KEVIN Rudd is about to bank his leadership on a variation of Pascal’s wager, appropriate during the Pope’s visit but reflecting a new and risky calculus in Australian politics.
His independent expert Ross Garnaut has done the same, as he explained by reference to 17th-century French scientist Blaise Pascal: “If there were no God and one believed,” pondered Pascal, “what is the loss? But if there were a God and he rewards belief or denial in heaven and hell, the absence of belief is catastrophic. It is rational to act as if there were a God.”
Pascal’s argument was that smart non-believers should live their lives as though there were a God because they had little to lose and much to gain. Garnaut’s argument is that it is smart to act on the assumption that climate change is real because betting on its denial involves a high risk of catastrophic consequences.
Paul Kelly Blog - The Australian: Caught in carbon crunch
Thanks to Luke for lighting the blue touch-paper on this one!
No way does this resemble Pascal's Wager. Not at all.
For politicians, that is. If Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fraud, there's still a gain on this side of perdition: governance through the allocation of energy.
Governments already have tremendous control of energy by licensing electric power plants, petroleum refineries, etc.
Expand that just a little bit--first, by regulating automobiles, and then, biofuel crops for agriculture, and then a few things governing forests... well, a little expansion here and there, quickly becomes an Emperor's dream.
If CAGW is false, and a fraud, it's got a huge carnal payoff. Even if the recompense is perdition.
Luke,
You would not be John Hunter of CSIRO would you?
Your manner of interlocution seems very familiar.
And we keep repeating that you're a twit who has never looked further than his nose. Doesn't read - doesn't know.
Luke,
I keep repeating it because you and your loonies don't seem to understand that the whole basis of AGW science is based on a totally false foundation - Arrhenius's unproven assumption.
Repetition has been found to be efficaceous in penetrating the minds of the benighted. Clearly we need to work on you for a bit longer.
The way SJT continually needs to state and restate his assertion that it is "based on science" calls to mind any number of other social misfits with denialist tendencies, i.e.:
- bigots: "I'm not a racist, but..."
- drunks: "I don't have a drinking problem, but.."
- gamblers: "I don't have a gambling problem..."
The motivation is similar - repeat a lie often enough and you will believe it yourself. Keep telling it loudly and often, and maybe a few other weak-minded people will begin to believe you as well.
If there were any science behind AGW, people like SJT wouldn't need to keep harping on about it on a daily basis. It would be obvious to most people - in the same way real sciences are.
Just stop lying will you SJT. This constant lying and evidence-filibuster is beyond a joke. Its not funny anymore for you anonymous idiots to be spamming the ether the way you do it.
The is a science-fraud. Anyone who doesn't realize that now is an idiot.
Now invoking Pascals wager is as bizarre as invoking risk management in this context. Since the certainty is towards cooling and there is no risk of catastrophic warming at all. Furthermore strong warming would be very easy to deal with if it happened though it cannot happen.
Its just lies and we ought never be pretending that this is not the case.
"Would you please stop and desist this absurd falsehood. AGW is based on a MODEL. A model is NOT scientific research - not in any dictionary."
Amazing the ideas that get repeated around like thinking people, that become a fact simply because everyone they know just confirms what they want to hear.
Read the IPCC reports. The basis for AGW is much more than models. And the models are built on physical principles.
Louis has a list which he just keeps repeating over and over - sort of like a prayer mantra. Song sheet provided by the old Western Mining guys was it?