Public bets capture the imagination. They do not prove much but they speak louder than words. Without direct access to inner beliefs, bets might be the best we have to express them {1}. Tell me how much a person is willing to bet, and I will tell you how confident they are in their belief.
§1 Warren and Ted
Once upon a time, Warren Buffett betted against Ted Seides that the S&P index would fare better than hand picked funds over 10 years. At the end of December 2007, results were in: Warren won. THE END. {2}
How much did he win? Nothing: 1M was on the line, in fact 2.2M has been given to a local charity. The bet had small financial downside but potent reputational upside, little risk to promote the belief that hedge fund freaks didn’t deserve their exorbitant fees and that investors were better served with buying and holding the whole market. For those who want to know more, allow Burton to explain:
§2 James and Dick
Non-bets also reveal information. Once upon another time, James Annan offered Dick Lindzen to bet 10K on his claim that global temperatures would fall in the following 20 years. Dick offered 50-to-1 odds. That is, for a 200 bucks wager Dick could get a 10K reward. James understandably refused. Even I may have been tempted to take Dick’s side of the bet {3}. For better perspective, the bet was in 2005:
How much worth is Dick’s belief if potential counterparties would side with him? While his words convey that temperatures would fall, his bet tells us he as no confidence whatsoever that it will.
This post took time to write, most of it spent researching Climateball bets. I had a list in Obsidian, but a copy-pasting glitch emptied it. (That’ll teach me not to work in a real spreadsheet with a decent control version system.) A new stub appears under this post. Please help me complete it.
§3 Larry Then and Now
The quintessential bet differs from the one we collectively have to underwrite facing Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). It also differs from the well-known practice of preaching on what otters ought to bet. One last example is thus in order.
Once upon an older time, Larry Williams won the World Cup Trading Championship by turning 10K into over 1.1M in a 12-month competition. A 11,376% performance. With real money. Not too shabby, if we compare with Warren’s 9,39% track record over his last 30 years. And that’s not a single event: he made 1M trading during his seminars, while entertaining an audience! {4}
Larry’s a true legend, in the world of trading and beyond. He helped found Rock N Roll Marathons, which raised hundreds of millions for charity around the world {5}. Yet he is also a cycle nut, which is not too uncommon in that domain. For instance, traders often share a chart that allegedly predicts the stock market. Still, I was surprised to learn that he’s into Scafetta.
It is well known that technical analysis is astrology for risk seeking dudes. I have no problem with that, as long as one gambles with beer or wine money {6} and, more importantly, with one’s own money. By becoming a guru (with coaching and forecasts gigs) Larry fails the second condition. To my knowledge, his products can’t be audited, neither can the performance results of his musings be verified.
* * *
All and all, take your beliefs srsly enough to commit to them {6}, say by investing with reasonable bets. You keep touting nukes? Buy uranium. You insist that we ought to invest more in infrastructures? There’s a whole sector for it. You don’t know what to make of Elon’s trolling? Neither buy nor short TSLA. Not only you’ ll win silly online arguments, you’ll build yourself a decent Climateball portfolio.
Notes
{1} Psychologists often measure subject preferences with gambling setups.
{2} Warren can make bad bets too. He once fell for a Ponzi scheme.
{3} A risk reward ratio may caution to bet against our belief. We can always be wrong; sometimes it can be profitable. Nassim made his fortune that way.
{4} Never trade futures unless you know what you’re doing. One bad bet can wipe you out. Online platforms report that most of their accounts lose money. The Kelly criterion may lead to sorrow.
{5} Larry often lost too, for instance against the IRS, and twice for senatorship in Montana. A betting life is a numbers’ game.
{6} Gambling addiction is real. It causes as much harm as substance abuse. If you cannot control your impulses, do not gamble and hire a financial advisor that asks for as small a fee as possible.
{7} In an argumentative setting, claims involve commitment. The “Just” series of tricks (Just Asking Questions, Just My Opinion, etc.) lacks commitment.
Climateball Bets
2022-01. Long Bet 883. An annual average temperature anomaly value above the 1850-1899 baseline will be published in the Berkeley Earth Global Temperature series as 2.0C or higher on or before the 2037 value (published in 2038). Between John Mitchell and Zeke Hausfather.
2021-02. Don’t Climate Bet Against the House. A review of some bets, including the one between Zeke Hausfather and Joe Bastardi. Joe owes Zeke five dinners.
2021-02. A Climate Bet Impossible to Lose. When Rob & alii took Pierre’s crowd to the woodshed.
2021-02. Sea Ice Betting. Our Stoatness won a few bets on sea ice over the years.
2021-01. 2021 update on my global warming “traffic light” bet. Yoram Bauman’s bet with Bryan Caplan and Alex Tabarrok (with various odds) that the NOAA global land-ocean average for 2015-2029 would be more or less than the average for 2000-2014 plus 0.05°C.
2020-12. Between 2021 and the end of 2030, annual fossil fuel emissions (excluding carbonation) will not exceed annual fossil fuel emissions (excluding carbonation) from 2019. Ken Caldeira accepts Ted Nordaus’ challenge. (H/T Mike.)
2020-01. I’ve won my climate bet for 1500$. Brian Schmidt won against famous gold nut David Evans.
2018-10. This scientist keeps winning money from people who bet against climate change ; a story about James’ non-bet with Dick.
2016-07. Making a safe bet on dangerous climate change. Chris Hope perfectly hedged his bet against Sir Alan Rudge and Ian Plimer.
2015-12. Why I decided not to enter the $100,000 global warming time-series challenge. Andrew Gelman explains the quasi-fraudulent unfairness of Douglas Keenan’s challenge.
2013-09. Want to Bet? On the bet by Stephen Schneider to Julian Simon in 1995, which was refused.
2011-06. On the global mean temperature trend for the period 2010 to 2020.
2011-02. Even odds on the period starting in 2005 vs the period ending in 2020, minimum 5 year period. Deep Climate offers a bet at Judy’s, in response to one of Judy’s comment. An unpicked gauntlet.
2007-12. Of Ice and Men. Joe Romm’s bet with Brian Schmidt, James, and our Stoatness.
2007-02. The Climate Bet. Scott Armstrong monitoring of a fake bet until 2021, where he clearly lost it. Why of course he claimed an easy win in 2013.
2005-11. Betting on Climate Change. James Annan & Dick’s non-bet and his related AGU poster.
2005-08. Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world. Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev have yet to pay James, I believe.
2005-06. Betting on Climate Change. James write-up for Gavin’s.
2005-05. Trying to Bet on Climate with Piers Corbyn. Another non-bet for James.
2005-05. Yet More Betting on the Climate Weather Report. This time it’s Chip & Pat who chicken out.
2005-05. More Betting on Climate. A non-bet between George Monbiot and Myron Ebel, refused by Myron, who acknowledged the warming.
...and Then There's Physics 
In AT’s tradition, I might as well kick things off, and will mention that there are three other interesting usages of the notion of bet in Climateball:
1. The safe bet:
https://climateinstitute.ca/safe-bets-and-wild-cards/
2. The big bet:
https://www.macfound.org/info-grantseekers/
3. The prediction market:
https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/1294/
There are all sorts of ways to stretch the idea.
Climate and environment betting has an elemental aspect.
Long bets on lithium have outperformed the Ehrlich- Simon basket of futures.
> Long bets on lithium
Assuming one has access to future contracts, with reasonable costs, you bet:
https://www.investing.com/commodities/lithium-carbonate-99.5-min-china-futures-historical-data
Click on “[monthly].” Since last autumn the price is quite choppy.
For those who prefer to sleep reasonably well during week-ends, there are ETFs (e.g. LIT, HLIT) whose exposure passes through a basket of lithium producers.
***
Thank you for reminding me of the non-bet between Stephen Schneider and Julian Simon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager
Julian would have had no chance with the first items on that list!
I’ll have other things to say on Ehrlich. Another time. It’s getting late.
Willard, I said Long Bets
When modern lithium batteries emerged in 1980, noting the periodic chart had nothing better to offer electrochemistry by way of lighter or more energy-dense elements, I humored an Arab friend at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy by writing a report suggesting the Saudi’s invest a little oil money in developing their lithium brine resources.
Sadly for postmodern supplies, they didn’t bite.
Your suggestion looks like a good one, Russell, with and without hindsight. As the Auditor would attest, mining can be as profitable as it is risky.
Can’t find older time series than that:
https://www.dailymetalprice.com/metalpricecharts.php?c=li&u=kg&d=240
The drop in spot price might be good news for electric vehicles on the short term. Volatility cuts both ways (metals being metals) and since 2023 the market is getting rough. There is this prediction that prices will regain momentum:
https://www.fastmarkets.com/insights/spot-price-volatility-drives-record-volumes-cme-lithium-contract
Wouldn’t bet on it, but then I’m no metal nut. Could ask a friend who’s one.
At the time Li2CO3, which is 18.7% lithium, was a few bucks a pound, but the metal was $29 /lb FOB Taiwan
As for Ehrlich, it would be hard to top this critical review of his magnum opus:
Not the first zoologist (assuming entomology is part of zoology) to become an opinionator.
Kind of a funny story here. I have an outstanding bet, but I failed to set objective terms, and I don’t know how or if it will be followed up. There is a fake skeptic who posts at the New York Times, whom I suspect is a financial person with a PhD in statistics, by the name of Ralphie, very skilled at appearances (and nasty with it, a cherrypicker extraordinaire). I think I posed, and he accepted, a bet. I offered 10 to 1 in thousands (dollars) that by 2035 he would be unable to deny climate change (yes, I know, that was a stupid of me, there should have been some kind of objective, numerate qualification). We are to meet, I think, on November 11(?) 2035, at the top of Cadillac Mountain (Acadia Park in Maine) where he said he’d show up with a carnation in his buttonhole (! 😉 )
I cannot emphasize how silly this is, since I will be 87 then (I think there’s a road), but since you mentioned bets I thought it might at least cause a few chuckles/chortles amongst the regulars here.
The chances of this meeting are slim to none, so don’t waste your sympathy, but laugh with me.
now you know why moshpit framed lukewarmers as taking an underbet on ECS
anyone want to take bets on
for president.
Draft Kings offers +800 on the other Junior and Captain Joe gets -500:
https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/news/politics/joe-bidens-odds-to-be-2024-democratic-nominee-continue-to-improve-anti-vaxxer-robert-kennedy-sits-distant-second/
Cornel West is leading the People’s Party to victory in 2024!
I like brother West, he gives me a “Black Bernie Sanders masquerading as political philosopher” vibe.😀Heck he could pass for a Black Karl Marx with that afro.
https://www.cornelwest24.com/
Thanks for linking that video, Steven.
I managed to endure almost 30 minutes.
I knew he’s wacked but didn’t fully appreciate just how wacked. Actually puts Jordan to shame on the wacked front (I’m assuming a significant % of Jordan’s wackiness is a put on for the sake of easy gifting)…
I love how the commercials are fear-mongering to sell gold and VPN. Perfect!
I’ll say this for Robert – he’s way smarter than Jordan. Jordan kept asking him inane questions and Robert just stepped right around them very smoothly.
Looks like climate scientists are learning to play against the Climateball Bingo:
Source: https://theclimatebrink.substack.com/p/is-co2-plant-food
Not a one of these aircraft crushed somewhere where it couldn’t be covered up. Not one on a farmer’s field, who then contacted the press.
No photographic evidence got to the press.
Not one in another country where American intelligence and military couldn’t hide it.
And these aliens could travel across galaxies but couldn’t land without crashing.
This is headline news at Fox News, and it’s now a article of faith in the
right wing.heterodox pod-o-sphere.Conspiracy theories? What conspiracy theories?
And this proves that vaccines cause autism.
Our next president, thanks to Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan.
Jesus, we’re so fucked.
Joshua,
Hyperconnected societies of most mammal species with central nervous systems can collapse because they become psychotic. We are already well into a Behavorial Sink when looking at demographic trends. The foolish bet is that our technology save us from ourselves before we cross a boundary line, much like the climate change debate.
Extraterrestrial aliens on earth is improbable but I won’t rule out interdimensional beings from alternate realities.
I’ll bet like $100K that OHC and/or GAT have not gone up in the PAST 30 years! I’ll even give anyone majorly big odds to boot. Problem is, you have to actually collect the bet, good luck in doing so, as I’ll just file for bankruptcy, specifically Chapter 7.
I’ve broken every betting rule in the book so to speak, definitely not normal behavior. But hey, I’ll front the money from the cash those Nigerians send me, I promise.
Betting is for fools. But I know that already. As I am a fool.
Forget autism, Josh.
It’s the ones that cause atheism that have them riled.
russell – They know it’s coming.
https://catholicherald.co.uk/beware-ai-the-next-assault-on-god-and-his-church/
“Kingsnorth warns that the mixture of untrammeled egotistic desire and the leap forward in Artificial Intelligence, unbounded by moral or philosophical restraint of any kind, will overwhelm everything we know of both humanity and nature.
“Transhumanism, artificial intelligence, the growing of food and babies in laboratories, transcending of everything from biology to gender, – we are trying to break the limits and redefine nature itself.”
Nor, unlike the vandals at the back gates who have tried to disguise the secular utopianism of their project, is the assault or project at the front gates hidden. All the people responsible for it are very open about what they are doing.
…
Elise Bohan, a well-known Oxford academic pioneering the pursuit of transhumanism, reflected on how at a conference on transhumanism a biologist working at the cutting edge of the discipline murmured to her, “we are building god you know”. ”I know” she answered.
Ray Kurzweil, who earned a fortune developing computer voice recognition and is now Google’s new Director of Engineering, when asked recently if God exists replied, “not yet.”
An interesting website:
https://www.predictit.org/research
I will take a listen a the Featured podcasts.
An interesting bet:
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/7053/Who-will-win-the-2024-Republican-presidential-nomination
Teh Donald gets 59-42 and Ron 30-71.
Biden 48%
Trump 30%
Ron 15%
https://www.metaculus.com/questions/11245/winner-of-2024-us-presidential-election/
I really like that graph because it shows very clearly that there are definitely periods for several yeas at a time where there is no warming happening at all. If fact, during those periods, the global temperature actually falls. All we need to do is to remove the outlier single year occasions when the global temperature rises dramatically and we will be headed toward the next ice age that we all know was coming. We have done an amazing job of preventing the cooling that we would have expected with the regular cycle into an increasing icy world that is evident in the record. NOAA says we broke some record on that: https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/broken-record-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels-jump-again
I just checked the CO2 and we remain well under the 425 ppm level where I think we might get worried. I see a rosy future for all of us. President Biden has settled the silly debt limit thing now and can turn his focus to all the good things he can do before the next election and during his next term. We got this!
[Snip. Keep the rest of your sarcastic drive-by for AT’s threads. -W]
[Playing the ref. -W]
My number one fan chimes in:
Source: https://cliscep.com/2023/05/15/debunking-lomborg/#comment-141808
Hard to say if he read the piece, for there’s nothing right in that take.
The first claim is refuted by the point of the the last part, i.e. I have no problem with [how bets are justified], as long as one gambles with beer or wine money and, more importantly, with one’s own money.
The second claim is completely fabricated. So is the third claim, which follows from it, and the fall, which spins the usual victim playing by contrarians. Readers should know by now that I leave intention speak and bad faith to Joshua. None of these claims are supported anyway, so it’s just mere contradiction.
It should not be that hard to understand that Dick’s 1-50 bet on the possibility that temps don’t rise speaks louder than his cries that they they won’t rise. No need to interpret furthermore the deep reasons why Dick can’t put his money where his mouth is. For all I know Dick’s counteroffer was a mere rejection. He could have said “no thanks,” but went for cuteness instead.
JR makes more sense in post-Quinean philosophical perspective:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/06/up-from-aristotle.html
> . Readers should know by now that I leave intention speak and bad faith to Joshua.
Huh?
I try not to deal with faith, J, good or bad. Reporting the oddity of Dick’s odds is more than good enough.
This does not mean I reject intentionality altogether, or that I have no intuition about sincerity, morality, etc. (To break the intentional circle may not be possible.) It just means I try to play the ball where it lands, and try to play it the same way whoever plays it. I also try not to say what I try to do, and let what I say and do stands on its own. Otherwise it always ends up in metacommunication all the way down.
To each their own.
The inimitable Cliff Asness reminds us that betting for might not be enough:
https://www.aqr.com/Insights/Perspectives/Shorting-Your-Way-to-a-Greener-Tomorrow
One might need to bet against.
Willard –
There seems to be some misunderstanding here.
I usually assume people’s intentions are to find the truth, to be right, to solve problems to the best benefit for the most people.
That assumption reflects my life experiences as it fits with most of the people I’ve ever met. It includes most of the people I’ve encountered on blogs, including most “skeptics.”
Apparently you think I’m regularly assuming the intentions of blog contributors (in particular RWers or “skeptics”) to be something else. That isn’t the case.
As for “faith”…
I work from something of a different defintion of “bad faith” than most. For me, bad faith is when someone accuses me of lying, or “trying to distract,” etc. When someone assumes my intention is something other than to reach mutual understanding of each other’s vires, to understand where we agree and where we disagree. “Good faith” is when my interlocutor assumes that I mean what I say, even if sometimes it turns out that my intended meaning is something other than how they interpreted it initially. IOW, if they characterize something I said and I say “that’s not what I meant,” they don’t accuse me of trying to obfuscate or to deny being wrong or whatever. “Good faith” engagement is where my interlocutor and I work together to make sure we understand what each other is saying. We work to clarify definitions so we can work from a shared foundation. We obviously won’t always agree, but at least we can work until we’re clear that we understand what each other is saying. The basic frame is that we can paraphrase each other so that we will each say “Yes, that was my intended meaning.” Some people like the idea of “steelmanning” and in a sense it’s somewhat related. It requires relinquishment of the fundamental attribution error. It requires cognitive empathy.
I have encountered many people on blogs whose “intentions” I don’t particularly question (mind-probing is hard). I assume their intent is to be right and to find the correct answer. That doesn’t at all prevent them from falling prey to cognitive biases, of course.
But I’ve encountered many people whose intent I don’t particularly question but who are clearly engaging in “bad faith” exchange (as undefine it). I find bad faith exchange to be the norm between most people who argue (from opposite camps) with me about things on these blogs. There are a few exceptions. Mark Bofill is one. Assigning responsibility for why the exchanges are in bad faith can be tough. I’m sure mostly there’s responsibility on both sides even though, usually, I’m actually trying my best to foster good faith exchange until the point where I feel that I just can’t get my interlocutor to exchange in “good faith.”
… as I define it..
> Apparently you think I’m regularly assuming the intentions of blog contributor
I only hold that you talk about that kind of metacommunication a lot, J. To assume good faith is perfectly normal and fine, and I do not see why you would not. My point is that it just is not something that changes how I interact.
My mind may be more suspicious than yours, however, as I do not share your appreciation of Mark. Which does not mean much: I would bet that most Climateball players would enjoy meeting IRL. We all share the same passion. Most misunderstandings would take less time to solve with more channels than text.
All and all, I am far from being sold on the idea that Dick is acting in bad faith.
Willard –
> My mind may be more suspicious than yours, however, for I do not share your appreciation of Mark.
“good” or “bad” faith as I define them are descriptors of a given exchange (not a person), and usually a particular exchange with me. It might generalize to a given individual’s tendencies in exchange with me or with most people some or most of the time but often doesn’t generalize like that. It would be a rare person indeed who would always exchange views in good faith with all the people all the time.
I wouldn’t doubt that Mark wouldn’t deal with all people in good faith all the time. In fact, there have been times when he adopted a “bad faith” approach with me (for example, thought I was intentionally mischaracterizing something he said so I could turn it into something that was obviously wrong or absurd), but we can always work it out (where at least we can agree that we each understand what the other is saying).
Susan – “The chances of this meeting are slim to none, so don’t waste your sympathy, but laugh with me.”
I’d say the chance of bumping into him that day on a mountain might be even higher then the chance of him changing his mind. His version of skeptic is to dodge away from any thread of evidence he starts with once someone asks him to look at the next three items beyond his personal choices.
But hey, plenty of time before late 2035. If he announces he’s changed his mind by then, I’ll take my flying car over to Cadillac Mountain and bring the champagne.
Susan, Armistice Day is not Northeast Harbor’s liveliest time of year anyway.
An update. Teh Donald is now at 55 cents, and Ron at 31 cents:
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/7053/Who-will-win-the-2024-Republican-presidential-nomination
Meanwhile, another kind of bet:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/facing-brutal-climate-math-us-bets-billions-direct-air-capture-2023-04-18/
One of the bidders mentioned is OXY, which is 4% of Warren’s portfolio:
https://hedgefollow.com/funds/Berkshire+Hathaway
Kalshi has a market in whether GISS will break a record this year. A good bet at 30 cents IMO with transition to nino underway and man-made forcing in a short-term (hopefully) upward spike.
Cool:
https://kalshi.com/markets/gtemp/global-average-temperature-deviation#gtemp-23
Damn:
https://kalshi.com/markets/gtemp/global-average-temperature-deviation#gtemp-23
Roy’s is the perfect honey pot for cranks:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1495403
Bordo always has a story like that. Every single day. As long as he bets with his own money and develops no gambling problems, fine with me.
I added a trigger warning in the notes.
@bfagan – Thanks, as a fellow sufferer from his attentions, I’ll welcome that flying champaign!
But … We err in giving credit to sleazy but careful / skillful misrepresentations by the likes of Ralphie (remember wmar?). To accuse him of being an honest denier ignores that he has to see all the information in order to be so good at cherrypicking. Also, the NYTimes regularly deletes the more successful (by ‘votes’) rebuttals I post; objectivity does not enter into the removal of said honest rebuttals. [It is not surprising that enterprising fake skeptics have infiltrated the monitoring process, but it is disappointing.]
Honest people with open minds are at a disadvantage with dedicated liars. We start by assuming good faith, but it’s no such thing.
Facilis descensus Averno; also, better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.
Re gambling with our future, in the metaphorical sense: the MAGA universe is out in force saying smoke from wildfires is good for us. Fact!
https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/166680450137288704
the maga world is not interested in what is true or factual. They mainly spout/repeat ideological nonsense. Best to simply ignore them. You can make bets with them if you want, but I don’t think you can collect when they lose the bet.
Is everything we do a bet? Serious question even. If everything is cast in the form of a probability, e. g. non binary or not determinant, the obvious answer is yes. But beliefs and betting appear to be two different things. So that alarmist and deniers should bet with the prevailing trend lines not against the prevailing trend lines. Ergo Dick may have certain beliefs but those beliefs should not cloud ones judgement and that also appears to be true.
Chris’ tweet is gone, Susan.
* * *
Some argue that brains are prediction machines, Everett, e.g. Andy Clark:
A bet is a prediction with payoff. To connect beliefs with bets is to connect probability with payoff. To be right is not the same thing as to make money. One can be wrong 60% of the times and still be very rich. It all depends on the size of the wins and the losses.
Nassim Taleb offers the following example somewhere. (I’m not telling, because my Number One Fan is still eavesdropping.) A trader may expect that the market will go up, but know that if it goes down, the reward will be big. So he goes short the market. What is the belief – that the market goes up or that the market goes down?
I duly submit his bet speaks louder than everything else he might say.
In other words, many decision difficulties spring from the fact that we conflate or dichotomize payoffs and probabilities. Money managers do not think in binary terms, i.e. right or wrong. They think in terms of overall performance.
A similar number games can happen in the brains, and runs as deep as perception:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-the-nature-of-consciousness-20230531/
So in some sense what we fear about AI is what made us human.
Willard, beware channelling the singular Mr. Kurzweil.
Susan, I’m not accusing our pal of being an honest denier, just a busy one. Useful as an opportunity to reply with credible information, and sometimes point out exactly where he shifted from failed argument A to failed argument B. As for wmar, ugh – not just the volume of wrong he posted, but the website he used, with the endless supply of misleading charts. Those were swampy days.
For the topic of climate bets – an upcoming workshop from the National Academies: “Climate Intervention in an Earth Systems Science Framework: A Workshop”
“Climate intervention techniques are increasingly technically feasible, but remain highly controversial due to their transboundary nature, their risks of unintended harmful impacts, and the presence of fundamental ethical concerns. Advancing understanding of the potential efficacy, cascading environmental and social impacts, and societal acceptability of climate intervention requires broad public engagement and ongoing collaboration across a diverse spectrum of expertise.”
https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/06-20-2023/climate-intervention-in-an-earth-systems-science-framework-a-workshop
And for resurrecting old bets, this past Sunday, Andy Kessler at WSJ tried bringing back Lindzen’s iris effect as a way to save us all while protecting the fossil industry.
“But what if the entire premise is wrong? What if the Earth is self-healing? Before you hurl the “climate denier” invective at me, let’s think this through. Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years—living organisms for 3.7 billion. Surely, an enlightened engineer might think, the planet’s creator built in a mechanism to regulate heat, or we wouldn’t still be here to worry about it.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-the-climate-heal-itself-cumulus-cirrus-clouds-negative-feedback-un-30bbbef0
I’ve never seen the Iris fans explain how the planet was far hotter in the past if this built-in fix was installed from the beginning by the creator. Maybe it only activates when humans are in harm’s way?
> A trader may expect that the market will go up, but know that if it goes down, the reward will be big. So he goes short the market. What is the belief – that the market goes up or that the market goes down?
Looking more generally (maybe you’ve addressed this…(I haven’t actually checked):
Perhaps unlike money managers, I might bet on my team’s opponent to win because (irrationally?) I have a feeling that doing so will increase the chances my team will win (the “reverse jinx”) or at least as a hedge against the disappointment if they lose. Or I might bet on an underdog to win because of the favorable payoff even though I believe they will (likely) lose.
J,
Hedging fears with expectations is indeed fairly common. I know Habs fans who betted on Tampa Bay during the 2021-2022 Stanley Cup finals. Not because the Lightning was favorite, but to get something out of a disappointing loss. To reject this behaviour as irrational reveals a rigid conception of rationality more than anything. This might be the main point on which I side with Nassim. Humans may be a bit dumb, but they are not that dumb.
One can take beliefs as bets without reducing or eliminating the former. Most of our beliefs cannot lead to any formal bet. Some are transient, others are non conscious, etc. One could be tempted to say that a bet modulates confidence or some degree of belief. Under that light, Dick expressed a 98% confidence (or more} that it would warm. This is higher than Richie’s *high nineties*! To claim that Dick is simply too risk averse to offer a bet that would express the contrarianism he professes would be preposterous. Worse, it would imply that Dick acts as a guru.
As far as I know the various proposals to join modalities, as logic or calculus, work well enough for their intended application but end up failing as general framework. Humans might need all the various conceptual tools they developed over various epochs or cultures. Which goes on to support what you said earlier of your experience with Mark: clarification is obtained mostly through interaction.
The point of the post was twofold. First, to remind that beliefs that carry consequences are worth more than mere pontification. Second, that Climateball beliefs can be put to work by using them to preserve one’s capital. We only have one life. No need to waste it entertaining beliefs for which we won’t commit. No need to sacrifice prudence to follow that path.
Willard –
Got partly through that video.
I like this referenced idea:
> In recent work in the theoretical foundations of cognitive science, it has become commonplace to separate three distinct levels of analysis of information-processing systems. David Marr (1982) has dubbed the three levels the computational, the algorithmic, and the implementational; Zenon Pylyshyn (1984) calls them the semantic, the syntactic, and the physical; and textbooks in cognitive psychology sometimes call them the levels of content, form, and medium (e.g. Glass, Holyoak, and Santa 1979).
I really like it as a tool to mitigate the frequent conflation of correlation and causation. It seems to me to be a nice companion with Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation: strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experiment, and analogy.
I think there’s a notable lack of examples of people shorting climate change for profit, although I supposed that could be for a few different reasons that don’t directly translate to belief about climate change per se.
Exactly, J. While one can and perhaps ought to turn Climateball beliefs into bets, the converse is less clear. But notice the difference:
(1) N* believes that the market will crash on Monday the 19th October 1987.
(2) N* believes that if a Black Monday happens he could make a killing by betting against it.
The first is categorical, or binary as Nassim puts it, Either it is true or it is false. Something you emphasize often as leading to bad inferences. The second is conditional. It does not imply a prediction, it provides instead an opportunity to make money. So here is what Nassim did:
Source: https://youtu.be/us3P4aTSR7g (click to see)
Nassim entered the trade fully aware that he could be wrong, as most of the times he is. But his risk was minimal, and the reward career-making. So he went for it. The risk profile of Nassim’s strategy reverses the risk profile of adverse fat tail events. Instead of losing everything when a black swan happens, he wins big.
So of course Nassim takes AGW and GMO very seriously. And of course once contrarians (hi Judy!) realized that Nassim was not on their side, they ditched him. Which reinforces what Andy Clark argues in his presentation: people see and read what they expect to see because the brain works like that.
A minor note on Andy’s work: I am not a big fan of the Free Energy Principle. As a mathematical shortcut, fine. As a deep almost metaphysical principle, no thanks.
I just recalled teh Keenan episode:
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2015/12/09/why-i-decided-not-to-enter-the-100000-global-warming-time-series-challenge/
The concept of fair game may escape contrarians.
I read this: “Greenhouse gas emissions have reached an all-time high, threatening to push the world into “unprecedented” levels of global heating, scientists have warned.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/08/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-at-all-time-high-study-finds
and I think of all the times over the past decade or two when folks have told me they believe our emissions have now peaked and that my concerns about rising emission levels are alarmist.
As a single data point of that type, check this one out: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/01/02/have-co2-emissions-peaked/
I think a reasonable person might be alarmed about the current state of ghg emission accumulation and the impacts of global warming. No reason to go all “alarmist” over it. Just note that you are slightly alarmed and move on. Or follow the bets that have been made on emission peaks. I would put money on Caldeira position if Nordhaus would put up some collateral. Is there anyone reading these comments that would like to place a bet on when we hit peak emissions and start the drawdown?
Some fires getting started in woods of Cascadia this past week. Seems early, but looks like it may have started in a campfire. Those things happen, right?
https://www.fs.usda.gov/alerts/giffordpinchot/alerts-notices/?aid=80692
Cheers
Mike
> I would put money on Caldeira position if Nordhaus would put up some collateral.
Now we’re talking!
Pray tell more about Caldeira and Nordhaus’ positions.
Splendid. Added to the list of bets, with a tip of the hat to you. Many thanks!
Will check if there are other long bets like this one. Used to promote the service at Judy’s. Speaking of which, I found back this bet offer by DC:
Source: https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/lisbon-workshop-on-reconciliation-part-iv/#comment-38141
I’ll cite this one too. Why not?
Another great episode, but without a real bet:
[JOE] You misunderstand the concept of power input and output. In one second, which is what the S-B Law applies to (i.e., W/m2) the output comes over the entire globe. Where is the input in that same second, in accordance with the S-B Law? The input is over the daylight hemisphere. Output and input have different surface area and so the input power is at least twice as high as the output power. Total energy is balanced in aggregate, and the energy absorbed on the day-side is not immediately output over the entire globe. Please distinguish between power and total energy.
[ELI] Wanna bet???
[ME] longbets.org
Source: https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/16/postma-on-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-100542
What an opportunity wasted!
One last for the road, this time featuring Girma & Mosh:
[GIRMA] How about you and me betting on the global mean temperature trend for the period 2005 to 2015 for the hadcrut data? If the trend is positive, you win. If it is negative or zero, I win. How about that?
[MOSH] I’d make bets on future data from here forward, but a bet on 2005 to 2015, is a bit silly. its essentially a bet on 2011 to 2015 which in climate terms is a crap shoot. A bet on the next 10 years might make more sense. I’d bet the warming was less than .2C, you can take the over .2C half of the bet. In anycase the next 4 years of data will not change my position on #1. and WRT #2, I dont think 4 more years of cooling would change the sensitivity estimate below 1.56C.
[ROB] LOL…sucker bet offered there. What if the bet was 2011 to 2021, and the over/under was a .14 C rise by then. Which side would you put $100K usd on?
[GIRMA] Fine. How about betting on the global mean temperature trend for the period 2010 to 2020 for the hadcrut3vgl.txt data? If the trend is greater or equal to 0.1 deg C per decade you win. If it is less than 0.1 deg C per decade, I win. How about that?
[MOSH] 10 years from june 2011. Sure
[ME] http://longbets.org/
Source: https://judithcurry.com/2011/06/01/making-the-lukewarmer-case/#comment-72889
Not sure if Mosh was responding to Girma or Rob.
Now I’m starting to miss my deleted file again!
Just found this one:
This one made me smile:
https://longbets.org/601/
I dragged in Ray Kurzweil because he said something new about Pascal’s Bet.
Asked by interviewer at a Transhumanism conference ” Is there a God?”, he replied:
“Not yet.”
joshua
Not one in another country where American intelligence and military couldn’t hide it.
see brazil, a most famous example
ill say this: moshpit has left on a planr from Mcarren and landed at groom lake
area 51.
not willing to discuss anything except this
The “model vehicle” we presented showed 17 different ideas we had come up with to slow it down.
we nicknamed it the hockey puck. it was slick….
none of our ideas were acceptable
my goto history record
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veritable_Records_of_the_Joseon_Dynasty
reat care was taken to ensure the neutrality of the historiographers, who were also officials with legal guarantees of independence. Nobody was allowed to read the Sacho, not even the king, and any historiographer who disclosed its contents or changed the content could be punished with beheading. These strict regulations lend great credibility to these records.[5]
Yet at least one king, tyrannical Yeonsangun, looked into the Annals, and this led to the First Literati Purge of 1498, in which one recorder and five others were cruelly executed because of what was written in the Sacho.[citation needed] This incident led to greater scrutiny to prevent the king from seeing the Annals. In the Later Joseon period when there was intense conflict between different political factions, revision or rewriting of sillok by rival factions took place, but they were identified as such, and the original version was preserved
ufos in korea circa 400?
http://youngit.blogspot.com/2012/08/ufo-recorded-in-annals-of-choson.html?m=1
chinese stories got them all beat
The female alien’s visit allegedly took place a few days later. While earlier reports suggested they had intercourse for 40 minutes, Meng stated in an interview in November last year that the sensation only lasted three or four seconds—“I was being experimented on,” he claimed.
https://www.theworldofchinese.com/2022/09/greatest-mysteries-the-story-of-chinas-most-famous-ufo-sighting/
Lemme guess – some dude in Brazil has some grainy out of focus footage of a fast-moving shiny object?
So funny.
Where’s the fucking evidence? Has the spaceship that was discovered in Brazil been displayed on national TV there? Do the Brazilians recovered alien pilots and we don’t know8 about it?
You missed my point entirely. The claim is that alien ships and pilots have been recovered here, and the evidence has been hidden from the public by the deep state. So then my point is why hasn’t the evidence been made public in other countries? Do these aliens only cdsj land in US territory. Does the US intelligence community jet all around the world to suppress the evidence wherever it appears?
It’s just amazing how gullible some people are.
So here we go, the American military coordinated with the Brazilian military to shut it down quickly.
And I guess that’s what happened in Africa whenever it happened there, and Asia, and China, and Russia, etc… Everyone coordinated with the US military to shut it all down. And no one anywhere got to the press before the American military got to them.
Four feet tall, brown skin, big red eyes, ridges on the head, oily skin, spindly, weak, frightened…
I think I saw them at the supermarket last week!
I find it fascinating that people are willing to believe in alien craft and visitors. The reasons are interesting, but are impervious to reason. Most would willing bet that we have been visited, but nobody could collect because they are unable to accept any refutation of their belief. There will always be another case that hasn’t been adequately refuted. Or more likely any refutation of alien visitation will be dissmissed as the deep state/military hiding the ‘Truth’.
I suspect the same process will be in force with climate bets.
Rational actors will shade the odds to give themselves a chance of coming out even. The irrational will make bets, but collecting will be impossible as they will deny the data, or quibble about the meaning.
Izen –
I think one factor may be a kind of security in accepting unfalsifiable thinking. It can be comforting to have a belief that can never be falsified.
That’s certainly the sense I get from observing people like Kennedy and Jordan. Whether they themselves actually embrace such thinking is unknowable, but clearly it’s a very attractive product to market for admiration and profit.
An interesting story related to the psychology of betting.
http://espn.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/2935/meet-the-worlds-top-nba-gambler
One might wonder why, with all these geniuses who have remarkable tools for handling uncertainty, there are so few who are investing in shorting climate change?
Prolly a conspiracy ‘splains it..
@-J
I think some people have a desire, and others a need, to believe in some larger, more powerful, greater entity or intelligent transcendent force that will make ‘sense’ of their chaotic lives.
Whether this is a reaction to their childhood socialization and wanting a ‘parent’ figure; or the response to the existential pain of realising your short period of sentience is bounded by twin eternities of nothing before birth and after death… YMMV
Izen –
I largely agree with your take and think it’s a companion to mine.
And the intedwebs has empowered a massive wave of very confident people using access to information to link correlation to causation to satisfy those basic human instincts.
Case in point:
http://missionlocal.org/2023/06/one-year-after-recall-violent-crime-is-up-under-da-brooke-jenkins/
I will say maybe I think it’s a little less pathological than you. I see it as a natural instinct we all share, while maybe some are more aware and have better control over the instinct.
Joshua says: June 10, 2023 at 4:49 am
“Four feet tall, brown skin, big red eyes, ridges on the head, oily skin, spindly, weak, frightened… I think I saw them at the supermarket last week!”
What a great seafood department !
> Rational actors will shade the odds to give themselves a chance of coming out even.
We can generalize that point to try to explain behaviors related to fairness.
An advantage player (or Player) will seek games with better odds to win than to lose: roulette, blackjack, etc. That’s called an edge. Opportunity could reside in the bonus offered at the start by the gambling venue, i.e. the Bank. In the long run, with proper money management, sometimes with team work, a steady stream of income can be generated, at least for a while.
These gigs are seldom advertised, for obvious reasons. The Bank will try to plug any loophole that would risk its existence. It may decide to give a small edge if the noobs it attracts outweigh the small loss from the Players. While there are professionals, unless one wishes to spend days and nights in a gambling site, it’s just not worth it. Same for day trading, really.
In any event, the Bank also seeks an edge. This implies that players ought to lose money overall. Why then gamble? Most gamblers accept that they’ll lose money. For instance whales, who have so much money they could light their cigars with it, and prefer instead to live like they’re in a James Bond movie. This is not irrational per se.
The point in introducing the Player, the Bank, and the Whale is to underline the fact that the concept of fairness should not be limited to bets with perfectly balanced odds. This has implications regarding how we explain buying and selling in general. In particular, this explains why we would enter bets at a small disadvantage.
Take the bets on Ron and Donald cited earlier. As of today the best offer for teh Donald is 50, and the best offer against is 51. (For Ron, it’s 36 for and 65 against.) If we accept that these odds represent all the information available (i.e. we don’t know better than the market), and if we would bet only if there was an edge, then nobody ought to bet. In the long run, the Bank will win, and betters as a group will lose. And amongst betters, the Players will win (smart money knowing better than most), the Whales won’t care to lose, and everybody else are patsies.
That kind of argument leads to what Burton Malkiel explains in his video. It connects to random walks, market efficiency, and arbitrage. Betting stories are less boring than these theorical considerations. They do not prevent people from betting and trading anyway.
A gentle person’s bet differs because there is more to win than money. Warren & Ted’s bet had zero financial reward. No side could win money. So it’s not really about money. As life should be.
Thanks for the story, J!
Russell –
This week the seafood department the 8 foot tall and skinny variety.
A “tall, skinny alien creature with greenish color” that was about eight to 10 feet tall was reportedly hiding behind a forklift in a Las Vegas family’s backyard after a potential UFO crashed overnight April 30/May 1.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/crashed-las-vegas-ufo-witness-terrified-by-8-foot-creatures-in-his-backyard-100-not-human
Even counting antennae, anything over four feet is alien to the lobster trade.
You made me look:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/aliens-have-been-earth-long-time-stanford-professor
Garry has contrarian vibes.
The caveat is the ‘we have met the aliens and they is us ” contingency.
““100 percent,” may be the right order of magnitude if you include visitation by meteorites kicked back to Earth by asteroid impacts on areas of the Martian surface already contaminated with terrestrial DNA by outbound meteorites from terrestrial events like the K-T impact. Hundreds of Martian meteorites have thus far been isotopically identified and cataloged on Earth.
> “100 percent,” Nolan responded
Seems in line with izen’s comments as well as my own.
@-W
“The point in introducing the Player, the Bank, and the Whale is to underline the fact that the concept of fairness should not be limited to bets with perfectly balanced odds. ”
This does not explain the most common gambling of all. The weekly investment in lotterys and scratch cards. To any ‘rational’ person this looks like a waste of money with odds greater than 10,000,000 to 1. But to the impoverished, the small outlay, that would have no impact on their lives if deployed in other ways, looks like a good investment when applied to the chance to radically alter their existence.
For someone who is unlikely to earn a million in a lifetime of work, the chance, however small, to win several times their lifetime earnings with an investment of one $/£ looks like a worthwhile option.
After all, someone wins most weeks…..
If your concept of rationality cannot explain lottery, I duly submit that you need another concept. The long shot is just the converse of the sure thing. An insurance policy reduces risks. A lottery ticket amplifies hopeful rewards. One could also argue that the target population loses less money with lottery, for the proceeds return to the gouvernement, whereas profits of the insurance industry return to shareholders. But in contrast to lottery, everybody has insurance for the riskier stuff, so the financial burden is shared more equally.
The argument extends to any process in which capital gain is created. A factory is profitable when workers get paid less for the gizmos they produce than what consumers pay for them. Does that mean working for or buying stuff from that business is irrational or unfair? Not necessarily. Other factors need to be considered.The total libertarian and the total communitarian both push the limits of the reasonable solutions to the equation that binds us together.
The goto news source for Judith Curry and some other “skeptics?”
EXCLUSIVE: Crashed UFO recovered by the US military ‘distorted space and time,’ leaving one investigator ‘nauseous and disoriented’ when he went in and discovered it was much larger inside than out, attorney for whistleblowers reveals
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12175195/Crashed-UFO-recovered-military-distorted-space-time.html
Michael Shellenberger, author and founder of news site Public, reported on Wednesday several unidentified intelligence sources who claimed they had seen ‘credible’ and ‘verifiable’ evidence that the government or military contractors have at least 12 ‘alien space crafts’.
Public’s report said some of their sources were the same people who briefed Grusch.
‘Every five years, we get one or two recovered for one reason or another, from either a landing or that we catch, or they just crash,’ one alleged whistleblower told the publication. ‘I know of at least 12-15 craft.’
A defense contractor told Public: ‘There were at least four morphologies, different structures. Six were in good shape; six were not in good shape. There were cases where the craft landed, and the occupants left the craft unoccupied. There have been high-level people, including generals, who have placed their hand on the craft, and I would have no reason to disbelieve them.’
Let’s keep in mind that Shellenberger, as much as anyone else in particular, was pushing the argument that crime rates in SF were soaring because of the policies of the former DA.
And let’s not forget that Mike was leading the rhetorical charge that the death of a SF tech guy was evidence of “woke” policies run amok.
http://missionlocal.org/2023/04/bob-lee-killing-arrest-made-san-francisco/
That article has some intersting info in crime rates.
I suspect that some “skeptics” will be no more interested in expecting accountability on other culture ear issues than they were on climate change issues.
… culture war issues…
Culture war issues could be ear issues – people not listening to one an otter.
@-W
“A factory is profitable when workers get paid less for the gizmos they produce than what consumers pay for them. Does that mean working for or buying stuff from that business is irrational or unfair?”
Consider three senarios:
1) the added value from the factory is distributed to a small number of people who own shares.
2) the added value is distributed to the general population
3) the workers are paid more than the consumers pay, the enterprise is subsidised by central governence. (this is common with public trasport)
I would contend the latter two bind us together more than the first.
However despite my Marxist upbringing I recognise the first option is very good at generating and evolving services and products.
Individual greed is a better motivator than group cooperation.
@-J
“…and discovered it was much larger inside than out,…”
That contravenes the first Law of thermodynamics.
Put the object in a closed container, open to that and the higher external pressure will flow into the larger internal space. You have created an equivalent of Maxwell’s daemon by the discrepancy between the external and internal volumes.
It may be good for time travelling doctors, but back in the real world it would have much greater implications for the production of energy.
> I would contend the latter two bind us together more than the first.
Most problems spring at the interface of the two. My spouse (who follows local news more than I do) sent me this:
https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/2023-06-11/lacs-prives-aide-publique.php
Basically, the story goes like this. In Québec, there are thousands of small barrages that create artificial lakes. A select few bought properties on their shores, and with them exclusivity rights. The barrages are in need of repair. In return of 100M+ of public dollars, local administrations ask for public access to those lakes. The owners refuse.
Another related story, about the many reasons why software developed by civil servants suck so much:
That’s from **The Book I Wish Every Policymaker Would Read** episode of the Ezra Klein podcast.
To echo your thermo argument, there’s no free lunch anywhere. For every edge one can find there’s someone who’ll pay for it. Contrarians don’t seem to realize this, or if they do they don’t really care. While this may be seen as irrational, this belief can be required to make big bucks.
I have yet to find one billionaire who’s not a little contrarian. After all, success goes against the grain, or the spirit of the times. By the same token, I have yet to find a contrarian who’s not shooting for the Moon, just like billionaires do. They can fail, but ultimately it’s as if they can’t lose.
There’s a related idea about why we give. To charity, to political causes, to the homeless. Not sure if I would need a post on this.
Let’s keep in mind that Shellenberger, as much as anyone else in particular, was pushing the argument that crime rates in SF were soaring because of the policies of the former DA.
ya all my homies rejoiced. especislly the guys running shoplifting gangs
the scams they had were amazing. DA made it even more profitable.
@-SM
“the scams they had were amazing. DA made it even more profitable.”
It is wrong, or at least metaphorical, to describe the aquisitiub of property by stealing as profit.
Is making a business profit stealing ?
In any event property crime is now half as ‘profitable’ as it was 30-40 years ago as stealing stuff has decreased by about half.
You won’t believe how long hemispheric mixing of CO2 takes:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/06/co2-where-it-comes-from-and-where-it.html
Wow. Seeing is believing:
In return, some returns:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2023/jun/15/drought-is-on-the-verge-of-becoming-the-next-pandemic
It is wrong, or at least metaphorical, to describe the aquisitiub of property by stealing as profit.
Is making a business profit stealing ?
next up youll ask me some stupid shit about labor theory of value.
i never met a worker who wanted to take his pay in the product he created.
even at cost
@-SM
“next up youll ask me some stupid shit about labor theory of value.”
If I did it would be rhetorical as neither of us fully believe in the idea. Although I suspect for different reasons.
But your non-answer makes me curious. Do you really think that stealing stuff and making a profit are the same thing ?
David should take his chips and go home:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02120-8
The Kalshi global temperature record market has been hot recently. Traded as high as 65 cents yesterday vs 30 cents a month ago. Easy money.
Noice.
First note to newcomers from Kalshi:
https://kalshi.com/markets/gtemp/global-average-temperature-deviation#gtemp-23
The concept of expectation entails something like a belief.
Once upon a time I bet Richard Lindzen that his QBO model/theory was wrong. I published in late 2018 and he still hasn’t paid up.
Do you have the contract, Web?
Im sure the contract is squirreled away in a margin somewhere along with
a proof that that li(z) ~pi(z)
According to Baez’s Crackpot Index you should never bet with money, only with tokens representing your scientific credibility and reputation. That’s the contract of scientific research. Mine is still intact AFAICT as I see no post-publication criticisms. Someone will need to put-up or shut-up.
The criteria gauging worthiness of two competing scientific models is mano-a-mano along the Pareto front of accuracy and complexity. There is absolutely no doubt that I beat Lindzen in terms of parsimony via AIC or BIC criteria or cross-validation. Alas, there are no controlled experiments available for any kind of direct validation, which is the bain of earth sciences (and astrophysics).
I have been experimenting with ChatGPT’s Code Interpreter to try to get it to generate AIC and BIC values for models that I can use plain English to describe. This is seriously a potential approach to doing peer-review debunking or reinforcing cross-validation where humans don’t have the time or inclination for.
I used CI to grok a book here and generate a model https://twitter.com/WHUT/status/1677776303989092354
Next to generate model fitting to data AND do cross-validation
https://chat.openai.com/share/41bb88c1-8a77-471a-a069-4b94c040a0c6
Pretty cool stuff, everyone is experimenting with this ChatGPT feature in the few days since it’s been released.
So you do not have any agreed contract, Web. There was no bet.
What were you saying about credibility?
Mine is still intact AFAICT as I see no post-publication criticisms. Someone will need to put-up or shut-up.
the test is this.
do other people BUILD on your foundation?
this is more than citation counting.
if you didnt find a published refutation of your work
that means one thing.
boring and not worth the time. if your work is invalid on its face. nobody cares
The role of the Sun in climate change is hotly debated.
Is this a true statement with respect to the modern era? Say post 2020 in the climate science literature. I’m pretty sure that the role of the Sun in climate change is not hotly debated. Anyone want to bet or are there any takers. I can think of at least one person, can you Willard?
Curry Fruitcakes are tasty. 😀
Somewhat more related:
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2023/07/09/would-you-allow-a-gun-to-be-fired-at-your-head-contingent-on-a-mere-16-consecutive-misfires-whatever-the-other-inconclusive-evidence/#comment-2236881
McQueen owns the lighter, so he knows how good it is, if it has never misfired before, Mcqueen would take the bet. No one knows what McQueen knows, statistical mumbo jumbo not withstanding.
Same goes for the misfiring gun, known fault = zero probability.
The nonsense of bayesian vs frequentist and Hollywood fiction and twatter does not surprise me at all. Make a shoebox and shoehorn your preferred methodology to force the answer you want is surely a form of non sequiter.
I don’t have auto insurance, I do have personal private health insurence ‘cuse ‘merica suks. Although I am well into six figures since my last Chapter 7, I got no credit rating ‘cuse I don’t need it and I can’t get it regardless. Back with my homies, The Poors.
Auto insurance is mandatory here, Everett:
https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/en/traffic-accident/public-automobile-insurance-plan/in-brief
And to aim at someone with a firearm is a big no-no:
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-87.html
Even in your country there are norms around guns:
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2023/07/09/would-you-allow-a-gun-to-be-fired-at-your-head-contingent-on-a-mere-16-consecutive-misfires-whatever-the-other-inconclusive-evidence/#comment-2236586´
The first rule is related to a future post about how fallacy fluff usually sucks, so I will refrain to add more on the idea.
In any event, I am not sure how my statistical inclinations would or should dictate my use of a firearm.
AI mandatory here too, I’m illegal doncha know.
You can try to rationalize stuff, like I do, this post, for instance, is all about hypocrisy and not betting per se. It us also rather stale to boot.
Indeed one can read the post as being about hypocrisy, Everett. My main takeaway would be to let go of moral or psychological judgment altogether. People can entertain any belief they want. If they are not ready to bet on it, why would I care?
As far as staleness is concerned, I bow to your expertise.
we need the
‘know it all number.”
http://course1.winona.edu/KSuman/Dictionary/Fill%20Ins/Know%20It%20All%20Number.htm
damn french mathmaticians
of course anytime you can tie Borges in, you get bonus points
Nice. If you like Borel, you might like constructivism. Émile may also be relevant for the objective part of bets:
https://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/1509
The emphasized bit could also help support how the IPCC interprets its judgments.
Pingback: How to Cavil Like Cranks | …and Then There's Physics