Global Warming Wager

Want to bet that global warming's not such a big deal? I'll raise you five degrees Fahrenheit and one melted icecap.

The climatologists at realclimate.org have challenged a team of German scientists to a gentleman's wager on global warming. The terms go like this: if the German scientists are correct in their prediction that there will be a pause in global warming, the Real Climate guys will pay them € 2500. If Real Climate is right, and the 2000-2010 average temperature turns out to be lower than the 1994-2004 average, the Germans pay them € 2500.

Maybe someone should ask W. if he's willing to bet the (Crawford) ranch on his weak new greenhouse gas policy actually making a difference?

--Emily Matchar
 

Comments

[Wizard]

I am all in favor of the wager because it drives home the point of a cost of being wrong for both sides. This said, as any sensible person would be, I am of course in favor of more efficient energy use and a more pristine environment. And, personally, I am against what I am about to suggest.

Let's assume the global warming chicken little's are right and that we should believe them. Ergo, drastic action to reduce carbon emissions is required, and, even that is likely to fall short of the catastrophic consequences of warming: drought, pestilence, crop failure, vicious, devasting storms, etc. It does not take a genius to figure out that such events forordain a life and death struggle amongst us human be'uns. At best, life will be pretty grim. And it also does not take a genius to realize that nobody knows exactly what to do or how to do it.

Now, I think most would agree that 1800, as roughly the dawn of the industrial age, predates global warming caused by us. And the world's population then was roughly 1 Billion. Today the human population is roughly 6 Billion, or, as Ted Turner, noted liberal, billionaire, and environmentalist, recently said, "too damned many people."

Any idiot that dares to think rationally recognizes that the problem of global warming, such as it is, is a people problem. Reduce the earth's human population to somewhere around 1 Billion, and global warming caused by man should go away shortly thereafter.

Guess what folks, we know how to reduce people!

The technology exists!

It is relatively cheap and effective. And it is certain to work. Now I don't know which 5 Billion people should be best eliminated. I just know that I am in favor of me and mine not being among them. And, in the process, we would be wise to have the process represent evolutionary progress in the direction of a more intelligent, adaptable, species.

Consistent with the "me and mine" hypotheses, most rapid progress could probably be made with a massive, pre-emptive nuclear strike on China, Southeast Asia, and the Indian Sub-continent. Certainly, our present arsenal is adequate for at least half the problem by say Tuesday a week from now. Remaining efforts of this type probably should be directed at leaving maximizing the friend to enemy to ratio by spot-bombing say the urban Islamic and the French.

Democrats should support this plan because it essentially eliminates off-shoring and mutes the issue of free-trade. Oil would immediately be in surplus due to reduced demand, freeing the dollars necessary to reduce per capita carbon footprint.

This would get us well on the way to a solution with rest being a matter of fine tuning. We should stop fighting famine and disease. Indeed, we should encourage both (supported by our leadership position in biotechnology) as a means to depopluate the third world without making the dirt glow. Think how quickly the Amazon and Congo Basins might return to its former pristine glory minus those troublesome Brazilians and Congolese. No more heroic (and expensive) miracle medical care. Get dealt bad cards. Tough. Times up? Comes to all of us eventually. Golly! Health care costs are reduced!

I could go on. But I think you get my point. The one thing I am sure of is that if the country comes to behave as Al Gore would have it, the major cause of death from Global Warming will be freezing to death in winter.

[John Collins]

Please don't let these facts get in the way of your opinions about 'Global Warming'...

The sun goes through cycles and most Solar Scientists believe that the sun has been going through a 'hot cycle'. The sun has been getting more active since the end of the last 'Minimum' stage known as the Dalton Minimum which created the last large glaciers (1790-1820). Before that, there was of course the famous Maunder Minimum(1645-1715) which coincided with the 'Little Ice Age' and the Sporer Minimum(1450-1540) which coincided with the 'Black Death'...which compounded the plague do to the fact that there were years of crop failures creating famine and weakening the overall civilization due to the cold weather.

The planet Mars been getting hotter during the same period of time as our planet, yet they don't burn coal or drive SUVs.

Historic CO2 levels have not correlated with historic rises of temperatures on the planet over the last million years. Typically CO2 level rise after a cooling trend begins.

[Drew]

We should stop betting and just do something about it. Is that really so hard?

[Bob Burk]

For the last decade the global mean temperature has been statistically flat. In addition, the communist at the IPCC and RealClimate.org claim a 90 confidence level that human produced C02 is responsible planetary warming. Interesting, when I took statistics, a 90% confidence level was not good for much as a 95% level was for something to be significant.

Given our limited knowledge of the variables and the interaction and counter action of the variables impacting climate, I'd say this bet is kind of like a coin toss.

[tom faranda]

Emily

I'd take the German side of that bet. You should too.