3 ms·

Would be lovely if someone put together betting markets for these events so people could put some real, actual skin in the game. Would be even lovelier if the a

by m0zg 7y ago

Would be lovely if someone put together betting markets for these events so people could put some real, actual skin in the game. Would be even lovelier if the authors of papers had to disclose their own bets (if any) in the papers, similarly to how they disclose the funding sources today. That would be a good signal as to the level of confidence they have in their predictions. 2065 is not that far out, and the water levels won't drop all at once, so it should be possible to set up shorter term bets. Climate events, if anything, should be far more predictable than the stock markets, while still retaining substantial randomness and uncertainty for the betting market to be possible.

nitrogen 7y ago
The Colorado feeds a couple of hydroelectric dams you've probably heard of, so if you can either invest/divest in the power companies or in e.g. houseboats or yachts on the reservoirs, that would kind of give you an instrument to place your bet.
ceejayoz 7y ago
USGS researchers aren't exactly wallowing in cash. If you want to see meaningful bets, look to the Pentagon and insurance industries. They seem to have made a decision on climate change. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-18/in-dire-report-pentagon-warns-bases-imperiled-by-climate-change https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-18/in-dire-r... https://www.wsj.com/graphics/climate-change-forcing-insurance-industry-recalculate/ https://www.wsj.com/graphics/climate-change-forcing-insuranc...
- m0zg 7y ago
  That's OK, I'd monitor JP Morgan's bets now that they are onboard. I just want there to be real, direct cost (positive or negative) be attached to the probability that the prediction is accurate. That would be vastly preferable to the current situation where there's no downside for the researcher for predicting incorrectly, and no upside to predicting correctly. In fact, given the purported seriousness of the situation, this should be structured such that "USGS researchers" who are correct most of the time would be "wallowing in cash", and those who are not would be ejected from the field.

by m0zg 7y ago

nitrogen 7y ago

The Colorado feeds a couple of hydroelectric dams you've probably heard of, so if you can either invest/divest in the power companies or in e.g. houseboats or yachts on the reservoirs, that would kind of give you an instrument to place your bet.

ceejayoz 7y ago

USGS researchers aren't exactly wallowing in cash. If you want to see meaningful bets, look to the Pentagon and insurance industries. They seem to have made a decision on climate change. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-18/in-dire-report-pentagon-warns-bases-imperiled-by-climate-change https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-18/in-dire-r... https://www.wsj.com/graphics/climate-change-forcing-insurance-industry-recalculate/ https://www.wsj.com/graphics/climate-change-forcing-insuranc...

m0zg 7y ago
That's OK, I'd monitor JP Morgan's bets now that they are onboard. I just want there to be real, direct cost (positive or negative) be attached to the probability that the prediction is accurate. That would be vastly preferable to the current situation where there's no downside for the researcher for predicting incorrectly, and no upside to predicting correctly. In fact, given the purported seriousness of the situation, this should be structured such that "USGS researchers" who are correct most of the time would be "wallowing in cash", and those who are not would be ejected from the field.