Hello everyone!

Punter57: Do you like a flutter or not? I offered you a bet on the terms agreed between Brian Schmidt and David Evans (link above). Your only response has been incoherent bluster: "chicken little ... Latham ... Combet ... I already explained". Well no, you explained nothing.

Since global warming is slow, it's obviously a long-term bet. If you wish to offer different terms, feel free -- we'll swap emails and discuss in detail once you've declared yourself willing to put your money where your mouth is.

Q&A re Agenda21: Sustainable Development, like Western Civilisation, would be a good idea. I have no doubt it's technically possible, but as you say Australia doesn't seem to be interested.

Horus re Kyoto: The Kyoto Protocol was the *initial* set of binding emissions restrictions under the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and it applied to all countries who can afford technology to reduce carbon emissions. The UNFCCC provides for progressively more stringent commitments, with developing nations following rich countries' lead. Kyoto was the *first step*.

When Australia, which everyone knows could cut emissions more cheaply than anyone else (indeed profitably, up to a point) fought the first baby-step all the way, it undermined any further agreement also.

Arjay re dinosaurs: Of course the climate has changed before, and will change again. That's not a problem. It's just that as a result of human activity (which we have the power to change) temperatures may increase so fast over the next 100-200 years that civilisation won't be able to adapt.

I am not in the least concerned that the biosphere as a whole, or the human race itself, won't survive in the long term, though I will be sad to see the last of the polar bears and various other species whose habitat could disappear.

It's the potential huge decline in the agriculture 6 billion humans depend on in the 21st century I'd like to avoid, followed by total economic collapse, and having to start again from scratch. It's not the end-of-the-world that concerns me but the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it.

Sorry XODDAM. Only an idiot would bet on an event in 10-20 years time, unless the odds were ultra attractive. The person who is CERTAIN that the world is warming should be offerring at least 100-1 against it cooling instead. Perhaps 1000-1. Remember that certain means almost 100% Anyhow, the odds are not correct. Bear in mind that the stake (say $1000) would have to be held for 10-20 years in "Trust", instead of earning at least 7% pa in a govt bond, so that at even money, you would stand to win $1000 while foregoing $1400 interest (and much more if invested in stocks). What kind of lunacy is that? Anyway, thanks but no thanks. Besides, what will a rise or fall prove about THE CAUSE. That's what this is about, isn't it?

Interesting that you don't get the connection between A) People who are nervous nellies by temperament (lefties) B) The search for "safety" in dangerous times (the sky is falling; cluck, cluck,cluck) by these nervous nellies C) The offerring of "safety" by politicians who have noticed these nervous nellies looking for someone to pander to their fearfulness and D) the hysterical search for another provider of "safety" by these nervous nellies when THAT pollie (was Latham; is Rudd; will be Shorten/Combet or whoever) let's them down. Got the connection yet? Think about.. A leads to B leads to C leads to D. Not so hard is it matey? Cheers

...tapped fingers until 6:14pm to post again, then server was down...

(FWIW I never looked to a party for solutions or salvation and don't care to be patronised)

A pretty clear NO to the bet, very disappointing.

I'll address your misgivings, however stupid you think I am. Fancy having to assure someone who prattles on about odds and "rank outsiders" in the context of climate policy, that the climate is a betting matter!

What's an insurance policy if not an open-ended long-range bet? The stake is paid in instalments and redeemable for present value. Have a good think about insurers' take on ACC by the way.

I have no intention of foregoing a decade's worth of interest on the stake! A gentlemen's agreement on a stake measured in 2017 or 2027 dollars would be acceptable to me, or we could arrange for the stakes to be held in an interest-bearing trust if you insist.

As to the odds, bookmakers and insurers might offer 1000-1 but I'm no bookmaker. Surely the person who is CERTAIN that there is NO global warming should be just as prepared to offer 100-1 against as the person who's CERTAIN there IS? Make a counter-offer.

In Schmidt and Evans' case they seem to agree that the world *is* warming, so their bet is over whether the warming will accelerate or decelerate over the next 10, 15 and 20 years, and they've agreed on 2:1 odds in favour of acceleration. Of course the actual temperature is only a proxy for the cause, but the point is that Evans (and you) disagree with the basic science that studies the causes, so Evans is prepared to take a punt against the scientific consensus on the effect. Why aren't you?

Let's determine exactly what we disagree about (in such a way as it can be independently verified) and then talk about the odds, shall we?

If you won't agree in principle to a bet on climate change, don't bother posting on the subject again.

XODDAM. Say I'm flipping a coin. After 1000 tosses it's Heads 550 and tails 450. At this point we suspect something is causing more Heads, as we believe that "naturally" it should be closer to 50/50 (not necessarily exactly). Several people are suggesting what this cause might be. Some say it's just a normal fluctuation, while others suggest all manner of explanations (maybe one side of the coin is heavier; maybe one side is rougher; maybe maybe maybe). At this point someone reckons it's the spirit of their dear departed Aunt Sally. They are convinced; we are not. This person suggests a challenge; a bet that in the next 1000 tosses it will still be in favour of Heads. Let's say we accept the bet at even-money.

The Heads win again (maybe it's still 550 vs 450; maybe 501 vs 499). Has this proven that the predominance of Heads has been caused by Aunt Sally? Has it even proven that Heads will be dominant next time? Now don't start with "But I'm talking about the weather". You get the drift.

Also. The insurance analogy is a good one. A salesman announces that you can get extra cover on your house for the special circumstance that a Cruise Missile goes off course into the building. This seems unlikely but it's possible. Should you laugh it off (Boy won't you regret it when that US warship on manouevres let's one fly into your street!). OK, you're interested, just in case; what's the premium to protect your $300,000 house? If it's 50 cents a year,why not? But, in fact it's a paltry $60,000 per year for the next 10 years...it's a bargain!! I'm not sure whether you would sign the contract immediately (Mr Rudd would) or give it a little more thought XODDAM. In this latter case you will appear superficially similar to the procrastinating Mr Howard, which might prompt you to sign. Or would it? Cheers.

Punter57,

So you think the climate is completely random, and if it appears not to be then investigating it is pointless.

This is a pusillanimous cop-out. People's lives and livelihoods depend on the climate, and the quest to understand it is a noble "part of the Enlightenment project" (to quote our gracious host).

The heat-trapping properties of the atmosphere are undisputed; climate science studies the details and, in particular, has found that adding certain gases to the atmosphere enhances its ability to trap heat and increases the surface temperature. That is not seriously disputed either; the devil is hiding in the details.

If you wish to assert against a large body of evidence that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening (or that it's "a rank outsider"), you should explain why.

Or just put your money where your mouth is, if you think your ignorance trumps science!

You seem to think that reducing greenhouse emissions is expensive. Again, evidence indicates the opposite. Most Australian fuel consumption is for industries which would benefit dramatically from a realistic valuation of energy, making the first tranche of emissions reductions entirely "no regrets". Business is presently unattracted to efficiency investments because "trade-exposed" industries get subsidised energy.

For instance alumunium smelting gets huge ongoing subsidies from smaller electricity users in the form of underpriced electric power (typically they pay 3c/KWh, where domestic users pay 10-15c/KWh). The subsidy could be converted from cheap power to free emissions credits, and the industry made instead to pay full price for its energy: smelters would make the efficiency improvements in response to the energy-price hit, and could then profitably sell their emissions permits to other sectors, or abroad.

While closing down coal power stations in favour of renewable electricity would cost money, it's much less than Howard's conga-line of "environment ministers" has implied. Fuel-free generation will prove cheaper than all alternatives in the long term.

I don't have space here to pontificate on how cheap diverse renewable and low-carbon electric generators can be. Suitable investments can generate low-emissions power for less than any new central power station. Read

http://www.smallisprofitable.org/

for details.

Horus, “Kyoto was flawed from day-one. ‘Multilateral action is required’ but it needs to include ALL polluters, not just those it’s politically opportune to coerce.” Absolutely, but you misunderstand what Xoddam has been saying.

Kyoto was only ever going to be a first step, and the flaws are obvious. Many countries, businesses and groups want to move to the next change, some even want to hijack it, but post-Kyoto will eventuate in one form or another, with or without OZ.

It is very important, and very difficult, for universal and multilateral action to be negotiated, let alone implemented. At least we should try.

Some of your comments show a very basic or simplistic understanding of a very complex process, but you are not alone.

Arjay, yes there are panic merchants, but there are also dinosaurs – we need a measured response not premised on denial.

Punter57, insurance companies are peeing in their pants, their insurance companies (the re-insurance companies like Swiss-Re) are not only peeing, they’re friggin pooping too – about the impacts of climate change! Study the form; see what they said at Davos this year.

If there is a chance humanity has had something to do with this latest round of global warming (and a wide body of experts, national leaders and business chiefs think it has) then we should at least have a bet. I think the odds are very good, odds-on in fact.