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!
AGW is based on Arrhenius' hypothesis, which was never verified, and on an incomplete mechanism for heat loss, ignoring the adiabatic convection mechanism.
AGW was and is pseudosciece.
"as Homer Simpson pointed out..."
Ahhh... so now we know where you get your information from.
"In contrast, AGW is based on scientific research."
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.
Pascal's Wager? It's not even OK if you are living in ignorance, as Homer Simpson pointed out, what if you worship the wrong god? All you'll be doing is making the real one madder and madder. How many gods are out there that you don't have proof that they even exist?
In contrast, AGW is based on scientific research. That's not perfect, but it gives you a lot more evidence to make an informed decision than Paul Kelly lets on.
Kevin,
I wouldn't lose too much sleep worrying over Luke - there's barely enough grey matter in there to prevent getting lost in a revolving door. It's pretty obvious from his daily drivel that he has few capabilities that would enable him to survive very long outside of his sheltered workshop environment. I would guess that if he had the guts to speak in the same fashion he does on the blog to any person outside his virtual unreality, that he would quickly wind up with a brick between the eyes. No - he's just there for amusement, to show everyone how witty he thinks he is -- not!
In the "lists" department, the one to keep the eye on is Ender. I'm reasonably certain he already has the list compiled - several volumes in fact - and is just waiting for the day. Given the opportunity, he will be the one to oversee the Einsatzgruppen. His KarbonSchutzsSaffel "Brownshirts" would be immediately set to work spying on transgressors - reporting back unauthorised use of non-electric private transport, burning of fossil fuels without express approval of the Reichsführer himself, and so on.
The worry is, as you suggest, the stifling of meaningful discussion and dissent. The fact that a policy such as ETS can be railroaded through purely on the basis of one economist regurgitating the work of another economist - in conjunction with the virtual self-censorship of all mainstream print and broadcast media (all in the public good, of course) - can only have undesirable outcomes which in the end will be to the liking of nobody - 'warmers' or 'deniers'.
Sorry Kevin - I meant old codger. Mate this isn't the ABC here. Take a hike mate and read Hissink's typical comments about his opponents. Am I not allowed any comeback from his ongoing hurtful mockery of my youthful inexperience? The fact that you have not seen the comment for the obvious parody on a situation that is actually the inverse makes you well part of the problem of discrimination. Where are you when it gets to comments on here such as darkies, blackfellas, turds etc. Even those with comb overs. Strangely warmers are held to higher account than dissenters.
If we warmers had our way yes we would pass a law to stop any dissenters from voting. It's for their own good you know. We should probably stop them having children too.
Keiran back to it - yes I agree but that is what is being proposed to non-believers. Kelly simply makes the obvious point - I don't think you are disagreement.
Well as the comment is posted for all to see, I wish to leave the following concerns in respect of the reply posted to Mr Louis Hissink by a regular contributor at 10.14 above.
They echo similar comments I have seen in the blogosphere, so the views are not unique. The writer may have thought them funny but I do not accept that the intent is not in fact both serious and malicious.
Mr Hissink’s view is dismissed in the first instance as “Gramps” – implying his view is discounted in part on the basis of his biological age. This is discriminatory – ageism. If I were to make such a comment to someone in business I would expect to be sanctioned under Human Rights legislation.
Secondly, it is implied that the change in government at the last federal election disqualifies Mr Hessink from voicing a dissenting view. The essence of free speech is that regardless of a simple electoral majority, dissenting or minority views can still be heard. I recall that writers like David Marr and Clive Henderson lectured far-and-wide in the run-up to the last federal election that their political views were being suppressed and that such alleged suppression of dissent was undemocratic. Exactly.
Thirdly, the writer moots, like others I have seen, that a register or list of their political opponents engaged on the internet should be established. The only reason for considering such a course would be if the proponent hopes to one day see such a list actioned ( Hansen-style witch hunt trials ? ) to punish persons expressing opposing views, or to hope to intimidate dissenting views from continuing on the basis that the opponent might view such eventual retribution as in fact a realistic threat. Again – see suggestions of Hansen and others in recent months.
This sort of comment is characteristic of a noticeably growing trend towards ‘brown shirt’ authoritarianism becoming ever more apparent at the edges of political and nationalistic thinking – either end of the political spectrum. For anyone with a shred of historical knowledge of the sorry history of 20th century totalitarianism, this isn’t the slightest bit funny.
Someone who is 28 years old could get gangrene in their leg later in life so why take the chance, Have the leg off now.
Luke, when i was an eight year old i walked out of Sunday school to play with my mates in the bush, gullies, hills, around our environment. I told my parents that if there was a good god then this is what he would surely expect not some ritual, sacharrine adoration and flattery, with me rote learning in wrong order little pieces of dogma to be rewarded with a colourful stamp and all getting so joyous .
This Paul Kelly's use of the Blaise Pascal nonsense simply means he hasn't progressed from the notion that you only do what's right because someone bigger than you will slap you around if you don't. This is manipulation as well as the jelly bean excuse of not wanting to find the truth first and then secondly act on that basis.
I read the article, Luke. Kelly is approximately as thick as two short planks, like many in the media and yourself.
Hissink - well mate - you've been outvoted - so shut up gramps and get back in line. I think we need a register on right wing voters like you to keep tabs on your subversive activities. Special Branch in Qld used to do a good job on this sort of activity in a different direction. Might still be a few around for some tips.