“The Yes traders are betting that the time value of Polymarket cash will go up unexpectedly: that other traders will be short on cash to place bets with, and will at some point be willing to pay a premium to free up the cash that they spent betting against Jesus.”
So uh, just throwing a bit of cold water on these types of polymarket questions, because they all contain this factor of time. Also, it's an incredibly thin market.
In order to have comparable prediction markets, you'd also need one about 6 degrees of warming by 2100. I'm guessing nobody wants to tie their money up for quite that long :o
You may want to note that the 2.7 degree estimate is relative to the pre-industrial baseline (1850-1900). There has already been 1.1-1.2 degrees of warming since then, so the predicted warming relative to now is 1.5-1.6 degrees.
As I mentioned before, I agree that "extinction" is clearly not a major threat. However, I continue to be surprised at your level of confidence that this is a "tuberculosis"-level situation. We know what tuberculosis is like. There are very plausible scenarios (e.g.: https://archive.is/sdcfM/again?url=https://www.ft.com/content/9e5df375-650d-492e-ba51-fb5a34e6ddd6 ) where there are downstream effects of climate change that could be much more damaging. Prima facie, there is only one global climate and risks to it must be more serious than one of many infectious diseases.
This is silly of you. Averting "the end of the world' is hardly the main thrust of scientific advice on climate change. Some climate scientists are mainly concerned about the degradation of ocean ecosystems, for example. It's not just about impacts on frickin' humans! (As an advocate for *insect* rights, that should resonate with you) IOW 'end of the world', apparently defined purely as 'human extinction', is a straw man to the vast majority of climate scientists, its a thing tourted in the most stupid/cynical/excitable corners of the public discourse. You seriously need to read more primary research, not just (what you call) 'the most detailed report on EXISTENTIAL RISK' ...which turns out to be an online 'paper' by a 'longtermist' 'effective altruist' 'researcher' (ugh), submitted to an unusual 'peer review' process , and we don't even get to see the reviewer comments... were they unanimously accepting of all the claims Halstead makes? There is an enormous climate science impacts literature out there, published in the usual way, that you seem to want to ignore....too normie for you? Consider talking to working climate scientists..which excludes some of the persons who vetted that report. Maybe engage the scientists who publish realclimate.org. They aren't extinction alarmists.
But I grant that climate change is quite bad! I was only disputing the climate extinction alarmists, not disputing those concerned about climate change!
Heavily researched does not guarantee correct. Even one erroneous assumption in common renders pages of references, papers and citations useless. CAGW’s GHE contains three such assumptions.
GHE claims without it Earth becomes 33 C cooler, a 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice.
Wrong.
Naked Earth would be much like the Moon, barren, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark.
TFK_bams09 heat balance graphic uses the same 63 twice violating GAAP and calculating out of thin air a 396 BB/333 “back”/63 net GHE radiative forcing loop violating LoT 1 & 2.
Wrong.
Likewise, the ubiquitous plethora of clones.
GHE requires Earth to radiate “extra” energy as a BB.
Wrong.
A BB requires all energy leaving the system to do so by radiation. Per TFK_bams09 60% leaves by kinetic modes, i.e. conduction, convection, advection and latent rendering BB impossible.
GHE is bogus and CAGW a scam so alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
Heavily researched does not guarantee correct. Even one erroneous assumption in common renders pages of references, papers and citations useless. CAGW’s GHE contains three such assumptions.
GHE claims without it Earth becomes 33 C cooler, a 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice.
Wrong.
Naked Earth would be much like the Moon, barren, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark.
TFK_bams09 heat balance graphic uses the same 63 twice violating GAAP and calculating out of thin air a 396 BB/333 “back”/63 net GHE radiative forcing loop violating LoT 1 & 2.
Wrong.
Likewise, the ubiquitous plethora of clones.
GHE requires Earth to radiate “extra” energy as a BB.
Wrong.
A BB requires all energy leaving the system to do so by radiation. Per TFK_bams09 60% leaves by kinetic modes, i.e. conduction, convection, advection and latent rendering BB impossible.
GHE is bogus and CAGW a scam so alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
Like the idea of having such a brief and accessible summary, and would share if the corniness weren’t there. The owl/Jesus/wicked witch comments take away from the tone, and are misplaced given the seriousness of the topic
That’s fair. I guess it’s the only way John Oliver has the show he does, eg. They just seemed too corny to me. That’s a personal preference, but I would argue that the risk that people feel similarly is not worth the reward, generally speaking
I do think that was the cheesiest, and it reads a lot more smoothly now. I’ll share it!
The JC one to me doesn’t make much sense, since the direction of inference is flipped. Ie, if the chances of extreme heat were based on a betting market and that of the return of JC actual probability, then the low extreme heat betting probability wouldn’t make sense (if his coming induced heat, as you joke). As it is, they’re perfectly consistent with each other
The wicked witch one just seems a bit of a reach. So-called “trying too hard.” Fyi, though, it’s misspelled (“wicked with”)
Just to point out an interesting anomaly of prediction markets, "yes" votes being a 3 cents for Jesus does not equate to people thinking Jesus has a 3% chance of coming back to life. It is mostly due to the time value of money. https://protos.com/why-polymarket-users-are-betting-that-jesus-christ-will-return/
“The Yes traders are betting that the time value of Polymarket cash will go up unexpectedly: that other traders will be short on cash to place bets with, and will at some point be willing to pay a premium to free up the cash that they spent betting against Jesus.”
So uh, just throwing a bit of cold water on these types of polymarket questions, because they all contain this factor of time. Also, it's an incredibly thin market.
In order to have comparable prediction markets, you'd also need one about 6 degrees of warming by 2100. I'm guessing nobody wants to tie their money up for quite that long :o
You may want to note that the 2.7 degree estimate is relative to the pre-industrial baseline (1850-1900). There has already been 1.1-1.2 degrees of warming since then, so the predicted warming relative to now is 1.5-1.6 degrees.
Thanks, fixed!
As I mentioned before, I agree that "extinction" is clearly not a major threat. However, I continue to be surprised at your level of confidence that this is a "tuberculosis"-level situation. We know what tuberculosis is like. There are very plausible scenarios (e.g.: https://archive.is/sdcfM/again?url=https://www.ft.com/content/9e5df375-650d-492e-ba51-fb5a34e6ddd6 ) where there are downstream effects of climate change that could be much more damaging. Prima facie, there is only one global climate and risks to it must be more serious than one of many infectious diseases.
This is silly of you. Averting "the end of the world' is hardly the main thrust of scientific advice on climate change. Some climate scientists are mainly concerned about the degradation of ocean ecosystems, for example. It's not just about impacts on frickin' humans! (As an advocate for *insect* rights, that should resonate with you) IOW 'end of the world', apparently defined purely as 'human extinction', is a straw man to the vast majority of climate scientists, its a thing tourted in the most stupid/cynical/excitable corners of the public discourse. You seriously need to read more primary research, not just (what you call) 'the most detailed report on EXISTENTIAL RISK' ...which turns out to be an online 'paper' by a 'longtermist' 'effective altruist' 'researcher' (ugh), submitted to an unusual 'peer review' process , and we don't even get to see the reviewer comments... were they unanimously accepting of all the claims Halstead makes? There is an enormous climate science impacts literature out there, published in the usual way, that you seem to want to ignore....too normie for you? Consider talking to working climate scientists..which excludes some of the persons who vetted that report. Maybe engage the scientists who publish realclimate.org. They aren't extinction alarmists.
But I grant that climate change is quite bad! I was only disputing the climate extinction alarmists, not disputing those concerned about climate change!
Heavily researched does not guarantee correct. Even one erroneous assumption in common renders pages of references, papers and citations useless. CAGW’s GHE contains three such assumptions.
GHE claims without it Earth becomes 33 C cooler, a 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice.
Wrong.
Naked Earth would be much like the Moon, barren, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark.
TFK_bams09 heat balance graphic uses the same 63 twice violating GAAP and calculating out of thin air a 396 BB/333 “back”/63 net GHE radiative forcing loop violating LoT 1 & 2.
Wrong.
Likewise, the ubiquitous plethora of clones.
GHE requires Earth to radiate “extra” energy as a BB.
Wrong.
A BB requires all energy leaving the system to do so by radiation. Per TFK_bams09 60% leaves by kinetic modes, i.e. conduction, convection, advection and latent rendering BB impossible.
GHE is bogus and CAGW a scam so alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
Heavily researched does not guarantee correct. Even one erroneous assumption in common renders pages of references, papers and citations useless. CAGW’s GHE contains three such assumptions.
GHE claims without it Earth becomes 33 C cooler, a 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice.
Wrong.
Naked Earth would be much like the Moon, barren, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark.
TFK_bams09 heat balance graphic uses the same 63 twice violating GAAP and calculating out of thin air a 396 BB/333 “back”/63 net GHE radiative forcing loop violating LoT 1 & 2.
Wrong.
Likewise, the ubiquitous plethora of clones.
GHE requires Earth to radiate “extra” energy as a BB.
Wrong.
A BB requires all energy leaving the system to do so by radiation. Per TFK_bams09 60% leaves by kinetic modes, i.e. conduction, convection, advection and latent rendering BB impossible.
GHE is bogus and CAGW a scam so alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
Great analysis, and thank you. We need to bring climate change back into the national conversation. Please check out my post on The Utley Post https://open.substack.com/pub/kathy4u/p/climate-apartheid-record-breaking?r=4fywbx&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Like the idea of having such a brief and accessible summary, and would share if the corniness weren’t there. The owl/Jesus/wicked witch comments take away from the tone, and are misplaced given the seriousness of the topic
I think jokes are good, even in a serious piece.
That’s fair. I guess it’s the only way John Oliver has the show he does, eg. They just seemed too corny to me. That’s a personal preference, but I would argue that the risk that people feel similarly is not worth the reward, generally speaking
Though I don't think the owl one was good, so I have deleted it.
I do think that was the cheesiest, and it reads a lot more smoothly now. I’ll share it!
The JC one to me doesn’t make much sense, since the direction of inference is flipped. Ie, if the chances of extreme heat were based on a betting market and that of the return of JC actual probability, then the low extreme heat betting probability wouldn’t make sense (if his coming induced heat, as you joke). As it is, they’re perfectly consistent with each other
The wicked witch one just seems a bit of a reach. So-called “trying too hard.” Fyi, though, it’s misspelled (“wicked with”)