antiseptic, it's gambling with our future thta's the problem with Pascal's Wager .. it encourages you to make stupid decisions based on a supposed risk - there is no proof thst CO2 is causing additional climate change

The IPCC is not saying it is for sure, it's only 90% sure - so the risk is doing something now that in a few years as the science develops as it is by no means on top of weather or climat emodelling, we may find something else, unknown currently is enhancing natural climate change, we may find it's all natural and part of the scheme of things.

The problem with the precautionary principle is that it is used when someone wants to overcome reluctance and then discarded when it is the other way around and you don't want to be the receiver of it.

Thus "If IRAN'S NUCLEAR WEAPON PROGRAM is a fact and we do nothing, the potential consequence is hugely negative, possibly including a massive loss of life and habitat for humanity (ISRAEL). If, on the other hand, whether we have specific evidence or not that it is true, we have little to lose as MANKIND by acting as though it is true. The worst consequences of acting to reduce IRAN'S CAPABILITY are solely IRAN'S PROBLEM AND A FEW LOST LIVES AND FACILITIES RATHER THAN ALL OUT NUCLEAR WAR IN THE REGION, POSSIBLY THE WORLD.

Does anyone suggest otherwise?" No, we totally agree - let's go bomb the crap out of Iran, just in case eh?

You see, the precautionay principle can be used to justify war, invasion as well as changing or damaging our economy.

It's not reasonable to bomb Iran (yet) nor is it for a few activists and die hards to demand our civilisation be brought down by dumb decisions based on current immature science.

Tricky words, people didn't trust Pascal's Wager back then, nor do they now.

Like climate sceience, Pascal suffered an image problem, his wager was rejected, no surprise.

odo, the reason Pascal's wager was a failure logically was that he was predicating it on the hypothetical possibility of a vindictive god existing when there was absolutely no way of testing the hypothesis and no alternative hypothesis available to explain what was observable. While he did not endorse the religious model because he felt it had flaws, he was hedging his bet.

It served him well and arguably did no harm.

In the case of climate science, there is much evidence and just as in Pascal's case, the existing models support taking some action to hedge our bets.

Even if the models are not perfect, they are the best we have at present. The disparity in the consequences is so great between acting and not as to mean that we really have no choice. I don't think any serious decision-maker disputes that; where the conflict occurs is in the detail of how to achieve the best outcome, rather than how to achieve some outcome.

I seem to recall Bush & Co bombed the crap out of Iraq with just 1% probability about WMD.

We are 90% sure about another WMD (weather, not weapons) - there is a difference.

But like some die-hards, they want 100%

_____

Btw, my previous post about Waheed Aly's proposition - it's telling that no OLO conservatives (or 'political scientists') want to pick it up - there must be some truth in what he says.

You recall wrongly "I seem to recall Bush & Co bombed the crap out of Iraq with just 1% probability about WMD.

On November 8, 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15-0 vote. 100% mate!

Iraq filed its 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998.

But fiddling with the figures and changing the data after the event is to be expected in your field isn't it. Isn't that why this whole murky debacle has avalanched on Climate Scientists?

Here's an article about Climate Scientists not being able to manage the press and not being up to the task to sell their story, and we have qanda, who tells us he is a climate scientist, bullshytting about why "we" went to war in Iraq and baiting conservatives.

What precious innocent little petals are these climate scientists!

Yes, I do want 100%, otherwise, we may find in years to come, when your science is more advanced, that there may be OTHER REASONS why climate changes the way it does - or is your science "known", that is, nothing else to learn? So we can stop pouring money in now?

So when do we believe their stories?

You might ask in view of the above little spectacle by qanda, why people are skeptical? (that's rhetorical, i.e. it requires no answer as it is obvious)

>>Btw, my previous post about Waheed Aly's proposition - it's telling that no OLO conservatives (or 'political scientists') want to pick it up - there must be some truth in what he says.<<

There is, of course. But that doesn't mean that the diehard skeptic does not have a valid role in keeping everyone else thinking and on their toes. I agree with Antiseptic that the real issue is how the change is best made, moreso than whether any old change should be made.

The vital and legitimate role of the skeptic is in slowing down the pace of reform so that more scrutiny is had of climate-change policy. This, in turn, will reduce the chance that ordinary, passive individuals in society and the economy are smashed by the pace of change. If not for this resistance - and indeed intransigence in some cases - ambitious politicians could easily go on a reform romp that had little regard for the consequences.

RobP, agreed, well made point.

We still don't know enough abut climate to be able to say for sure if anything we do will have any effect even if we "think" we know some of the causes to what might or might not be a problem caused by us.

So I do not want to see change (or wagering) for the sake of it - because some people feel doing something is better than doing nothing, my point is - no, not if it's something stupid it isn't better than doing nothing.

BTW .. I dislike the eco bullies and fascists, as do many people, the green halo is just an excuse for poor moral behaviour.