Posted 6:48 PM by steve

I am tempted to take Brian Schmidt up on his offer to bet on whether global warming will occur... but, regretfully, I am going to have to pass...

Let me explain. I have no doubt that the environmental gloom and doomers are way off base with their predictions of terrible things to come our way if we don't immediately change our behavior; the extremists on ANY issue are always wrong, and the gloom and doomers are the extremists of the environmental movement. So betting against them and their doom and gloom claims would ordinarily be a great way of increasing my family's GDP.

However, unlike a football game or an indictment, where the result is there for everybody to see, the same doesn't hold true for global warming... there is no common, agreed-upon standard of measuring whether the world has in fact gotten, and is getting, warmer. I'm not an expert on the subject, but have read enough to know that for every measurement the gloom and doomers trot out as proof of their assertions, the denialists (as Brian puts it) pull out their own statistics to say that no such thing has happened. And, with no universally accepted measurement, and Brian being a bit of an expert on the subject, I'd be giving him my money.

Second, I prefer to make bets on events over which I have some degree of control over. The less control I have over the outcome of a bet, and the larger and more unfamiliar is the group that controls the outcome, the less likely I will be putting down any money. It's one thing to bet on what a single person, such as Fitzgerald, will do. It's one thing to bet on the outcome of two football teams (relatively small number of people who can influence the outcome). But whether or not global warming takes place depends on the actions of billions of people and dozens of governments, with motivations I can't begin to understand, let alone predict. For example, I can't begin to claim that I understand the Chinese people or their (non-representative) government... so betting on what they do or don't do and its impact on the earth's temperature is a sure way of losing money.

Third, I don't like making bets where the outcome is determined by unknown factors. I will admit I have no idea what really affects the temperature of the earth (nor, I believe, does anyone else, and that includes the entire scientific community... they're all guessing). I don't know how much of today's temperature is a function of what happened yesterday and how much depends on what took place 100 years ago. Too many unknowns for me to risk my money (my 13 year-old daughter wants a cell phone and those ain't cheap).

Fourth, I hate betting on things that happen way into the future. Who would have wanted to bet in 2000 who Bush was going to nominate for the Supreme Court. Who wants to bet now on the winner of the 2008 Super Bowl (hint: suckers!). As I read them, Brian's bets are for ten years out. Who knows what would/could happen between now and then?

But the biggest reason I won't be taking Brian up on his nice offer is because I don't bet on things I don't care about. And I don't care about global warming per se. Even if the world's temperature was to go up, I don't know if that would be such a bad thing. The doom and gloomers say it would be, other people say maybe not. Maybe warmer temperatures would increase the amount of food that could be grown. Maybe the money that won't need to be spent on winter coats will help fund research into curing cancer. So what if the icebergs melt and oceanside property becomes worthless? Property inland would become more valuable.

Now, if Brian wanted to bet on whether the world would suffer as a result of temperature increases, then that could be a different matter altogether....

|