tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3816249763020539156.post500808562854405790..comments2008-12-07T13:38:07.366-08:00Comments on Seringhaus: Prediction Markets correct skew of false equalityIntradehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07420920711130341735noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3816249763020539156.post-21082725408519998722008-12-07T13:38:00.001-08:002008-12-07T13:38:00.001-08:00barry said : climate change is caused by globa...<b>barry</b> <i>said</i> :<br><br> climate change is caused by global warming. as more energy [heat] is in the atmosphere, the climate get more extreme. it is real. deniers like to use semantics to befuddle. sadly action now or later after a katrina per year.Intradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07420920711130341735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3816249763020539156.post-24137401075675775262008-12-07T12:00:00.001-08:002008-12-07T12:00:00.001-08:00Phoetus said : This guy writes with all the se...<b>Phoetus</b> <i>said</i> :<br><br> This guy writes with all the self-assurance and impeccable logic of a man who wears a snap-brim hat. I'll bet he loves to regale his buddies with his endlessly fascinating tales of the adventures he's had thinking critically and coming to the conclusions he always knew were right. If only he had a more important role in our society, he could make all our lives better by making them just like his. M'kay?Intradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07420920711130341735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3816249763020539156.post-26439859420017875732008-12-02T15:11:00.001-08:002008-12-02T15:11:00.001-08:00Charlie said : Michael Seringhaus is dead wron...<b>Charlie</b> <i>said</i> :<br><br> Michael Seringhaus is dead wrong in saying that the "scientific community" has settled the issue that human activity has appreciably or materially contributed to global warming. There are many scientists, climatologists, etc. who believe that the earth has gone through warming and cooling cycles for eons, and that it is pure folly to believe that the earth should remain at some pre-determined temperature level. Scientists have overwhelmingly supported single hypotheses before which have proven to be completely incorrect - in the late 1960s, scientists overwhelmingly supported the hypothesis that we were headed for an overpopultation Armagedon. Same for the hypotheses that the earth was about to run out of oil (late 70s./Early 80s), the earth is running out of fresh water, etc. Mr. Seringhaus's thesis that "if we are willing to weigh seriously the scientific whims of the masses, why bother training scientists at all?)" is directly contrary to his earlier point that Intrade's prediction of the presidential election outcome was much more accurate than professional, highly trained pollsters and other experts who base their livelihoods on predicting electoral outcomes. I've also noticed that average temperatures have declined worldwide over the past two years, contrary to predictions. Now global warming advocates are using the new moniker Climate Change.Intradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07420920711130341735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3816249763020539156.post-62724040548107367982008-12-01T08:01:00.001-08:002008-12-01T08:01:00.001-08:00macaffluent said : Systemic change toward one-...<b>macaffluent</b> <i>said</i> :<br><br> Systemic change toward one-sided reporting would not be a good thing. (MSNBC, anyone?)Intradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07420920711130341735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3816249763020539156.post-49974521445912186572008-11-24T19:32:00.001-08:002008-11-24T19:32:00.001-08:00Matt said : Great article! Hard to see how In...<b>Matt</b> <i>said</i> :<br><br> Great article! Hard to see how Intrade will help with the false dichotomies, though. Could there be a market on whether evolution is true or not?Intradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07420920711130341735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3816249763020539156.post-55211237406726976412008-11-21T15:59:00.001-08:002008-11-21T15:59:00.001-08:00Mr. Know It All said : Just plain stupid.<b>Mr. Know It All</b> <i>said</i> :<br><br> Just plain stupid.Intradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07420920711130341735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3816249763020539156.post-17030861838546569982008-11-18T18:04:00.001-08:002008-11-18T18:04:00.001-08:00funkyj said : your blog echos a speech given b...<b>funkyj</b> <i>said</i> :<br><br> your blog echos a speech given by Bill Moyers:<br /><br />"I came to believe that objective journalism means describing the object being reported on, including the little fibs and fantasies as well as the Big Lie of the people in power. In no way does this permit journalists to make accusations and allegations. It means, instead, making sure that your reporting and your conclusions can be nailed to the post with confirming evidence.<br /><br />...<br /><br />Objectivity is not satisfied by two opposing people offering competing opinions, leaving the viewer to split the difference."Intradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07420920711130341735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3816249763020539156.post-79100196608003879312008-11-18T11:28:00.001-08:002008-11-18T11:28:00.001-08:00BKM said : BJB,
The question is not "is...<b>BKM</b> <i>said</i> :<br><br> BJB, <br /><br />The question is not "is the truth of AGW settled?", the question is "is there enough evidence to justify altering our behavior in costly ways to combat AGW if it is in fact the case?". I think the scientific community has answered this question affirmatively. The next question--the one we should be dealing with now--is "how much should we be sacrificing now for gain that will only be realized in the distant future?"Intradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07420920711130341735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3816249763020539156.post-7806898244209402462008-11-14T20:05:00.001-08:002008-11-14T20:05:00.001-08:00BJB said : Researchgeek,
I think you miss my ...<b>BJB</b> <i>said</i> :<br><br> Researchgeek,<br /><br />I think you miss my point. I don't pay much, if any, attention to the research that supposedly disproves AGW exists. That doesn't count. What counts is whether those who seek to claim that AGW does exist have proved it. I don't think they have, though I readily admit to not having read every single "proof". The burden of proof is on those who want to say that AGW exists. The burden on proof is not on those who say it doesn't exist. <br /><br />Now if people want to say that we have to do something because it is the right thing to do that is fine. However, that is more akin to religious belief than scientific reason.<br /><br />Remember, scientists never believe that science is settled when statistical inference is required to come to a conclusion. Good scientists always want their work to be challenged. The law of gravity is settled science. AGW is not.Intradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07420920711130341735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3816249763020539156.post-44970129749056561402008-11-14T10:35:00.001-08:002008-11-14T10:35:00.001-08:00researchgeek said : BJB's discussion of sc...<b>researchgeek</b> <i>said</i> :<br><br> BJB's discussion of scientific methods is technically correct, but misses Seringhaus's point. The best scientific evidence is that global warming is real, and that human activity accounts for a measurable portion of it. Can we know for certain? No. But we often make public policy (for instance, deregulation of financial markets) without certainty about the outcomes. So long as we're reasonably sure about what we're doing, and so long as we insure against the possibility that we're wrong, then we need to go forth with our best educated guess. <br /><br />The media's focus on the "debate" has caused the public to believe that there is more controversy within the scientific community than actually is there. And that has created a political atmosphere in which even adaptation policies (minimizing the impacts of global warming)are not considered. The debate about whether or not global warming is our fault has led us to ignore actions that we might be taking, regardless of "whose fault" it is. <br /><br />I would like to see someone focus on the funding of the PR campaign that has misled the public. I suspect that the "global-warming-isn't-real" crowd, which has morphed into the "maybe-it's-real-but-it's-not-our-fault" crowd, is funded by the energy industry. <br /><br />In the sixties, Phillip Morris funded the American Tobacco Institute, which published studies for years "showing" that smoking doesn't pose a health risk. I wonder if the coal industry isn't behind the "research" that casts doubt on the reality and human causes of global warming.Intradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07420920711130341735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3816249763020539156.post-20324136590423557402008-11-12T18:48:00.001-08:002008-11-12T18:48:00.001-08:00BJB said : The concept of anthropogenic global...<b>BJB</b> <i>said</i> :<br><br> The concept of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not subject to a falsifiable hypothesis. Therefore, to "prove" its existence one has to rely on statistical inference, with the null hypothesis being that there is no AGW. However, in my opinion, there has been a great deal of "curve-fitting" in the supposed proofs that AGW exists. And don't put too much faith in scientists. I work in finance and I have talked to many PhDs that have found a "proven" way to make money in the markets. In fact, they are guilty of curve-fitting. I believe that is what has happened in the AGW debate. Scientists have used the same data to both posit and "prove" the hypothesis. You cannot do that. In addition, the data itself is somewhat suspect. <br /><br />The correct approach would be to predict outcomes that would occur over the next 25-50 years, which would then be measured against actual outcomes. That is the only way to prove AGW. However, that is too long a time frame for those who want to get going on solving the problem now. I'm sorry but science doesn't work that way. Scientists need to have the requisite amount of patience if they care about their craft. <br /><br />The earth is 4.6 billion years old. Current temperatures rank in the lowest quarter of temperatures observed over the last 2.5 billion years. When looked at in that context, AGW is a bit hard to take seriously. However I think AGW is a reasonable hypothesis, but it has not been tested sufficiently to reject the null hypothesis that there is no AGW.Intradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07420920711130341735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3816249763020539156.post-65280800341965877692008-11-07T23:19:00.001-08:002008-11-07T23:19:00.001-08:00doctorj said : So where are the contracts for ...<b>doctorj</b> <i>said</i> :<br><br> So where are the contracts for year-over-year global warming?Intradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07420920711130341735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3816249763020539156.post-54781693343560137132008-11-06T15:52:00.001-08:002008-11-06T15:52:00.001-08:00kain10 said : Well said Seringhaus! I had bee...<b>kain10</b> <i>said</i> :<br><br> Well said Seringhaus! I had been watching CNN for the past 2 months and I was always annoyed at the fact that they kept trying to portray the election as a "tight race." They kept saying too how McCain could still as easily win over Obama, though they did admit that he had a "steep climb." I was wondering too why they don't cover how intrade.com and other places had it right all along, but I guess you're competitors and they don't want people coming here instead of relying on their polls. Well I certainly did never pay attention to polls, just Intrade. Great job and congratulations Intrade!! (and thanks for helping me make money too!)Intradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07420920711130341735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3816249763020539156.post-63385237302257563052008-11-05T13:42:00.001-08:002008-11-05T13:42:00.001-08:00Me said : I too have no comment<b>Me</b> <i>said</i> :<br><br> I too have no commentIntradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07420920711130341735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3816249763020539156.post-60114748443476574892008-11-05T13:29:00.001-08:002008-11-05T13:29:00.001-08:00Ask Dr. Stupid said : Well said Mr. Seringhaus...<b>Ask Dr. Stupid</b> <i>said</i> :<br><br> Well said Mr. Seringhaus!! You have perfectly delineated something that I have been wrestling with! Thanks! It has been bizarre and comical to watch the effect that you desrcibe play out on centre\centre-left CNN and right-wing Fox. They both seemed desperate to frame the election as much more of a question than it was (at least after the end of September). I think these two (and others) barrelled past 'fairness' and striaght into a justify-our-existence never-never-land of having their own pundits ask each other questions to eat up time and space. Intrade, fivethirtyeight.com and the Princeton election project all nailed it. The future of news is right here (you can't use that, by the way, it's copyrighted!:). If you want a real prediction ask the money.Intradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07420920711130341735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3816249763020539156.post-64577571273795478832008-11-05T11:38:00.001-08:002008-11-05T11:38:00.001-08:00mike said : Michael Seringhaus has written an ...<b>mike</b> <i>said</i> :<br><br> Michael Seringhaus has written an excellent piece. Over the past couple weeks I have been thinking about the same thing. I could never have explained or written it as well as Seringhaus.Intradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07420920711130341735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3816249763020539156.post-15273371026309500272008-11-05T10:32:00.001-08:002008-11-05T10:32:00.001-08:00chris said : great piece. nothing more to com...<b>chris</b> <i>said</i> :<br><br> great piece. nothing more to comment on.Intradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07420920711130341735noreply@blogger.com