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 ...
They weren't denying AGW. They just thought the sunspot cycle would dominate. They were wrong.
Anyway, Annan should have used a blockchain based smart contract to implement the wager. Then it would have auto-paid, with no ability to welch.
Loaning someone $20, and them not paying you back is a great way to never deal with them again.
"You still owe me, I'm not giving you shit."
One of my nephews lost out on $1200 worth of car troubles for $20.
Fuck them if they don't pay, he has no currency. (paul simon, if you don't get it.) ... ...
He holds no currency
He is a foreign man
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
I can't count the number of times I've read this kind of misunderstanding about religious faith, but I don't mind correcting it every single time I run across it.
Religions do not teach belief in what "can't be proven beyond any possible doubt", they teach metaphysics. Not physics, but philosophy. It teaches people to reach conclusions about the ultimate origins and sources of the physical world we find ourselves in -- about which, empirical science has absolutely nothing to say.
You cannot prove that God exists or doesn't exist, because by definition God would be outside the limits of any such proof. The inability to prove something empirically is very often mistaken for the idea that it CAN'T be proven. But it's just a problem with YOUR ability to prove or disprove. Your intellectual tools are simply inadequate to the task at hand. You cannot run a test if your equipment is incapable of measuring the thing you are testing.
But the intellectual tools of empiricism are adequate to establish the fact of a physical universe. And it that very fact which demands we answer the question of WHY. Why is all of this here? Where did it all come from? What's the point? You cannot say "it came from nothing and means nothing", because it is SOMETHING.
The way that Paul puts it is, "Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for, and the certainty of what we do not see." These are philosophical commitments. They are conclusions about the meaning and purpose of life, a meaning which transcends our ability to see physically.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
You cannot prove that God exists or doesn't exist, because by definition God would be outside the limits of any such proof.
This is clearly false. The god of most religions, including all the Christian varieties, is certainly within limits of proof of existence.
If a deity materialized a fifty mile long floating sign in the sky saying "I exist", and invited modern day Thomas to stick his test swabs in His wounds, the existence most certainly would be proven.
The claim that gods are outside the limits of proofs is contingent on the god not doing anything that is verifiable or that can be ascribed to other causes. In itself, that is heavy evidence (although not proof) that gods either do not exist, are impotent, or don't give a fuck.
Trump wanted to use DNA, so tough cookies. That just means Trump is going to skip paying yet another bill he created for himself. This shouldnâ(TM)t be surprising since he tried quite often to avoid paying everyone from banks to regular contractors. The smaller the contractor, the better, since it meant the losses might bankrupt them and heâ(TM)d get all the work and materials free! I suggest every Trump supporter skip paying their bills and just point at the president when asked why they think they shouldnâ(TM)t have to pay up.
Most Native Americans, myself included, donâ(TM)t just use DNA. In fact it is possible that someone who is lily white can be considered Native. We usually base it off of cultural upbringing, hence why my friend (who is as white as his Finnish first name and ancestry would suggest) who was raised from 2 in a mixed Native/Finnish family has all the rights of a Native on tribal land. Since he was raised within the tribe, he is considered of the tribe. Conversely some people who are 1/4 Native by blood (genetics) arenâ(TM)t in many cases because they donâ(TM)t know the tribal history/customs.
If 1/1024th ancestry makes Warren a native american then so is roughly half of the USA population. If that's the bar to clear to claim tribal ancestry then it means she's not even close to being unique in her claims.
All Warren produced was a DNA test with inconclusive results, based on DNA from south american DNA samples. If she has a native american ancestor then it is not Cherokee as she claimed. She opened the door to ridicule with her claims in the first place, she could have dropped it and people likely would have forgotten about it in time. She proved her own lie with her DNA test, and now it will not go away.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.