The problem is that you don't realize even at this late date that the global warming scare is nonsense. I'm not willing to bet that you are going to get any smarter in the future.

Let's look at Kyoto.
How much do you imagine this treaty has cost the people in this world. And whatever this cost has been, how much CO2 has this treaty reduced in terms CO2 emission?
If you imagine that more money needs to be wasted on this and soon it will bear fruit, then it's further proof that you idiot and there is no helping you.

Now, if Kyoto was a treaty that encourged the use of nuclear reactors, it might have made some difference and not be a complete waste of money and time.
The environmental movement in it's irrational fear and fear mongering of nuclear energy and millions of human hours squadered opposing nuclear power has resulted in billions of tonnes of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere. The environmental movement opposition to nuclear power has resulted in more coal or oil being burnt.
Meanwhile, the nuclear reactors which were built before the environmental opposition or despite the environmental opposition is currently reducing the amount of CO2 emitted by human activity by about 2 billion tonnes per year.

If Gore was vaguely serious, during his term he would have moved mountains to get more nuclear power plants build in the US. But he did nothing.
I favor building more nuclear reactors. I think the best place to build lots of nuclear reactors is in India. I also think we should built some more nuclear reactors in America. I don't care about the CO2 emission, but nuclear power is safer and cleaner. And could be cheaper than other types of power generation {depending upon location}. But if you thought CO2 emission was problem, you should be a fanatic for building nuclear power plants. And if pee your pants in fear about CO2 emission, then you should finds ways of making nuclear power generation really, really cheap {breeder reactors as one example}.

Personnally I think environmental loons in the not too distant future will burn coal in a ritual and will push for various mad schemes of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

As far as a bet. Global temperature have not risen above 1998 temperature. If 2005 was second highest temperature, and if 2006 is claimed to be 3rd highest temperature, I don't see this accelerated warming that we are being warned about. Even if 2006 is warmest *ever* it doesn't prove anything- though no doubt we would hear endless screaming about it. But we have had screaming about since the 1990's and as each decade that has past all the dire consequence have failed to materialize.
If in the next Century global temperature is -.2 C or +.5 C I don't think this is significant.
If it's instead -.5 C or +1 C this is slightly significant in that it's more of a swing then I would expect. But there would be no consequence of any significance for the people living through the next Century from such a small difference in global temperature. No significant amount sea level level rise or fall. Crops won't fail. No affect upon storms. No hotter summers. No deserts created. Etc, etc.
At least not due to *global warming*. We could get hotter or colder summers. We could get massive crop failure due to freak weather in various places around the world. We could get colder or warming winters. Etc.

If it's instead -1 C or +2 C that would be alarming- but it still wouldn't have any significant consequent for people living during the next Century- though could indicate a trend that could be dangerous for the next following Century. The cooler temperature would be worst problem. This level of global warming does not neccessarily result in Greenland melting and certainly would not result in Antarctic melting. Sea level won't rise by 20'. Though in a Century of time if sea level continue rising at average rate it's risen over the past 10,000 year at something like 2 mm per year, than you get 20 cm rise [2'], so at 2 C increase one could over a century instead get around 4'- but this is not significant. It would like living through one century as though it was 2 centuries. New York city which has already existed for 4 centuries has already seen twice this much increase- not mention much older cities.
Though New Orlean in the next century will sink so it's more like Venice- disregardless of global sea level changes- it will do this even if global sea level were to turn around a start dropping by say 1 mm per year.

So what can we bet about? Haven't you already lost the bet. Since 1998 global temperature has declined or stayed flat, so it's a tiny bit lower than I would thought- if it goes up a bit this year it would seem "more" what I had expected. There has been no indication of accelerated warming, and there is no reason to expect there will be any accelerated warming.