Over a week ago, I published a post wherein I suggested that perhaps the two sides of the climate discourse should look to making some wagers on measurable changes to climate that will occur over the next decade. See the post here:
This post had hundreds of views. And not one person volunteered to make a bet. Not one.
My thoughts on this? I am neither surprised not shocked.
Obviously, one would think that proponents of severe climate change, with their access to models and peer review and the like, would have no problem with settled science predicting an endpoint of a climate trend. One would also think that the more contrarian out there would also have no problem betting against the so-called alarmist and his/her cataclysmic predictions.
What are my thoughts? Both of those ideas are erroneous. Both are stereotypes that are fomented by both sides. Both sides are loaded with rhetoric. Both sides fight rhetoric with rhetoric. And each side seems to want to outdo the other with rhetoric.
Does this mean that there are no deniers out there who believe that the sea level won’t rise? No, it does not. Does this also mean that there are no alarmists out there who think the sea level will rise three meters by 2100? No, it does not mean that, either.
It does mean that, so far, there are no hardcore deniers or alarmists who are willing to make a bet. A good, rational, reasoned, mutually agreed upon bet is something that seems to be too much for either side.
To me, this is a good indication that both sides know that they are wrong. Neither side is is interested in verifiable predictions that would be agreeable to the other side because it would affect their statements of the last decade or longer.
I will, of course, keep this as an open challenge. Should I get some who are willing to make some verifiable predictions, then I will obviously welcome it. I will help mediate whatever terms of the bet or bets that are negotiated between the bettors.
But, for the time being, I will simply view both sides of the debate with mistrust.