Would you bet real money that the skeptics are right instead of the mainstream?

Question

The willingness of people to bet money on something has been proven to be an excellent sign of what is truth. The collective wisdom of people is pretty good.

http://www.chrisfmasse.com/3/3/markets/

World leaders and corporate leaders HAVE to risk serious money on which side is correct. Overwhelmingly they've chosen to back the mainstream.

There's a small chance (even they say they're only 99% sure) that the mainstream is wrong. But very few intelligent people would risk their money on that.

Even skeptics won't bet against the mainstream. Mainstream scientists have offered bets, and have had a very hard time getting any skeptic to take them.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ag20_OQ9Rcq1knyiVzjupg8jzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20071222103922AASHk91

You don't have to bet money on this directly. But, in a democracy, your political support is effectively doing that. And your economic well being (not your life) is at stake.

Ben O - Disagree. The world leaders and corporate leaders are placing big bets that this is going to be a serious and unmistakable problem, not an ambiguous intellectual issue. Look at the bets offered the skeptical scientists in that link - pretty clear stuff.

Francis K - What I meant by that was that the "betting markets" have an excellent record of success in predicting outcomes.

THE VOICE OF REASON - The SCIENTISTS draft said "virtually certain" which is defined as 99%. Those political edits which people complained about lowered it to "very likely" which is 90%.

AGENT0 - Even money bet.

But you're in good company. Richard Lindzen wouldn't take an even money bet that the skeptics were right. He wanted 50:1 odds. Pretty close to the scientific position, which makes sense, because he's a good scientist, probably the best among the skeptics.

The thing is, no one with serious considerations at stake (world and corporate leaders) will bet their economic well being on a 50:1 shot. Certainly no one smart enough to be a CEO of a large corporation.

Neither should you make that bet.

Jello - As I said it's "only" 99% certain. Want to bet your economic well being on a 100:1 shot? World and corporate leaders don't.

And comparing the temperature change between summer and winter in Colorado to the temperature change involved in global warming shows a serious lack of understanding of the data.

Larry - You got me. I meant skeptical scientists and mainstream scientists. Yahoo answers restrictions on length make me go too cryptic sometimes.

But most Americans do think global warming is a serious problem. The country does lack leadership to translate that belief into action, though.

Answer 1

No, I would bet money that the scientific consensus is right. In fact in the question you linked, Willow offered a $1,000 bet that the planet will be significantly cooler in 2012. I tried to accept the wager, but haven't heard from him. Somehow I think he's all talk.

You're right that governments are taking large risks because they're investing in renewable energy and increasing fuel efficiency standards and taking various similar actions under the assumption that the AGW theory is correct. If it's found to be wrong, there will be major reprocussions for the politicians who took action assuming it's correct, but they're convinced enough to take that (minor) risk.

Answer 2

This is really just an economics question. Of course I would bet real money that the skeptics are right instead of the mainstream IF the terms are right. What are the odds? What conditions need to be satisfied to determine the winner and loser? What is the timeframe? Does the money need to be put up, in advance by both parties? Some percentage of the total bet? Is there a spread and is there Vig on the bet? How is the bet enforced/how do I know I will get my money if i win?

Real world examples that around right now are not what we in economics would call a pure bet. Many public and private firms have taken positions on different things that may effect global warming outcomes but they are not pure bets on the existance or not.

Private goods and investment reflect the best guess on piotential maekets for goods and services, not the validity of those goods and services.

Public goods are thought of as things that have a "free-rider" problems where everyone enjoys the benefit and no one person has the incentive to take the action. Global warming could qualify but policies and regulations do not directly afffect global warming, they affect economic reality for those operating in the world. Public policy, taxation and regulation can create incentives to change but those incentives impact the private markets and the public/ world leaders are insulated from teh direct cost to the degree they do not participate in a particular economic activity.

Anyway, the answer to the original question is yes, under certain conditions I would place a significant wager. Ironically, if you think about it everyone that believes in global warming should hope that they are wrong and it's not happening.

Even if global warming isn't happening though, I think there are tons of good reasons to work on cleaning up this earth. Toxins in our environment can't be good in the long run (that's just an opinion).

Interesting question. Thanks for making go through the thought process.

Answer 3

Interesting. The fact that you're proposing betting on global warming means that it's not a sure thing. There a chance that global warming may or may not be real. Betting just gives a person the ability to make money on the chance they're right.

Are you coming around to my point of view?

World leaders don't bet their own money on global warming. I would have no problem or issue betting your money against the Patriots this week.

No one bets on how much current will pass a fixed resistance at a specific voltage as this is scientific fact. We can bet on global warming because no one, not even you will know if it will be warmer or cooler this winter.

How much snow do you have in Denver so far? Have you made any new records for this month yet?

[Edit] Bob- I wonder if you would fly on a plane that had a 99% chance of landing safely.

Answer 4

Mainstream, that's an interesting thought. You live in Denver, right? Go sit at the intersection of I-70 and I-25 and watch what the mainstream is doing to reduce their CO2 emissions. See if you can count the SUVs and pick-up trucks that go by in one hour. I would wager that the mainstream is not too concerned about global warming. Dress warm.

Answer 5

Pokerstars facilitates you to play for Play money or real money. Tournaments each 2nd(actually), unfastened tournaments to qualify to win real money with, and usual tables in case you in basic terms opt to play.

Answer 6

I challenge your assertion that the skeptics are not the mainstream, and in the interests of accuracy, the IPCC and other proponents of man made global warming do not claim to be 99% sure, only 90% (which is under two sigma). That said, if I was a betting man, I would put my money on the inevitability of continued warming for some years to come, eventually reaching a peak temperature of about 3 degrees Celsius higher than current values. This is in line with past warming cycles and I have seen no evidence to support a different outcome regardless of what we do. In fact, I am so confident in this that I would prefer to put my money and resources into preparing for the effects of this almost certain event instead of in futile attempts to stop global warming or strident exercises in finger pointing and name calling.

Bob, "virtually certain" is not a scientific term. Can you provide a scientific reference for the 99% probability assertion. If not, it does not exist in scientific terms.

Answer 7

Put your money where your mouth is because i am a gambler,anyone want to take a wager; that the world is getting warmer? what odds you give me?I would say its odds on that the world is getting warmer 4/6 odds on(words and money are two different things are they not?)

Answer 8

I for one wouldn't take a bet against a global warming nut. First of all, he wouldn't pay. He would always insist he/she/it was right. There is at least a 50/50 chance it will warm. Only an idiot would take a bet that it will be substantially cooler. The skeptics are correct but they are not idiots. They wouldn't take the bet that it will be substantially warmer either. It is a childish meaningless bet but not surprising considering the source. Lastly, it is always correct to be skeptical of wild unsubstantiated claims. It would be unscientific to lose your skepticism but there are plenty on the left that value their politics way more than science.

Answer 9

Bob, I've been to Glacier national parka and have seen evidence of shrinking glaciers. I have been to Thule Greenland and have seen evidence of a shrinking ice cap. Where I live the winters are nowhere as cold as they were just 10 years ago. Georgia is drying up. Sea levels are rising. Multi-year sea ice is disappearing in the arctic. The only evidence we have that explains the warming we see at the rate we are seeing is the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. There is no way I would be betting on what the sceptic says, there explanations are confused and would be comical if not so wretchedly uninformed.

Answer 10

A lot of people would back their opinion with a wager. There's a few problems though.

It's not like a sports game where the winner and loser are indisputable. We won't be able to directly measure AGW versus natural climate change.

And Bob, your idea of mainstream seems to wonder how the Republicans get into office when no one you know votes for them.