Why are global warming skeptics unwilling to put their money where their mouth is?

Question

Two Russian solar physicists...accepted the wager of US$10,000 that the average global temperature during 2012-2017 would be lower than during 1998-2003. Annan first directly challenged Richard Lindzen. Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years. Annan claimed Lindzen wanted odds of 50-1 against falling temperatures.

The Guardian columnist George Monbiot challenged Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute to a GB£5,000 bet of global warming versus global cooling.

Annan and other proponents of the consensus state they have challenged other skeptics to bets over global warming that were not accepted, including Annan's attempt in 2005 to accept a bet that had been offered by Patrick Michaels in 1998 that temperatures would be cooler after ten years.

A different, $6,000-to-$9,000 bet, where both sides expect warming but differ on the amount, with one break-even point at 0.15 oC/decade, was made between Dr David Evans and Brian Schmidt.[18] Dr Evans' reasons are described here.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Betting

With the exception of the Russian solar physicists (who I would bet are going to lose their money), global warming skeptics seem unwilling to back up their predictions with cash. Some are willing to bet the planet won't warm quite as much as predicted, but that's about it.

If skeptics are confident in their scientific positions, why are they so squeemish when it comes to backing them up with cash?

Also, why do skeptics/deniers have to invent data to support their positions? 8,000 year warming trend? A warming trend as rapid 1200 years ago?

How about looking at some temperature graphs, deniers?

Willow - if you're serious, I'll take that bet. Feel free to email me with rules (i.e. colder in 2012 than when?) and how to ensure payment of the bet.

Answer 1

Because their skepticism is either lacks conviction, or is not sincere.

Many "skeptics" are actually contrarians, not genuine skeptics.

To be a contrarian you don't have to disbelieve the position that you oppose, and you don't have to believe that your position is true.

Science values skepticism. Politics values contrarianism.

Answer 2

Most skeptics are not arguing that the world is not heating, they are arguing that it is not man made and we are not in control of it. We are heating, that much most charts agree on. So the planet may heat or may get cooler in the next 20 years, 50:50 chance, but it looks like heating is the safer bet because that is the trend we have been in over the last eon. If one of the scientists wins the bet it only proves that the temperature changed not the reason. It is no more valid than betting on heads or tails on a coin toss.Why would any scientist tarnish his name on a public wager? It is just another case of the AGW fanatics bullying the skeptics. If the AGW bullys were real scientists they would refute the skeptics by challenging the findings in studies and in the lab. Not like little kids in the school yard.

Answer 3

Maybe because they aren't stupid enough to say that they can know for sure whether the temperature will be warmer or cooler. The future of climate is nearly impossible to predict correctly, and so it really isn't smart to bet on something like that.

None of your questions actually prove the points that you are trying to make. You seem to be saying that the "skeptics" don't actually believe what they say, because they won't bet on their theories, but it could just be that they aren't low enough to bet.

P.S- There is not a consensus.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

(Bob: Look more closely at your graph. It says that, about 12,000 years ago, it was warming just as fast as it is now. Who was driving all of the SUV's back then?)

Answer 4

Well the temperature in London over last few days is very cold you need snow fall of an ice age but these days when it rain it rains till theres flooding. But with the world heating up this will be more common in future. I don't think theres any chance of an ice age. Sometimes when you look at the sky on a clear day sometime the clouds are oddly shaped like tread marks.

Answer 5

oh god you are such a sheep. a volcano emits the same amount of C02 as we do in a YEAR. decreasing our factor entirely, that still leaves many volcanoes, so our contribution is negligible at best. but no, you dems love your crisis theories dont you. global warming is real, that much is obvious. WE are not causing it, that would be the earth's random heating and cooling patterns. how do you think the ice age melted? did we fart it away with c02 from our cave-men assses?i doubt it, sheep

EDIT: bob, i love the mushroom cut, it makes you look even more laughable than you already are. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A VALID SOURCE. if at's all ou have o back up yr nothingness, get off now poser sheep

Answer 6

You know several years ago when i was at school we were told that we were about to get a new ice age! We all believed the "scientists" Guess what, it aint happening!
Now we are told by "scientists" that the world is heating up. You know we can all be taken in by these folk, but they CAN NOT predict the future. However they DO make mega bucks by doing TV interviiews and writing books and magazine articles. Oh yes this so called global warminmg is BIG BUSINESS and guess who is raking it in?
The Bible however tells us, "HEAVEN AND EARTH WILL PASS AWAY, BUT MY WORDS WILL NEVER PASS AWAY." Matthew 24:35
Now that is the future!

Answer 7

The issue isn't whether it will get warmer or not, the issue is whether we're causing it and whether we could do anything about it if we are and whether global warming is even a bad thing.

Since we are in an 8000 year warming trend I would bet that it gets warmer.

No, Bob, I wouldn't. I don't have to. Find your own info. It's not that hard.

Answer 8

I'll bet you 1,000 Carbon Credits AGT will drop during 2012-2017. Do we have a deal?

Answer 9

mt_zion - Care to back up that "8000 year warming trend" with data? I'll say we were in a slight cooling trend for 8000 years and that changed to a rapid warming quite recently - and back it up:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png

EDIT - I have found the data, above. Beware of people here who just make stuff up.

PUNKER_ROCKER - That was caused by an increase in solra radiation. We know it's not that now, because.... we measure the Sun.

"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar
climate forcings and the global mean surface
air temperature", Lockwood and Frolich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A
doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

The stuff you cite from Senator Inhofe is ridiculous nonsense. A typical one of his "400 prominent scientists" is a guy with a degree in chemistry who wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper (with more nonsense in it).

http://www.desmogblog.com/400-prominent-scientists-dispute-global-warming-bunk

BDOG1321 - Volcanoes emit less than 1% of what we do.

"T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 are dwarfed the estamated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times"

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

The globalwarmingart (not wiki, which just hosts it) graph is referenced to the scientific literature. You might try reading it.

Answer 10

i'ma skeptic and i'll bet you a grand that we'll be much cooler by 2012