Who would have won the bet?

Question

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070413_fools_bet.html

Answer 1

Global temperatures are down from 2005 so it looks like Lindzen has the advantage so far.  

I don't think warming or cooling has even odds.  If you subscribe to the idea that the Earth is in a natural warming phase (as there is historical evidence that rivers and seas over the world occasionally froze during the little ice age). Then warming is more probable that cooling, I think it would be an even odds bet that the Earth will warm by 0.1 degrees in 20 years.

Answer 2

I think it underscores the very point - they don't have a site where you can gamble on whether the earth will stop turning tomorrow.    To gamble on something means it is unknown.

Answer 3

Both sides of the bet think Annan would have won, since Lindzen (the most credible "skeptical" scientist) wanted prohibitive odds to take the betbet.

"In 2005, Annan offered to take Lindzen, the MIT meteorologist, up on his bet that global temperatures in 20 years will be cooler than they are now. However, no wager was ever settled on because Lindzen wanted odds of 50-to-1 in his favor. This meant that for a $10,000 bet, Annan would have to pay Lindzen the entire sum if temperatures dropped, but receive only $200 if they rose.

“Richard Lindzen’s words say that there is about a 50 percent chance of [global] cooling,” Annan wrote about the bet. “His wallet thinks it is a 2 percent shot. Which do you believe?”"