I wonder if they’d bet on it?

Tim Ball and Tom Harris tell us:

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.

i-5d318ba18118911a2d4e1b2e5b1f994f-Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Do you think that Ball or Harris or any of these “growing number” of climate experts would be willing to bet on cooling?

Comments

  1. #1 Tony
    October 7, 2007

    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?

  2. #2 Sam-Hec
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  3. #3 Jc
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  4. #4 Nick Barnes
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  5. #5 Ian Gould
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  6. #6 Ian Gould
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  7. #7 bigcitylib
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  8. #8 Jc
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  9. #9 Jc
    October 7, 2007

    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?????

  10. #10 Nick Barnes
    October 7, 2007

    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?

  11. #11 sod
    October 7, 2007

    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!!!

  12. #12 blf
    October 7, 2007

    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…)

  13. #13 Jc
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  14. #14 sod
    October 7, 2007

    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?

  15. #15 Jc
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  16. #16 sod
    October 7, 2007

    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?

  17. #17 Jc
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  18. #18 sod
    October 7, 2007

    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!!!

  19. #19 sod
    October 7, 2007

    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?

  20. #20 Jc
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  21. #21 Jc
    October 7, 2007

    19 sorry

    I meant warming…

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

  22. #22 Jc
    October 7, 2007

    “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.

  23. #23 Jc
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  24. #24 richCares
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  25. #25 Jc
    October 7, 2007

    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!

  26. #26 stewart
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  27. #27 richCares
    October 7, 2007

    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!

  28. #28 Jc
    October 7, 2007

    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?

  29. #29 Tim Lambert
    October 7, 2007

    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?

  30. #30 Jc
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  31. #31 Lee
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  32. #32 Tim Lambert
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  33. #33 Boris
    October 7, 2007

    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?

  34. #34 Lee
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  35. #35 Jc
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  36. #36 cce
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  37. #37 Jc
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  38. #38 Lee
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  39. #39 richCares
    October 7, 2007

    Boris, please don’t feed the troll as this tends to make this blog “jc’s blog”

  40. #40 Jc
    October 7, 2007

    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?

  41. #41 John Cross
    October 7, 2007

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

  42. #42 DantheMan
    October 7, 2007

    jc said “Call me anything you like…”

    OK, you are an idiot!
    Thank you

  43. #43 Lee
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  44. #44 Jc
    October 7, 2007

    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?

  45. #45 Boris Brings People Together
    October 7, 2007

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

  46. #46 John Cross
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  47. #47 Eli Rabett
    October 7, 2007

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

  48. #48 Eli Rabett
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  49. #49 Jc
    October 7, 2007

    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?

  50. #50 Nomen Nescio
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  51. #51 richCares
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  52. #52 Lee A. Arnold
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  53. #53 Ian Gould
    October 7, 2007

    “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.

  54. #54 dhogaza
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  55. #55 Frank
    October 7, 2007

    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

  56. #56 Obdulantist
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  57. #57 Boris
    October 7, 2007

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

  58. #58 TTT
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  59. #59 Nick Barnes
    October 7, 2007

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

  60. #60 richCares
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  61. #61 Nick Barnes
    October 7, 2007

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

  62. #62 richCares
    October 7, 2007

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

  63. #63 John Mashey
    October 7, 2007

    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. http://www.logbets.org is useful.

  64. #64 Nick Barnes
    October 7, 2007

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

  65. #65 jre
    October 7, 2007

    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?

  66. #66 jre
    October 7, 2007

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

  67. #67 Marion Delgado
    October 7, 2007

    Obscene callers need a reaction. Hang up.

  68. #68 Ray C.
    October 7, 2007

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

  69. #69 richCares
    October 7, 2007

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

  70. #70 Jc
    October 7, 2007

    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.

  71. #71 Brian Schmidt
    October 8, 2007

    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.

  72. #72 Harald Korneliussen
    October 8, 2007

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

  73. #73 gustov_deleft
    October 8, 2007

    Brian, JC = Joe Cambria

  74. #74 Jc
    October 8, 2007

    “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.

  75. #75 Boris
    October 8, 2007

    “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.

  76. #76 dhogaza
    October 8, 2007

    Brian, JC = Joe Cambria

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

  77. #77 Brian Schmidt
    October 8, 2007

    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.

  78. #78 Chris O'Neill
    October 8, 2007

    “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.”

  79. #79 Jc
    October 8, 2007

    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.

  80. #80 Dan
    October 8, 2007

    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

  81. #81 Dan
    October 8, 2007

    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.

  82. #82 sod
    October 8, 2007

    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.

  83. #83 richCares
    October 8, 2007

    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.

  84. #84 richCares
    October 8, 2007

    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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  85. #85 mndean
    October 8, 2007

    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).

  86. #86 Dan (J, that is)
    October 8, 2007

    “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 http://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.

  87. #87 richCares
    October 8, 2007

    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?

  88. #88 Dan
    October 8, 2007

    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.)

  89. #89 Dan
    October 8, 2007

    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/drball.cfm

    http://web.archive.org/web/20060205093317/http://www.envirotruth.org/drball.cfm

    http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/TBall%20statement%20of%20claim.pdf

  90. #90 richCares
    October 8, 2007

    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

  91. #91 richCares
    October 8, 2007

    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!

  92. #92 Dan J
    October 8, 2007

    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

  93. #93 stewart
    October 8, 2007

    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)

  94. #94 richCares
    October 8, 2007

    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!

  95. #95 richCares
    October 8, 2007

    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!

  96. #96 FhnuZoag
    October 8, 2007

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

  97. #97 Dan J
    October 8, 2007

    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_please.pdf)

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

  98. #98 Brian Schmidt
    October 8, 2007

    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.

  99. #99 Dan
    October 8, 2007

    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

  100. #100 Jc
    October 8, 2007

    “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.

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!