[m wilson]

I agree manipulation is a risk, but not quite in the way you're suggesting. I don't see heavy betting on a wager like whether or not the avg. global temperature will rise by 1 degree. A bettor running his AC nonstop would have to be expecting to win a lot of money in return. And the non-AC user must have his own definite idea of how his lack of use impacted the climate. It's like betting on a butterfly flapping. The kind of manipulation you're thinking of would be limited to a smaller arena, I think. I hated this article for other reasons.

Some social questions mentioned in the article suggest that the author believes bets will help expose cause-and-effect relationships, thus clarifying the correct way to proceed. That's nonsense.

Generally, to hope to affect public policy by way of gambling on vital social/world questions seems an excellent way to muddle the truth, affect outcomes by measurement, confuse the already confused, and ultimately ruin the world.
Some questions mentioned in the article are extremely difficult to answer with credibility, and some which seem "over" are still being seriously argued. There's no reliable information forthcoming from such an experiment -- particularly in current questions on Iraq the author brings up. The administration offers certain numbers of casualties; a news article states very different numbers. There is truth, but by adding stakes and weights to the search he's making it harder to find, not easier.

If we affect a particle by bombarding it with photons in order to describe its location precisely, what if we threw money at it? That would really, really, really slow it down, because all particles like money. It'd swerve if it had to, and stoop to pick up the money.

mickey