Slashdot Mirror
Climate Modeller Wins $10,000 Wager Against Solar Physicists, Fails To Collect (blogspot.com)
Layzej writes: Back in 2005, solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev made a $10,000 bet that global temperatures, driven primarily by changes in the Sun's activity, would fall over the next decade. The bet would compare the then record hot years between 1998 to 2003 with that between between 2012 and 2017. With temperatures falling from their peak during the 1998 super El-Nino, and solar output continuing to fall, this seemed like a sure bet. The results are now in and all datasets show that climate modeler James Annan is the clear winner.
At the time of the wager, Annan had supposed that the reputation of the scientists involved would be enough to ensure payment once the bet was settled. Unfortunately, as was the case with Alfred Russel Wallace's famous 1870 bet against flat-Earthers, the losing parties have refused to pay up.
"More precisely, Bashkirtsev is refusing to pay," writes the climate modeler on his blog, "and Mashnich is refusing to even reply to email.
"With impressive chutzpah, Bashkirtsev proposed we should arrange a follow-up bet which he would promise to honour."
At the time of the wager, Annan had supposed that the reputation of the scientists involved would be enough to ensure payment once the bet was settled. Unfortunately, as was the case with Alfred Russel Wallace's famous 1870 bet against flat-Earthers, the losing parties have refused to pay up.
"More precisely, Bashkirtsev is refusing to pay," writes the climate modeler on his blog, "and Mashnich is refusing to even reply to email.
"With impressive chutzpah, Bashkirtsev proposed we should arrange a follow-up bet which he would promise to honour."
Anyone denying the reality of anthropogenic climate change while at the same time claiming to uphold scientific integrity has none to begin with.
Slashdot posts don't get deleted. Perhaps they are being moderated below your reading threshold.
As long as you've been around, and you don't know this?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Why would anyone dishonest enough to deny climate change be considered honest enough to honor a wager?
He didn't deny climate change. Quite the opposite his, side of the wager was that there many things influencing climate change and he wagered that the climate would cool based on the weighting he applied to those influences.
Not everyone is a "climate change denier". Some people are legitimately wrong.
That makes it a pure ad hom. And a genetic fallacy too: if it's "from the left" it "must be wrong".
The solar cycle is huge, and back then no we didn't know the significance, it was at best an each way bet with the information on hand.
Solar cycle is not huge, it's about 0.1%
http://www.am.ub.edu/~blai/com...
In 2005, it was very well known that greenhouse effect was much bigger.