Here's an excerpt from a great article on global warming:
In 2005, Annan offered to take Lindzen, the MIT meteorologist, up on his bet that global temperatures in 20 years will be cooler than they are now. However, no wager was ever settled on because Lindzen wanted odds of 50-to-1 in his favor. This meant that for a $10,000 bet, Annan would have to pay Lindzen the entire sum if temperatures dropped, but receive only $200 if they rose.Talk is indeed cheap.
"Richard Lindzen's words say that there is about a 50 percent chance of [global] cooling," Annan wrote about the bet. "His wallet thinks it is a 2 percent shot. Which do you believe?"
Jon Stewart praises ‘SuperFreak’ author
New interactive map shows devastating effects of global temperature rise
Comments
View as Threaded
Delay And Deny Posted 8:17 am
13 Apr 2007
Crypto-Malthusians ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-malthusian ) are already asking every one of us to gamble hundreds of dollars: our tax money.
There have already been commissions, reports and soon their will be regulatory agencies and regulations based on the absolute believe of CMs in forecasts of temperature and its consequences.
Quite frankly...I think we're all forced into the role of losers on this.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 11:18 am
13 Apr 2007
Now, I get to rail about my pet peeve: a heliocentric universe! Why do scientists insist that the Earth revolves around the sun?! They just try to squash any counter-viewpoints. The "fact" that the Earth revolves around the sun is in fact only a theory. Therefore I am insisting that my local school district give equal time to the theory that the universe revolves around planet Earth in our local science classes.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:09 am
14 Apr 2007
Yes, it is a theory...but it's a very good one, one that provides lots of predictive power. You can also develop mathematics for planetary movement as if the earth were fixed and everything revolved around it, but these equations are far less elegant.
In physics, the "frame of reference" is extremely important. That's how Einstein racked up so many points...by showing there is no absolute frame of reference in the universe (at one point physicists thought that the center was an absolute frame of reference).
As far as this thing of such-and-such is only a theory. Well, that's not the point. A theory is as good as its predictive power. Its utility is not so much how it explains the past -- that just justifies its development, as how it can predict what will happen based on certain conditions.
So yes, the heliocentric theory is a theory, but it's a very good one, and it gives us some very nice math (Kepler). The geocentric theory can also have utility -- if you're an astrologer, you still look at the celestial sphere rotating in the heavens around a static Earth.
Same with evolution. Yes, "natural section" is a theory, but it has a lot of power for predicting. If you want to through "intelligent design" or "Bible Science" in the ring as theories, you can...you can always do that. The question is who's block is going to get knocked off when it comes time to placing bets and getting the right picks.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 7:08 am
14 Apr 2007
Have you read the discussion section of that Wikipedia article?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crypto-Malthusian
This guy has been posting on the website grist.org for a while to all of the stories.
An example: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/4/10/171745/455
First comment, links here.
[...]
I recommend this entry "Cryto-Mathusian" be deleted.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 7:18 am
14 Apr 2007
Actually, that was Hendrik Lorentz in 1892.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Lorentz#Electrodynamics_and_.22relativity.22
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:35 pm
14 Apr 2007
Luckily I retained the definition in my own site:
http://you-read-it-here-first.com/viewtopic.php?t=510
A Crypto-Malthusian is someone in the long line of philosophical-societal thinkers who believe that the artifices of Man will lead to a natural constraint of resources and result in the doom both of Nature and Man.
This line of thinkers includes Malthus himself as well as the Club of Rome, Peak Oilers, Peak Coalers, Anthropogenic Ice Agers and Silent Springers as well as current Anthropogenic Global Warmers.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:42 pm
14 Apr 2007
I added these references to the Wikipedia article:
The term is used as a reference to Marx, here:
http://www.global-samizdat.org/Global-Samizdat/GS1_Toward ...
And is made reference in a religio-political reference here:
http://www.hermetic.com/bey/millennium/millennium.html
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 3:20 pm
14 Apr 2007
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crypto-MalthusianIt says there thatfyi. jabailo is a wannabe troll.Frankly, I can't believe they refer to you as a "wannabe troll." That's so unfair --- have they not read your posts? There's no "wannabe" about it. You're an accomplished troll.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:17 pm
14 Apr 2007
Wikipedia editors need to log in when they make edits, or else others can see their IP addresses (which, in turn, can be used to discover personal information) by looking at the requisite article Revision Histories.
These are the Wikipedia guidelines on article creation:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article
If you feel your article-subject qualifies as appropriate for Wikipedia, on the article Discussion Page you can explain your reasons for that.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:15 am
15 Apr 2007
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink