A blog called "Professional Conflict Resolution" is calling for the two sides of the climate debate to resolve their differences by means of a positive spree of gambling. The author says that "What the climate community needs are objectively verifiable predictions", which is, I think, a position that few people on this site would disagree with.
The climate community is losing the battle because it has failed to put out objective measurable changes. The climate community requires something akin to the Simon-Ehrlich wager. I myself see the argument as whether climate change is happening (it is) or whether the earth’s temperature is rising (it is).
The debate – indeed, the whole debate in Paris was about this – is about whether the effects of climate change will be beyond the ability of humans to adapt. To quote a presentation by Mark Boslough, is global warming “inconvenient or catastrophic?” The future can only be projected. We have no empirical observational data about 2025. Or even about tomorrow.
Whether climate change is inconvenient or catastrophic must be demonstrated with predictions ahead of time
Thus I maintain that in order to obtain credibility, the climate community must provide objective benchmark predictions. These predictions must not be subject to interpretation. They must also be indicative of a trend and cannot be individual events like storms or droughts.
One caution: do not place bets on global temperature. This must not be about whether the world is warming. It must instead focus solely on impacts. In order to demonstrate that there will be catastrophic things, there must be demonstrated that there was predicted these events.
The reaction should be interesting.