.

the bet is a sham. It's a sham because the odds are too low.

last point:

If you guys are that optimistic shell out the odds and make it attractive, otherwise you just aren't serious.

the people offering those bets are not only serious, they are as well clever.

offering 10 to 1 odds to a person who believes in cooling but is too stupid to look at the trend would be idiotic. people offering those bets know, that a couple of volcanoes can RUIN the majority of them, even while they have global warming right!!!

It doesn't matter how I feel the future market is going to play out, that is if the cooling has stopped. A bet takes into account the interplay of the trendline and the risk reward that becomes the payout ratio.

what COOLING are you talking about?

Sure it does, sod. It called the spread between the buy and sell of a bet. I don't bet to be right. I bet to make money. Think about that comment for a second before you come back with another comment that shows you don't know hat your talking about.

I often takes bets I think it is likely I will lose money. However I will take the bet if I think the payour is egregiously high.

Moreover if there are guys who think the world is going to flood over the obvious extension of that thinking is that world GDP is gonna sink in the flood. So i wanna see the color of their money. What odds are they offering?

Moreover why should I be offering high odds agaisnt GDP rising. I may or my not have an opinion on that. I just wanna see the odds of those who think it isn't going to be the case.

What are your odds GDPO will fall in the next 20 years.

19 sorry

I meant warming...

Cooling and warming???? same difference :-)

"the people offering those bets are not only serious, they are as well clever."

Why are they clever? They're clever because they're offering low odds on a trendline like that? They're only "clever" in making low odds a propaganda show and making it seem as though they're winning.

You can only say they're "clever" (or lucky is more like it) if they started offering odds where their book would be filled and they eventually won the bet.

Going to the track, setting yourself up as a bookie doesn't make you clever if your offering evens on a three legged mule. Don't be a silly sod, sod.

From Tim's link:

"Paul Ehrlich's second bet offered to Julian Simon in 1995 that the years 2002-04 would be warmer than 1992-94 (Simon wisely declined). (this bet would obviously be adjusted to future years, say 2006-08)"

He thinks Julian couldn't read a trendline and makes propaganda out of it.

every time you respond to one of jc's rants gives him reason to continue. please don't respond to him. if you do he becomes rapid and rants, then Deltoid becomes his personal blog. Actually, any more of jc rants, Deltoid will have to come off my blogging list.

Ok Rich

Here's the deal. I'll keep the rants down to a minimum from now on on one condition. Please explain to me why those odds offered on Tim's link are good odds and what odds you would offer. Also explain why you think my thinking is wrong in terms of evalauating odds.

If you can't offer a decent response, you are nothing but an inoloerant lefty troll. Now go. Explain yourself!

A "growing number of experts"?
Who, pray tell? I only know of viewpoints changing the other way, and none of them were climate scientists anyway. The climate scientists I'm aware of were all pretty solidly convinced before, now its just the magnitude of changes that are getting their interests.
The article itself is slimy, and detail free; I was hoping to see names, or have a contact to write a letter to the editor (of course not, they're a propaganda site, not a newspaper). On the good news, ll the links I saw (that weren't to Tim/Tom articles) were to reality-based organizations. Hurrah for Google/Camino
By the way, some people seem to think this is a libertarian blog - it only is if you make it. Stick to the topics and it will be about science and public presentation/misrepresentation of the same.

Stewart says "Stick to the topics and it will be about science and public presentation/misrepresentation of the same"

100% true, don't feed the troll!

The bet is part of the topic, Rich, you dope. Take a look and you'll see the link Tim provided at the bottom of the post. Have you even read the post?

Now, please explain where I'm wrong in evaluating the odds. Explain also why you think the link offers good odds.

You can't answer the question can you? You can't answer it and you try to avoid it by the troll schtik. Nice try, but it doesn't work. Now get ot it and explain it?

JC, Ball says that it's been cooling since 1998 and that it will continue to cool till 2030. If he really believes that, then he should accept one of the bets on offer, don't you think?

Tim,
depends on the what he thinks of the odds. As I have said, any decent gambler will walk away from a bet despite thinking a horse will come in if the odds aren't good enough.

You bet to make money, not to be right.

That's like believing those silly ads in the financial papers where they say they are 80% right on their calls. They probably are, big deal. You could be 80% right calls and still lose money. Easily so.

thinking the horse could come in and betting on it are too entirely different thought processes.

I'll repeat. the only way the bettors could be thought of as serious is if they started to get lifted on their bets and they ended up winning. No point in having an empty book and saying the market is a pussy not to bet. Lift the odds.

Tim, far be it from me to tell you how to run your blog, but...

I have no problem at all with intelligent challenges to what I think I know,and I suspect this true of you too, Tim, and most of your readers here. This guy Jc doesn't qualify. The stupid flowing off of him is enormous and it is starting to define your blog of late.

Perhaps you can start an 'all Jc, all the time' thread, and confine him to it? It wouldn't be easily distinguishable from comments to your threads of late, actually, so I don't think Jc would even have a valid complaint to make. And it would make it easy for us to find when we're feeling an occasional cruel urge to laugh at the unfortunate.

JC, it's a two-horse race: Cooling vs Warming. If you think Cooling is going to win, then an even money bet is a good deal. On offer is 2:1, which is an even better deal.

Everyone congratulate Jc on winning yet another argument no one has made.

Nall is the climatologist with 263 years of experience that those on the "other side" trot out as an expert. He says the world will cool, so would he be willing to bet on the accuracy of his purely scientific opinion? I mean, he must have scientific evidence to support this claim, right? The world's first climatologist couldn't be full of shit, could he?

Setting aside bets for a moment, I think Ball is intelligent and educated enough to know how to analyze a time series, at least in principle.

That statement has a strong implication re Ball's honesty, but given Ball's litigious approach to science, and my current family budget, I'll leave it to all y'all to fill it in.

lee

Don't read anything I say.

It is a two horse race, but the odds also need to reflect reality. It's a two horse race if a three legged mule was one of the "horses". Would you bet evens on the mule?

That friggen trendline has been going up for a long time. It's not a 50/50 shot it will turn all of a sudden.

These guys are saying that the world is currently "cooling." They're either blind, stupid, or liars. If they were actually concerned about the truth of what they were saying, they'd be willing to take the bet. They've put this belief in writing; they don't need huge odds to compell them to support their own highly publicized belief. But they don't believe it. Their entire reason for doing this is to convince people who don't know any better that the world really is cooling, not by presenting facts such as "trend lines" but by repetition of false statements. Maybe Ball really was the "first" or "one of the first" Canadian climate science PhDs. He certainly said it enough times, so it must be true.

Boris
"Everyone congratulate Jc on winning yet another argument no one has made."

Well I am! I'm making the argument that the bet is a crock. the odds are a crock and used as propaganda to show up the other side.

I'll repeat it to help it get though your head.

If the betmakers were serious they would up the odds and try to get some money on their books. the fact there is little activity doesn't show a thing. They need to show they have money on the book and win the bet to be right. They're crap odds.
Call me anything you like, but my assertion is the correct one.

let me point out the obvious - while attempting to keep the conversation focussed on the structure of the bet, Jc is in fact clearly conceding that one would have to be an idiot to bet against future warming.

ie, that Ball, in stating that the world is cooling and will likely continue doing so, is an idiot.

Boris, please don't feed the troll as this tends to make this blog "jc's blog"

Lee

Do you even have a slight idea of odds making/ taking and why you would avoid a bet if the payout ratio is too low? You don't which is why you make distasteful/ ignorance filled comments like the one above.

You place bets to make money, not to be right. You're enabling propaganda.

If the betters side is so right, they are so confident etc. then ask them to offer 10:1 for a limted amount of money and see what happens. They can then lower the odds.

Offering evens on a mule doesn't show you are right.

Raising the odds and not getting a bet would amke the other side look worse , right?

Jc: But Ball has said that the temperatures will go down, not that they will continue to rise at a slower rate!

jc said "Call me anything you like..."

OK, you are an idiot!
Thank you

I see that Jc's limited reading comprehension skills and limited logic continue unabated, as he names me in responding to an argument I have specifically said I am not making.

JCross

(They had better go down or we're f...d. I mean that.)

Wouldn't bettors be showing up the other side by raising the odds? Yes or no?

Dr. Timothy Ball is a fool and a liar. I think we can all agree on that.

Jc: my comment was a reply to what you said in comment #35. There you seemed to imply that since temperature had been going up for a long time then odds of 1:1 were not reasonable. My point was that Ball stated that temperature was going to go down - period! So why should he get odds.

Would odds make the other side look bad? Perhaps, but someone would need to know that in order to have any traction. It would appear that you do not know that the standard bet is currently 3:1 for a 20 year time frame.

At 2:1 you know everything you need to know about the depth of the denialists convictions.

A modest suggestion: Tim, if you don't want to exile jc, you can set up a jc box. jc can post whatever drivel he wishes wherever. Others can call him out in the jc box.

Don't be silly Eli, my suggestion is a good one. They ought to raise the odds and show up the other side.

What's your market for GDP to fall over the next 20 years?

damn, am i ever glad for Firefox, Greasemonkey and the killfile script! they made it ever so much easier to realize this thread had next to nothing worth reading, all by killfiling just one single person.

Deltoid was once a favorite site, but feeding the troll has made this site useless, I have just taken Deltoid off my favorites list. This has become jc's site thanks to all you troll feeders, there no longer is any value here. I hope all of you don't do this to one of the other scienceblog sites.

Supposing that the world will now cool is inexplicably nuts. But I hope we do see a temporary cooling, such as the ones from c.1880-1920 and c.1940-1950. Unfortunately it is no more than a hope. But we cannot sustain this current trend without massive damage to the remaining wildlife ecosystems, terrestrial and marine. And we need more time to re-engineer the economy.

Of course, if there is a temporary cooling trend, every half-baked jackass will claim that global warming has disappeared. This could be the most dangerous thing of all in the near term, because the warming will then restart again, and probably furiously.

On the topic of the costs of climate mitigation, it is long past time to discard the GDP-destruction argument. It was never very cogent: denialists insisting that climatologists don't have good models, while insisting that economists do have good models. What are the odds on that?! Luckily even The Economist magazine now refutes their old Lomborgian contention that it will all cost too much. Bottom line? It won't be more than a blip. Nice update by Bill McKibben at:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20676

P.S. Give the trolls warning, then banish them.

"Gouldie, I take it that you're supporting a carbon tax and not a wealth destroying cap and trade which is also easy to cheat , right? So you wouldn't be supporting Kyoto I guess?????"

So you believe government is better placed to set the price of carbon abatement than the market?

Okay.

Kyoto is a very imperfect instrument - in large part because of the concessions successfully demanded by the Clinton administration and Howard.

But it beats the hell out of governments sitting on they're arses yammering for a further decade.

If there's a Republican in the White House, there'll most likely be some face-saving cosmetic changes to let them proclaim victory over the evil forces of the Jew bankers (sorry, the international socialists) but it's far more likely to be a trading system rather than a tax system.

BTW, you DO know that carbon taxes are permitted under Kyoto right? It's not an either-or proposal.

A modest suggestion: Tim, if you don't want to exile jc, you can set up a jc box. jc can post whatever drivel he wishes wherever. Others can call him out in the jc box.

We did something slightly more clever over at a very popular photography site years ago, back when I was involved as a moderator.

A notable and obnoxious troll, posting under several names but using the same IP, had his posts set so *he* could see them, but no one else could.

Except moderators like myself.

It was actually quite humorous, watching this troll wondering in public why no one ever answered his posts any more ...

I suspect that if this were done here at deltoid, before long JC would start arguing with himself and after a few days wouldn't notice that anything was strange.

You bet to make money, not to be right.

That's clearly not the case with bets like these - which is why the arguments about odds are pretty pointless.

Frank

A notable and obnoxious troll, posting under several names but using the same IP, had his posts set so he could see them, but no one else could.

ROTFLMAO!

Beautiful.

richcares takes his ball and goes home. Sorry I ruined Deltoid.

I am truly surprised the deniers haven't jumped at the chance to bet. Many of them act like Julian Simon was the last word on the environment and that his bet with Paul Ehrlich sometime in the... Carter? era disproved all claims of environmental problems forever.

Nomen Nescio @ 50: Thank you! I knew there had to be a tool for this. >plonk<

boris says "Sorry I ruined Deltoid.", there are 58 posts, jc has 20 of them, yes boris you helped feed the troll. At least you admitted it.

richCares: mea culpa also. I won't be doing it again, thanks to Greasemonkey.

Nick Barnes, thanks to you and Nescio and greasemonkey, I think I will love it! Wow, no more jc!

1) I pine for the good ol' days of USENET, when one had one KILLFILE, and ignoring trolls was easy. These days, for the general case of multiple blogs, at the very least, one can do a virtual KILLFILE, in which once on, you NEVER, EVER AGAIN reply to people listed.

Moderation takes a lot of work ... but unfortunately, Gresham's law works for the Internet as well as for money: bad drives out the good, unless you work at it, in this case, as the signal/noise ratio degrades. I've seen this happen with numerous USENET groups. sigh.

2) Regarding bets, I've tried multiple times to get "it's cooling" people to bet, usually based on 5-year averages ending around 2020, and nobody has so far. www.logbets.org is useful.

For more open offers of long bets on climate and related subjects, see here, here, here, and here.

Re/ troll-feeding: indeed, it was cheap fun for a while, but that was a long time ago. By gobbling thread after thread, Jc has succeeded where other trolls have failed -- by prompting me to get off my lazy butt and install killfile. The knowledge that I will never read another of his comments again makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over. Thanks, Nomen!

And thanks, John Mashey, for returning us to the topic of long bets. I have watched with awe and admiration as you wrestled with a climate denier who was unwilling to bet. In the end, being a greased eel, he escaped -- but it sure put the discussion on a more positive footing. Out of curiosity: how many have signed up?

Silly me. I see you already supplied the answer: zero. Big surprise, huh?

Obscene callers need a reaction. Hang up.

A "growing number of climate experts" could mean that no one used to believe this bushwa, and now one person does.

"put your money where your mouth is" is an old saying that applies here (or is it just to Larry Craig.)

I did Rich.

I tried to bet the guy who runs that website 20G a couple of years ago and he backed out saying that it was too large and that the winnings needed to go to charity. It was also a little difficult to arrange as I wanted the funds escrowed by a law firm and he paid the legal fees in doing so.

Quite honestly, it's a set up , as I said. Not only do I think the odds are too low, but there is credit risk there and he hadn't thought of a way of mitigating it and make betting user friendly. It's a 20 year bet for Christ's sake. I'm not going take his word he'll be around in 20 years time, so why would anyone else? I now think the odds are far too low.

Marion

Another day another call to ban trolls or do something restrictive. Funny but that's all you comment on these days, Mr. Troll. Here's a thought, go set up your own website and see how how popular you become. Don't be such a big cry baby.

I had a fruitless conversation in comments with "jc", apparently, maybe a year ago about arranging a bet. I don't think we got to a detailed discussion about odds, except he didn't like the ones I offered. As you can see here, he's taking the typical denialist line of demanding a payout even if the consensus position of continued warming proves correct.

Jc refused to drop anonymity so much as to show his email, and had unrealistic ideas that a law firm would hold the money and cover the costs of the bet. I don't think he's serious. I offered to bet at longbets.org because then I didn't have to trust him, but he claims no interest.

All in all, there couldn't be a stronger contrast between jc and David Evans, a climate skeptic I did arrange a bet with, based on the sense I had after several emails and a phone conversation that I could trust Evans. As for trusting jc, you be the judge whether that's a good call. I'll stick to longbets for him.

It works! Really a neat idea. So long Jc, you won't be missed.

Brian, JC = Joe Cambria

"I had a fruitless conversation in comments with "jc", apparently, maybe a year ago about arranging a bet. I don't think we got to a detailed discussion about odds, except he didn't like the ones I offered"
.
It was fruitless on your part Brian, but not on mine. I made contact with you over placing a bet. It became obvious to me that you weren't in the least bit serious, had never really thought through the ramifications and were only there to create propaganda. I wasn't surprised. You also baliked at the size of the bet wanting to max out at US$1,000..... over a 20 year period.... whoope do!

"As you can see here, he's taking the typical denialist line of demanding a payout even if the consensus position of continued warming proves correct."

"Brian, I'm not taking any view except that I wanted to make a bet. Stop asserting things that you don't know about. What I do know is that your bet is bullshit. "

"Jc refused to drop anonymity so much as to show his email, and had unrealistic ideas that a law firm would hold the money and cover the costs of the bet."

Are you serious? This even proves my sincerity. I don't give a rats about your position, but I do give one about my own. Anything could happen to you over a 20-year period. In other words you could end up croaking it and I wouldn't be able to collect the winnings if I won. It's called credit risk in bank parlance and quite frankly I would want a little more than a promise that you would pay up in 20 years. And excuse me for trying to negotiate better terms. How on earth could any reasonable person see that as not being sincere? Escrowing with a legal type would protect both of us in the event of death, dopey. Moreover I think it is incumbent on you to figure a way of offering comfort to the person placing the bet by at least covering the cost of associated legal fees.

"I don't think he's serious. I offered to bet at longbets.org because then I didn't have to trust him, but he claims no interest"

What's longbets? You never mentioned what that is.

"All in all, there couldn't be a stronger contrast between jc and David Evans, a climate skeptic I did arrange a bet with, based on the sense I had after several emails and a phone conversation that I could trust Evans. "As for trusting jc, you be the judge whether that's a good call. I'll stick to longbets for him."

Really? I proposed escrow, Brian. That means trust wouldn't come into it. I couldn't give a toss if the other guy is more believing than I am. More to the point, why should I reveal who I am to you if we can't get past second base? All you need to know is that the funds are in escrow and you sign the dotted line where the lawyer tells you and get the money to his escrow agent.

You aren't serious. Your bet is a crock and all you're doing is offering up propaganda.

If you were serious you wouldn't be trying to spin this story like you are now. Your bet is a fraud and it wasn't fun proving it.

"yes boris you helped feed the troll. At least you admitted it."

I did indeed. In the future perhaps we shouldn't be so sanctimonious about commenting on a blog.

Brian, JC = Joe Cambria

The opinion piece you linked is almost as unreadable as his posts here. Blech.

I have to admit, I did some feeding too. Sorry folks, I'll stop.

I will email Ball and Harris and invite them to bet me though.

"there aren't as many people on the cooling side who are the complete idiots you want to take them for"

That's right, they aren't idiots, they're just liars when they say things like: "The world is cooling. Global temperatures have declined since 1998 and a growing number of climate experts expect this trend to continue until at least 2030."

Brian

Stop playing pretend games. You got caught out playing this nonsense game about trying to raise bets with people on a false premise, which is that no bet could be made under your conditions. In other words it's a crock. You got one poor dude sucked in for 20 years and you think that somehow validates you. It's propaganda. You don't have any platform to allow people to level a bet with the comfort they will have a chance of seeing their money at least not when I tried to have a go at it.

That's the problem with most of you guys who seem to never have had a long-term job in the private sector. You simply don't understand what the term, " a good client experience actually means". Brian certainly doesn't. You don't set up a betting parlor without a few tables and chairs, let alone free drinks.

The reason no one is responding is because none thinks you're credible. I certainly don't and I had unpleasant experience of your bet/non-bet.

Give it up and try to make an honest person of yourself. You'll feel better about your inner being. Try hot rock therapy as it works for me after a long massage by a good-looking gal.

Hoggsie

Stop belching. Frequent belching could be a sign of gastric disease so get it looked at as it could be serious. I mean it.

Back to the article. Have the decided who wrote it?
"
Politicians & the Global warming swindle.
Prepare for Cooling, not Warming
Friday, October 5, 2007
By Dr. Tim Ball

By Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris

The world is cooling. Global temperatures have declined since 1998 and a growing number of climate experts expect this trend to continue until at least 2030."

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/site/article/122

Oops, I disemvowelled myself. In #80, I meant to say "Have they decided who wrote it?" But it doesn't matter. Both authors have impressive qualifications, as they have indicated many times. Harris (or whoever was answering in this column) recently clarified his in this interview:

Another voice / Climate change

'Warming' alarmists must be held to higher standard

By Tom Harris and Ian Clark

Updated: 09/29/07 6:55 AM

"1. What is your climate science-related background?

"Most of those grabbing the spotlight have little or no post-secondary training in science or technology, let alone climate change. What do climate campaigners like Leonardo DiCaprio, Ted Turner and Sen. Barbara Boxer know about climate science? Actors, business people and politicians untrained in the field are as entitled as anyone to express their opinions about climate, but we need to take what they say with a rather large grain of salt.

2. How do you know the "vast majority of scientists" agrees with your view?
...
"
http://www.buffalonews.com/149/story/173084.html

Now we know the authors' climate science-related background.

Stop playing pretend games. You got caught out playing this nonsense game about trying to raise bets with people on a false premise, which is that no bet could be made under your conditions.

Jc, your problem is: we know you a little by now.

just by looking at what you wrote so far under this topic,
it is 100% clear that Brian's version of the story is the truth, while yours again is total nonsense!
hint: he is Not supposed to offer you whatever weird thing you demand!

please do all of us a favor:
visit some local sport bet shop, while a boxing match is running. step in front of the telly, and offer them your GDP bet. complain about the odds and demand free trinks. then wait and see, what a GOOD CLIENT EXPERIENCE is.

thanks.

Dan, I have searched and found sustantial links of peer reviewed research on anthromorphic global warming but none from the opposing view, all I find in oppositon are political statements, no science and that includes the 2 gentlemen you mentioned. If you have any links of peer reviewed science that could support an opposing view please post them.

sod,

all know he is a phony, no need to tell him. Check post #50, you will have no need to respond to the troll as all his comments won't appear, real neat. It's a pleasure to not see his posts and Deltoid becomes a valid blog site again. Love it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One caveat to those of you who just installed the killfile script - you must make sure that all variations of the initials jc are in there, as he's morphed his two-letter nick more than once, and the script is case sensitive. Just a heads up for everyone. Worse still, the script needs repair if it's going to deal with Lubos (who, thankfully doesn't come here often).

"Dan, I have searched and found substantial links of peer reviewed research on anthromorphic global warming but none from the opposing view".

Well, I take that challenge. Below you will see the article published by the self-same T. Ball named above, yes sir, in a "peer-re-viewed journal" on the subject of CO2 and global warming. Witness his genius. The publication was in the Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 42(2): 212-214 (1994). Well, ok, it was a book review, and they tend not to be peer-reviewed, but it is in a journal, nonetheless.

!! This article is a kind of holy grail, because here T. Ball presented his ONLY findings on CO2 and the atmosphere, from a life-time of being the first and best climatologist. His observations, in quotes:

1) "... Atmospheric carbon dioxide readings plummeted at Mauna Loa in the last two years. Why?"

Now if you want to see the genius of the author, just go to www.google.com and select Images. Type in
mauna loa co2,
and look for the CO2 plummet in the early 1990's. A genius can see what the rest overlook.

Where to read more: "Agricultural Dimensions of Global Climate Change, Edited by Harry M. Kaiser and Thomas E. Drennen, Delray Beach, Florida: St. Lucie Press, 1993, 311 pp., Book Review by Tim Ball".

2) The author's second published claim is that pre-industrial atmospheric carbon dioxide level of 270 ppm is what determines the slope of the apparent increase.

"They (the book authors, being reviewed by T. Ball) cite the pre-industrial atmospheric carbon dioxide level of 270 ppmv. I challenge the editors to find the source and validity of this figure. It is critical because it determines the slope of the carbon dioxide increase."

I never noticed this, how flat the CO2 line is, that it is determined by the pre-industrial level, and not by the annual and seasonal differences that one might THINK they see in the graph of Mauna Loa CO2. I doubt that you did, either.

Now you can see why he is lauded at the Canada Free Press, as well as many other news media and annual meetings of pork producers and old folks homes. And I suppose his partners are just as smart, but I haven't found anything yet, on which to judge, so reserve comment.

Dan,

here's an interesting site, it has thousands of links on global warming, including peer reviewed material, you may find it overwhelming:
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

as for Canada Free Press, I searched very hard there and found reviews, comments, opinions but no peer reviewed science. Excuse my scepticism but you also provied no peer reviewed science. why is that?

Well, some feel they CFP is the voice of truth, even better than your fancy peer-reviewed journals. After all, what other paper reprints news from The Onion as true stories?

On March 28, 2005, they published "Donning the mitre with "less pope-y duties" (link below):

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover032805.htm ,

But see:

"Cocky Pope-Hopeful Ready To Make Some Changes Around the Vatican", from the March 2 edition of The Onion.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30922

(Thanks to Alison for finding that.)

But, the bottom line is that maybe Ball & Co. have surpassed the need for peer-review, or science in general. The truth just comes to them. The secret seems to be raw skill, and includes two main attributes: an uncanny ability with models and forecasting (N.B. #1, below), and his humility (N.B. #2).

(1) Western Producer article (1996): "The next hot drought won't be until about 2035". Based on his modeling method (adding 17), he also indicated that a minor "cold" drought could occur in 2006.

Reality: major, record-breaking drought hits 2002-2003.

Subsequent Agvision TV, after the drought was well underway:

(Kevin) "I've heard you say that the drought that results from climate change, like we've had in the past three years in the prairies, should come as no surprise, and that it was entirely predictable. Can you explain that?"

(Ball) "...So there's all kinds of very good correlating evidence for the droughts. I wrote a column 2 years ago predicting this current drought. So there's really no excuse for being caught or blind-sided by it. "

http://agvisiontv.farms.com/story.cfm?segment=129

The good example, that lesser scientists (who got it wrong) should follow:

google agvisiontv "tim ball"

http://agvisiontv.farms.com/home.cfm?showid=30

"Kevin Stewart interviews Dr. Tim Ball who insists the drought conditions of the past couple years were entirely predictable and should have come as no surprise."

Well, get to work, you other so-called climatologists!

(2) Humility. "Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why. "
http://www.orato.com/node/398

How can you not respect that?

http://web.archive.org/web/20031008220038/http://www.envirotruth.org/dr…

http://web.archive.org/web/20060205093317/http://www.envirotruth.org/dr…

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/TBall%20state…

Dan, that comment was meant for Dan J. who believes the CFP

But thanks for the Onion Bit, my keyboard died as I spit a load of coffee on it, great laugh. Though I did see Drudge quoting an Onion story as true.

Thank you, I needed the laugh (thanks to Alison too)
follow the onion link in Dan's post for those who need laughs

forgot to mention the byline on the CFP story

Canada Free Press founding editor Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. Her work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, Glenn Beck and The Rant.

quoting an Onion story as true can win awards? (Onion, the web's best satire), they don't name the award. Great credibility!

Sorry about the confusion - the Dan and Dan J in these few are the same. And, no I am not a CFP fan. I am surprised that Ball's one and only journal reference to CO2 ever does not impress you in some way. I find it to be riveting, like his interviews... for example, when he discovered a conspiracy to keep mention of the Milankovitch effect out of text books. And when he informed a Senate committee that this cosmic effect is largely due to "the gravitational pull of the planet Jupiter", which apparently is one of the major forces that pulls earth's orbit into "an extreme elipse".

[Tim Ball's testimony -US House Subcommittee on Climate Change,](http://www.fcpp.org/main/media_file_detail.php?StreamID=575)

Or search http://fcpp.org/main/index.php

Dan, your satire is just a little too subtle for some. You've also had more dealings with the esteemed Dr. Ball than the rest of us, with the scars to prove it. (Thank you for calling his bluff). Yes, his book review was remarkable in presenting all the denialist points in concentrated form, and being remarkably ignorant of climate science issues for someone who claims to be a climate scientist (although he'd not done any relevant research in the area under discussion)

Dan J. said "Now you can see why he is lauded at the Canada Free Press", then he said "And, no I am not a CFP fan"
Anyone lauded at CFP is suspect.

on the Onion story, Judi McLeod, CFP founfing editor is not only reporting this story but she put her name to it, that is really funny, plagerizing an Onion satire as a vaild news story, just wild. Yet even more wild is quoting CFP as a valid news source on the global warming issue! The Onion did a piece ridiculing "Intelligent Design", they called it "Intelligent Falling" (gravity is a hoax) Really funny!

sorry Dan/Dan J, though I readily get the Onion satire I didn't get yours. Now that you mention it, it is funny, but Judi McLeod plagerizing an Onion story, that is rich, THANKS!

The date on that is March 28th though, so, April Fools excuse?

Sorry for being obscure. I just wanted to mention the one and only statement on CO2 that the author being discussed ever put in any science journal that I was able to find in hundreds of hours of digging. It must be his best stuff, one would think. "...carbon dioxide readings plummeted at Mauna Loa" in the early 1990s? Where is that on the graph of actual data, again? And you claim expertise??

Statements like this need to be examined as an indicator of quality of the position.

By the way, the brave, and perspicacious, people are those in the agriculture and industry community who smell something wrong with the arguments in the denier speaking tours, and then speak out. It's easier for academics and scientists (but not as easy as some think when they start). The article below in the Farmer's Indendent Weekly, "Some real science, please", deserves an award, in my opinion.

[Link](http://people.uleth.ca/~dan.johnson/pdf/John_Morriss_Some_real_science_…)

Or just find Farmers',
in http://www.uleth.ca/~dan.johnson

Well, I've emailed Ball asking him to bet me and he says he won't - he never bets, he says. I find that mysteriously common among denialists. If I were in the position to make money like they apparently are, based on what they claim to believe...

No word yet from Harris. I'll write up something at my blog and link back here.

Am I the only one who found his answer to this question to be "informative"?

'Warming' alarmists must be held to higher standard.
By Tom Harris and Ian Clark,
09/29/07

Interview:

"1. What is your climate science-related background?

"Most of those grabbing the spotlight have little or no post-secondary training in science or technology, let alone climate change. What do climate campaigners like Leonardo DiCaprio, Ted Turner and Sen. Barbara Boxer know about climate science? Actors, business people and politicians untrained in the field are as entitled as anyone to express their opinions about climate, but we need to take what they say with a rather large grain of salt."

end of answer

"I find that mysteriously common among denialists"

What you're possibly finding, brian is that they think your a nutball or a spammer who managed to get through.

Personally I don't think you're either. I just think you are perpetrating a pathetic fraud.

Keep it going and you will fast become the warmer's answer to the Nigerian email circus. Lol.

I have a warmer, but I don't turn it on until November, and then only under the desk near the window. It's Canada, but not a really cold part. What is "J.C." talking about? Is He trying to coin a phrase?

Sorry, sorry. It just hit me that He (J.C.) wants us to call him "cooler". I'm a little slow.

Nice guy you are Brian. Did you ask Ball if you could divulge the discussion contained in the email correpondence on various websites (not your own) or at the very least indicate your intention?

Here, I thought about somthing else relating to the Nigerian letter you could create... How's this:

Hello

My name is Brian Schmidt the 17th son of Harry Schmidt the former Nigerian finance minister. Several years ago my father died and left US35,000,0000 in a Swiss deposit box that can only be opened with a code and a safe deposit key which are not in my possession

Brian, fill in the rest.... Somehow you have to insert some storyline about the bet. That is, you need the money in order to make the bet and get the code and key. I racked my brains trying to figure ways to make that part of the scam sound legit. See if you can and simply add to the story. Let's call it a work in progress we're both working on.

Dan,
stop it! This is the second keyboard I have ruined by spitting coffee out laughing. I can't afford a third keyboard so stop the humor.

What you're possibly finding, brian is that they think your a nutball or a spammer who managed to get through.

i do not know, how they would come to this conclusion about Brian. we all came to this conclusion about you. spot the difference?

Nice guy you are Brian. Did you ask Ball if you could divulge the discussion contained in the email correpondence on various websites (not your own) or at the very least indicate your intention?
the guy we are talking about wrote an ARTICLE about global cooling. he was asked wether he would bet on his article beeing true and denied. yes, that is of "public interest", though i doubt that you understand that term.

Brian by the wy is talking about the topic at hand. you still are not on topic and keep just uttering nonsense again!

I don't understand the resistance to calling them coolers - after all, they approach science as though they were top-full of beer like their namesakes.

I've put the fun dialogue between Tim Ball and myself here:

http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2007/10/cheap-tawdry-and-useless-ti…

I especially liked his second response.

Serendipity. These very interesting comments on the issue just popped up:

http://allpoliticsnow.com/content/view/29/1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&ad…

Jc: "I just think you are perpetrating a pathetic fraud."

As if Jc cares about frauds. (Or maybe "The world is cooling" isn't a fraud.) What a laugh.

Anyone who really wants to demonstrate their certainty, either way, about climate change needn't engage in betting.

Simply enter into a futures contract for carbon emissions on the European Climate Exchange.

Chris

I think the terms were first used by james annnan- i think -to indicate where people stood. it was never meant as a slight - just an abbrevating descrption. I think it's a good way of doing things rather than paint sceptics as deniers similar to holocaust deniers.

Good point Ian:

But futures have their uses and so do straight out bets. You have to finance margin calls etc. in the futres markets whereas you don't with bets.

Ian, it looks to me like ECX futures markets expire in 2012 so they're too short to be a useful proxy for climate predictions:

http://www.europeanclimateexchange.com/uploads/documents/GettingStarted…

see page 4.

Also, the markets will reflect the consensus position that human-caused warming is happening, so there's no arbitrage margin for those of us who also support the consensus position. If the futures had extended out far enough, say 20 years, there would be a margin that denialists could bet against - if they actually believed what they're saying.

Whenever I hear sceptics, possibly unmoveable (a.k.a. deniers) complaining about being compared with holocaust deniers, I remember the story below, reprinted in Canada Free Press, and others like it. Climatology and science-based policy are "creeping fascism", and "Nazi-like"? Hmmm, fascists and nazis... isn't that a step worse than a holocaust denier? Maybe we could all whine the same name-calling complaint.

///
The Creeping Fascism of Global Warming Hysteria:
Man-made orthodoxy is a dogma of coercion, bias, and junk science

By Paul Joseph Watson
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/watsonglobalwarmingfascismhysteria15feb0…

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

"The hoax of the doctrine of man-made global warming that is being foisted upon the world by decree, and the junk science that is manipulated to support it, represents a creeping fascism whose agenda to stifle open debate betrays the fact that climate change hysteria is a farce intended to crush freedoms and further centralize global power...."

Previous URL: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/watson021307.htm

The part that gets me is. "Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon." What am I, a loser? I got none of that moolah.

"If there's a Republican in the White House, there'll most likely be some face-saving cosmetic changes to let them proclaim victory over the evil forces of the Jew bankers (sorry, the international socialists)"

Since when do the repubs have problems with Jews, Bankers or Jew Bankers? I think you mistook republicans for the A-holes on Kos, if that's possible.

Skeptics versus deniers versus denialists

Skepticism is an honorable term, and certainly most scientists are skeptics (in the sense of being data driven and being willing to look hard at theories and weight evidence).

I'd offer two questions for quickly whether someone is a legitimate skeptic in the classic sense, and has legitimate doubts, but just needs more information, or is a denier. [In my terminology, a denialist is someone who really propagates dinsinformation to deniers to keep them that way, and to skeptics to turn them into deniers, i.e., like a Fred Singer.]

A real skeptic should be able to say:
- I have some estimate of the likelihood of AGW being true (anywhere from 0-1), and my reservations are due to the following: A, B, C... and if those were resolved, my estimate for AGW being true would get much more likely.

For instance, it was quite legitimate a few year ago to say:
satellites seem to disagree with the ground stations, and that's a worry, but either the ground stations are wrong, or the satellites are wrong, or somewhere in between. That got resolved.

Question 1:
OK, what are your top 5-10 reasons for disagreeing with the consensus? And if convincing evidence disspells those, would you change your mind?
A studious skeptic should have a list, and be able to answer yes to the second part. If they are an honest skeptic, you can usually send them off to a set of web pages once you figure out their level of knowledge.

Or even simpler:
Question 2: What evidence would change your mind?

I once asked that of someone and she got very tense, said she didn't know, but would know when she saw it... Uh-oh.

Q: Have you talked to real climate scientists?
A: I've studied it carefully.

Q: That isn't what I asked, do you actually know any climate scientists?
A: (Angry): look, I've studied this carefully and I keep up with it.

Uh-huh.

Anyway, if someone wants to claim they're a legitimate skeptic trying to learn, ask them to list their top 5-10 concerns.

Otherwise, they remind me of working at a computer company (MIPS) that finally got big enough that IBM noticed our existence. Our lawyer asked for help, as he got the letter from IBM that said:

We've noticed you make computers. Therefore, you infringe our patents. Here's the list of the first 50. If you don't think you infringe those, we'll send you the next 50 ... and the next 50 ...
Talk to us about licensing.

(We didn't infringe the first, which claimed that because we shipped UNIX troff (which had an indent command), we therefore infringed a Selectric(TM) typewriter patent in which they'd invented indents...:-))

The second was similarly nuts, but we did a cross-license, because it was clear that we could never convince them we weren't infringing something.

"it was never meant as a slight"

Err, so what?

> Skepticism is an honorable term, and certainly most scientists are skeptics (in the sense of being data driven and being willing to look hard at theories and weight evidence).

That's a very optimistic view of scientists. Any evidence to back it up? I would suggest that like most people, scientists are politics driven, and being willing to examine new theories or face unpleasant evidence only as a last resort.

Firstly, Ben, I was referring to the various conspiracy theories about the "international socialists" supposedly promulgating belief in climate change.

These claims are just as imbecilic as the Nazi "international Jewish banking conspiracy" theories and deserve to be compared to them.

I get a similar rise out of anti-free trade "liberals" when I make the make comparison to their denunciations of globalisation.

Oh and as to Republicans not having a problem with Jews or Bankers, google George Soros' name some time.

Hold on. Ball (since he is the example denier in this discussion) has written a number of opinion news articles on how it is indeed warming, but that warming is better (this was some time after he had written that apparent warming was a figment of bad satellite data). Now he says it is cooling. So, does his current article claiming that it is cooling mean he is now in the "doom and gloom" camp, which the previously cheery deniers despised? Warming is "better", but now doom is coming through cooling.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=aeb40fd9-f370-405…

Historical footnote of interest.

An early use of the word "warmers" is here, in this deleted but archived "envirotruth" website (one of the articles that denied global warming, that they say they never did).

"The Envirotruth: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING."

http://web.archive.org/web/20020803013613/www.envirotruth.org/globalwar…

For years these websites said "Sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research", but one day they were all deleted.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020812142152/www.envirotruth.org/big_chill…

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.envirotruth.org/drball.cfm

32, no wait, 28, no, 12, no, 8, etc.

Maybe Harris and Ball ("growing list of climate experts" believe the world is cooling) and Avery and Singer ("500 scientists endorse unstoppable global warming") should get together and decide what the effect of solar activity and cosmic rays is on the asphalt of Mars and Pluto. Then they'll decide if we're at war with Eurasia or Eastasia.

"Oh and as to Republicans not having a problem with Jews or Bankers, google George Soros' name some time."

I don't get it? Is Soros a Jew? Do the repubs have a problem with him because he a Jew, or is it because he's a jerk?

gouldie

I googled Uncle George.

What I mostly found was varoius links starting out with........ Hungarian born George Soros, blah, blah, blah.

What's worse in your book, Ian? Disliking Uncle George because of his politics or hating Israel because it defends its people and kids from the clutches of barbarian fascist thugs who would kill every last Jew in Israel given the chance? And who exactly supports the barbaarians in various tacit ways? Take a wild guess!

Make the call Ian.

When the Arabs controlled Israel, they they didn't "kill every last Jew" despite centuries of "opportunity."

#117 Sortition (Yoram Gat) says:
me: Skepticism is an honorable term, and certainly most scientists are skeptics (in the sense of being data driven and being willing to look hard at theories and weight evidence).

Sortition:
That's a very optimistic view of scientists. Any evidence to back it up? I would suggest that like most people, scientists are politics driven, and being willing to examine new theories or face unpleasant evidence only as a last resort.

Good, properly skeptical question, Long answer.

(Quite often, when somebody says "most people..." they mean, "of the tiny number of people I know, most agree with me..." :-), but I don't mean that. I also don't mean that most scientists are objective about everything or that there is no confirmation bias. And of course, if something is an established theory, it takes stronger evidence to change people's minds, which is necessary for sanity.

So what could my statement mean?
"most" means >50%, and since I clearly haven't met >50% of the world's scientists, it can only mean that I think:

That I have enough experience [live contact and by reading]

a) with enough scientists

b) and representative enough

to have a valid sample to make that statement, DESPITE the clear examples of scientists, even great ones, who in fact get locked into positions that are not data-driven.

For example, Yoram would surely know of Sir Ronald Fisher (but for other readers see #322 in:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/g8-summit-declara…
who just wouldn't believe smoking-disease causation even as the data piled up.)

Linus Pauling and William Shockley are examples, and another (current) sad case is Syun-Ichi Akasofu. I've managed cognitive psychologists, and know other psychologists (relative, friends) well, and have read/discussed papers on belief systems in general and psychology of scientists in particular, so I'm familiar with the things that go wrong, and the fact that scientists are human, and that in fact, a lot of science is geared to get improved answers despite human foibles, egos, etc.

Nevertheless, personal experience leads me to the statement I made.

My sample size (at least 1000, of which at least 900 pretty well fit what I said) is adequate, although perhaps it is not adequately representative, i.e., as it is heavier weighted towards physical sciences (and parts of engineering where science is done, i.e., like in computer architecture, where quantitative analysis has often supplanted much of the old intuitive design styles).

Other than the cognitive & other experimental psychologists, I haven't had much firsthand exposure to social scientists. {Of course, coming from a physical sciences background, it is mandatory to have some suspicion bout whether some social sciences are sciences or not and I'm still not sure about economics. :-)]

Also, I've been lucky enough to have lots of firsthand exposure to good-to-elite scientists, and that might be unrepresentative as well.

Now, one should always be wary of anecdotal evidence, and I haven't done a formal study. BUT:

1) My undergraduate work was in math and physics (with a little psych on the side), before I switched to computer science for grad school. I also had summer/vacation jobs working with geoscientists.
I started reading Scientific American in 1967, and I am a AAAS member, so I read Science regularly.

2) I worked 10 years at Bell Labs, which once upon a time employed 25,000 people. A bunch were superb scientists, including of course, some great statisticians (like John Tukey and Joe Kruskal) who tried to keep the rest of us honest. Internal reviews of papers for external publication were so ferocious as to make external peer review easy. Of course, even the engineering sides used a lot of scientific-evidence-based analyses, which didn't stop every crazy idea, but killed off many.

3) I worked 15 years at MIPS and Silicon Graphics, much of the time as a Chief Scientist or equivalent, which meant that (especially at SGI) I spent about 50% of my time talking to customers / potential customers about what they were doing, what they needed, and (of course) why they should switch from their current vendor to us. :-) There was a time when 40% of the Top500 list of supercomputers was 40% SGI, so we talked to serious people. I helped sell a lot of those systems, and they were very data-driven sales.

More than half of the customers were scientists (split between academe, industry, and government), and a typical meeting might be half a day or a whole day, with me doing a presentation to a roomful of people, with a lot of skeptical give-and-take (people are not shy), plus informal interactions over lunch or dinner. Scientists primarily used SGI machines to gain insight, either via simulation, visualization, or both, so relevant topics about data quality, hypotheses, confidence, errors, etc, etc were often discussed, along with followup discussions of surprises revealed by better computing, as there were some people I saw repeatedly.

Scientists I talked to were mostly: physicists, physical chemists, biochemists/biologists, atmospheric and oceanographic climate researchers, petroleum geologists, seismologists, hydrologists, and medical researchers, as well as occasional mathematicians, statisticians, and computer scientists (although of course, many of us are really more like engineers, but there are some subspecialties, like performance analysis, that must act more like science.)

4) I know well a few members of the US National Academy of Sciences, plus one Nobel Prize winner.

5) And finally, between 1-2-day alumni events where one listens to scientists and hangs out with them [via Cambridge and Imperial College], and living a few miles from Stanford & SLAC, where there are numerous public lectures and opportunities for discussion, I can manage frequent interactions with good scientists. Also, I live in an (odd) town of which 10% of adults have PhDs and another 40% have other advanced degrees, so there are always people to talk to locally.

Anyway, I've certainly run into scientists that seemed fairly closed-minded, and plenty had strong opinions, but the most common questions were: "We're willing to listen, but what evidence do you have?" and "We are trying to get answers to these questions. Can you help us do that? When will be able to do that?"

I've done about 1500 (public talks plus sales calls), and I'd say that at least 500 of those were for primarily-science audiences, and most of those included time for closer interactions with at least a few people, and that's a 1000 right there.

Countries whose scientists I've talked to include: US, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, UK, Spain, France, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Israel, Greece, Bahrain, UAE, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, India, China, Hong Kong (when it was separate), Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand. The notable exception is Russia, but otherwise, most of the world's scientists live in those countries.

Bottom line: I'd say, at least 90% (900) of my putative 1000-scientist sample fit my original comment, and with that sample size, my sample would have to be very unrepresentative, or my assessments way off, for the real ratio to be less than 50%. And either of those *could* be true, but it will take some convincing evidence...

OK, your turn: you have a clear opinion at your website and here, so perhaps you can explain your evidence?

John,

Thanks for taking me seriously and responding in detail.

I clearly have not had interactions with nearly as many scientists as you have. My overall impression is very different - I'll describe some of it below. First, though, I want to make four points:

1. We might distinguish between two statements: scientists are data-driven on issues relating to their own field of research, and scientists (being ostensibly indoctrinated in objectivity) are data-driven on general issues, outside their field. I guess you believe the former is true, I am not sure about your position on the second one, so I'll focus on the former. I believe both of these statements are far from the truth.
2. What is of interest is how scientists handle information that they find unpleasant (for various reasons). Most scientists, like most people, would be unbiased (i.e., data driven) on any issue in which they do not have a personal stake - material, emotional or intellectual. The question is, then, whether scientists are able to keep the disinterested attitude when things become personal.
3. Academic science (and to a lesser extent, science carried out in other environments as well) is an intensely personal activity. The names of the actors are always very close to the focus of attention (often being the focus of attention), and the issues of distribution of prestige and material rewards are quite directly associated with scientific questions. When this is the case, most scientific issues become, to a large extent, personal.
4. Lastly: A self-respecting skeptic would approach any position which is self congratulatory with great care. Being scientifically educated (and to some extent being active in the scientific community), it would be self congratulatory for me - and for you - to believe that scientists are objective. This increases your burden of proof - and decreases mine.

And now for my personal observations (these are general observations - if you disagree with any of them, I can go into specific examples):

Academic science is highly hierarchical, with relatively few people getting much of the attention and power. It sometimes borders on a personality cult, where the mere mention of someone's name commands the attention of all in the field. The peer review process is arbitrary and biased. It is prone to fashion and turf wars. Poor, and at times fundamentally wrong, papers get published, and even draw significant attention (see 1, 2, 3), while good ones are rejected (effectively censored). Self promotion and personal relationships have a lot of influence over assessments of scientific value. Skepticism and objectivity to the academic are tools in the promotion of the career - used when convenient, discarded when not.

Industrial science, being less personal but more centrally managed, is free of many of the problems of academic science, but has its own problems. Scientists in industry are strongly encouraged to produce certain results - those that are pleasant to their managers. Here, too, skepticism (of management decisions) is usually not advisable.

John, Sortition: there is actually quite a lot of evidence available here so we don't need to rely on anecdote. Scientists are among the groups most studied by sociologists (they are good subjects because they write everything down and are easily accessible on university campuses, plus they organise themselves into labs). Starting with Robert K Merton and progressing onward, the basic conclusions of the literature are:

1) on most questions of science, scientists behave roughly as John says they do.

2) on most *contentious* questions of science, scientists behave roughly as Sortition says they do.

Most questions of science aren't really "contentious" in the relevant sense - there might be a lot of disagreement, but nobody's fundamental beliefs are being challenged and nobody's career is at risk. On things like string theory and on gravity waves[1], however, the cutting edge of science is basically defined by science politics. Harry Collins did a huge amount of work in this area (notoriously, he has spent so much time talking to gravity waves physicists that he was able to pass himself off as one in a "Turing Test" email exchange organised for a sociology experiment), and his interviews suggested that they often basically decided who to believe on the basis of "he's a good guy", "that lab has a reputation for thoroughness", "the other guy acted really weird at a conference once" - this sounds terrible but actually it's the only way that science can be organised if it's going to be carried out by human beings who would never get any of their own work done if they spent every minute of the day checking through other people's proofs in the way we hope they do. The general (scandalous) standard of peer review is perhaps a whole nother question.

I can thoroughly recommend Collins' book "The Golem" as a summary of what I'm on about.

[1] In the case of gravity waves, it's not the *existence* of gravity waves that's political - more or less everyone believes in them. The controversy is about what constitutes acceptable evidence of having experimentally detected gravity waves. I put this in because the mention of string theory might have implied that experimental sciences are immune to scientific politics and they aren't.

Surely, the short answer is that at the cutting edge of science, where the data is unclear/ insufficient, there is a lot of politics. But the cutting edge is not what most of us use, and indeed the cutting edge regarding climate change was passed quite a few years ago.

We have similar problems here at work though- the (rubbish) management will decide stuff based on gut instinct and lack of data, us poor downtrodden middle level people will decide stuff on both gut instinct and previous experience with the process/ machinery, coupled with some test data. We of course think we're much superior to the management...

dsquared,

Thanks for the references - I'll see if I can get hold of them.

A-priory, however, I doubt very much that the literature would contain convincing evidence that
> 1) on most questions of science, scientists behave roughly as John says they do.

Beyond the fact that, if true, this would contradict my personal observations and those by others I discussed these matters with, I can't imagine what methodology could be used to produce convincing evidence that scientists are objective.

It appears to me that any determination that scientists behave in an unbiased, data-driven way would have to rely on subjective evaluation, and would thus not carry much weight. Could you describe what methodologies are used by the researchers in this field?

As for
> 2) on most contentious questions of science, scientists behave roughly as Sortition says they do.

> Most questions of science aren't really "contentious" in the relevant sense - there might be a lot of disagreement, but nobody's fundamental beliefs are being challenged and nobody's career is at risk.

I find, as I explained above, that everybody's careers, beliefs and egos are very often at risk when making decisions on what (and whose) work is of scientific value. Naturally it is rarely admitted, but the disagreements that exist are mostly on those grounds rather than on scientific grounds.

"Oh and as to Republicans not having a problem with Jews or Bankers, google George Soros' name some time."

I don't get it? Is Soros a Jew? Do the repubs have a problem with him because he a Jew, or is it because he's a jerk?"

GOPUSA.com a website closely linked to the Republican Party published an editorial referring to soros as "a descendant of Shylock" amongst various examples of typical antisemitic slurs.

Go past the first few pages of google entries and you'll finad a morass of right wing anti-semtici attacks on Soros.

"What's worse in your book, Ian? Disliking Uncle George because of his politics or hating Israel because it defends its people and kids from the clutches of barbarian fascist thugs who would kill every last Jew in Israel given the chance? "

What's worse engaging in a little covert antisemitism with a bunch of people who's innate contempt for Jews is temporarily overwhelemed by their admiration for said Jews arab-killing prowess or being a pig-ignorant and pig-like goyim who smears and abuses and holocaust survivor while puking back out the likudnik propaganda he's happily swallowed?

The horseshit spread about Soros by the extrme right of the Jewish world doesn't reflect the majority of Jewish opinion.

Brian Schmidt, what address do you have to Ball? I sent a perfectly polite email to the link at the article, and have got nothing back. I see he pries himself in responding, unlike people who get a large volume of responses. I'm sure it's Bon Carter who is the 'growing number of experts' (is he gaining weight - that might make him growing, but I think the number would still be constant).
Poor Bob, flown to England to be ignored.

Stewart, email me: schmidtb98 at yahoo com and I'll forward it to you.

Not sure why I'm protecting Ball from spambots patrolling the Internet that would pick up his address if I put it here...

I will bet that world GDP will be higher in 20 years time than it is right now. Use a proxy. US GDP will be higher than it is now. I expect decent odds.

GDP will be higher as a function of population, if nothing else. This highlights a key point, however: We can well afford to work against climate change. Conservation of natural resources is always a good investment.