May I offer the following observation?
The statistical analysis you've provided is instructive; your
explanation reaches a
wide-audience; and therefore explains well that Prof. Lintz, despite being a
detractor of
global warming theory, actually believes that the Earth is warming, and will be
warmer
rather than cooler over the next 20 years. Your conclusion states, "The
problem is far
more serious than I had surmised - - if the above is the Best Case Scenario."
I have not followed the Global Warming debate closely, and
forgive me if I have
the facts above incorrect, but although Prof. Lintz may agree that the Earth is
far more
likely to be warmer than cooler over the next 20 years, his agreement with the
consensus
on rising temperatures does not equate that he agrees with the consensus on:
the cause
of; the linear projections for; or the remedies prescribed by the
consensus in
efforts to reverse the rise in temperature. Thus, your opening statement,
`This says it all'
is presumptuous, and I believe, unintentionally deceptive, by its implied
meaning that Dr.
Lintz really believes what the consensus believes about Global Warming. Your
conclusion
that "The problem is much more serious...." might give vigor and
determination to the
consensus, but such vigor and determination will be fueled by fallacy, which
will yield
more heat than light.....and you had no idea that you were contributing to
global warming.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This says it all. Given he is a betting man, if Lindzen felt there
> were even odds that global warming could go either way, he certainly
> would accept a 2:1 bet that global average temperatures in 20 years
> will in fact be lower than they are now. He refused, requiring a 50:1
> or higher bet. This would imply that Lindzen feels there is about a 2%
> chance that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be
> lower than they are now. And this is one of the leading advocates
> against the concensus view -- thus this is the BEST case scenario for
> global warming.
>
> If 2% probability is where the the left tail of this distribution is,
> the mean (average) aka concensus view must be at a much lower
> probability.
>
> The problem is far more serious than I had surmised -- if the above is
> the Best Case scenario.
>
>
> Attempted betting on global warming, 2004-2005
>
> The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that
> Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in
> 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."[16] Climatologist
> James Annan,[17] who has offered multiple bets that global
> temperatures will increase,[18] contacted Lindzen to arrange a
> bet.[19] Annan offered to pay 2:1 odds in Lindzen's favor if
> temperatures declined, but said that Lindzen would only accept a bet
> if the payout was 50:1 or better in his favor and that no bet
> occurred.[20]
>
> In response, Lindzen denied telling Reason that he would bet at 1:1
> odds that temperatures would be lower in 20 years than they are now,
> and stated that he would only bet if offered "much higher odds."
> According to Lindzen, he and Annan exchanged proposals for bets, but
> were unable to agree.[21]. (Annan subsequently responded to Lindzen's
> response.[22]).
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
