Thursday 25 September 2014

Max Planck Institute Arctic Sea Ice Expert: “I Wouldn’t Put Money On Further Decrease Of Ice Cover”!

From Max Planck Institute Arctic Sea Ice Expert: “I Wouldn’t Put Money On Further Decrease Of Ice Cover”! I ended up writing Probably not betting on sea ice, again.

9 comments:

  1. William Connolley
    25. September 2014 at 21:07 | Permalink | Reply
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    $1000 is peanuts. Make it $10k and we’ve got something worth talking about. 2022 is too far out though, so we’d need to agree a closer period.

    - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/09/25/max-planck-institute-arctic-sea-ice-expert-i-wouldnt-put-money-on-further-decrease-of-ice-cover/#comment-976075

    ReplyDelete
  2. (and in reply, the rather difficult to parse:)

    P Gosselin
    25. September 2014 at 21:25 | Permalink | Reply
    LOL – Okay Mr Big-Shot high roller! No, I think the periods are just fine as they are. Remember: Weather. Climate. Learn the difference!
    Winston, in the days ahead I’ll tell you just how many scientists have been banging at my door to be the first to take me up on the bet. But first you’ll have to be patient – as I need time to first tabulate all the data. (sarc off)

    - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/09/25/max-planck-institute-arctic-sea-ice-expert-i-wouldnt-put-money-on-further-decrease-of-ice-cover/#comment-976103

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (the sarc bit is confusing, too:)

      William Connolley
      25. September 2014 at 22:51 | Permalink | Reply
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      Oh, and you ended your comment with “(sarc off)” but there’s no balancing “(sarc on)”. Should I therefore assume that your entire reply is sarcastic – i.e., non-serious? That appears to be the implication. If anything you said was actually serious, could you indicate where the “(sarc on)” should have been, please.

      - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/09/25/max-planck-institute-arctic-sea-ice-expert-i-wouldnt-put-money-on-further-decrease-of-ice-cover/#comment-976105

      Delete
  3. (so, we need to try to get him to clarify:)

    William Connolley
    25. September 2014 at 22:48 | Permalink | Reply
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    “Okay… No” is rather hard to parse. Are you accepting the $10k, but insisting on your (cherry picked) period? Or are you rejecting anything above $1k?

    - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/09/25/max-planck-institute-arctic-sea-ice-expert-i-wouldnt-put-money-on-further-decrease-of-ice-cover/#comment-976103

    ReplyDelete
  4. (and since I wrote my own post:)

    William Connolley
    25. September 2014 at 23:40 | Permalink | Reply
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Good to see that you still fear me enough to put my comments in moderation and be slow about releasing them. I’ll get worried when I’m on the whitelist, or off the blacklist, whichever way you run it.

    The $10k isn’t just available to our host; any of the usual blowhards here are welcome to try to come to terms; see http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/09/25/probably-not-betting-on-sea-ice-again/

    - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/09/25/max-planck-institute-arctic-sea-ice-expert-i-wouldnt-put-money-on-further-decrease-of-ice-cover/#comment-976120

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. P Gosselin
      26. September 2014 at 09:03 | Permalink | Reply
      You’re afflicted by all kinds of fantasies, it seems.

      - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/09/25/max-planck-institute-arctic-sea-ice-expert-i-wouldnt-put-money-on-further-decrease-of-ice-cover/#comment-976247

      Delete
    2. William Connolley
      26. September 2014 at 11:07 | Permalink | Reply
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      Are you interested in betting, or are you just playing propaganda games?

      - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/09/25/max-planck-institute-arctic-sea-ice-expert-i-wouldnt-put-money-on-further-decrease-of-ice-cover/#comment-976247

      Delete
    3. (PG is still running away:)

      P Gosselin
      26. September 2014 at 12:03 | Permalink | Reply
      1. A “closer period” as you suggest is weather – not climate. So no bet on that.
      2. My bet as is, is open to scientists, and not parrots.
      3. The purpose is to find out if scientists are willing to bet on their projections. Here we see they are not.

      - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/09/25/max-planck-institute-arctic-sea-ice-expert-i-wouldnt-put-money-on-further-decrease-of-ice-cover/#comment-976369

      Delete
    4. (and we go on:)

      William Connolley
      26. September 2014 at 17:13 | Permalink | Reply
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      My purpose is to see if you’re prepared to put your money where your mouth is; or if you’re just running a propaganda effort.

      If you thought you could actually *win* you’d jump at a chance to take my money: that’s what betting for money if for. To win money. This isn’t a complicated concept. You wouldn’t care who you were betting with.

      What you’re saying is that you don’t think you would win.

      - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/09/25/max-planck-institute-arctic-sea-ice-expert-i-wouldnt-put-money-on-further-decrease-of-ice-cover/#comment-976369

      Delete