Besides the bet listed above, that temperatures would not drop significantly 10 years after the anomalously-hot 1998 El Nino year, there are 3 other bets that I'll match against the denialists:

The bet Richard Lindzen refused to take, after saying that there was a 50% chance that temperatures would drop over the next 20 years and that he was willing to bet on it: that temperatures will increase over the next 20 years, and if they don't, he gets a 3-1 payout. Lindzen wanted a 50-1 payout, demonstrating that his mouth says 50% chance of temperatures dropping, while his wallet says the odds are 2%. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/61417ac7c5cc92b9

George Monbiot on BBC Radio offerring to bet a denialist 5,000 British pounds that temperatures will increase over the next 10 years. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/a2daaf3d04aa22b1

Paul Ehrlich's second bet offered to Julian Simon in 1995 that the years 2002-04 would be warmer than 1992-94 (Simon wisely declined). http://www.stanford.edu/group/CCB/Pubs/Ecofablesdocs/thebet.htm (this bet would obviously be adjusted to future years, say 2006-08)

I'd be willing to sweeten the latter two bets to reflect the denialist view that temperatures MIGHT go up, by giving them better odds than I get, say 2-1.

As for denialists like gbaike who say that by great coincidence, we're in a natural warming trend, I accept that you'd not be interested in these bets. I think gbaike, not Lindzen, represents the denialist's future as trend lines become even more clear. Funny though, how the mid-20th Century 30-year cooling trend seemed so important to denialists, and how the temporary cooling since 1998 also seemed important and inexplicable to them when they felt they could deny global warming. Now they're easily explained, I guess. To clarify, I'm speaking in general terms, maybe gbaike has been more consistent than other denialists.