Are you ready to gamble on global warming?

54

To the editor:

I just read an article which stated that our not so great leader tweeted about the current cold snap in the northeastern part of North America. He basically said this cold snap proves that “global warming,” a.k.a. “climate change,” is a hoax. And I know there are quite a few Vineyarders who agree with him.

So I would like to give some of those so-called “climate deniers” a chance to get some money out of a so-called “climate alarmist” — namely me.

Here is my proposition: Anyone who wants to take advantage of my naive liberal belief that humans actually have something to do with a warming planet or, for that matter, that the planet is actually getting warmer at all, can do so anytime before Feb. 1, 2018.

Here’s how you can cash in on the “climate hoax” in three easy steps:

1) Contact me at dkdondondon@gmail.com.

2) Tell me how much money you want to wager that the average global temperature, as declared by a majority of the world’s leading meteorological agencies, will NOT be recorded as one of the 10 warmest years on the modern record. (NOAA, NASA, EMI, WMO, etc., are reputable — InfoWars, Donald Trump tweets, and Bazooka Joe bubble gum wrappers, etc., are not.)

3) Get two times your money back if 2018 is not in the top 10 warmest years globally.

Certain restrictions apply, such as the detonation of nuclear weapons, or significant unusual volcanic activity, which could cool the planet. Or conversely, if there is an event such as the invasion of Earth by aliens, or a close encounter with Nibiru, which would warm it.

If you don’t know how any of these events would affect the weather, don’t wait — sign up right away.

If any climate deniers are actually smart enough to take me up on this, we can write up a more detailed contract. All funds will be put into an escrow account before Feb. 15, 2018, and will be dispersed no later than April 1, 2019 — remember, I will put in twice whatever you do — but hurry — the offer is limited to an amount of my choosing.

Not only that, in the unlikely event that you lose this challenge, I will donate 50 percent of my winnings to a charity of your choice. If you win, you can do whatever you want with my hard-earned money. Yes, I am a liberal, but believe it or not, I actually have worked for my money.

Climate deniers have an advantage here — the forecast for the Vineyard (and for the Eastern part of North America) is very cold, for at least the first week of January. Potentially record-breaking cold, at that. Not only that, all 10 of the warmest years on record have occurred in this century. Surely the odds are with the deniers — if nothing is happening, then the law of averages puts my position at a great disadvantage, especially since I am offering 2-to-1 odds. How can you lose?

Bundle up — stay warm.

 

Don Keller

Vineyard Haven

54 COMMENTS

  1. Dear Don Keller, aka don(cubed)+10, Good to hear of a working liberal (thin on the ground by all accounts). Putting aside that self serving attempt to put words in the President’s mouth, I would only say that few can sustainably argue against the reality of global warming. The real questions are. to what meaningful extent are humans responsible for what many argue is a natural cycle, and what could said humans realistically do about it? Do get help with that gambling problem.

    • this is not gambling– at least not on my side.
      I wrote this to encourage the deniers to take a baby step. As recently as last year, one of our most ardent deniers was talking about the “pause”. Some uninformed people continue to believe that. True, the number of people who continue to deny the obvious is going down. Unfortunately there is an alarming number of them in positions of power. But, my point is to just get them to believe it’s happening at all. I have talked to people who do not believe that humans have the ability to measure co2 in the atmosphere. Where does one start ?

      • I’d give up but I applaud your determination. The man questions the existence of “working liberals” in a State dominated by them. Clearly hyper-partisanship has clouded this individual’s mind.

  2. I understand your attempt to use avarice to as a method of extracting reason from your fellow American but it will be in vain. Americans have been programmed to make up their minds as quickly as possible and cling to it as a measure of pride. Americans take solace in their right to be ignorant and those that profit from deceit take pride in our desire to be so.

    The intellectually challenged don’t know it but they are fighting a losing battle when it comes to climate policy. Divestment in fossil fuel has already begun, the coming bans of the internal combustion engine is written into the law books in many countries. Any clear headed forward looking individual can see that electricity is the future of energy. People like you and me will advocate for and benefit from the installation of PV modules on our roofs and batteries in our cars, and so will our economy. Jobs in the solar power industry has already eclipsed that of the coal industry. It’s too late for the flat earthers and old dogs. You know what they say about old dogs? Right?

      • Hmm…..Ironically, love and loyalty is all Republicans ask of themselves. Not careful and deliberate consideration of policy.

          • Love and loyalty for what or whom? As a platform for what policies? Please “extrapolate”!!! Ha!

            The irony of the narrative your selling must be so thick you can’t see past your own eyes. The conservative movement in the last few decades has only demonstrated tepid desire to love humanity and holds loyalty as a requirement above all other things.

    • I like the word “avarice” hadn’t heard it before. Thanks. But remember, I’m going to give 1/2 of it away..
      About old dogs… They lose control of their bladders and bowels, and make a mess of your house ?

      • Sometimes, but in a loving household adjustments are made and they are tolerated nonetheless. In recent antiquity tolerance was a kingpin of liberalism.

        • Uh last I checked the bigots and racists reside on the right side of the political spectrum. You seem to be falling victim to the paradox of tolerance. Where in philosophy it states that the only thing we should be intolerant of is in fact intolerance. Alas…these days getting someone from the right to grasp even the most meager of philosophical constructs it about as fruitful as banging ones head against the concrete. 😉

          • I’d say with confidence your “checking” is woefully inadequate. I love for you to produce credible examples that demonstrate my “checking” is out of date. Don’t worry…I won’t hold my breath. 😉

  3. It’s hard to convince someone who disagrees with you while speaking down to them. There are a few issues in which this is particularly true – climate change is definitely one of them. Discussions around this issue tend to be one where some people feel it’s ok talk down to others and it’s sad to see. I’m not 100% sure if you’re trying to convince anyone or more showboat to people who feel the same way – remains to be seen.

    Regardless of that here are some issues I have with Climate Change and your bet.

    1. Who in there right mind would argue for “Climate Stasis”. Call it global warming, or global cooling, or rise in extreme weather or whatever the scientific community is saying is happening. I hate the term “Climate Change” it’s so vague on it’s face I think it’s hiding something. To your credit you made your bet specific calling out a hot global yearly average.
    2. New England is 80k square miles and the earth is 200 Million square miles. A cold New England Winter doesn’t do much to affect the global average.
    3. Why did it used to be global cooling? Then global warming? Then Climate Change? Seems odd…
    4. I’m not smart enough to asses the validity of the analysis for which the vast majority of scientists claims that the earth is heating. But it seems like they overwhelmingly agree that it is and until I have a reason to think they’re all wrong, or lying I’ll tend to agree with them.
    5. After what happened a little over 13 months ago with all major news outlets telling us one thing and then another thing happening I’m starting to look at the “official” narratives differently. Especially those which seem to have an agenda (I’m talking about election results). I don’t think I’m alone in this which makes me question “Climate Change” a little more than before.
    6. Conceding all the points above – what’s the proposed solution? Everything I’ve read has a net negative economic impact with nothing but more red tape for the economic producers and windfalls for government agencies creating the new laws. Propose a better solution instead using scare tactics to get people and companies to inhibit their economic output.
    7. After re-reading the piece I think a better use of your time would have been looking into “climate change” solutions instead of taking a stab at people who don’t agree with you. I’ve actually done this a lot and will help point you in the right direction. Thorium Salt Reactors and then for the fun research “OR SE”. The first is a tech from the 50s the was inexplicable abandoned and the second (which you’ll only figure out what it is when you starting digging deep) will take you on a wild ride.

    • Thank you for a thoughtful reply
      I will check into your suggestions re: # 7
      Not sure what you are referring to when you say it used to be called “global cooling” .
      perhaps you are thinking of when Carl Sagan correctly stated that the natural forces regulating climate were in a phase where the earth would be cooling for the next few thousand years ? I know there was some media hype about that for a while.. The effects of that natural cooling have been over ridden by the rising co2 concentrations. Without rising carbon levels, the earth would be cooling.

    • The American public will never concede that climate change exists as long as the energy industries keep paying PR firms to sow doubt and dissent. It will require an obvious disaster to shake us out of our doldrums, a disaster that may not be forthcoming until it is too late. One is reminded of a lobster in a slowly warming pot of water.

    • Aside from the science surrounding climate change, there are glaring examples that demonstrate the implementation of renewable energy sources and storage technology are a boon to the power system economic model. For example, the amount of jobs created by the Solar Power Industry has already eclipsed that of those employed by the Coal Power Industry, and all the while Photovoltaics only makes up few percentiles of the generation mix. Imagine the jobs potential when Photovoltaics is at 10% and then 20%. The economic potential for the renewable energy sectors is overwhelming. The Lithium Economy promises democratization of energy on a level never seen, and Lithium is 100% recyclable. Battery storage is a no brainier.

      Policy makers in other countries are banning the internal combustion engine in the coming decades and divestment in Fossil Fuels is gaining momentum. Maybe forward looking investor class individuals are bored with the fossil fuel status quo, but I’d bet they see dollar signs in their eyes.

      As for the implementation of Thorium as a fuel in power plants, it’s already been tried. There currently numerous Thorium reactors in operation in India and numerous other plants had been in operation worldwide for decades (although most are shut down now). It hasn’t proven itself to be safer, cheaper or more efficient than the typical fissile material fueled power plant.

    • Re-post. Thought I cleaned out the extra garbage, sorry.

      I want the air breathable, water drinkable, I want there to be water for crops, I want food fish to thrive in the oceans. And I hear responses by some that things will balance out.

      Controlling industrial exhaust requires technology, finding new sources for energy requires new technology, either will add jobs and boost the economy. What people see as bad about this is what we have to fight.

  4. Dondon. Sagan said we are cooling and he said it with certainty. So you now say natural cooling is ”overridden by rising CO2 concentrations. Sagan knew about CO2 and he still said cooling. Now you are saying ”without rising carbon levels the earth would be cooling” that statement is equivalent to my saying ”without rising temperatures, the earth would be cooling”. This is mildly tautological. Dondon the issue, is it man made? How much of it? But most importantly what is the cost of mitigation viz probability of its effect and what is the positive outcomes of warming on some parts of the world. Once one renders certain that this is a manmade disaster and oceans will rise and we will all flee for the hinter land and we need now to start riding bikes, one naturally gets skeptical about this new religion.

    • The arctic is thawing. The ice in Antarctica is breaking off in chunks the size of small countries. The glaciers in Greenland are melting. The Sahara is growing. The planet is warming.

      I don’t care what Carl Sagan said in the eighties, or what some public relations firm paid for by an oil company says now. Nor does it matter if it is man made: if the results are disastrous -and they will be, especially in the third world- we must react, not haw and hem about who is to blame. I don’t understand why so many Foxwatchers are worried about attributing the cause (aside from arguing in bad faith).

    • so nice to see you comment here, Andrew. You are off the mark about my tautological argument–it is tautological that added co2 warms the planet. Sagan knew about co2 , and addressed that on numerous occasions. However, the deniers have seized on his assertion that the natural forces are cooling the planet– and that is true. Lucky us– if the natural cycle were for a warming planet, we would be slightly further into the inferno.
      And, this is not a religious issue… religion is based on a set of beliefs that are not provable– I can not prove the spaghetti monster created the universe, that Thor controls the weather, and Neptune controls the seas, that when mercury is retrograde it makes my car less likely to start,and you can not prove that jesus has anything to do with our daily lives.
      Climate change is provable.
      Please keep religion out of this conversation.
      Thanks

    • give us a break– you can find examples on both sides– but really ? you think liberals are more racist, misogynistic, anti Semitic, homophobic, xenophobic , and more likely to discriminate against any person who is not christian ? At least, it seems for the most part, your quotes are accurate– thank you for that..
      But really, I could find more racist quotes from just trump alone, never mind his cabinet appointees.. Careful who you try to punch– you might get stuck on a “tar baby” —
      ok back to the topic– care to put up some money about your beliefs surrounding the changing climate ?

      • If I were a betting man, I would bet that the climate is changing. And yes, you can find examples of racism on both sides of the spectrum – that was my point. But really, why does every discussion have to take a racial turn with you liberals?

        • Uh yea…about that, “every discussion have to take a racial turn with you liberals?”

          I knew you weren’t really comprehending these posts but clearly it was you who turned the conversation into one about the lack of tolerance among so called “liberals”. At least own up to that:

          hanleyclifford
          January 3, 2018 at 3:47 pm
          “Sometimes, but in a loving household adjustments are made and they are tolerated nonetheless. In recent antiquity tolerance was a kingpin of liberalism.”

          • I think I will. The liberals I knew in college were very different from what I see today. They had a quality of respect for the views of others, or at least their right to express them, and did not engage in name calling and identity politics, but rather could debate a subject and remain cordial enough with their (verbal) adversaries to debate another day. They did not go leaping and bounding to unwarranted conclusions about others.

    • I’d bet that’s all you could come up with. A hyper-partisan blog from 2013 of quotes compiled in desperation from a hyper-partisan web source (not dissimilar to your own posts). One of those quotes dates back to to 1987!!! Ha!!!! “Take that you filthy liberal!!!” Ha! 😀 Really now?

      Last time I checked Republicans and conservatives own, by dramatic proportions, the lion share of legislation passed to implement bigotry and racism. Weird bathroom laws, banning gay marriage, protecting the statues of traitors who lost the civil war, and overtly disenfranchising the vote of the African-American population through gerrymandering and voter ID laws. Liberals have done none of these things.

      • Speaking of the African American population, though only 12% of the population, they account for 35% of abortions. How is that not racist, not a fine way to disenfranchise the African American vote, not mention the loss of life? Liberals love abortion—not so?

        • While abortion rates have fallen dramatically since the 1970’s and continue to fall, they have always been statistically aligned with socioeconomic status. Where people live in poverty you will find higher abortion rates. This squares philosophically as one usually does not desire to bring a new baby into unsustainable and poor circumstances.

          Also it is only by clinging to mythology that you can consider a embryo a “life”. It comes with so surprising amount of irony that those hyper-partisans of the conservative movement (such as yourself) who claim to hold “life” so dear never seem to make a peep out the untold millions of innocent actually alive people who die every decade at the hands of our military, civilian police or indirectly through foreign resource extraction.

          The morals of the conservative movement are all hat and no cattle.

        • Are you going to argue the GOP has a proven record of improving education and healthcare for minority groups?

  5. Look how far afield the liberals have brought a discussion of global climate change. From science to identity politics in just a few short leaps – see why the electorate turned them out in 2016?

    • Science, meaning unbiased researched and reasoning, is telling us global climate change is a problem. Call it identity politics, liberals want the planet to be livable. Do climate deniers not want a livable planet? Or are they “untrained” in science?

      • Climate change is a fact that few would dispute. Whether it is a problem depends on local conditions; some may benefit, others will suffer. Instead of demonizing the ignorant, why not look for ways to “adjust the sails”? And let’s not make the solution worse than the problem.

        • Changing the composition of our atmosphere changes how solar energy behaves when it reaches Earth and the health of creatures that breath it. We get droughts, poisoned crop land, eradicated food fish. I get how some will suffer, how do some benefit?

          • Sometimes the benefit comes in human interaction. Consider the situation of the people on certain Pacific islands. There isn’t much that can be done to save those islands, but what if we were able, as fellow islanders, to reach out and get some of those folks to relocate here? They would get a new home and we would gain neighbors with first hand understanding of what we could be facing in the not too distant future. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25086963

          • According to Andrew up there– there is a remote village in Alaska that will get internet service because the permafrost is melting.

        • Hanley– you can’t be serious about the idea of pacific Islanders come here.. We have an administration that is denying entry into the united states to just about everyone- Excuse me for being “political” here, but the current resident of the white house/ Mara largo is doing his best to keep refugees from horrible wars and economic conditions that one could argue we are responsible for out of our country. Do you really think that our so called president would allow refugees from a “hoax” enter our country? He turns away dying children–For fsm sake.

          • You are the one not being serious because instead of listening you make up your own facts. The President is aware that we are a nation of immigrants and has stated many times that he favors LEGAL immigration, most recently a merit based program rather than illegal intrusion or random selection. Most countries in the western world do just that. Immigrants with skills and experience we need are most welcome, and islanders with rising water experience would find a friendly welcome here.

        • I don’t see what can be considered beneficial in your response. How does bringing Pacific Islanders to the Untied States save the ocean food chain? How does it restore weather patterns so we may irrigate crop land? And what useful experience do they gain from having their homeland flood?

          • If you were one of those people being displaced by global warming you might see the benefit. There is very little any of us can in practicality do to stem global warming. But instead of focusing on our own myopic political Weltanshauung we could very well help some of our fellow homo sapiens catch a break. Isn’t that what the Left is always preaching?

        • @hanleyclifford – If you had listened to liberals in your college years, you would have heard them wanting to solve issues, not dump them off on future generations. Using sources other than fossil fuel would go a long way. Your answer then isn’t “we can’t,” rather “we don’t want to.” Then all of our fellow homo sapiens catch a break.

    • you started the discussion down the political road– you should be able to see that pretty clearly– all the comments are there– even time stamped.
      But back to climate change. What party is concerned about the effects of climate change on the lives of millions of people ? If your party was really concerned about life, and the suffering that impoverished people endure because Americans want to leave their over sized cars running, and keep their houses at 75 degrees, they would quit trying to tear families apart with draconian immigration policies, would quit relaxing environmental laws that dis proportionally impact the health of poor people ( and their unborn babies btw) and would provide real assistance to the Spanish speaking American citizens in Puerto Rico.
      No, instead they make laws to prevent Katlyn Jenner from using the ladies room, support a known pedophile running for a senate seat ,turn a blind eye to the carnage of gun violence and the opiod crisis and spend taxpayer dollars investigating “voter fraud” in the last election because the man baby can take no criticism. Give me a break The republican party is morally bankrupt.
      ( sorry for the run on sentences )

      • In the first sentence of your letter you begin the political discussion by disparaging the President. You then go on to boast of your liberalism. Politics right out of the gate.

        • You’ve submitted 13 posts; 8 were political, only 1 was on topic. If you don’t like politics in comment sections, avoid doing it yourself.

  6. Leaping and bounding you assign me to a “party”. Do you not know that of which Assumption is the Mother?

    • Please tell me you vote straight down the democratic ticket, and I will apologize for my assumptions..

        • Actually, I don’t vote straight party lines. Mostly , but not always..
          I voted for Gerald Ford. For instance.

          • Yes Gerald Ford the guy who said three times in a row in front of the camera that Poland was free. Wrong again dondon.Even I a staunch conservative didnt vote for Ford because of that ignorance.

Comments are closed.

Previous articleHockey, teens, and trust
Next articleNew baby to ring in the New Year