Realclimate chose politics over science in this case

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Steve Schulin

unread,
Jan 14, 2005, 2:53:09 PM1/14/05
to
One of this week's contributor additions at realclimate.org is an
interesting essay titled "Is Climate Modelling Science?" The
introductory paragraphs decry the implications of a major newspaper
quoting Myron Ebell of CEI as saying "Modeling is not science".

The comment attributed to CEI's Mr. Ebell is not so outlandish as the
realclimate essay portrays. In CEI.org's archives, I notice that the
June 28, 2001 issue of the Cooler Heads newsletter quotes the following,
excerpted from then-recent issue of the scientific journal Climatic
Change: "Climate modeling and simulation do not form a science in the
classical sense.  We cannot formulate a hypothesis and then proceed to
test it in the laboratory.  We have a complicated system with only a
finite history of empirical information about it ­ far from enough, in
fact.² [The quote is said to be from Dr. Gerald North, Distinguished
Professor of Meteorology and Oceanography at Texas A&M, in his review of
the book "Global Warming: The Hard Science".]

If the Hockey Team and cheerleaders at realclimate [the distinction
between Hockey Stick and Team by contributor Mike is just one of the
many reasons I enjoyed this essay] were more serious about their stated
aversion to discussing politics, a much better example of press coverage
of a much more demonstrably misleading comment could have been found.
Some sci.environment regulars may know the comment I'm about to suggest.
It comes from an article in Science [302:1719-1723, December 5 2003] by
Karl and Trenberth. "In the absence of climate mitigation policies, the
90% probability interval for warming from 1990 to 2100 is 1.7° to
4.9°C." Aided and abetted by pre-publication press release, their
comment was picked up by at least the following:

* States News Service distributed the press release verbatim on December
2. The Rocky Mountain News reported on December 3 that "In their Science
article, Karl and Trenberth say there's a 90 percent probability global
temperatures would rise 3.1 to 8.9 degrees by 2100 due to human
influences." Also on December 3, Greenwire reported that "The report
predicts there is a 90 percent chance the climate will warm somewhere
between 3.1 and 8.9 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, which would exceed any
natural climate shifts during the past 10,000 years."

* In a page 1 story on December 4, the San Francisco Chronicle reported
that "They estimate that by the end of this century there is a 90
percent chance that the world's climate will heat up between 3.1 and 8.9
degrees Fahrenheit because of those human influences."

* Denver Post's story on December 5 reported that "The study, published
today, predicts that during the next century,  humans can expect to live
in a world that is 3 to 9 degrees warmer,  and one marked by vanished
glaciers, sinking snowpack, rising sea  levels, more intense storms,
longer droughts and bigger wildfires."

* A Reuters story published in Canada's National Post on December 5
reported that "Karl and Trenberth estimate there is a 90% probability
that average global temperatures will rise over 1990 to 2100 by 1.7 to
4.9 degrees Celsius because of human influences on climate. Such
dramatic warming will further melt already crumbling glaciers,
inundating coastal areas."

* On December 7, the IPS - Inter Press service article put it as
follows: "Two leading U.S. scientists have turned up the heat on the
Bush administration in another new report that states there is a
90 percent chance global temperatures could rise 4.9 degrees C., melting
the world's ice sheets. The study, which reviewed all of the available
scientific data, was carried out by Thomas Karl of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Centre in
the state of North Carolina, and Kevin Trenberth, director of the
Climate Analysis Section at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR) in Colorado. It appears in the Dec. 5 issue of the journal
'Science'."

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

w...@bas.ac.uk

unread,
Jan 14, 2005, 3:32:05 PM1/14/05
to
Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>It comes from an article in Science [302:1719-1723, December 5 2003] by
>Karl and Trenberth. "In the absence of climate mitigation policies, the
>90% probability interval for warming from 1990 to 2100 is 1.7° to
>4.9°C."

For some reason you dislike this statement. You seem to think that
continually asserting its wrong will be enough to make people
believe you. Quite why you think RC should object to it I don't
know.

In the meantime, regulars will recognise the content of the latest RC
post.

-W.

--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!

Eric Swanson

unread,
Jan 14, 2005, 7:09:20 PM1/14/05
to
In article <41e8...@news.nwl.ac.uk>, w...@bas.ac.uk says...

>
>Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>>It comes from an article in Science [302:1719-1723, December 5 2003] by
>>Karl and Trenberth. "In the absence of climate mitigation policies, the
>>90% probability interval for warming from 1990 to 2100 is 1.7° to
>>4.9°C."
>
>For some reason you dislike this statement. You seem to think that
>continually asserting its wrong will be enough to make people
>believe you. Quite why you think RC should object to it I don't
>know.

The range of temperatures mentioned seems to bound those produced by the
farious model builders. The problem is that 100 years is a long time to try
and look ahead and the real unknown is the rate of emissions of CO2 and other
GHGs. The IPCC has tried to lump both the atmospheric and climate science with
estimates of economic/technological/demographic changes, which makes the use of
a statistical bound difficult to justify. Things were a lot simpler when the
climate scientists were only looking at changing the atmospheric CO2 by 2x or
4x and comparing the results. But, the realization that the rate of change
could be as important as the overall change led to the latest estimates.

>In the meantime, regulars will recognise the content of the latest RC post.

The fact that the long term cycles of glaciation are different than the short
term climate changes due to GHGs, etc, makes it even more important that the
science be presented properly and completely to the public. If the future is a
repeat of the past, one can say with certainty that we ARE headed into another
Ice Age. If the cause is natural, the switch may not happen for thousands of
years, but there is still the change that mankind may trip the switch much
sooner.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

James Annan

unread,
Jan 14, 2005, 7:38:01 PM1/14/05
to
Eric Swanson wrote:
> In article <41e8...@news.nwl.ac.uk>, w...@bas.ac.uk says...
>
>>Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>>
>>>It comes from an article in Science [302:1719-1723, December 5 2003] by
>>>Karl and Trenberth. "In the absence of climate mitigation policies, the
>>>90% probability interval for warming from 1990 to 2100 is 1.7ー to
>>>4.9ーC."

>>
>>For some reason you dislike this statement. You seem to think that
>>continually asserting its wrong will be enough to make people
>>believe you. Quite why you think RC should object to it I don't
>>know.
>
>
> The range of temperatures mentioned seems to bound those produced by the
> farious model builders.

is that nefarious :-?

> The fact that the long term cycles of glaciation are different than the short
> term climate changes due to GHGs, etc, makes it even more important that the
> science be presented properly and completely to the public. If the future is a
> repeat of the past, one can say with certainty that we ARE headed into another
> Ice Age. If the cause is natural, the switch may not happen for thousands of
> years, but there is still the change that mankind may trip the switch much
> sooner.

I think you would have to search far and wide to find a climate
scientist who thought it at all likely that we could enter an ice age
with CO2 > 500ppm (say).

Of course, I could be wrong.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

Alastair McDonald

unread,
Jan 14, 2005, 8:06:50 PM1/14/05
to

"James Annan" <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:34r6sbF...@individual.net...

> Eric Swanson wrote:
> > In article <41e8...@news.nwl.ac.uk>, w...@bas.ac.uk says...
> >
> >>Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>It comes from an article in Science [302:1719-1723, December 5 2003] by
> >>>Karl and Trenberth. "In the absence of climate mitigation policies, the
> >>>90% probability interval for warming from 1990 to 2100 is 1.7? to
> >>>4.9?C."

> >>
> >>For some reason you dislike this statement. You seem to think that
> >>continually asserting its wrong will be enough to make people
> >>believe you. Quite why you think RC should object to it I don't
> >>know.
> >
> >
> > The range of temperatures mentioned seems to bound those produced by the
> > farious model builders.
>
> is that nefarious :-?
>
> > The fact that the long term cycles of glaciation are different than the
short
> > term climate changes due to GHGs, etc, makes it even more important that
the
> > science be presented properly and completely to the public. If the future
is a
> > repeat of the past, one can say with certainty that we ARE headed into
another
> > Ice Age. If the cause is natural, the switch may not happen for thousands
of
> > years, but there is still the change that mankind may trip the switch much
> > sooner.
>
> I think you would have to search far and wide to find a climate
> scientist who thought it at all likely that we could enter an ice age
> with CO2 > 500ppm (say).
>
> Of course, I could be wrong.

Why is the British government throwing £20 million pounds into the Atlantic
Ocean then?
See http://www.soc.soton.ac.uk/rapid/rapid.php

Cheers, Alastair.


Steve Schulin

unread,
Jan 14, 2005, 8:12:05 PM1/14/05
to
In article <41e8...@news.nwl.ac.uk>, w...@bas.ac.uk wrote, in part:

> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> >It comes from an article in Science [302:1719-1723, December 5 2003] by
> >Karl and Trenberth. "In the absence of climate mitigation policies, the
> >90% probability interval for warming from 1990 to 2100 is 1.7° to
> >4.9°C."
>
> For some reason you dislike this statement. You seem to think that
> continually asserting its wrong will be enough to make people
> believe you. Quite why you think RC should object to it I don't
> know.

The comment was misleading at best when used in abstract of Wigley &
Raper paper where it originated. I discussed the basis for this
conclusion at the time: There are many more conditional aspects of the
range than just "In the absence of climate mitigation". For one thing,
it assumes each of 35 emissions scenarios to be equally likely. You
might recall that IPCC WG1 expressly declined to assign probabilities to
any one or combination of their 245 storylines, including the 35
emissions scenarios and the seven MAGICC model tunings.

James Annan

unread,
Jan 14, 2005, 8:22:56 PM1/14/05
to

Alastair McDonald wrote:


>>I think you would have to search far and wide to find a climate
>>scientist who thought it at all likely that we could enter an ice age
>>with CO2 > 500ppm (say).
>>
>>Of course, I could be wrong.
>
>
> Why is the British government throwing 」20 million pounds into the Atlantic
> Ocean then?
> See http://www.soc.soton.ac.uk/rapid/rapid.php

Because rapid changes in the THC would have substantial implications for
the regional climate.

This is one of the first links Google throws up (see the May 29 entry):

http://www.davidappell.com/archives/archive-052004.html

Note the difference between regional and global climate. Maybe my above
assertion was a bit too strong, but it seems to me that most people are
rapidly retreating from the hypothesis of GW->TH drop->ice age, which
was never much more than a hypothesis that was advanced and thought to
be worthy of more detailed examination.

James Annan

unread,
Jan 15, 2005, 12:07:00 AM1/15/05
to
Steve Schulin wrote:

> In article <41e8...@news.nwl.ac.uk>, w...@bas.ac.uk wrote, in part:
>
>
>>Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>>
>>>It comes from an article in Science [302:1719-1723, December 5 2003] by
>>>Karl and Trenberth. "In the absence of climate mitigation policies, the

>>>90% probability interval for warming from 1990 to 2100 is 1.7ー to
>>>4.9ーC."


>>
>>For some reason you dislike this statement. You seem to think that
>>continually asserting its wrong will be enough to make people
>>believe you. Quite why you think RC should object to it I don't
>>know.
>
>
> The comment was misleading at best when used in abstract of Wigley &
> Raper paper where it originated. I discussed the basis for this
> conclusion at the time: There are many more conditional aspects of the
> range than just "In the absence of climate mitigation". For one thing,
> it assumes each of 35 emissions scenarios to be equally likely. You
> might recall that IPCC WG1 expressly declined to assign probabilities to
> any one or combination of their 245 storylines, including the 35
> emissions scenarios and the seven MAGICC model tunings.

What odds would you offer against it happening (global temp being in
that range in 2100)?

Given that I'm not likely to be around that long, I'd prefer to look on
a shorter time scale, say 2030 or thereabouts - say 0.5 - 2.5C higher
than the 20th century average? I hope we can come to a lucrative
arrangement. I'm looking for something around the $100,000 level to top
up my retirement fund (but still be reasonably confident of collecting
on). Maybe there is money in science after all.

Alastair McDonald

unread,
Jan 15, 2005, 1:37:06 AM1/15/05
to
"James Annan" <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:34r9giF...@individual.net...

>
>
> Alastair McDonald wrote:
>
>
> >>I think you would have to search far and wide to find a climate
> >>scientist who thought it at all likely that we could enter an ice age
> >>with CO2 > 500ppm (say).
> >>
> >>Of course, I could be wrong.
> >
> >
> > Why is the British government throwing ?20 million pounds into the

Atlantic
> > Ocean then?
> > See http://www.soc.soton.ac.uk/rapid/rapid.php
>
> Because rapid changes in the THC would have substantial implications for
> the regional climate.
>
> This is one of the first links Google throws up (see the May 29 entry):
>
> http://www.davidappell.com/archives/archive-052004.html
>
> Note the difference between regional and global climate. Maybe my above
> assertion was a bit too strong, but it seems to me that most people are
> rapidly retreating from the hypothesis of GW->TH drop->ice age, which
> was never much more than a hypothesis that was advanced and thought to
> be worthy of more detailed examination.

Then it is about time that was made known to the general public. They
find it very hard to believe GW is a danger when the scientists are saying
that it will get colder.

Cheers, Alastair.


w...@bas.ac.uk

unread,
Jan 15, 2005, 5:56:10 AM1/15/05
to
Alastair McDonald <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Then it is about time that was made known to the general public. They
>find it very hard to believe GW is a danger when the scientists are saying
>that it will get colder.

I agree with your general tenor here (though not with the assertion that
sci are saying it *will* get colder; but what gets out into the media may
be less nuanced).

Steve Schulin

unread,
Jan 15, 2005, 9:53:49 AM1/15/05
to
In article <34rmklF...@individual.net>,
James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >>>... Science [302:1719-1723, December 5 2003] by

> >>>Karl and Trenberth. "In the absence of climate mitigation policies, the

> >>>90% probability interval for warming from 1990 to 2100 is 1.7。 to
> >>>4.9。C."
> >>...


> What odds would you offer against it happening (global temp being in
> that range in 2100)?
>
> Given that I'm not likely to be around that long, I'd prefer to look on
> a shorter time scale, say 2030 or thereabouts - say 0.5 - 2.5C higher

> than the 20th century average? ...

IPCC says best estimate for 20th century warming was 0.6 +/- 0.2。C. As I
recall, about half of the warming was early in century -- and you want
to include the effects of that in the baseline? That would be
subtracting 0.3 +/- 0.2 from the 0.5. It sounds like you'd win if there
was any, even miniscule, positive trend over first 30 years of 21st
century. I sure don't begrudge your offer, but it doesn't seem to
reflect a whit of confidence on your part that the so called
"unprecedented" warming in recent years will persist or accelerate.

I respectfully decline to attempt to fulfill your request for
probabilistic projection of global mean -- just as IPCC declined
explicit suggestion that it assign probabilities to its projections in
the TAR.

> ... I hope we can come to a lucrative

> arrangement. I'm looking for something around the $100,000 level to top
> up my retirement fund (but still be reasonably confident of collecting
> on). Maybe there is money in science after all.
>
> James

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

w...@bas.ac.uk

unread,
Jan 15, 2005, 12:42:38 PM1/15/05
to
Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:

>I respectfully decline...

Not going to risk a Simon, than?

James Annan

unread,
Jan 15, 2005, 5:46:39 PM1/15/05
to

Steve Schulin wrote:

> In article <34rmklF...@individual.net>,
> James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Given that I'm not likely to be around that long, I'd prefer to look on
>>a shorter time scale, say 2030 or thereabouts - say 0.5 - 2.5C higher
>>than the 20th century average? ...
>
>
> IPCC says best estimate for 20th century warming was 0.6 +/- 0.2。C. As I
> recall, about half of the warming was early in century -- and you want
> to include the effects of that in the baseline? That would be
> subtracting 0.3 +/- 0.2 from the 0.5. It sounds like you'd win if there
> was any, even miniscule, positive trend over first 30 years of 21st
> century.

Eh? By including the "early in century" warming in the baseline, and
then making a bet about change relative to the baseline, the warming has
to be LARGER rather than SMALLER. I'm giving you something for free here.

But rather than quibble with my numbers (which were nothing more than
top-of-the-head guesses), why not suggest your own? You were recently
touting some curve-fiiting exercise that (according to you) showed that
future cooling was plausible. Why won't you put your money where your
mouth is?

> I sure don't begrudge your offer, but it doesn't seem to
> reflect a whit of confidence on your part that the so called
> "unprecedented" warming in recent years will persist or accelerate.

As demonstrated above, you have done your maths wrong, and in order for
me to win, the unprecedented warming would indeed have to increase.

> I respectfully decline to attempt to fulfill your request for
> probabilistic projection of global mean

Why?

Actually there is a serious scientific point to this post. It has been
convincingly (IMO) argued that probabilistic model forecasts are not
accountable, nor are they likely to ever become so. However, that does
not mean that useful information cannot be gleaned from model output -
in practice it is the odds ratio of particular events that is what
matters in the real world, and the odds ratio is a more general concept
than accountable probabilistic forecasts. So even if you decry attempts
to produce probabillistic forecasts, you have no excuse to duck the
question of the odds you would offer against AGW taking place.

Steve Schulin

unread,
Jan 15, 2005, 11:31:47 PM1/15/05
to
In article <34tkniF...@individual.net>,
James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Steve Schulin wrote:
>
> > In article <34rmklF...@individual.net>,
> > James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Given that I'm not likely to be around that long, I'd prefer to look on
> >>a shorter time scale, say 2030 or thereabouts - say 0.5 - 2.5C higher
> >>than the 20th century average? ...
> >
> >
> > IPCC says best estimate for 20th century warming was 0.6 +/- 0.2。C. As I
> > recall, about half of the warming was early in century -- and you want
> > to include the effects of that in the baseline? That would be
> > subtracting 0.3 +/- 0.2 from the 0.5. It sounds like you'd win if there
> > was any, even miniscule, positive trend over first 30 years of 21st
> > century.
>
> Eh? By including the "early in century" warming in the baseline, and
> then making a bet about change relative to the baseline, the warming has
> to be LARGER rather than SMALLER. I'm giving you something for free here.

LOL - I respectfully disagree. As best I can tell, we're already 0.3 +/-
0.2C above the 20th century average.

> But rather than quibble with my numbers (which were nothing more than
> top-of-the-head guesses), why not suggest your own? You were recently
> touting some curve-fiiting exercise that (according to you) showed that
> future cooling was plausible. Why won't you put your money where your
> mouth is?

I don't know if it's going to be warmer or cooler in 2030. Nor do I
think there's sufficient info to suggest which is more likely. I admit
the possibility that greenhouse forcing may dominate, but I don't think
there's sufficient info to suggest whether this means that the effects
will be a net benefit or a net harm to civilization. If you're
interested in making a bet, formulate one that somebody is willing to
take.

> > I sure don't begrudge your offer, but it doesn't seem to
> > reflect a whit of confidence on your part that the so called
> > "unprecedented" warming in recent years will persist or accelerate.
>
> As demonstrated above, you have done your maths wrong, and in order for
> me to win, the unprecedented warming would indeed have to increase.
>
> > I respectfully decline to attempt to fulfill your request for
> > probabilistic projection of global mean
>
> Why?

I don't presume to be able to express more certainty than even IPCC is
willing to express.

> Actually there is a serious scientific point to this post. It has been
> convincingly (IMO) argued that probabilistic model forecasts are not

> accountable, nor are they likely to ever become so. ...

The chaotic considerations aren't limited to probabilistic forecasts.
Bengtsson et al. [J. Climate 17:4045] discuss this: "Coupled model
experiments have demonstrated marked natural fluctuations on decadal
time scales in the Arctic (Johannessen et al. 2004). There are strong
indications that such fluctuations also exist in nature although the
mechanisms causing them are open to debate (e.g., Ikeda 1990; Ikeda et
al. 2001; Mysak et al. 1990, 2001; Mysak and Venegas 1998; Johnson et
al. 1999; Delworth and Mann 2000; Goosse et al., 2002). However, there
are strong indications that they are chaotic and unpredictable, at least
on a time scale longer than the fluctuation itself. The lack of
long-term predictability is also indicated by the results of ensemble
integrations with a coupled atmosphere-ocean model (Delworth and Knutson
2000).

To attribute a particular forcing mechanism with an observed pattern of
climate change is hardly feasible, since the pattern forcing and the
pattern of response are essentially uncorrelated (Hansen et al. 1997;
Bengtsson 2001). The forcing by CO2 , for example, is largest in the
Tropics but the largest surface warming occurs at higher latitudes. The
same is true for solar forcing. Characteristic for all of the models
used in a Coupled Model [start p. 4047] Intercomparison Project (CMIP)
intercomparison study (Raisanen 2002) was a maximum warming in the
Arctic, a modest warming in the Tropics, and a minimum warming at the
higher latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere. In fact, in the study
reported by Bengtsson (2001, his Fig 7) the actual forcing was negative
over parts of the Northern Hemisphere (greenhouse gases and sulfate
aerosols, 1950-90) but the actual warming was among the largest in these
areas. Similarly, the forcing was positive for the Southern Hemisphere
(practically only greenhouse gases), yet here the warming was the
smallest.

--- END OF EXCERPT FROM BENGTSSON ET AL. ---

The Hansen paper cited here has more than regional applicability. Here's
an article from Electricity Daily with some background provided by Fred
Singer about it which together I summarize with the title "CLIMATE -
CHAOS MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO DISCERN HUMAN INFLUENCE, SEZ HANSEN ET AL":

"The Week That Was", February 9-15, 1998 --
http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/1998/feb9_15.html

The Nov. 27, 1997 issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research carried
an important scientific research paper that pulls the rug out from under
the Administration's position on global warming--and we missed it
completely. It was tediously written, ponderous in length, had 43
co-authors, and published in a journal that rarely issues a press
release. Our thanks to a science writer at Electricity Daily who boiled
the whole thing down to its essence, and to lead author James Hansen,
who reviewed the news report and let it stand without comment. We
reproduce it here in full, from ED's Feb. 13, 1998 issue:

"HANSEN: EXPERIMENT SHOWS CHAOS TRUMPS GLOBAL WARMING

Famous climate change modeler James Hansen and 42 co-authors have
published a ground-breaking paper, "Forcings and Chaos in Interannual
and Decadal Research." The article, published in the Journal of
Geophysical Research, describes a failed attempt to identify specific
causes, or "forcings," of climate change among the otherwise chaotic
components of climate.

The authors note that, "Scientists and lay persons have a predilection
for deterministic explanations of climate variations. However, climate
can vary chaotically, i.e., in the absence of any forcing. The slightest
alteration of initial or boundary conditions changes the developing
patterns, and thus next year's weather is inherently unpredictable. This
behavior results from the nonlinear fundamental equations governing the
dynamics of such a system."

The authors' experiment took three major computer models of climate and
ran them with no forcings for the period 1979-1996, comparing the result
to the observed average annual temperature of the stratosphere,
troposphere (lower atmosphere), and sea surface. Average temperature is
chosen because it is believed to be the least sensitive to chaos. Then
they added forcings--external perturbations--to see if the model gets
closer to the observed values. If it does, they posit, that shows
forcings have an effect independent of chaos. The five forcings used
were stratospheric aerosols (mostly volcanoes), greenhouse gas buildup,
ozone depletion, changes in solar radiation (the so-called solar cycle),
and an initial heat imbalance postulated to be due to the buildup of
greenhouse gases prior to 1979.

While the experiment worked to some degree for the stratosphere and the
sea surface, where things are fairly simple, it failed utterly for the
troposphere, where climate exists. For the most detailed modeling, the
unforced case yields a correlation with observation of 26 percent, or
basically no correlation. But adding the forcings in the order described
above yields correlations of 23 percent, 34 percent, 34 percent, 26
percent, and 13 percent, respectively. In fact, the only model to exceed
a 50 percent correlation for the troposphere is one in the unforced mode
that hits 59 percent. When forcing is added, its performance dips to 19
percent.

The data appears to show that climate is chaotic at all scales, so
effects of long-term forcings, such as greenhouse gases, are essentially
unpredictable and undiscernible."

The evidence required from global warming promoters is not that the
climate is warming up--it has in the past, many times, and in the
high-end range of model forecasts. The problem is to show that climate
is warming because of an increase in greenhouse gas emissions from human
activities, independent of NATURAL climate variations. In part, that's
what Hansen and his 42 co-authors were trying to demonstrate, and they
could not.

One can haggle over the efficacy of climate models in Hansen's research,
but we would like to point out that these same computer models, which
failed to predict climate even a year in advance, were used at Kyoto to
confidently forecast climate a century in advance and to justify
deindustrializing the United States, consigning millions of people in
the Third World to continued poverty and early death, and ultimately
destroying the environment we are supposed to preserve.

--- END OF EXCERPT FROM SEPP.ORG ---

> ... However, that does

> not mean that useful information cannot be gleaned from model output -
> in practice it is the odds ratio of particular events that is what
> matters in the real world, and the odds ratio is a more general concept
> than accountable probabilistic forecasts. So even if you decry attempts
> to produce probabillistic forecasts, you have no excuse to duck the
> question of the odds you would offer against AGW taking place.

The Vegas odds for baseball games are intended to split the betting
public in half, not to scientifically describe the probability of the
outcome of the game. I'm not sure why you apparently contend I'm
obligated to give odds, any more than I'm obligated to assign
probabilities.

James Annan

unread,
Jan 16, 2005, 1:30:20 AM1/16/05
to
Steve Schulin wrote:

> In article <34tkniF...@individual.net>,
> James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Schulin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <34rmklF...@individual.net>,
>>> James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Given that I'm not likely to be around that long, I'd prefer to look on
>>>>a shorter time scale, say 2030 or thereabouts - say 0.5 - 2.5C higher
>>>>than the 20th century average? ...
>>>
>>>
>>>IPCC says best estimate for 20th century warming was 0.6 +/- 0.2。C. As I
>>>recall, about half of the warming was early in century -- and you want
>>>to include the effects of that in the baseline? That would be
>>>subtracting 0.3 +/- 0.2 from the 0.5. It sounds like you'd win if there
>>>was any, even miniscule, positive trend over first 30 years of 21st
>>>century.
>>
>>Eh? By including the "early in century" warming in the baseline, and
>>then making a bet about change relative to the baseline, the warming has
>>to be LARGER rather than SMALLER. I'm giving you something for free here.
>
>
> LOL - I respectfully disagree. As best I can tell, we're already 0.3 +/-
> 0.2C above the 20th century average.

The point is that this can hardly be due to "early in century" warming
as you claimed, for this will also have raised the 20thC average. This
is not rocket science, nor even climate science, but elementary
arithmetic. But maybe even elementary arithmetic is nothing more than a
minor nuisance for someone with such a mission of misrepresentation.

> I don't know if it's going to be warmer or cooler in 2030. Nor do I
> think there's sufficient info to suggest which is more likely.

In that case you can have no reason to think that I can make a better
estimate than you, and you have nothing to fear from arranging a bet
with me.

>>
>>>I respectfully decline to attempt to fulfill your request for
>>>probabilistic projection of global mean
>>
>>Why?
>
>
> I don't presume to be able to express more certainty than even IPCC is
> willing to express.

You can offer odds that you think are reasonable, which does not require
any sort of probabilistic prediction.

> The chaotic considerations aren't limited to probabilistic forecasts.

[...]


> The data appears to show that climate is chaotic at all scales, so
> effects of long-term forcings, such as greenhouse gases, are essentially
> unpredictable and undiscernible."

You appear to be returning to the failed Khandekar argument. I'm not
sure why, other than a feeble attempt at changing the subject.

> The Vegas odds for baseball games are intended to split the betting
> public in half, not to scientifically describe the probability of the
> outcome of the game.

If the game is well understood, then the odds must be based on the
probabilistic outcomes (or else a clever gambler would win and the house
would go broke). But when the game is not perfectly understood, odds can
still be offered, indeed they routinely are offered on subjects related
to weather forecasts.

> I'm not sure why you apparently contend I'm
> obligated to give odds, any more than I'm obligated to assign
> probabilities.

You are not obligated to make any positive contribution at all. But you
keep on dredging up some fringe article that you claim blows a hole in
the main consensus, and also love to pick at details of the papers that
are widely accepted. Offering odds would give you the chance to
demonstrate that your opinions were genuinely held and not just
sophistry and evasion. Of course, I realised at the start that you would
be unable to take me up on my offer, for precisely that reason.

Steve Schulin

unread,
Jan 16, 2005, 12:02:41 PM1/16/05
to
In article <34ufstF...@individual.net>,
James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Steve Schulin wrote:
> > James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>Steve Schulin wrote:
> >>> James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Given that I'm not likely to be around that long, I'd prefer to look on
> >>>>a shorter time scale, say 2030 or thereabouts - say 0.5 - 2.5C higher
> >>>>than the 20th century average? ...
> >>>
> >>>IPCC says best estimate for 20th century warming was 0.6 +/- 0.2。C. As I
> >>>recall, about half of the warming was early in century -- and you want
> >>>to include the effects of that in the baseline? That would be
> >>>subtracting 0.3 +/- 0.2 from the 0.5. It sounds like you'd win if there
> >>>was any, even miniscule, positive trend over first 30 years of 21st
> >>>century.
> >>
> >>Eh? By including the "early in century" warming in the baseline, and
> >>then making a bet about change relative to the baseline, the warming has
> >>to be LARGER rather than SMALLER. I'm giving you something for free here.
> >
> > LOL - I respectfully disagree. As best I can tell, we're already 0.3 +/-
> > 0.2C above the 20th century average.
>
> The point is that this can hardly be due to "early in century" warming

> as you claimed, for this will also have raised the 20thC average. ...

LOL - why, I'd be happy to learn, do you imagine that to be "the point".

> ... This

> is not rocket science, nor even climate science, but elementary
> arithmetic. But maybe even elementary arithmetic is nothing more than a
> minor nuisance for someone with such a mission of misrepresentation.

Despite your insulting comments, the fact remains that you offered to
make a bet where you would clearly win with even a slight warming trend
from present, given the warming which has already occurred. And it may
be that the 0.3 +/- 0.2 C warming which has already appeared in the
surface record, compared to the 20th century average, would be grounds
for your demanding payment as soon as the bet was sealed. I don't
begrudge you offering whatever terms you want to anybody. Nor do I
begrudge you hawking the terms in whatever light you choose.

>
> > I don't know if it's going to be warmer or cooler in 2030. Nor do I
> > think there's sufficient info to suggest which is more likely.
>
> In that case you can have no reason to think that I can make a better
> estimate than you, and you have nothing to fear from arranging a bet
> with me.

Yet I've never bet on heads-or-tails outcome of a coin flip, either.
Such a bet doesn't interest me.

> >>>I respectfully decline to attempt to fulfill your request for
> >>>probabilistic projection of global mean
> >>
> >>Why?
> >
> > I don't presume to be able to express more certainty than even IPCC is
> > willing to express.
>
> You can offer odds that you think are reasonable, which does not require
> any sort of probabilistic prediction.

So can you. If you're interested in doing so, by all means don't let me
stop you.

> > The chaotic considerations aren't limited to probabilistic forecasts.
> [...]
> > The data appears to show that climate is chaotic at all scales, so
> > effects of long-term forcings, such as greenhouse gases, are essentially
> > unpredictable and undiscernible."
>
> You appear to be returning to the failed Khandekar argument. I'm not
> sure why, other than a feeble attempt at changing the subject.

I was glad to see you bring up a scientific concept, and presented info
about a couple of papers directly related to that concept. If you were
not changing the subject in mentioning the concept first, it hardly
seems reasonable to insist I forego discussing same. My comments placed
no obligation on you to reply, yet you choose to reply with insult.
That's surely your choice. I don't apologize for being more interested
in the science than in the stuff you want to dwell on.

> > The Vegas odds for baseball games are intended to split the betting
> > public in half, not to scientifically describe the probability of the
> > outcome of the game.
>
> If the game is well understood, then the odds must be based on the
> probabilistic outcomes (or else a clever gambler would win and the house

> would go broke). ...

As best I recall, at a racetrack, if betting is heavy on a particular
horse, the odds are often changed.

> ... But when the game is not perfectly understood, odds can

> still be offered, indeed they routinely are offered on subjects related
> to weather forecasts.

I'm not an expert in how gambling house oddsmakers do their jobs,
however, so perhaps there are some or even many cases where the odds are
based on considerations other than wanting to protect the bookie's
"vigorish" or such.

> > I'm not sure why you apparently contend I'm
> > obligated to give odds, any more than I'm obligated to assign
> > probabilities.
>
> You are not obligated to make any positive contribution at all. But you
> keep on dredging up some fringe article that you claim blows a hole in
> the main consensus, and also love to pick at details of the papers that

> are widely accepted. ...

Please provide an example of an exaggerated claim I've made. It's true
enough that Ball and Tobis have repeatedly suggested the same thing as
you do here, and in the same casual way as you do, but they never get
around to quoting some specific exaggeration.

> ... Offering odds would give you the chance to
> demonstrate that your opinions were genuinely held ...

Actually, I genuinely think the science is not settled enough to enable
me to offer reasonable odds.

> ... and not just

> sophistry and evasion. Of course, I realised at the start that you would
> be unable to take me up on my offer, for precisely that reason.

One reason I didn't take you up on the proposition you offered was
because it seemed a poor bet. None of your subsequent assorted puffery
has changed that.

James Annan

unread,
Jan 16, 2005, 11:12:26 PM1/16/05
to

Steve Schulin wrote:

> One reason I didn't take you up on the proposition you offered was
> because it seemed a poor bet.

Oh good, we are getting somewhere. Let's just focus on the low end of
the projection, since it seems to be the bit you don't like.

You think it would be a poor bet to bet against temperature rising by
at least 0.5C (relative to 20thC average) by 2030. Well, what about a
full 1C rise? Is this still a poor bet, in your view?

James

Steve Schulin

unread,
Jan 17, 2005, 12:33:16 AM1/17/05
to
In article <1105935146.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"James Annan" <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:

I don't know. You'd have to provide more details about your proposition.
I'm not yet interested in any prospects for wagering with you, however.
So please don't imagine any encouragement from me in your pursuing this.

I do find it interesting that you have apparently not advanced a
proposition that the recent decades' warming will accelerate in coming
decades. Jones and Moberg show decadal trend of 0.165 C for 1977-2001.
If that were maintained through 2030, it would represent about 0.5 C
trend using 2000 as baseline. That could arguably be enough to put you
over the top of the 1.0 C rise, given the 20th century average baseline
you suggest. I don't blame you for this reluctance of yours to suggest
that expected increased CO2 will increase the rate of warming.

w...@bas.ac.uk

unread,
Jan 17, 2005, 4:33:08 AM1/17/05
to
Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>I don't blame you for this reluctance of yours...

The reluctance here seems all one sided.

James Annan

unread,
Jan 21, 2005, 10:05:13 PM1/21/05
to
Steve Schulin previously said:

> I don't know if it's going to be warmer or cooler in 2030. Nor do I
> think there's sufficient info to suggest which is more likely.

I offer a bet, at odds of 2:1, that it will be warmer in 2030. That is,
if it is warmer in 2030, you pay me $50,000, and if it is colder, I
will pay you $100,000.

If you genuinely believe (as you claim to above) that there is not
sufficient info to determine which outcome is more likely, then you
would be indifferent to an evens bet. But you must consider that odds
of 2:1 are strongly favourable to you. If both outcomes are equally
likely, this offer is worth $25,000 to you.

Of course, I know you will chicken out, because you are a complete
fraud. You claim above is simply a lie - everyone with an honest
interest in climate science agrees for sure that continued warming is
more likely than future cooling. I certainly consider that my offer of
2:1 odds is highly favourable to me, or I wouldn't have made it.

I'm sure you will find some vague excuse as to why this bet is not
acceptable to you, so can you suggest an alternative bet that you
consider to be fair? If I staked $100,000 against a miserable $10,000
or even $1,000, would you take me up on it?

In anticipation of Steve's rejection, I will also extend this offer
also to the other denialists. But I'm not holding my breath.

James

Steve Schulin

unread,
Jan 21, 2005, 11:02:30 PM1/21/05
to
In article <1106363113.6...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"James Annan" <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:

LOL - you talk pretty tough for a guy who doesn't even propose an
evaluation criteria. And it is hilarious that after all this time, you
still don't appear willing to offer a proposition that involves
increased rate of warming compared to recent decades. If I were a fraud,
I'd have no compunction about fraudulently accepting, whether or not
your ambiguous terms tended to better match the alarmist projections
prompting many to support the Kyoto-first-step.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

P.S. You seem to be a serious fellow in many ways. Whom do you imagine
would make such a wager with a stranger on usenet?

James Annan

unread,
Jan 22, 2005, 12:55:10 AM1/22/05
to

Is that really your best dodge? I haven't proposed "an evaluation
criteria"? We can surely nail down such minor details once the
principle has been agreed.

What if I offer you odds of 1000:1? Can you suggest any bet that you
would consider acceptable?

James

James Annan

unread,
Jan 23, 2005, 8:03:12 PM1/23/05
to

What's the matter Steve, cat got your tongue? It's unlike you to be
quite so tongue-tied.

Your extreme reluctance to put your money where your mouth is implies
that that you consider your outpourings to be literally worthless. Why
then should anyone else take you more seriously?

Just in case you need a reminder, I am referring to this comment which
you made previously:

> I don't know if it's going to be warmer or cooler in 2030. Nor do I
> think there's sufficient info to suggest which is more likely.

I do think there is ample info to suggest that it will be warmer in
2030. In fact I will offer $100,000 at odds of 2:1 on for it. If you
genuinely believed what you wrote, you would consider this bet to be
worth $25,000 to you. But not only do you turn it down, you refuse to
suggest _any_ odds that would make you consider it.

Are all your writings really just sophistry and evasion, style and no
substance? I'm disappointed in you.

James

Steve Schulin

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 11:16:04 AM1/24/05
to
In article <1106528592....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"James Annan" <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote, in part:

>
> What's the matter Steve, cat got your tongue? It's unlike you to be
> quite so tongue-tied.
>
> Your extreme reluctance to put your money where your mouth is implies
> that that you consider your outpourings to be literally worthless. Why
> then should anyone else take you more seriously?

I haven't had anything I wanted to add to my previous comments on your
various particulars.

> Just in case you need a reminder, I am referring to this comment which
> you made previously:
>
> > I don't know if it's going to be warmer or cooler in 2030. Nor do I
> > think there's sufficient info to suggest which is more likely.
>
> I do think there is ample info to suggest that it will be warmer in
> 2030. In fact I will offer $100,000 at odds of 2:1 on for it. If you
> genuinely believed what you wrote, you would consider this bet to be

> worth $25,000 to you. ...

LOL - your propositions to date have been too vague to assess in such a
fashion. Your contentious huckstering is rigorous, however. Which will
you hone further? I'm not inclined to bet on that, either.

> ... But not only do you turn it down, you refuse to


> suggest _any_ odds that would make you consider it.

I don't know of any odds which would make me consider any of the
propositions you've offered.


>
> Are all your writings really just sophistry and evasion, style and no
> substance? I'm disappointed in you.

LOL - the sophistry spectrum is saturated by you in this thread.

w...@bas.ac.uk

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 12:19:44 PM1/24/05
to
Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>In article <1106528592....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "James Annan" <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote, in part:
>>
>> What's the matter Steve, cat got your tongue? It's unlike you to be
>> quite so tongue-tied.
>>
>> Your extreme reluctance to put your money where your mouth is implies
>> that that you consider your outpourings to be literally worthless. Why
>> then should anyone else take you more seriously?

>I haven't had anything I wanted to add to my previous comments on your
>various particulars.

Come on Steve, don't be so cowardly.

Steve Schulin

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 12:57:39 PM1/24/05
to

> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> >In article <1106528592....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > "James Annan" <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote, in part:
> >>
> >> What's the matter Steve, cat got your tongue? It's unlike you to be
> >> quite so tongue-tied.
> >>
> >> Your extreme reluctance to put your money where your mouth is implies
> >> that that you consider your outpourings to be literally worthless. Why
> >> then should anyone else take you more seriously?
>
> >I haven't had anything I wanted to add to my previous comments on your
> >various particulars.
>
> Come on Steve, don't be so cowardly.
>
> -W.

http://www.nuclear.com/graphics/Front_Page_News/20050124/Thanks_for_the_f
ish-BRA_JDB

Steve Schulin

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 5:33:42 PM1/24/05
to
In article <35l5nfF...@individual.net>,
James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Steve Schulin wrote:
> > "James Annan" <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote, in part:
> >
> >>What's the matter Steve, cat got your tongue? It's unlike you to be
> >>quite so tongue-tied.
> >>
> >>Your extreme reluctance to put your money where your mouth is implies
> >>that that you consider your outpourings to be literally worthless. Why
> >>then should anyone else take you more seriously?
> >
> > I haven't had anything I wanted to add to my previous comments on your
> > various particulars.
>

> It appears that you do indeed consider your claimed "opinion" here below
> to be literally worthless, a throw-away lie.

Nope. But I am starting to consider you in quite a different light than
in years past. A lot of Kerry voters are having difficulties being civil
these days, as best I can tell. Are you one of those miserable creatures?


>
> >>>I don't know if it's going to be warmer or cooler in 2030. Nor do I
> >>>think there's sufficient info to suggest which is more likely.
>

> You don't believe that. If you did, you would be interested in accepting
> my bet, and eagerly discussing how we could make the terms rigorous.
> Instead, you are squirming like a small child who has been caught
> telling a lie.

You've offered nothing but silliness thus far. What should I be eager
about?

> How much of the rest of your postings do you actually believe in? Can
> you identify any quantitative statement about future climate change that
> you have made, which you are prepared to wager is correct?

Back during Clinton impeachment, I might have said something comparing
the near-term likelihood of a cold day in hell with the likelihood that
the stonewalling Democrats would vote to convict. I hesitate to mention
this because somebody'll surely speculate about the implications of the
difference between weather and climate as it relates to this example.

James Annan

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 3:57:53 PM1/24/05
to
Steve Schulin wrote:

> In article <1106528592....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "James Annan" <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote, in part:
>
>>What's the matter Steve, cat got your tongue? It's unlike you to be
>>quite so tongue-tied.
>>
>>Your extreme reluctance to put your money where your mouth is implies
>>that that you consider your outpourings to be literally worthless. Why
>>then should anyone else take you more seriously?
>
>
> I haven't had anything I wanted to add to my previous comments on your
> various particulars.
>

It appears that you do indeed consider your claimed "opinion" here below
to be literally worthless, a throw-away lie.

>>>I don't know if it's going to be warmer or cooler in 2030. Nor do I


>>>think there's sufficient info to suggest which is more likely.

You don't believe that. If you did, you would be interested in accepting

my bet, and eagerly discussing how we could make the terms rigorous.
Instead, you are squirming like a small child who has been caught
telling a lie.

How much of the rest of your postings do you actually believe in? Can

you identify any quantitative statement about future climate change that
you have made, which you are prepared to wager is correct?

James

Eric Swanson

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 6:33:59 PM1/24/05
to
In article <35l5nfF...@individual.net>, still_th...@hotmail.com
says...

I've come to believe that Old Nuke is just playing the debating game for the
fun of it. But, Old Nuke has no clue...

If he knew anything about statistics, he would jump at the chance to wager.
If the bet is defined narrowly enough, there is always some probability that
one year will be cold, so, a 1000 to 1 bet might make sense just on the off
chance that a cold year will appear. For example, consider the possibility
of a Pinatubo or Krakatoa or Tambora in any one year. The odds might be
something like 1 in 100, so a bet with 1 in 1000 payback would make sense.
Especially if one could cover 50 individual years with a similar bet.
One might lose 49 years, but make a killing on number 50...

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

David Ball

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 8:26:56 PM1/24/05
to
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:33:42 -0500, Steve Schulin
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:

>In article <35l5nfF...@individual.net>,
> James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve Schulin wrote:
>> > "James Annan" <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote, in part:
>> >
>> >>What's the matter Steve, cat got your tongue? It's unlike you to be
>> >>quite so tongue-tied.
>> >>
>> >>Your extreme reluctance to put your money where your mouth is implies
>> >>that that you consider your outpourings to be literally worthless. Why
>> >>then should anyone else take you more seriously?
>> >
>> > I haven't had anything I wanted to add to my previous comments on your
>> > various particulars.
>>
>> It appears that you do indeed consider your claimed "opinion" here below
>> to be literally worthless, a throw-away lie.
>
>Nope. But I am starting to consider you in quite a different light than
>in years past. A lot of Kerry voters are having difficulties being civil
>these days, as best I can tell. Are you one of those miserable creatures?

He's being very civil. You, however, are not. You can't appear
here all the time, tell so many tall stories that you could have
penned Paul Bunyan and Casey Jones all by yourself, and with a
straight face no less, then claim that you are being civil. Lying to
people is the epitome of being uncivilized.

>>
>> >>>I don't know if it's going to be warmer or cooler in 2030. Nor do I
>> >>>think there's sufficient info to suggest which is more likely.
>>
>> You don't believe that. If you did, you would be interested in accepting
>> my bet, and eagerly discussing how we could make the terms rigorous.
>> Instead, you are squirming like a small child who has been caught
>> telling a lie.
>
>You've offered nothing but silliness thus far. What should I be eager
>about?

He offered you a fair bet at more than fair terms. You're
running away, as usual.


James Annan

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 8:37:22 PM1/24/05
to
Steve Schulin wrote:

> You've offered nothing but silliness thus far. What should I be eager

> about?

I've offered a bet that, according to your stated opinion[1], is worth
$25,000 to you. I've also offered to change the terms to be more
suitable to you, if you are prepared to give any hint as to what terms
might be acceptable. You refusal to even countenance a bargain that you
claim to be highly favourable to yourself, suggests strongly that your
claim is nothing more than an empty lie. What other reason do you have
for turning me down?

James

[1] Steve Schulin previously wrote: "I don't know if it's going to be

James Annan

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 8:43:45 PM1/24/05
to

Eric Swanson wrote:

> If he knew anything about statistics, he would jump at the chance to
wager.
> If the bet is defined narrowly enough, there is always some
probability that
> one year will be cold, so, a 1000 to 1 bet might make sense just on
the off
> chance that a cold year will appear. For example, consider the
possibility
> of a Pinatubo or Krakatoa or Tambora in any one year. The odds might
be
> something like 1 in 100, so a bet with 1 in 1000 payback would make
sense.
> Especially if one could cover 50 individual years with a similar bet.

> One might lose 49 years, but make a killing on number 50...

Well exactly. I am not sure that 1:1000 odds would be acceptable to me.
But if they are to Steve (and it is hard to imagine how they could not
be, given his claim), then we could negotiate seriously on trying to
finding a mutually acceptable deal - ie, one that we both believe is
favourable to ourselves.

Since so many of the septics seem to be rabid free-marketeers, I wonder
why no-one else has taken me up on my offer?

James

Steve Schulin

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 9:12:34 PM1/24/05
to
In article <1106617042.9...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"James Annan" <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:

LOL - it sounds like there's lots of experts you could ask for help in
framing a reasonable proposition. Nothing you've offered so far prompts
the eagerness you apparently desire. Good luck in whatever you choose to
pursue.

Phil Hays

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 9:21:11 PM1/24/05
to
Steve Schulin wrote:

>contentious huckstering

You can stop being a twit at any time. Why don't you start now?


--
Phil Hays
Phil-hays at posting domain (- .net + .com) should work for email

James Annan

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 9:43:16 PM1/24/05
to
Steve Schulin wrote:

> LOL - it sounds like there's lots of experts you could ask for help
in
> framing a reasonable proposition. Nothing you've offered so far
prompts
> the eagerness you apparently desire.

Can you explain why my proposition is unreasonable?

If you do so, I might be able to make it more reasonable to you. If you
continue to duck and weave, I certainly can't hope to pre-empt
whichever feeble excuse you may choose to come up with.

James

Steve Schulin

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 9:42:46 PM1/24/05
to
In article <tn7bv0dm3l4boqa4q...@4ax.com>,
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:33:42 -0500, Steve Schulin
> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <35l5nfF...@individual.net>,
> > James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Steve Schulin wrote:
> >> > "James Annan" <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote, in part:
> >> >
> >> >>What's the matter Steve, cat got your tongue? It's unlike you to be
> >> >>quite so tongue-tied.
> >> >>
> >> >>Your extreme reluctance to put your money where your mouth is implies
> >> >>that that you consider your outpourings to be literally worthless. Why
> >> >>then should anyone else take you more seriously?
> >> >
> >> > I haven't had anything I wanted to add to my previous comments on your
> >> > various particulars.
> >>
> >> It appears that you do indeed consider your claimed "opinion" here below
> >> to be literally worthless, a throw-away lie.
> >
> >Nope. But I am starting to consider you in quite a different light than
> >in years past. A lot of Kerry voters are having difficulties being civil
> >these days, as best I can tell. Are you one of those miserable creatures?
>
> He's being very civil. You, however, are not. You can't appear
> here all the time, tell so many tall stories that you could have
> penned Paul Bunyan and Casey Jones all by yourself, and with a
> straight face no less, then claim that you are being civil. Lying to
> people is the epitome of being uncivilized.

Dang. I've heard your lyin' blather about me before. But I never knew
you had something against Casey Jones.

> >> >>>I don't know if it's going to be warmer or cooler in 2030. Nor do I
> >> >>>think there's sufficient info to suggest which is more likely.
> >>
> >> You don't believe that. If you did, you would be interested in accepting
> >> my bet, and eagerly discussing how we could make the terms rigorous.
> >> Instead, you are squirming like a small child who has been caught
> >> telling a lie.
> >
> >You've offered nothing but silliness thus far. What should I be eager
> >about?
>
> He offered you a fair bet at more than fair terms. You're
> running away, as usual.

This latest offering seemed too vague a proposition to me, despite the
stamp of approval from all you learned cheerleaders. Talk about a bunch
of straight-faced liars.

James Annan

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 10:02:31 PM1/24/05
to
Steve Schulin wrote:

> LOL - it sounds like there's lots of experts you could ask for help
in
> framing a reasonable proposition. Nothing you've offered so far
prompts
> the eagerness you apparently desire.

Can you explain why my proposition is unreasonable?

Steve Schulin

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 11:13:02 PM1/24/05
to
In article <f2bbv0h6c0hgs1o54...@4ax.com>,
Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Steve Schulin wrote:
>
> >contentious huckstering
>
> You can stop being a twit at any time. Why don't you start now?

Dang, Phil. I'm just calling it as I see it. How would you handle his
contentious huckstering?

Steve Schulin

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 11:20:33 PM1/24/05
to
In article <1106620845.6...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"James Annan" <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:

If you're truly puzzled, I gladly refer you to my previous responses.

David Ball

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 11:34:06 PM1/24/05
to
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:42:46 -0500, Steve Schulin
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:

A snake-oil salesman, as always. It's too bad that people
recognize the swill you're peddling. I guess you'll have to move on to
somewhere that doesn't recognize your cons for what they are.

>
>> >> >>>I don't know if it's going to be warmer or cooler in 2030. Nor do I
>> >> >>>think there's sufficient info to suggest which is more likely.
>> >>
>> >> You don't believe that. If you did, you would be interested in accepting
>> >> my bet, and eagerly discussing how we could make the terms rigorous.
>> >> Instead, you are squirming like a small child who has been caught
>> >> telling a lie.
>> >
>> >You've offered nothing but silliness thus far. What should I be eager
>> >about?
>>
>> He offered you a fair bet at more than fair terms. You're
>> running away, as usual.
>
>This latest offering seemed too vague a proposition to me, despite the
>stamp of approval from all you learned cheerleaders. Talk about a bunch
>of straight-faced liars.
>

LOL. If you say so. Only you would attempt to claim that a
bright blue sky was really cloudy and expect people to believe you.

Phil Hays

unread,
Jan 25, 2005, 12:09:44 AM1/25/05
to
Steve Schulin wrote:

>Dang, Phil. I'm just calling it as I see it. How would you handle his
>contentious huckstering?

I would handle this bet with honesty. I'd suggest you take the bet,
or that you state clearly why you will not.

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Jan 25, 2005, 12:37:07 AM1/25/05
to

OK big shot. Offer a bet you would take or shut up.

josh halpern

Steve Schulin

unread,
Jan 25, 2005, 10:06:23 AM1/25/05
to
In article <aakbv05nhpsvq3e2m...@4ax.com>,
Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:

I have handled his various propositions honestly. More honestly than he
has, as best I can tell. I see no need to restate my previous clear
statements regarding any of them.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

P.S. Your suggestion that taking the latest vague bet is a reasonable
recommendation prompts me to think that the "twit" label you used
actually applies to you.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages