End of an error

 Celebrate it at the 9th International Heartland Conference, Las Vegas

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

clip_image002

Don’t miss this spectacular conference in the City of American Culture 2014. The Ninth International Heartland Conference on Climate Change is the biggest and best of all the skeptical conferences. And it is being held at a vital moment.

It is now evident to every honest scientist that the official estimates of climate sensitivity on the basis of which governments are squandering trillions are exaggerations. Yet governments – particularly on the hard Left – are doubling down on robbing taxpayers and regulating out of existence their political opponents’ principal funders, the fossil-fuel corporations.

Climate-extremist governments are going for broke – or, rather, going for making you and me broke – because they, too, know perfectly well by now that our effect on the climate is insufficient to be actually or potentially dangerous. But, after all their bilious, whining rhetoric about the urgent need to Save The Planet, they cannot be seen to have been entirely wrong. The daylight must not be let in on the magic. Ignore the man behind the curtain. Pay no attention to any evidence from the real world.

The only escape from the humiliation that Leftist governments and their cronies in academe, the scientific community, and the news media will otherwise inevitably face is to bully and cajole non-Left governments into collective action to cut CO2 concentrations worldwide. Then, when global temperature fails to rise as they now know it will fail to rise, they will claim that their CO2 reductions Saved The Planet, when the Planet was not at risk in the first place. It is a simple but wicked strategy, which will never be described, still less challenged, in the Marxstream news media.

clip_image004

They may yet get away with it. In Paris next year (if they do not succeed in catching us by surprise this year), they will hope to persuade governments to sign up to a binding climate treaty in all material respects indistinguishable from that which was defeated at Copenhagen.

All the people who may yet stop them will be in Las Vegas. Will you be among them? If so, you will need to reserve your room at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino at once. The closing date for the special rate of $80 (suites $100) a night plus taxes is Tuesday, June 10. More details at Heartland.com. Be there or be square.

If you want a flutter at the tables, Mandalay Bay is part of the group that has the largest floor space for pit games in town. If you’re not a mathematician, the one thing you need to know is what the game theorists colorfully but aptly call the “mean expected duration until ruin”. It is the number of unit stakes in your starting capital, divided by the house edge (known locally as the “vig”, after the Yiddish word vyiguryish, winnings).

At American roulette, for instance, the vig is 5.3%. If your capital is $1000 and your mean stake is $10, you have 100 staking units. Divide this by 5.3% and your mean expected duration until ruin is 1900 spins of the wheel (often known as “coups” in Monte Carlo or, bizarrely, as “hands” in Vegas.

Though the proof that the mean expected duration until ruin is simply the staking units in your capital divided by the vig is quite complicated, it is a well established result in probability theory. From that result, one can readily demonstrate that, in any casino game with a table staking limit, no system based on varying the stakes (e.g. by continuous doubling) leads to a positive expectation for the player where there is a house edge. The proof consists in treating all stakes at each staking level as a separate game with an expected duration until ruin based on the multiple of that particular stake represented by the starting capital, divided by the vig.

To win, therefore, one needs to turn the vig to one’s favour. One can do this by counting cards at blackjack, which, however, takes guts, skill, long practice, and a considerable theatrical ability to disguise the fact that one is card-counting. My own method, when I was young enough to get away with it, was to chat up the female dealers. That worked every time. I didn’t make a lot, because the casinos would have noticed, and I had to stop doing it when I joined Ten Downing Street.

The casinos have known blackjack can be beaten by a skilled player since the 1950s, when Edward Oakley Thorp, a math professor, published his famous book Beat The Dealer.

Casinos continue to offer blackjack because, although the vig in a game that allows early surrender, dealer peeking, resplit, and double after split can be as small as 0.4% – just about the best one can find at any casino game – the number of players who have the guts to follow the correct basic strategy, which often involves drawing cards or even doubling down when instinct would suggest standing, is very small. The house edge against unskilled or cowardly blackjack players is very large.

Another reason to go to Vegas is that it has gradually become the world’s capital of magic. David Copperfield is at the MGM Grand, and will become the world’s first magician billionaire this year or next. Penn and Teller also have a long-standing Vegas show. If the mood is right, I may even start my own speech – at lunchtime on the last day of the conference – with a simple but baffling illusion.

I have recently been developing various illusions never before attempted, and am putting the finishing touches to a remarkable way to make the moon disappear from the sky – or, as it is known in the trade, to “vanish” the moon. As far as I know, the largest object “vanished” so far is the Statue of Liberty.

The moon is a far more difficult proposition, and the set-up costs would be the most expensive for any illusion not developed for use in warfare [“All warfare is deception” – Sun Tzu]. But, for the privileged few who would pay a lot of money for the experience, it would be utterly unforgettable – and utterly impenetrable.

At one level, the very existence of Las Vegas – not just a gambling joint but the whole hog – is a paradigm of what we are up against in the climate debate – the exploitation by the well-organized few of the insufficiently educated many.

At Harrow, under the wise headmaster Dr James, we were all taught elementary probability theory just at the point where we might be tempted to show what lads we were by ruining ourselves putting bets on at the casinos or, worse, with the bookies, whose vig is a crippling 20% at major races.

My math master, Sir Alan Outram, an unassuming baronet, taught us all how to calculate the bookies’ overround. At one stage they were getting away with 80% at a local point-to-point racecourse.

In a casino, the vig is related to the fraction of the drop (i.e. total buy-in) that the house holds. At American or double-zero roulette, for instance, the vig is 5.3%, but the fraction of the drop held by the house works out at around 25% because of staking and restaking by the players as they work their way along the curve of mean expectation until ruin.

My late beloved father’s housemaster discovered he was putting money on the bookies and shrewdly ordered him, for the rest of that term, to place bets with him instead, at the odds quoted by the bookies.

My father was horrified to discover how much he owed his housemaster at the end of the term. He never gambled systematically again. He was never taught the math, but he was taught a lesson.

Later in life, he was offered the post of head of security at a prominent casino in London. He turned an enormous salary down flat when the then owner of the club offered to pay him half his salary across the tables by way of “winnings” as a way of avoiding tax. A decade or so later, the club’s gambling licence was revoked for alleged irregularities.

In Nevada, if you win big the house is obliged to deduct a swingeing withholding tax. In the UK, if you work or save you are taxed, but if you gamble your winnings – however large – are completely tax-free.

See you in Vegas – and, unless you want to buy me a beer, leave your cash at home.

===============================================================

To register, go here

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
71 Comments
policycritic
June 7, 2014 11:24 am

Casino rules now: If you win and you’re a foreigner, and you’re on the IRS list (5-6 pages), you don’t get anything withheld from your winnings. Especially if you come from a country that does not withhold at home, like Canada, England. Just show your passport.

June 7, 2014 11:44 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
June 6, 2014 at 11:01 pm
First off, my accoldes to Lord Monckton for his as usual ebullient and unmatchable oratory.
Next, bushbunny says:
June 6, 2014 at 9:06 pm

Card counting illegal? What do they mean by this?

Thanks, bushbunny. Actually, it’s not illegal … but the casinos will assuredly blackball you from their casino and circulate your photograph to all the other casinos where you will be blackballed as well. There is no “right to gamble”.

===================================================================
Kind’a like Climate Science. If you say something often enough and long enough that doesn’t benefit the house, then you are blackballed.
In some circles smart but honest gambling is no more welcomed than smart and honest science…when “the house” stands to lose, you are blackballed.

rw
June 7, 2014 11:48 am

“There’s no good reason to think that Obama for example, isn’t wholly convinced that he’s on the side of the angels.”
……………………….
That’s laughable, recall Bengazi, Obamacare, and Bergdahl as examples of Obama’s mendacity.
………………………………
The two statements are not contradictory.
(Come to think of it, Obama may be a kind of natural antinomian.)

James Abbott
June 7, 2014 12:58 pm

Can the Good Lord tell us how many “hard Left” Governments there are in the world engaged in his alleged climate change scams ? Given also that there are plenty of centre and centre-right Governments promoting renewables and with emission reduction targets, how right wing does that make Monckton ?
His gambling focus is apt – he is gambling his science is right. Time will tell.

DirkH
June 7, 2014 1:27 pm

pokerguy says:
June 6, 2014 at 6:49 pm
“There’s no good reason to think that Obama for example, isn’t wholly convinced that he’s on the side of the angels. ”
Obama is probably not convinced of anything. He’s a notoric liar since school days. In German, a Blender or Hochstapler or in english flim flam man.

Village Idiot
June 7, 2014 1:46 pm

ImranCan June 7, 2014 at 4:02 am :
Thanks for the observations. If I were to respond I would get snipped for being off topic. As James Abbott says above: “Time will tell”

Yirgach
June 7, 2014 2:45 pm

El Nino Nanny says:
June 7, 2014 at 8:36 am
“Watch the facial expressions and eye movements”
These can be a tell, sometimes…
http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies_eyes.php
Basically, eyes to the left are “constructing” memories, not recalling real memories.
BTW, Obama is left handed, so all references to “construction” are eyes to the right.

June 7, 2014 3:11 pm

Mr Abbott is perhaps a little disingenuous. It is the enviro-fascists of the hard Left that are the driving force behind the climate scare. Governments of the center-right, such as Britain’s, are constrained to go along with the climate babble for the time being because they are in coalition with the “Liberal” “Democrats” (who are neither, being hard-Left these days).
And there are those non-Leftists, such as the unspeakable “Tim” Yeo, chairman of the Commons’ Environment Committee, who are too thick to understand even elementary scientific concepts (watch Dick Lindzen trying and failing to explain to him in words of one syl-la-ble how 17 years of no global warming and this decade being a tad warmer than the last are not incompatible), but who are capable of understanding that if they go along with this drivel they can make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year out of it by sitting on the boards of “renewable”-energy corporations that would not exist were it not for the excessive subsidies wrenched from the pockets of the poor and flung at profiteers of doom such as Yeo.
Then there are the ninnies, like “Dave” Cameron, described as a “Prime Minister”, who dragged a largely unwilling “Conservative” party into clamoring for climate-change legislation not because he thought there was any need for it but because he thought it was cool and would attract younger voters (a ploy that failed). The “Conservatives”, most of whom privately think the whole thing is nonsense, now merely look feeble-minded because their public stance is so greatly at variance both with the emerging scientific fact of low climate sensitivity and with the opinions of most true conservatives.
Parties of the center-right in Canada and Australia, for instance, are ditching the climate nonsense as fast as they can. In essence, therefore, this is a scare driven by the totalitarian, anti-capitalist Left. Let them cling to it for a few years more: they will increasingly look foolish as temperatures fail to increase at the predicted rate. In fact, they have increased at precisely half the rate predicted with “substantial confidence” by IPCC in 1990, which is why even IPCC has been compelled, by a variety of dodges and wriggles, to near-halve its estimate of anthropogenic radiative forcing from 1750 to date, and also to near-halve its near-term prediction of global warming from now to 2050.
In Britain, UKIP’s opposition to the climate nonsense was one of the reasons why the party took a seat even in Scotland, where the wind-farm infestation is wrecking the landscape, decimating the tourist industry and killing off our rare birds with the enthusiastic approval of the Left-dominated Royal Society for the Prevention of Birds. The Leftist nexus that dominates academe, the scientific societies, civil service bureaucracies, and the news media is already getting a bloody nose because it has been incapable of adjusting its extremist stance in the light of the emerging and now overwhelming evidence that the rate of global warming – though it will resume – will not be anything like as great as predicted, and will not require us to squander a single further red cent on trying to make non-existent global warming go away.

Keith Sketchley
June 7, 2014 3:12 pm

Might be called Freedom Month in Las Vegas, with http://freedomfest.com/ and http://www.cvent.com/events/objectivist-summer-conference/event-summary-a38d7eea5ff24beebd9b178682bad548.aspx.
(Well, technically the Objectivist conference is June 27 through July4, while FreedomFest immediately follows Heartland. Wish I could be there.)

James Abbott
June 7, 2014 4:33 pm

It is a telling statement from Lord Monckton that he believes that
“It is the enviro-fascists of the hard Left that are the driving force behind the climate scare”
Whatever political slant he wishes to put on the issue, it was climate scientists that first did the work to show that changing GHG concentrations could significantly affect the climate, and decades before it became a major political issue.
The idea that the the Professor who taught me atmospheric physics in the early 1980s was an “enviro-fascist of the hard Left” is comical.

June 7, 2014 5:08 pm

Mr Abbott is disingenuous again. The discovery that greenhouse gases could in theory influence the climate by warming it was made by physicists, not climate scientists. And it is not I who put a “political slant” on the issue. The exaggerations made by those driving the climate scare, who are chiefly on the hard Left, go well beyond what the science currently justifies. The very concept of science by “consensus” is a totalitarian-Left concept: only one point of view, that of the State, is permissible, and if – as is the case – only 0.5% of scientists subscribe to the notion officially promulgated, that is nevertheless promoted as a 97% consensus. The Left cannot duck their responsibility for fueling this ludicrous scare.

u.k.(us)
June 7, 2014 7:59 pm

I made 28 bets today, on 3 different racetracks.
Picked the winner of the Belmont.
I bet $127.00 and got $145.40 back.
You think climate predictions are hard ?, try to predict a horse race.

June 7, 2014 9:28 pm

The passage about a “mean expected duration until ruin” reminded me of a climate-related thought game that I had toyed with some time ago:
If we round-down the history of life on earth to 3 billion years, and break that into 100 year segments we have 30 million such segments. Meanwhile, warmers suggest that an additional 5% of CO2 released by human activity for a mere 100 years will lead to catastrophic climate change. Of course, Mother Earth cannot distinguish man-released CO2 from naturally-released CO2, as there is no difference between the two. This would mean that Mother Earth is the luckiest gambler in the history of the universe, having won on 30 million consecutive rolls of the dice that an additional 5% of CO2 would not be released during each 100 year period.
Or else there is a higher power leaning on the roulette wheel. Or else the notion that the world’s climate will spin off into a Venus-like scenario due to a small additional carbon forcing is invalid. Take your pick. But you must choose one of the above options or introduce one of your own.

rod leman
June 8, 2014 9:00 am

: Your comment above makes no reasonable sense at all. The CO2 levels will DOUBLE in the next decades. That is a big deal.
And, since you call yourself “sciguy” I assume you know that even though CO2 is a small percentage of all atmospheric gases, that a small change in average temps causes very large positive feedbacks – primarily, an increase in the largest GHG…water vapor….a huge multiplier.

Reply to  rod leman
June 8, 2014 10:49 am

I am enough of an engineer to know that when a system has survived 30 million cycles, of which some have involved similar external forces, then than system is likely to survive a few more.

Patrick
June 8, 2014 10:15 am

“Sciguy54 says:
June 7, 2014 at 9:28 pm
But you must choose one of the above options or introduce one of your own.”
Here’s my option: Nothing will happen to the climate on this rock in the next 100 years.

Yirgach
June 8, 2014 11:09 am

@rod leman
Pay no attention to Mr Leman, as he has a bad case of modelitis, which causes serious errors in judgement.

Reply to  Yirgach
June 8, 2014 11:33 am

No problem. All sincere and civil responses are welcome, and Rod’s response seemed to be such.
Models can be a great way to understand the behavior of a system, past, present and future. However, models which are inconsistent with the past and the present are not to be relied upon for looking forward into the future. This is where we seem to be with present climate models.
I would rather bet on past performance than hang my hat on complex, unproven and ill-fitting models. I would certainly rather not agree to make my grandchildren the future ATM for anyone claiming to have been damaged now and in perpetuity because of an unproven/disproven model.

June 8, 2014 1:10 pm

Mr Leman is incorrect both about the direct forcing from CO2 and about the feedbacks. The direct forcing is not important because it causes only 1 K global warming. And the feedbacks cannot be safely said to be as large as Mr Leman thinks. Indeed, the IPCC’s central estimate of those feedbacks, in its 2013 report, halves their former effect. Previously, the feedback sum was 2 Watts per square meter per Kelvin, just about tripling the 1 K direct warming from CO2. Now it is 1.5 Watts per square meter per Kelvin, which merely doubles the direct warming. And even that may well be an exaggeration: see e.g. Lindzen & Choi (2011), cited in IPCC (2013), or see Spencer & Braswell (2011). The IPCC has now begun to accept that Spencer & Braswell may be right that the cloud feedback is negative, not strongly positive, and it has reduced its former estimate to make it weakly positive.
The IPCC has also almost halved its estimate of near-term temperature change; reduced the lower bound of its equilibrium climate-sensitivity interval; abandoned its earlier attempts to give a central estimate of climate sensitivity; and cut sharply the fraction of anthropogenic warming attributable to CO2. Nearly all of these climbdowns, which in aggregate are highly significant, are carefully buried in the 2013 report. The sections on feedbacks, now scattered through the report rather than collected into one place, show signs of having been written so as deliberately to confuse, and to conceal the extent of the IPCC’s climbdown. For instance, two distinct and mutually incompatible definitions of “feedback parameter” are used.
I shall be contributing a head posting on these matters shortly, in which I shall attempt to quantify the extent of the IPCC’s climate-sensitivity climbdown. There is now a glaring disconnect between the numerous reductions the IPCC has made in its estimates of the individual components in climate sensitivity and its failure to reduce the upper bound, as the empirical evidence now obliges an honest panel to do.

rogerknights
June 9, 2014 11:27 pm

Village Idiot says:
June 7, 2014 at 1:46 pm
ImranCan June 7, 2014 at 4:02 am :
Thanks for the observations. If I were to respond I would get snipped for being off topic. As James Abbott says above: “Time will tell”

Time IS telling.

June 15, 2014 5:22 pm

Hi there, I enjoy reading all of your article. I like to write a little comment to support you