While looking over links from a recent column by Paul Krugman, I found an interesting research paper on the psychology of climate science denial, NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science, Stephan Lewandowsky, Klaus Oberauer, Gilles Gignac (in press, Psychological Science). Based on questionnaire responses by visitors to climate blogs, the researchers found that people who endorse laissez-faire free-market economics or believe in various conspiracy theories are very likely to reject climate science as well. The mention of free markets got me thinking, free association style, about all the news coverage of late on Internet gambling. Fantasy sports has become a huge business, and now there's even betting on the presidential election. Though they currently "can't accept USA-based customers", there's even a website that takes bets on "Trump's Manhood:"
Applies to the size of Donald Trumps manhood when 'standing to attention'. Bets will be void if it is not revealed by end of 2016. PP Decision Final.
There ought to be, I mused, a prediction market for the effects of climate change. After a bit more searching, I found a law review article that addresses this very idea: Energy and Climate Change: A Climate Prediction Market, Michael P. Vandenbergh, Kaitlin Toner Raimi and Jonathan M. Gilligan, 61 UCLA L. Rev. 1962 (2014).
The best way, I reasoned, to get something done is to write a letter to your senator. So I did.
Dear Senator Inhofe:
I am writing to you with a suggestion about how to expose global warming for the hoax it really is. As the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and someone who has studied and written extensively about global warming, you are uniquely qualified to implement this proposal.
In a nutshell, the idea is simple. All that is required is to eliminate the legal constraints that prevent private, non-government entities from creating a climate prediction market. As you are no doubt aware, the Dodd-Frank Act gives the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) express jurisdiction over event contracts. It is entirely appropriate that Dodd-Frank allows the CFTC to bar trading, as against the public interest, in contracts relating to events involving illegal activity, terrorism, assassination and the like. The social and economic benefits of climate futures trading, however, can hardly be denied.
An obvious benefit of climate prediction markets would be to put an end to the monopoly over public opinion currently enjoyed by the IPCC and other scaremongers. Spurred by the free market, climate futures traders would unmask the duplicity of climate "scientists" and their hidden agendas. A climate prediction market would also stimulate economic growth by providing a hedge for investments regarded as risky due to the supposed impending impacts of climate change. For example, coastal developers otherwise unable to obtain flood insurance would be able to buy futures that would compensate them should the dire predictions of alarmists come to pass. Of course, when disastrous impacts fail to materialize, the price paid for such futures will be collected by investors who bet against climate change.
In spite of these advantages, the CFTC, skeptical of free markets in general, could rule that allowing climate prediction markets would not be in the public interest. Should this occur, it would be up to Congress to pass legislation limiting the authority of the CFTC to regulate trading in climate prediction futures. Given your position and influence in the Senate, you would be instrumental in guiding an appropriate bill through to enactment.
Sincerely,
etc., etc.
Well, Sen. Inhofe is not really my senator, but I thought he might be sympathetic to the cause. And I didn't really send this letter, but if there's anyone who’d like to, from Oklahoma or elsewhere, feel free to borrow and modify as desired.