odo:"if it's something stupid it isn't better than doing nothing"

If there is nothing more stupid than doing nothing, then anything is worth trying.

Robp:"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"

What is the worst possible outcome of climate change policy failure? What is the worst possible outcome of doing nothing?

What are the probabilities of the worst case happening in either scenario? IOW, what is the chance that doing something will make things worse vs the chance that doing nothing will do so?

All of the discussion around this subject is polarised around stupid catch phrases and inane versions of libertarianism versus an imagined authoritarianism. It won't be much fun being free if the climate models are even close to the truth and we do nothing, it seems to me.

What's wrong with hedging our bets? When George Soros does it everyone applauds.

Certainly, be sceptical - I strive for a sceptical approach to all things, but don't mistake conservative ostrichism for inquisitve scepticism. The two concepts are diametrically opposed.

antiseptic .. let me try to get you through this one ..

odo:"if it's something stupid it isn't better than doing nothing"

This means .. If the decision is to do something stupid, than it is better to do nothing, that is, doing nothing is better than doing something stupid. Do you understand?

Here, try quoting in context, like this "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."

Does that help, or do you still see it the way you want to: "If there is nothing more stupid than doing nothing, then anything is worth trying."

So, who said there was nothing more stupid than doing nothing? You did!

So in any situation, you advocate doing something rather than nothing? amazing ..

>>What is the worst possible outcome of climate change policy failure?<<

The Australian economy gets smashed.

>>What is the worst possible outcome of doing nothing?<<

The planet does. But, these are both imagined extreme positions at this stage.

>>What are the probabilities of the worst case happening in either scenario? IOW, what is the chance that doing something will make things worse vs the chance that doing nothing will do so?<<

That really depends on the abilities of those with their hands on the economic levers. It's highly variable, I'd suggest.

To another point you made, the discussion is highly polarised, probably because if you sit in the middle and take a moderate position, it takes about a nanosecond to realise you are uncomfortably caught in the crossfire. So people either bug out or join one extreme end or the other.

>>What's wrong with hedging our bets? When George Soros does it everyone applauds.<<

Nothing - it's probably a good idea. But the real issue is how you go about it. If change could be made in a sustainable way - probably pretty slowly to start with - that would be best in my view. As long as the decision makers did their job soberly and got the experts in to look at the issue with the seriousness it deserves, I think that would lead to the best outcome.

>>Certainly, be sceptical - I strive for a sceptical approach to all things, but don't mistake conservative ostrichism for inquisitve scepticism. The two concepts are diametrically opposed.<<

I know, but conservative ostrichism has its place when evangelists are on the rampage. By the time they disappear off the scene and the polity has been imbued with a sense that something needs to be done, I think the more open-minded - skeptics and not - will appear on the stage. Hopefully a more moderate and sustainable approach will be taken at that time.

What basis is there for the actions advocated by the alarmists?

One of the impeccable, and competent climate scientists, Robert Carter, in relation to a study mentioned below, says:
“Our paper confirms what many scientists already know: which is that no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation, and that, irrespective of the severity of the cuts proposed, ETS (emission trading scheme) will exert no measurable effect on future climate.”
Peer reviewed article in the Journal of Geophysical Research:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml

qanda says we are 90% sure. This is not so, the discredited IPCC made this unscientific and unsubstantiated guess, and it is 99% certain that it is wrong. There is no scientific basis for asserting any significant effect of human emissions on Climate Change.

Any action to solve a non problem is unjustified. The action will be ineffective, whatever it is. The nonsense about hedging our bets has no basis.

There is no precautionary principle in science. It is asserted by people who have no basis except misleading statements about science by the IPCC, and outright lies by Gore and the UN.

Anyone wishing to support this attempted fraud should produce the evidence upon which they rely, and stop putting forward irrelevant details based on false assumptions, like the IPCC's pathetic 90% certainty, based on nothing.

For Stezza:

The great editor of Nature, John Maddox, was a friend, and I shared many of his views on science, which are and were sceptical. I've certainly read a lot in Nature over the years, and had considerable respect for it when he was in charge, rather more than I have now. The main journals in the basic sciences insist that data, experimental design and methodology be made available when the paper is published. Nature was prepared to accept a promise that this would happen in the future, since its purpose was to get important discoveries out as quickly as possible. John Maddox said publicly that the IPCC was likely to have exaggerated the degree and speed of global warming. He was right.

For Geoff Davies and Stezza:

I've sat on three editorial boards of peer-reviewed journals and of course have had years of work in finding assessors for proposals as papers, as well as reviewing peer-review systems in other countries. Let me be as clear as I can: the correct practice, especially in contentious areas, is to find competent and neutral experts who can see both the positives and the negatives. It is usually pointless (and plainly bad practice) to send them to known friends or foes of the author. I have written about this (in a peer-reviewed journal). If you are at all interested go to Prometheus (1996).

(to be continued in a second post)

And Geoff, you duck and weave, avoiding the question I posed above, and have been asking for three years now. When you or any of your colleagues can show me how much of whatever warming has occurred is due to the burning of fossil fuels, and how much to natural forces, and how the Mediaeval Warm Period was due solely to natural forces, and how you are able to show the difference, then you'll have my undivided attention. I don't care who scribbled what on the back of an envelope decades ago, and what 'confirming' results have occurred. 'Confirmation' is irrelevant. Where are the observations and the data that support the AGW position? No one much wants to argue as to whether or not the world has warmed. The key questions are: Is the warming unusual? Is it significant? To what extent have humans caused it? And it is, all things considered, a problem for humanity? As far as observations and data are concerned, the apparent answers are: No, No, Not much, and No.

These are plain matter-of-fact, commonsense questions, and while you might need to be a well-trained and experienced experimental scientist to answer them, any reasonably educated person can ask them, and explore the answers that he or she gets. Had they been properly asked and properly answered twenty years ago, we would not be in the intellectual and political mess we are now in.