Professor Richard Lindzen (http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm) is a prominent sceptic who claims that the anthropogenic influence on our climate is close to negligible and that in fact cooling is about as likely as warming over the next 20 years. Now, although there is certainly some non-zero chance of cooling on this time scale (due to the natural variability of the climate, and the possibility of large volcanic eruptions), this opinion certainly seems to be well to one extreme of what most climate scientists think.
Recently, my attention was drawn to some comments attributed to Lindzen in http://www.reason.com/rb/rb111004.shtml: "Richard Lindzen says he's willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now." (thanks to William Connolley for the tip). Given his widely-promulgated views, I took this quote at face value and contacted him to arrange a wager. A payoff at retirement age would be a nice top-up to my pension.
Now here's the kicker. Richard Lindzen will indeed accept a bet - but only if offered odds of 50:1 in his favour! He actually started out quoting 100:1 - but came down to 50:1 in what he described as a special favour to me. If the temperatures went down, I was to hand over $10,000, but in the event of a rise, I'd get a whopping $200. That's worth around $8 per year on my pension. Whoop-de-doo.
That's not really quite what I had in mind. In fact, not only is it a waste of time for me, but I think that his side of the bet is actually substantially more attractive than mine. Note that I certainly do not consider myself to be a sceptic, but on the contrary am just a bit-part player in climate research who thinks that the IPCC report has (broadly speaking) got it right. Yet here is one of the most prominent sceptics who is apparently substantially less confident about the chances of medium-term cooling than I am myself! As a ballpark estimate, I reckon something in the region of 10:1 or 5:1 odds on the bet would probably be fair on the 20 year time scale - I haven't tried to pin it down with any great precision, as I had assumed at the outset that there was such a gulf between my viewpoint and Richard Lindzen's that it would be easy to find a mutually agreeable wager in the region of 2:1 or 3:1 odds. As I explained to him, 3:1 would be a reasonable middle ground between an honest sceptic - Mr 50-50, who believes cooling is as likely as warming and would therefore expect to win $1 on average from a $3 v $1 bet - and a (mythical?) "true believer" who believes that a rise in temperatures is certain and would therefore also expect the same bet to be worth $1 to _him_. I'm not claiming here that 3:1 is the _correct_ odds to arrange a bet - but it certainly provides a meaningful and realistic starting point for negotiations, in contrast to Lindzen's absurd proposition. I hadn't reckoned that the gulf in opinions was that _he_ was more insistent on warming taking place, and less confident about the prospects of cooling, than _I_ was!
Richard Lindzen's words say that there is about a 50% chance of cooling. His wallet thinks it is a 2% shot. Which do you believe? He says he was misrepresented in the quote on the reason.com site - can we expect to see a correction, and headlines in the sceptic press along the lines of "Richard Lindzen thinks there is at least a 2% chance of global cooling"? I'd probably take bets against that happening, too - and 50:1 against seems fair in this case :-) If any other sceptics put more faith in Lindzen's predictions than he does himself, I'd be very interested in hearing from you. There isn't much money in climate science, and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement.
As a Buddhist, i don't know much about gamboling, so please correct me if I am wrong, but aren't there people in Las Vegas who will set odds on anything? So what is the line on 20 years of Global Warming? I'm sure you could get better than Lindzen's phony 50:1, and you probably would get an honest wager too. Maybe, the bookmakers are on the net.
Michael Tobis wrote: > This is an important story which deserves wider notice. Maybe you can > attach it on a "consensus" thread on realclimate ?
I'm not really interested in discussing it somewhere where other people have editorial control. If someone else wishes to write something on it, they are welcome.
(I do test out this policy occasionally, but only end up re-learning the same lesson again.)
James Annan wrote: > Professor Richard Lindzen (http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm) > is a prominent sceptic who claims that the anthropogenic influence on > our climate is close to negligible and that in fact cooling is about as > likely as warming over the next 20 years. Now, although there is > certainly some non-zero chance of cooling on this time scale (due to the > natural variability of the climate, and the possibility of large > volcanic eruptions), this opinion certainly seems to be well to one > extreme of what most climate scientists think.
> Recently, my attention was drawn to some comments attributed to Lindzen > in http://www.reason.com/rb/rb111004.shtml: "Richard Lindzen says he's > willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will > in fact be lower than they are now." (thanks to William Connolley for > the tip). Given his widely-promulgated views, I took this quote at face > value and contacted him to arrange a wager. A payoff at retirement age > would be a nice top-up to my pension.
> Now here's the kicker. Richard Lindzen will indeed accept a bet - but > only if offered odds of 50:1 in his favour! He actually started out > quoting 100:1 - but came down to 50:1 in what he described as a special > favour to me. If the temperatures went down, I was to hand over $10,000, > but in the event of a rise, I'd get a whopping $200. That's worth around > $8 per year on my pension. Whoop-de-doo.
> That's not really quite what I had in mind. In fact, not only is it a > waste of time for me, but I think that his side of the bet is actually > substantially more attractive than mine. Note that I certainly do not > consider myself to be a sceptic, but on the contrary am just a bit-part > player in climate research who thinks that the IPCC report has (broadly > speaking) got it right. Yet here is one of the most prominent sceptics > who is apparently substantially less confident about the chances of > medium-term cooling than I am myself! As a ballpark estimate, I reckon > something in the region of 10:1 or 5:1 odds on the bet would probably be > fair on the 20 year time scale - I haven't tried to pin it down with any > great precision, as I had assumed at the outset that there was such a > gulf between my viewpoint and Richard Lindzen's that it would be easy to > find a mutually agreeable wager in the region of 2:1 or 3:1 odds. As I > explained to him, 3:1 would be a reasonable middle ground between an > honest sceptic - Mr 50-50, who believes cooling is as likely as warming > and would therefore expect to win $1 on average from a $3 v $1 bet - and > a (mythical?) "true believer" who believes that a rise in temperatures > is certain and would therefore also expect the same bet to be worth $1 > to _him_. I'm not claiming here that 3:1 is the _correct_ odds to > arrange a bet - but it certainly provides a meaningful and realistic > starting point for negotiations, in contrast to Lindzen's absurd > proposition. I hadn't reckoned that the gulf in opinions was that _he_ > was more insistent on warming taking place, and less confident about the > prospects of cooling, than _I_ was!
> Richard Lindzen's words say that there is about a 50% chance of cooling. > His wallet thinks it is a 2% shot. Which do you believe? He says he was > misrepresented in the quote on the reason.com site - can we expect to > see a correction, and headlines in the sceptic press along the lines of > "Richard Lindzen thinks there is at least a 2% chance of global > cooling"? I'd probably take bets against that happening, too - and 50:1 > against seems fair in this case :-) If any other sceptics put more faith > in Lindzen's predictions than he does himself, I'd be very interested in > hearing from you. There isn't much money in climate science, and I'm > still looking for that gold watch at retirement.
Perhaps I could suggest another way of making this bet. We start with a basic bet of $100. If the temperature in 2025 is 0.2 C higher then the bet is a push. Otherwise we have the following schedule
Anomoly vs DT and so on -1.2 Lindzen wins 6400 -1.0 Lindzen wins 3200 -0.8 Lindzen wins 1600 -0.6 Lindzen wins 800 -0.4 Lindzen wins 400 -0.2 Lindzen wins 200 0.0 Lindzen wins 100 +0.2 No one wins +0.4 Annan wins 100 +0.6 Annan wins 200 +0.8 Annan wins 400 +1.0 Annan wins 800 +1.2 Annan wins 1600 +1.4 Annan wins 3200 +1.6 Annan wins 6400 and so on
> James Annan wrote: > > Professor Richard Lindzen (http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm) > > is a prominent sceptic who claims that the anthropogenic influence on > > our climate is close to negligible and that in fact cooling is about as > > likely as warming over the next 20 years. Now, although there is > > certainly some non-zero chance of cooling on this time scale (due to the > > natural variability of the climate, and the possibility of large > > volcanic eruptions), this opinion certainly seems to be well to one > > extreme of what most climate scientists think.
> > Recently, my attention was drawn to some comments attributed to Lindzen > > in http://www.reason.com/rb/rb111004.shtml: "Richard Lindzen says he's > > willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will > > in fact be lower than they are now." (thanks to William Connolley for > > the tip). Given his widely-promulgated views, I took this quote at face > > value and contacted him to arrange a wager. A payoff at retirement age > > would be a nice top-up to my pension.
> > Now here's the kicker. Richard Lindzen will indeed accept a bet - but > > only if offered odds of 50:1 in his favour! He actually started out > > quoting 100:1 - but came down to 50:1 in what he described as a special > > favour to me. If the temperatures went down, I was to hand over $10,000, > > but in the event of a rise, I'd get a whopping $200. That's worth around > > $8 per year on my pension. Whoop-de-doo.
> > That's not really quite what I had in mind. In fact, not only is it a > > waste of time for me, but I think that his side of the bet is actually > > substantially more attractive than mine. Note that I certainly do not > > consider myself to be a sceptic, but on the contrary am just a bit-part > > player in climate research who thinks that the IPCC report has (broadly > > speaking) got it right. Yet here is one of the most prominent sceptics > > who is apparently substantially less confident about the chances of > > medium-term cooling than I am myself! As a ballpark estimate, I reckon > > something in the region of 10:1 or 5:1 odds on the bet would probably be > > fair on the 20 year time scale - I haven't tried to pin it down with any > > great precision, as I had assumed at the outset that there was such a > > gulf between my viewpoint and Richard Lindzen's that it would be easy to > > find a mutually agreeable wager in the region of 2:1 or 3:1 odds. As I > > explained to him, 3:1 would be a reasonable middle ground between an > > honest sceptic - Mr 50-50, who believes cooling is as likely as warming > > and would therefore expect to win $1 on average from a $3 v $1 bet - and > > a (mythical?) "true believer" who believes that a rise in temperatures > > is certain and would therefore also expect the same bet to be worth $1 > > to _him_. I'm not claiming here that 3:1 is the _correct_ odds to > > arrange a bet - but it certainly provides a meaningful and realistic > > starting point for negotiations, in contrast to Lindzen's absurd > > proposition. I hadn't reckoned that the gulf in opinions was that _he_ > > was more insistent on warming taking place, and less confident about the > > prospects of cooling, than _I_ was!
> > Richard Lindzen's words say that there is about a 50% chance of cooling. > > His wallet thinks it is a 2% shot. Which do you believe? He says he was > > misrepresented in the quote on the reason.com site - can we expect to > > see a correction, and headlines in the sceptic press along the lines of > > "Richard Lindzen thinks there is at least a 2% chance of global > > cooling"? I'd probably take bets against that happening, too - and 50:1 > > against seems fair in this case :-) If any other sceptics put more faith > > in Lindzen's predictions than he does himself, I'd be very interested in > > hearing from you. There isn't much money in climate science, and I'm > > still looking for that gold watch at retirement.
> Perhaps I could suggest another way of making this bet. We start with a > basic bet of $100. If the temperature in 2025 is 0.2 C higher then the > bet is a push. Otherwise we have the following schedule
> Anomoly > vs DT > and so on > -1.2 Lindzen wins 6400 > -1.0 Lindzen wins 3200 > -0.8 Lindzen wins 1600 > -0.6 Lindzen wins 800 > -0.4 Lindzen wins 400 > -0.2 Lindzen wins 200 > 0.0 Lindzen wins 100 > +0.2 No one wins > +0.4 Annan wins 100 > +0.6 Annan wins 200 > +0.8 Annan wins 400 > +1.0 Annan wins 800 > +1.2 Annan wins 1600 > +1.4 Annan wins 3200 > +1.6 Annan wins 6400 > and so on
> it would be exciting.
> josh halpern
Josh,
you do indeed have an interesting suggestion. This is not only a bet, it is a schedule that penalizes the loser based on how wrong he is. Very clever!
charliew2 wrote: > "Joshua Halpern" <vze23...@verizon.net> wrote in message > news:tEBee.13381$%H2.4680@trnddc06... >>Perhaps I could suggest another way of making this bet. We start with a >>basic bet of $100. If the temperature in 2025 is 0.2 C higher then the >>bet is a push. Otherwise we have the following schedule
>>Anomoly >>vs DT >>and so on >>-1.2 Lindzen wins 6400 >>-1.0 Lindzen wins 3200 >>-0.8 Lindzen wins 1600 >>-0.6 Lindzen wins 800 >>-0.4 Lindzen wins 400 >>-0.2 Lindzen wins 200 >>0.0 Lindzen wins 100 >>+0.2 No one wins >>+0.4 Annan wins 100 >>+0.6 Annan wins 200 >>+0.8 Annan wins 400 >>+1.0 Annan wins 800 >>+1.2 Annan wins 1600 >>+1.4 Annan wins 3200 >>+1.6 Annan wins 6400 >>and so on
>>it would be exciting.
>>josh halpern
> Josh,
> you do indeed have an interesting suggestion. This is not only a bet, it is > a schedule that penalizes the loser based on how wrong he is. Very clever!
I already suggested a scaled claim somewhat similar to the above (a "spread bet" but with no bookie, the spread can be 0), but Lindzen would not begin to discuss a suitable threshold number.
Rather than doubling the stake per 0.1C, I would rather have a linear scale (say $100 per 0.01C) which could of course be capped at some maximum if desired. If anyone has any interest in such a bet, I'm all ears. Probably something like 0.2C warmer after 20 years is a fair middle ground.
Does anyone have any credible, polite reasons why no sceptic seems to be prepared to take me up on this?
> >>Perhaps I could suggest another way of making this bet. We start with a > >>basic bet of $100. If the temperature in 2025 is 0.2 C higher then the > >>bet is a push. Otherwise we have the following schedule
> >>Anomoly > >>vs DT > >>and so on > >>-1.2 Lindzen wins 6400 > >>-1.0 Lindzen wins 3200 > >>-0.8 Lindzen wins 1600 > >>-0.6 Lindzen wins 800 > >>-0.4 Lindzen wins 400 > >>-0.2 Lindzen wins 200 > >>0.0 Lindzen wins 100 > >>+0.2 No one wins > >>+0.4 Annan wins 100 > >>+0.6 Annan wins 200 > >>+0.8 Annan wins 400 > >>+1.0 Annan wins 800 > >>+1.2 Annan wins 1600 > >>+1.4 Annan wins 3200 > >>+1.6 Annan wins 6400 > >>and so on
> >>it would be exciting.
> >>josh halpern
> > Josh,
> > you do indeed have an interesting suggestion. This is not only a bet, it is > > a schedule that penalizes the loser based on how wrong he is. Very clever!
> I already suggested a scaled claim somewhat similar to the above (a > "spread bet" but with no bookie, the spread can be 0), but Lindzen would > not begin to discuss a suitable threshold number.
> Rather than doubling the stake per 0.1C, I would rather have a linear > scale (say $100 per 0.01C) which could of course be capped at some > maximum if desired. If anyone has any interest in such a bet, I'm all > ears. Probably something like 0.2C warmer after 20 years is a fair > middle ground.
> Does anyone have any credible, polite reasons why no sceptic seems to be > prepared to take me up on this?
> James
Who is the referee regarding the mean global temperature? How can you assure that this referee is actually unbiased? Is there independent data to verify non-bias?
What with the struggle that has been waged to properly define the global mean temperature, you are going to have difficulty agreeing on a number 20 years from now.
>> Does anyone have any credible, polite reasons why no sceptic seems to be >> prepared to take me up on this?
>> James
> Who is the referee regarding the mean global temperature? > How can you assure that this referee is actually unbiased? > Is there independent data to verify non-bias?
Independant of what??? Just use direct measurements of temperature taken at the surface of the earth.
> What with the struggle that has been waged to properly define the global > mean temperature, you are going to have difficulty agreeing on a number 20 > years from now.
Well, obviously you can't make this bet with someone so ignorant or dishonest as to deny that "global mean temperature" has any meaning (like McKitrick) but there are plenty of vocal sceptics who do not deny the data produced say, by GISS. The arguments are about what the data means. But there surely are details that would need to be ironed out *after* it is accepted on principal. The fact that none of them seem to want to even accept it on principal is rather revealing.
"But GISS fudges the data" is not the typical "scientific sceptic" argument.
charliew2 wrote: > Who is the referee regarding the mean global temperature? > How can you assure that this referee is actually unbiased? > Is there independent data to verify non-bias?
> What with the struggle that has been waged to properly define the global > mean temperature, you are going to have difficulty agreeing on a number 20 > years from now.
That is exactly the sort of ducking and weaving that I have come to expect from the septics. No-one seriously disputes the NASA GISS figures (and note that their data originates from all over the world - it would take a widespread long-term international conspiracy to falsify it). Trying to use this excuse as a reason for ducking the bet is pretty desperate.
It might also be worth pointing out that the weather futures maket seems to work fine, with all the same "problems" about the validity of the data.
Have you listened to the fossil fools? Have you read their posts on this NG? Have you visited their web sites? Have you read "State of Fear?" They actually claim that there is a "widespread long-term international conspiracy."
Roger Coppock wrote: > Have you listened to the fossil fools? > Have you read their posts on this NG? > Have you visited their web sites? > Have you read "State of Fear?" > They actually claim that there is a > "widespread long-term international > conspiracy."
Sure, I'm not expecting any of the lunatic fringe to ever come out with anything meaningful. But I did start out with the premise that there actually were some honest sceptics who really did have a genuine, scientifically-based difference of opinion from the mainstream views.
> > Who is the referee regarding the mean global temperature? > > How can you assure that this referee is actually unbiased? > > Is there independent data to verify non-bias?
> > What with the struggle that has been waged to properly define the global > > mean temperature, you are going to have difficulty agreeing on a number 20 > > years from now.
> That is exactly the sort of ducking and weaving that I have come to > expect from the septics. No-one seriously disputes the NASA GISS figures > (and note that their data originates from all over the world - it would > take a widespread long-term international conspiracy to falsify it). > Trying to use this excuse as a reason for ducking the bet is pretty > desperate.
> It might also be worth pointing out that the weather futures maket seems > to work fine, with all the same "problems" about the validity of the data.
> James
I've dealt with otherwise intelligent people before, who were shown beyond the very slightest shadow of a doubt that their preconceptions were just flat WRONG. Some of these otherwise intelligent people just COULD NOT admit that they were wrong. If any of the global warming skeptics who happen to accept your bet are in this category, no amount of data will convince them.
Conclusion - it's far better to be ignorant than to be convinced of something that is incorrect. At least the ignorant person, in principle, can be educated.
> Have you listened to the fossil fools? > Have you read their posts on this NG? > Have you visited their web sites? > Have you read "State of Fear?" > They actually claim that there is a > "widespread long-term international > conspiracy."
Oooooo! A conspiracy theory. Well, Roger, even paranoids have real enemies! ;-)
|
