UPDATE: We have a new candidate for the bar of "universally accepted". The candidate is "as universally accepted as the fact that smoking causes cancer". Feel free to discuss that option in the comments. You will be informed if a change happens, before it goes into effect.
This market is about the public and not the scientific community.
This market resolves NO if anthropogenic climate change is universally accepted as fact. The bar for 'universally' is set at the same level as gravity is universally accepted today.
The market resolves YES otherwise.
The public eye is defined as the english speaking internet. The reason for this is, that the english speaking internet is used globally and easy to check for everyone.
This market resolves N/A if climate change denial becomes illegal, anthropogenic climate change is disproven, The lingua franca of the web changes or if the correct answer is unclear.
I will bet in this market, but only as long as the market is perceived as sufficiently defined. I will place no bets that put me at the top of the position holders at the time of the bet.
Related questions
The bar for 'universally' is set at the same level as gravity is universally accepted today.
I think the existence of even a few small fringe conspiracy groups is enough to prevent this from resolving as NO. I'm willing to bet 99.5% of people believe gravity is real; maybe more like 99.9%. I don't think acceptance of anthropogenic climate change will ever go above about 95%.
@evergreenemily I agree - but I'm surprised you're betting on NO in that case!
While so many of today's climate change sceptics/deniers are still alive, I don't see how it could become as uncontroversial as gravity.
@SimonGrayson Oh, whoops. I think I misread the question or made assumptions and thought YES was "universal" and NO was "not universal." I meant to buy YES, thank you for catching that lmao
@evergreenemily Unfortunately I have to inform you that there are people who believe gravity is made up 😅 Especially flat earthers or the 'space is fake' crowd.
@evergreenemily flat Earthers do not believe gravity is real and compose a few percent of the population, around 10% in the USA https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/conspiracy-vs-science-a-survey-of-us-public-beliefs
@Rwin depends strongly on how you frame the question, but yeah, consistently many percent, and much fewer than 90% are confident it isn't. https://today.yougov.com/topics/society/articles-reports/2018/04/02/most-flat-earthers-consider-themselves-religious
It's more like 3% in the UK https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/04/25/which-science-based-conspiracy-theories-do-britons
@Ramble I think in that light the definition for the resolution criteria fits well. But if people have a better definition for the resolution, let me know. If everybody is okay with a change, we can still change it if demanded.
@Rwin But the spirit of the definition needs to be consistent with the current one of course. it shouldn't lead to anyone changing their prediction.
@Rwin I hope this isn’t going to turn into an argument about whether climate denialism has got niche enough…
The yardstick of being no more controversial than belief in gravity is an incredibly high threshold. There are absolutely no world leaders denying gravity or even taking a neutral view on the subject. There are no major parties running on a platform of gravity scepticism or news outlets bringing on a gravity denier for “balance”.
I truly hope that climate change won’t be considered controversial by 2040, but I think there will still be some people holding out, which is why I’m betting on YES.
@SimonGrayson I think you are judging the resolution criterium correctly. My main focus of the question is me wondering, if the effects of climate change will be obvious enough by 2040 to make climate change denialism completely absurd. I don't have a clue what the correct prediction is, which is why I made this market :D
But of course there will always be people having a different opinion, that's why there is of course some leeway.
If someone has a better criterium, please let me know. Before changing anything, I will of course consult the comments, give you time to adjust your bets and maybe even refund losses caused by the change.
I would like this market to be as solid and at the same time non-obvious as possible.
@jeffK Smoking causing cancer is a very good definition of universally accepted! Should the people want a definition change, this one could be a candidate.
@Rwin I think that’s a great candidate - I think it’s a bit of a lower threshold (I could imagine a mainstream politician downplaying the harm of cigarettes but I couldn’t imagine them denying gravity) but the original threshold was pretty much impossible to reach in our lifetime!
I’ve sold my position to avoid bias in this conversation - I’ll probably come back and take a position once it’s set in stone!
@SimonGrayson I've sold my position as well for the duration of the discussion. I'll update the description with a mention of the new candidate.