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."
Why would anyone dishonest enough to deny climate change be considered honest enough to honor a wager?
Okay, let's discuss. a) Local is not global. b) Global warming leads to more variation, not uniform warming. Look at the polar vortex, for example. That was predicted by models beforehand, as well. c) Warming leads to more moisture in the atmosphere, which leads to higher precipitation, including snow when the conditions are right. In other words, you have to show that what is being seen in the global trends and the cherry picked odd local events are both inconsistent with global warming and easily explained by something else. Good luck.
So why the fuck should we care about your anecdote?
Oh, I see. You're one of those jackoffs.
You are welcome on my lawn.
That is the same thing religious nuts say. If you donâ(TM)t proclaim your complete belief in a god then you do not believe at all. It is absolutism. This is the problem today with undereducated layman like you becoming the enforcers for the science made stupid crowd on the left.
the closest thing to reportage here is links to a blog and also a graph of some sort i honestly don't have time to bother figuring out. it looks like temperature readings from... somewhere? someone?, hosted by "woodfortrees.org", which seem to support the claims of the blog post. um, okay? who the fuck are these people?
no, i'm not accusing slashdot editors of political bias. that is precluded by hanlon's razor, as they have already proven themselves utterly incompetent.
nor am i claiming that the story is even false. i just have no strong reason to believe it's true yet.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
This folks, is what happens to minds, who are only able to bear false witness. Sad.
I've tried to understand the phenomena. I think a lot of it stems from training in youth, or perhaps lack of it. While many religions do many good things, they generally all teach belief in what can't be proven beyond any possible doubt, since that is usually the point. Its a curious skill, because it paves the way to believe things without a factual basis. Those without any training at all, and in particular those that have no desire to look at any problem or situation in detail similarly gain the skill or lack of skill in just believing what is in front of them.
Being part of a tribe exacerbates this, particularly if the tribes major goals are considered threatened by members of an opposing tribe. Things seem to be rejected simply because they are of the other. Indeed it seems quite common to make the other as scary as possible, which further makes it difficult for members of the tribe to consider betraying the tribes ideas or even considering the other. Of course if you add religion back in it just adds to the effect, since many religious people are well used to both compromising for the greater good and blocking out any information that conflict with the "greater truths"
Add in foreign powers that want to crank all of our divisions up to infinity and beyond, plus lots of ways to do it, and you have today. Perhaps 1984 was a bit late, and I doubt we have seen the apogee of it yet, but I think we are in it.
The only cure I see is better correct training in critical thinking, preferably when people are young. The scientific method isn't just for science. You can think, reason, understand, hypothesis, check your hypothesis, etc, etc, on any subject. I think this is also why your see the right push intelligent design, textbook editing, etc. They want to indoctrinate early, since it benefits the tribe. Indeed I think much of it is behind the push for anti-intellectualism for well, much of my lifetime I suppose.
In short, saying we need to teach people to think more critically, to be more skeptical, to always test beliefs and theories, is easier said than done. First they would need to win a lot of elections to even have a chance to do that kind of change, which would of course freak out the other side causing even more escalation.
It is a rather curious thing. The hard right doesn't want to have their ideas compete in an open market of ideas. No they want to shutdown the market entirely, and make and keep people too uninformed to recognize that they are too uninformed, which come to think of it, brings us full circle, since that state is exactly the state that makes it easier for foreign powers and well really anyone to manipulate the populous, with the ongoing manipulation from well a lot of sources making it near impossible to take the steps to stop the ongoing manipulation.
A lot of people (here, especially) reject the 'appeal to expert' logical fallacy. It takes some form of 'experts say' and related. They want to see the data and decide for themselves. Whenever they hear an appeal to expert, it turns them off. But if I don't have the time or expertise to delve into the data, one can accept suitably formed appeals.
Some part of the response to climate change does involve power grabs and redistribution.
It is important to separate the question of whether there is global warming or anthropogenic global warming, and the responses to it.
Nothing wrong with proposing an alternate hypothesis and testing it, that's how science works, failures are just as important.
The problem is getting so emotionally involved that you would bet a large sum instead of a pizza or case of beer and not accept the negative result and change viewpoints.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
then you are denying human activity is a factor.
They did not deny it, they just underestimated it.
You cannot bet on temps dropping without being a climate science denier. The two are mutually exclusive.
Nonsense. They were NOT denying global warming. They were just underestimating how quickly it would dominate other factors. There is no doubt that solar activity affects earth's temperature. There is no (reasonable) doubt that human activity affects earth's temperature. Disagreeing about the relative magnitudes does not make them "deniers".
Seems like Trump is a Russia then as he's not paying $1m to charity for losing the Elizabeth Warren's DNA test claim - then again, he is just a dishonourable human being anyway
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Amen, brother! I have never really understood how anyone could consider blind faith a virtue.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Don't move the goal posts. The issue was whether or not she had one distant Native American ancestor. She does.
I don't expect him to ever pay, though. He never pays money he owes, and he always lies about what he said. His word is as worthless as his deals are.