- Spain v. Italy
- Corinthians v. Juniors
- Queensland v. NSW
- Record low Arctic ice?
- Ice free Arctic v. Zwally
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
Recent Comments
- Russell Cook on Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- arn on “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- arn on Harris To Win Iowa
- William on Harris To Win Iowa
- William on Harris To Win Iowa
- arn on Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Billyjack on Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Disillusioned on Harris To Win Iowa
- czechlist on Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- oeman50 on Spoiled Children
6. The Dutch people v. EU
Like I said The Dutch can still win the Euro 2012.
EU ‘leaders’ v. the people in Europe
“It seems the bases for a new Europe are finally being put down, with more solidarity in exchange for less sovereignty.”
http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_35157.shtml
Dutch elections 12 sept I hope we make it. It looks so far away.
Double Your Bets Scheme Story
Back when, just out of college, and a few hundred dollars actually mattered to me, and a friend and I were in Atlantic City, and we combined our funds to try out the “double your bet” scheme, betting on red, in roulette. A $5 minimum table, start there. Lose, and go $10, $20, $40, $80, $160, $320, and that was the theoretical end of the line. Sometimes, after losing the first $5, we bet $5 again as a safety precautionary valve. Well, over a couple of hours, we just kept on winning, and we were up maybe $300.
The dealer (spinner?) was shaking his head at how we just kept winning. But my friend was getting antsy; he wanted to play blackjack, and we weren’t winning enough $ for his time. So I had to press the case that this was a goldmine, and I was really enjoying this winning spree, but the distractions and the smoke seemed to fill the air, and too many other betters were crowding our table, and I wasn’t getting my free drinks, and I think for some reason you need to keep a clear head to have a greater chance of prevailing in this risky scheme, and sure enough we went up the whole beanstalk… and lost it all.
And how this relates to the Chicken Littles…
I really think the casino might have had enough of our scheme and rigged the wheel. That’s what the warmists are trying to do, rig the wheel, and the result if they succeed would be that society would lose it all. An apt analogy.
And another apt analogy, it’s like the scare-mongers are doubling down with all their loses at a time when much of the public rejects their contrived theory. So, they keep yelling louder and louder about the even greater level of doom that shall befall us, even as it becomes crystal clear that they are spouting utter fantastic baloney, like sea levels rising 6 meters by 2050, or that the seas will boil away (Hansen). Soon they will pay the piper, they will keep doubling their bets until they have a final loss and they can’t raise it any higher, and it’s then game over for the brazen bullshitters.
You’re right Eric, you’ve created an apt analogy. You know nothing about the mathematics of gambling and why table limits are set and thus made made foolish and/or risky choices. You drag in a bunch of random irrelevancies (e.g., needing a clear head to execute the simplest of the provably flawed “betting systems,” i.e., the Martingale). Then you blame the casino, accusing them of rigging the wheel when events unfolded against you.
Now, you have no expertise on geophysics, radiation physics, thermodynamics, statistics, data gathering, or climate but you’re eager to spout your uninformed point of view and make accusations. The analogy is nearly flawless. You are a perfect representative for your point of view.
I’m curious how you would know what expertise other people might or might not have?
It started with the comment that “I really think the casino might have had enough of our scheme and rigged the wheel.” Eric states in his comment below that this all took place when he was “young and clueless.” Sure, fair enough. But the quoted statement appears to reflect current beliefs, at least it is so stated. It’s no stretch from there to understand a certain lack of mathematical sophistication. Casinos absolutely covet Martingale players and, while they may not be able to solve the fully coupled Navier Stokes equations, they certainly understand the mathematics of gambling.
From there, given this demonstrated lack of mathematical sophistication, it’s not difficult to extrapolate to not having strong knowledge of the areas I mentioned, given that 100% of them require a level of mathematical knowledge that is clearly beyond someone who thinks that a casino will rig a roulette wheel to defeat Martingale players.
Does that satisfy your curiosity?
Mathematics is only useful when the core scientific principles are understood. Climate models have demonstrated no skill at modeling clouds or oceanic cycles, or the underlying forces of chaos which upset atmospheric models after about 72 hours.
In the computer business, we call it garbage in garbage out. If you think that having an understanding of one tiny piece of atmospheric mathematics makes you competent to predict the climate, then you are sadly deluded.
As I said to PA32R I was just telling a light story, but PA32R turns it into a disingenuous personal attack. First, casinos don’t covet double your bet schemers, as they don’t like ruining people, it’s not good PR. More importantly, even a 3rd grader understands the simple math that the odds are against you in roulette, and a double your bet scheme leaves you open to complete disaster. A 3rd grader gets it. The story I presented gives no basis at all for PA32R to impugn my mathematical abilities.
So Eric, casinos operate so much in fear of bad PR that they don’t want betting scheme players but they’re willing to rig a wheel?
Please.
Yes, as a bullshit artist “PA32R” is full of it. And here I described a story where I was young and clueless myself… and lost. It is obvious from the context that I think the betting scheme is ill-advised and I am not advocating it, and I say that warmists are in effect doing the same stupid thing that I did. Talk about mischaracterizing my words. And for the most part I was just trying to tell a light fun story, and this scum turns it into an opportunity to attack.
Steven, it’s almost July 1, and I’m back to renew my Arctic Sea Ice minimum prediction of 3.92 million sq. km. Just to be clear again, I’m not an alarmist, and I think the number is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. In fact, it’s a shame that the minimum ice in the Arctic this summer, coupled with the current US heat wave, will provide fuel for the alarmist fires. I’m already hearing from my alarmist friends, insisting i recant my “denier” views based on the temperature in Chicago yesterday. I still haven’t heard back from them on the European winter just past, summer temps in Oz, or the current Antarctic ice anomaly. These things are, I guess, of no moment to them. And so it goes.
OK, what do you want to bet?
You ever come to New Orleans?
Of course, I made no such claim. Please explain where you believe I stated or implied that understanding mathematics implied understanding climate. I would assume you’re speaking of the reference to Navier Stokes which I simply used as an example with no implication that understanding them meant understanding climate.
That said, while mathematical depth is not sufficient for understanding climate (to the extent that it’s understood) it is certainly necessary.