Very interesting idea!
But I have a few questions:
Who or how will decide in the prediction market? As you said, just because some doctor measured 1% more co2 - we don't know if the doctor/ prof is saying truth or manipulates (which happens pretty often in science lately).
There are also many people thinking co2 isn't that bad of a gas.. which isn't that wrong.. In the first place the more co2 the more plant growth, until a certain level of co2 is stepped over..
I like your idea, just dont get how you wanna decide who is right and who is wrong in such a prediction market..
Orakles wouldnt be something I like.. They are like truth monopols..
I ask the question: what is even 'true'?
Isnt truth always context- and situation-dependent, subjective, and more..?
For example would earth be 10-20°C colder, wouldnt the heating up climate be a blessing?
The people who lost are forced to give their money.
Greets
The oracle problem is certainly there and does not have a very clear solution. Right now augur is probably the best we have, which has some serious flaws, but this is still very experimental and a lot of progress will come in the next years.
In any case, the problem has been simplified. Instead of discussing about climate change (which is hard) we can now discuss about measuring temperatures (which is easy). Cheating on the easy part is much harder and there should no longer be any idealogical battles on how to do this.
Truth can be absolute on objective questions. If we ask what will the temperature be tomorrow at 12 in a given place, there is exactly one correct answer. Of course on subjective questions there is no answer. This is like asking what is better pasta or pizza.