J. Scott Armstrong from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania wants to bet Al Gore he can more accurately predict the temperature over the next 10 years, by using a "no change" model, than the forecasters using the "CO2 global warming" model can. The money will go to charity. So far, Al Gore has declined to take this bet.
Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School challenges Al Gore $20,000 that he will be able to make more accurate forecasts of annual mean temperatures than those that can be produced by climate models. Scott Armstrong’s forecasts will be based on the naive (no-change) model; that is, the forecasts would be the same as the most recent year prior to the forecasts. The money will be placed in a Charitable Trust to be established at a brokerage house. The charity designated by the winner will receive the total value in the fund when the official award is made at the annual International Symposium on Forecasting in 2018.
An Intrade market was set up so anyone can wager on the outcome of this challenge.
There is an Intrade market for the proposition “Gore vs Armstrong”. Betting Armstrong to win costs you $62 right now (to win $100); taking the Gore side of the bet would win $100 on only $38 at risk – over 150% profit! Given the overwhelming scientific consensus behind anthropogenic global warming, how can you possibly say “no” to this proposition?
You can see from this chart, the market is betting Al Gore is wrong.