Gambling on Climate Change

Everyone likes to be right. You make bets when you think that you are right. I am not a betting person but I do not think that anyone makes a bet thinking that they will lose; even lottery players think that their repetitive bets will one fine day prove right. So when it comes to gambling on climate change, what would you do?

If you think that anthropogenic climate change is right you derive satisfaction from the majority of clever climatologists who agree with you. If you do not think that the climate is changing any differently from the way that the climate has always changed you derive much satisfaction from the news that for sixteen years global surface temperatures have remained steady.

Each argument avoids a vast body of contrary opinion.

The man made global warming argument avoids or swerves around the fact that there has been little global warming for sixteen years, and explains the reason for this as climate change does not happen in a straight temperature gradient over a decade or two, but happens (when it is measured in global surface temperatures) in a gradient that rises sharply, falls a little, plateaus and then rises again over a period of two hundred and fifty years, as far as we can tell, using the start date as approximately the start of the industrial revolution – say 1750 give or take a couple of decades.

Those from the school that think that there is no anthropogenic global warming seize on specific temperature data and swerve or ignore the very odd things that are happening to the weather all over the world explaining them by pointing out there have always been record bad droughts in the USA, that Australia has always had record heat waves that cause bush fires and snow has occasionally fallen in Damascus and Jerusalem in January, albeit rarely and although the Arctic sea ice is diminishing year by year to record lows, this has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change.

Ultimately there are probably just a handful of questions that you need to ask yourself about anthropogenic climate change. Who do you trust? Which view of the science makes best sense to you? Is this a complex question that can be resolved by a simple answer?

You could, for example, applying Occam’s razor, find the correlation between temperatures increase and the industrial revolution due to what happened in the industrial revolution, which was the huge emission of greenhouse gases previously locked away in the bowels of the earth.

You could by applying Occam’s razor argue that sixteen years without a global temperature increase simply means that the average temperature of the earth is mostly the result of the obvious differences in the power of the sum from time to time, which explains the previous two hundred and fifty years which coincided with the industrial revolution by mere chance.

Ultimately, as you cannot test anthropogenic climate change empirically you need to (a) decide which theory you prefer and back that theory but (b) bear in mind that you are making a bet and it is prudent, as there are only two choices, to insure your bet just in case you have made the wrong bet.

13 Responses

  1. People ‘are’ gambling on climate change:

    Paddy Power is offering odds of 6/5 ( i.e most likely outcome) on a global temperature rise of 0.4 to 0.5 next year. This is based on the WMO global average temperature of 14 deg C (1961-90).

    Met Office says 2012 was 0.48 deg C above WMO long term average and 1998 was 0.51 deg C above long term average.

    So, Paddy Power is predicting 2013 to have the same global average temperature as 2012 and as 1998.

    I.e no warming trend.

    So if the atmospheric CO2 has moved from 360ppm to 394ppm it has not caused any warming. WHY?

    Don’t tell me it is causing frequent or severe weather events because there is NO link between CO2 and precipitation, the Jet Stream or El Nino.

    • The name changers are in control of the visual mind for starters, the records are stuck in a monetary groove and greed.

      Those promoting AGW are the same group that own, dig up and burn the fossile fuels and then collect the carbon taxes from us for doing so, no wonder they will not cease their dirty policies. But who is picking up the tab for the wild card, the true seeding/dirt of the moisture laden skies without regard for the enviornment they strive to save by polluting it even further, they simply will not answer to the visible physical pollution, that often turns day into night and rivers red, sooner or later it has got to be addressed.

      Its a known fact, that the more physical particulates that circumnavigate the skies the less sunlight reaches the earths surface, just imagine trying to sell solar pannels in the days of the great smogs, people would think that you were crazy, many places in China are now like the old Rochdale, with ten times more chiminies.

      In Australia there is a device and technique called pan evapouration, check out the results.

      Then try doing this same experiment here in the Uk for a few truths about warming.

      Far from warming, cold and wet devastated last years fruit trees and my tomatoes, my beeswax solar extractor was never used, it, like a solar pannel laid dormant, useless.

      Why are polar bears thriving and the winter arctic ice reaching record high’s.

      So many half truths being put about and the whole already paying for a bet they know not the answers for. If there wrong does one think they would return the credits they collect in advance, lol.

  2. love this from Richard Littlejohn:
    “G.K. Chesterton wrote memorably that when people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything.”
    Never has that been more true than in the case of those who worship at the altar of global warming. Even though temperatures peaked in 1998 and the world has been getting colder ever since, the warmists refuse to be deflected from their conviction that the planet is in meltdown.

    When it became apparent that temperatures were actually falling, they simply changed the name of their religion from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’. The cooler weather was merely a ‘blip’, they declared.”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2157831/Its-raining-pouring-thatll-global-warming-.html#ixzz2HrBu2xa2
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  3. Robert, how can you continue to write such nonsense? The scientific consensus is clear, global warming is happening, and we caused it.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/12/us-scientists-effects-global-warming

    Global warming is already having a major impact on life in America, a report by US government scientists has warned. The draft version of the US National Climate Assessment reveals that increasing storm surges, floods, melting glaciers and permafrost, and intensifying droughts are having a profound effect on the lives of Americans.

    “Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington state and maple syrup producers have observed changes in their local climate that are outside of their experience,” states the report.

    • The Met Office has clearly stated that there has been …….no global warming…….. since 1998.

      Either:
      you are caught up in the histeria and need to just look at the facts not emotive headlines; or,
      you earn a living from promoting this nonsense.

      All the problems you cite are due to weather events and I fail to see how the weather has been affected by ……non existent global warming.

      Perhaps it’s magic.

    • By the same argument you could say that there has been terrific global warming for the previous 250 years. That warming has clearly slowly changed the sea and air oscillations, hence the increase in sever weather events. It’s physics, not magic!

      Robert

    • Some intetesting reading for both sides of the AGW paradigm, enjoy, learn and spread the word.

      http://co2au.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo_789.html?m=1

    • Dave

      I think I have not myself clear. I was writing about the processes that might go through a person’s mind when considering whether global waming exists and if so whether it is man made. Having gone through those processes myself not only many years ago bout regularly since then I personally conclude that global warming has been happening for the past 250 or so years and that it is caused by human activity.

      Robert

    • Well, they say carbon is the building block, sorry I mean’t banks of life.

  4. Rob,

    obviously you need to mollify Dave Andrews I hope it’s worth the volte face. Sad to see you react more to personal criticism than data.

    Bye

    • Here is some physical data, what goes up comes down.

      http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/science/earth/beijing-air-pollution-off-the-charts.xml

      Coming in a rain storm somewhere near us sometime.

  5. http://sks.to/escalator

  6. Actually its every 300 years and the spells has been cast.

    http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CD0QtwIwAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DE816_PNfIVg&ei=Ij_3UM2_Lcm3hAfomYHQCA&usg=AFQjCNHb24nq5yxmSZFRMl3LKcqMJtrjJw&sig2=prWi7U_kLMKtemvXzfm7dA

    Its Hocus Pokus, that’s all it is.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 312 other followers

%d bloggers like this: