I've seen some estimates that had you shifted the timing around a bit (and perhaps some other commodities) he could have actually won... while Simon was _right_ direction, there are (cherry-picked?) times where he could have been (short-term) wrong

denlillaapan

Wait, do they get a warm glow from believing in imminent catastrophe?

You forgot about the warm glow of believing good thing

Undisciplined

Great article on this bet at [https://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/23/magazine/l-betting-the-planet-503390.html](https://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/23/magazine/l-betting-the-planet-503390.html) (I couldn't find a non-subscription, no paywall version, sorry.) 

I read this back in college. Didn't know it at the time,  but looking back in pretty sure it was one of those formative things in my life that helped make me me, shaped the way I see how the world works and how people view life.

crrdlx

Definitely, I've heard the notion that environmentalism may be filling some peoples deeply felt spiritual need.  It has its own narrative of sin and redemption.

Never underestimate the appeal of a "just" cause. In a world/society/culture devoid of meaning and purpose it fills a massive void. Similar to the woke movement. A Godless movement that has its roots in the message of a God they seem to dispise. 

You can also see it in the rise in popularity of socialism. We have a deep desire for meaning and we live in times where many people feel lost and aimless. Who we are isn't even a given. We have to define it. Detemine it ourselves. It's not new and didn't happen overnight.

kepford

He didn’t repudiate his warnings when they failed to pan out, yet didn’t lose his popularity or prestige.

Not many biologists sell millions of books, make frequent appearances on late-night talk shows and achieve guru status. Paul Ehrlich, the population-control advocate who died last week at 93, checked all three boxes.

Making spectacularly wrong predictions of imminent catastrophe became something of a habit for Ehrlich over the decades. His dire forecasts about global cooling and warming were wide of the mark, a twofer.

Ehrlich’s knack for being not only wrong but 180 degrees in error cost him neither popularity—he appeared on “The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson” more than a dozen times—nor prestige in academia. But it did cost him a famous bet. In 1980 the economist Julian Simon, annoyed by the “phony bad news” being fed to the public, wagered that Ehrlich couldn’t name a natural resource that would become more expensive after adjusting for inflation over the next decade. Ehrlich accepted the bet and chose copper, chromium, tin, nickel and tungsten. He lost. Each one of the minerals declined in price. Ehrlich sent Simon a check for $576.07 and wisely declined the offer to reup the bet, which he would have lost in 2000 as well.

Why should they, if they can continue to get fame and prestige for their failed predictions?

econ

# He didn’t repudiate his warnings when they failed to pan out, yet didn’t lose his popularity or prestige.

> Not many biologists sell millions of books, make frequent appearances on late-night talk shows and achieve guru status. Paul Ehrlich, the population-control advocate who died last week at 93, checked all three boxes.

> ...

> Making spectacularly wrong predictions of imminent catastrophe became something of a habit for Ehrlich over the decades. His dire forecasts about global cooling and warming were wide of the mark, a twofer.

> ...

> Ehrlich’s knack for being not only wrong but 180 degrees in error cost him neither popularity—he appeared on “The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson” more than a dozen times—nor prestige in academia. But it did cost him a famous bet. In 1980 the economist Julian Simon, annoyed by the “phony bad news” being fed to the public, wagered that Ehrlich couldn’t name a natural resource that would become more expensive after adjusting for inflation over the next decade. Ehrlich accepted the bet and chose copper, chromium, tin, nickel and tungsten. He lost. Each one of the minerals declined in price. Ehrlich sent Simon a check for $576.07 and wisely declined the offer to reup the bet, which he would have lost in 2000 as well.

Will environmental doomers ever learn?

Why should they, if they can continue to get fame and prestige for their failed predictions?

He didn’t repudiate his warnings when they failed to pan out, yet didn’t lose his popularity or prestige.He didn’t repudiate his warnings when they failed to pan out, yet didn’t lose his popularity or prestige.