Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world
The Guardian
By: David Adam
08/19/05

Two climate change sceptics, who believe the dangers of global warming are overstated, have put their money where their mouth is and bet $10,000 that the planet will cool over the next decade.

The Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev have agreed the wager with a British climate expert, James Annan.

The pair, based in Irkutsk, at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics, believe that global temperatures are driven more by changes in the sun's activity than by the emission of greenhouse gases. They say the Earth warms and cools in response to changes in the number and size of sunspots. Most mainstream scientists dismiss the idea, but as the sun is expected to enter a less active phase over the next few decades the Russian duo are confident they will see a drop in global temperatures.

Dr Annan, who works on the Japanese Earth Simulator supercomputer, in Yokohama, said: "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement. A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension."
To decide who wins the bet, the scientists have agreed to compare the average global surface temperature recorded by a US climate centre between 1998 and 2003, with temperatures they will record between 2012 and 2017.

If the temperature drops Dr Annan will stump up the $10,000 (now equivalent to about £5,800) in 2018. If the Earth continues to warm, the money will go the other way.

The bet is the latest in an increasingly popular field of scientific wagers, and comes after a string of climate change sceptics have refused challenges to back their controversial ideas with cash.

Dr Annan first challenged Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is dubious about the extent of human activity influencing the climate. Professor Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years.

No bet was agreed on that; Dr Annan said Prof Lindzen wanted odds of 50-1 against falling temperatures, so would win $10,000 if the Earth cooled but pay out only £200 if it warmed. Seven other prominent climate change sceptics also failed to agree betting terms.

In May, during BBC Radio 4's Today programme, the environmental activist and Guardian columnist George Monbiot challenged Myron Ebell, a climate sceptic at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in Washington DC, to a £5,000 bet. Mr Ebell declined, saying he had four children to put through university and did not want to take risks.

Most climate change sceptics dispute the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which suggest that human activity will drive global temperatures up by between 1.4C and 5.8C by the end of the century.

Others, such as the Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg, argue that, although global warming is real, there is little we can do to prevent it and that we would be better off trying to adapt to living in an altered climate.

Dr Annan said bets like the one he made with the Russian sceptics are one way to confront the ideas. He also suggests setting up a financial-style futures market to allow those with critical stakes in the outcome of climate change to gamble on predictions and hedge against future risk.

"Betting on sea level rise would have a very real relevance to Pacific islanders," he said. "By betting on rapid sea-level rise, they would either be able to stay in their homes at the cost of losing the bet if sea level rise was slow, or would win the bet and have money to pay for sea defences or relocation if sea level rise was rapid."

Similar agricultural commodity markets already allow farmers to hedge against bad weather that ruins harvests.

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1552092,00.html

How would YOU wager?
???

How would YOU wager?


I would not, because there is no way of knowing what will happen.  But if I was to make a bet based on the odds, I would say things will get warmer.

And that is not based on any belief of human caused "global warming" either.  The Earth has been warming for roughly 10,000 years now.  In fact, we are technically still in an "Ice Age" right now.  Historically, there have not been any polar ice caps.  Ice caps are a unique situation, that only exists in ice ages, or during the early parts of an interglacial period.  Since this is still very early in the "Holocene Interglacial", odds are that things will get warmer, and the ice caps will eventually melt away.

If you think I am kidding, here are a few of the more recent "interglacial" periods:

Sangamon:  110-130 kya (thousand years ago).  The polar ice caps almost totally dissapeared, hardood trees gre over most of Greenland.

Yarmouth:  180-230 kya.  Hardood growth on what is now Siberian tundra.

Cromer:  300-330 kya.  All glaciation from the Alps vanishes.  Sea level studies suggest that the polar ice caps were less then 1/8 the size that they are now.

Pastonian:  600-800 kya.  Sea level studies suggest that the Pacific Ocean covered most of the west coast of the US, suggesting the absense of any ice caps at all.  This is one of the longest interglacials on record.

Bramertonian:  1.3-1.55 mya (million years ago).  This is the time period that marks the start of the current geological age, the Pleistocene.  This interglacial saw rise to early hominids.

If you look at the geological record, interglacials are always more severe then what we are in right now.  The interglacials during the Jurrasic period were so long apart, that a thriving tropical ecosystem developed on Antarctica!

To make this even more complex, a lot of atmospheric scientists think that the Earth is still in recovery from the "Little Ice Age", from 1650-1850.  That was a lowering of the Earth's temperature that is most likely caused by decreased solar activity, and an increase in volcanic activity.

Of course, then there was the Medieval Warm Period, from roughly 1100-1270, where most of the Earth was from 1-3 degrees centigrade then it is today.  There is a marked layer in Siberian and Alaskan permafrost that marks this time period.

So if I was to bet, I would bet on the side of geologic history, and bet on things getting warmer before they get cooler.  But since we are only about 10,000 years into the current interglacial, that is a safe bet.  Most interglacials last from 40,000-100,000 years.

The burning of fossil fuels is contributing to global warming.  There is scientific consensus in this.  The contrarian scientists are all on the payrolls of the petroleum companies, or on the payrolls of right-wing thinktanks who are themselves on the payrolls of the petroleum companies.  Furthermore, fossil fuels industries have undue influence over our elected officials.
There is just way too much money at stake for big oil NOT to fight the scientific community tooth and nail.

The burning of fossil fuels is contributing to global warming.  There is scientific consensus in this.  The contrarian scientists are all on the payrolls of the petroleum companies, or on the payrolls of right-wing thinktanks who are themselves on the payrolls of the petroleum companies.


Maxwell, how do you agrue with geological facts?  We are still in an early phase of an interglacial.  And in every interglacial, the icecaps are either greatly reduced from what they are now, or are totally gone?

In my mind, the only way you can refute the scientific evidence is if you are a strict creationist, and believe that the Earth was created only 8,000 years ago, and that the "scientific evidence" is placed there by God to confuse us.

The fact that there were no polar icecaps during the Jurassic period is a fact.  The Medeval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are facts.  The tracking of periods of "global warming" and "global cooling" is well known.

In fact, it is because of the rise of the sea level since the current interglacial started that let scientists date the underwater structures at Yonaguni at 8,000 years old.  And the shrinking ice caps accelerate the effect of "global warming".  Less ice caps means less reflected sunlight.  Less reflected sunlight means less heat retained in the atmosphere.  This is a circle.

I believe that GLobal Warming is a natural occurance, which has happened many times in the past, and will happen again many times in the future.

Unless you can give me proof that humans caused the current interglacial, I see no reason to believe that they are causing a completely natural phenomonon.

Whether caused by us or not, Climate Change is real and happening right now.  :o :-X

Whether caused by us or not, Climate Change is real and happening right now.  :o :-X


Well, the climate has always changed.  Just over 2,000 years ago, there was a large inland sea, right where Death Valley is today.  But the climate warmed up, so it dissapeared.  Unless you can prove how humans used "global warming" to make that happen, who should I believe it is happening now?

And people go on and on about CO2 causing global warming and being a "greenhouse gas".  Have you looked at any of the studies of ice cores taken from Antarctica?  It seems that there was just as much CO2 in the atmosphere then as there is now.  A lot of people have tried to refute this evidence, but even more core samples from Greenland have only confirmed the levels.  They also confirm that it was a world-wide event, not a localized one.

Currently, our level of CO2 is 380 µL/L (ppmv).  And even older data has shown that between 400-600 Mya, the CO2 level was greater then 3,000 ppmv!

Now let me throw just one more factor into the mix.  The oceans contain vastly more CO2 then the atmosphere does!  Coral pulls bicarbonate out of seawater, then use it to creat their colonies.  Plants do the same thing, pulling the Carbon out and useing it for food, and releasing the Oxygen.

Personally, I think that the Earth is just to powerful for humans to do such changes.  We cover a small percentage of the Earth's surface.  And the Earth has a way of fighting back on populations that get out of control.

Trust me, you probably do not want to know my belief of the origin of AIDS, Ebola, Marburg, and the other such virus that are running through the world now.

Maxwell, how do you agrue with geological facts?  We are still in an early phase of an interglacial.  And in every interglacial, the icecaps are either greatly reduced from what they are now, or are totally gone?

In my mind, the only way you can refute the scientific evidence is if you are a strict creationist, and believe that the Earth was created only 8,000 years ago, and that the "scientific evidence" is placed there by God to confuse us.

The fact that there were no polar icecaps during the Jurassic period is a fact.  The Medeval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are facts.  The tracking of periods of "global warming" and "global cooling" is well known.

In fact, it is because of the rise of the sea level since the current interglacial started that let scientists date the underwater structures at Yonaguni at 8,000 years old.  And the shrinking ice caps accelerate the effect of "global warming".  Less ice caps means less reflected sunlight.  Less reflected sunlight means less heat retained in the atmosphere.  This is a circle.

I believe that GLobal Warming is a natural occurance, which has happened many times in the past, and will happen again many times in the future.

Unless you can give me proof that humans caused the current interglacial, I see no reason to believe that they are causing a completely natural phenomonon.

Cyclical global warming and man-made global warming are not mutually exclusive. 

If I were writing a paper for a college class and you were my professor, you could compell me to state PROOF and document sources.  The reason I am not going to write a detailed argument here is because this is not a college course, and you are not interested in proof.  You are only interested in gainsaying whatever I say to indicate human activity is partially to blame. 

If you are interested in learning about global warming, the facts are at your fingertips.  Go to Google and find out for yourself.  The truth is out there, just avoid scientists who work for the Heritage Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute, the Manhattan Institute, Cato, and such right-wing outfits in the pocket of the extraction industries.  Yes, go out there and find the truth, why hear it second hand from me?

Mmmmkay!