Nice piece on MMGW and costs

[Pesty]

"Climate Change Act: Now the world faces its biggest ever bill
One of the mysteries of our time is how impossible it is to interest people in the mind-boggling sums cited by governments all over the world as the cost of the measures they wish to see taken to "stop climate change", observes Christopher Booker.
One measure of the fantasy world now inhabited by our sad MPs was the mindless way that they nodded through, last October, by 463 votes to three, by far the most expensive piece of legislation ever to go through Parliament. This was the Climate Change Act, obliging the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to reduce Britain's "carbon emissions" by 2050 to 20 per cent of what they were in 1990 – a target achievable only by shutting down most of the economy. "


more here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chri...


Monbiot cocks up
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbio...

[Jasandjules]

It will take time, but we will get there.

As for Monbiot's appology, how can the ice packs POSSIBLY be larger than ANY average when they are melting at a faster rate than ever before and will vanish in 3,10, 15, 20, 25, 50, 100 years*

• delete as applicable to scale of scaremongering required.

[robinhood21]

Yes, but spending nothing and letting mother nature take care of it will do nothing for the politicians egos.

[Jalopnik]

Pesty said:

"a target achievable only by shutting down most of the economy."

ZaNuLabia seem to be well on the way to doing that already!

[Asterix]

I was watching a trailer on Discovery that showed a bunch of scientists trying out different 'blue sky' ideas to say the ice caps.

Lots of silly stuff but the one that struck me as genius was to cover large swathes of ice in a coloured material that would reflect sunlight back.

Oddly enough, they went for 'white'! And I couldn't see any difference - I'm assuing they got the atmosphere and ice confused as the melting has little to do with direct radiation from the sun rather increase in average ambient temperatues due to the insulation of the so called green house gases?

[Russ35]

Slightly off topic but I picked this story up at 'The Register' this morning.

Ex-BBC science man slams corp: Evangelical, shallow and sparse

[chris watton]

Russ35 said:

Slightly off topic but I picked this story up at 'The Register' this morning.

Ex-BBC science man slams corp: Evangelical, shallow and sparse

Good article! I believe the stance on MMCC across the media, especially the BBC is indeed evangelical, shallow and self serving – even this morning, listening to Andrew Marr interviewing David Cameron, the former, when asking about the latter’s stance on the EU, brought up a group within the EU ‘That actually deny that MMCC exists’ (or words to that effect)

[ShadownINja]

There's one argument that states that even if we're wrong and it isn't a problem, it's better to have spent the money than not having spent it and been wrong and it was a problem. Yes, that was by an irate scientist who probably had little grasp of the real world.

[Pesty]

ShadownINja said:

There's one argument that states that even if we're wrong and it isn't a problem, it's better to have spent the money than not having spent it and been wrong and it was a problem. Yes, that was by an irate scientist who probably had little grasp of the real world.

isnt that the same age old argument they use for believing in god?

its quite a famous premise a student/famous philosopher came up with ages ago. there is a diagram and everything

Just goes to show MMGW is the new religeon

Pascal’s Wager I think

Edited by Pesty on Sunday 24th May 11:50

[ShadownINja]

Pass!

[herewego]

Pesty said:

ShadownINja said:

There's one argument that states that even if we're wrong and it isn't a problem, it's better to have spent the money than not having spent it and been wrong and it was a problem. Yes, that was by an irate scientist who probably had little grasp of the real world.

isnt that the same age old argument they use for believing in god?

its quite a famous premise a student/famous philosopher came up with ages ago. there is a diagram and everything

Just goes to show MMGW is the new religeon

Pascal’s Wager I think

Edited by Pesty on Sunday 24th May 11:50

I think what you just said was that globalwarming begins with a G and God begins with a G so they must be the same. Nice logic.

[Pesty]

what I said was they seem be applying pascals gambit wager(google it) to MMGW i put a question mark and everything I didn't make a statement

i.e its better to beleive in god and there not be a god than not to belive in god and there is one.(cos he will be pissed off )


Of course if I am wrong and it is totaly different to pascals logic you could explain why instead of being patronising.

Edited by Pesty on Sunday 24th May 16:06

[s2art]

Pesty said:

ShadownINja said:

There's one argument that states that even if we're wrong and it isn't a problem, it's better to have spent the money than not having spent it and been wrong and it was a problem. Yes, that was by an irate scientist who probably had little grasp of the real world.

isnt that the same age old argument they use for believing in god?

its quite a famous premise a student/famous philosopher came up with ages ago. there is a diagram and everything

Just goes to show MMGW is the new religeon

Pascal’s Wager I think

Edited by Pesty on Sunday 24th May 11:50

And as Dawkins pointed out, that was complete bollux too.

[herewego]

Pesty said:

I think what I said was they seem be applying pascals gambit(google it) to MMGW

i.e its better to beleive in god and there not be a god than not to belive in god and there is one.(cos he will be pissed off )

the difference is it does not cost much to belive in god but they are putting a huge strain on global finance by beliveing in MMGW

But MMGW it isn't a belief, it's a scientific study.

[Pesty]

Did you read shadowninjas post at all? you know the one I replied to

[herewego]

Pesty said:

Did you read shadowninjas post at all? you know the one I replied to

What that we shouldn't spend the money in case it turns out to ne wrong, you're having a laugh, what odds are you prepared to risk?

[Pesty]

Jesus are you being deliberately obtuse?

I make no argument either way good or bad to the logic. I just poinetd out that it sounded like a very very very famous argument put forward by a famous philosopher it even has a name as I stated above.

now if it does not at all resemble 'Pacals gambit' please tell me why it doesn't because basicaly thats all I asked.

If you have never heard of it thats fine but perhaps one should refrain from going on the attack until you understand what I have asked. just a thought

[ShadownINja]

Speed reading "fail"?

[Diderot]

ShadownINja said:

Speed reading "fail"?

reading fail

[ludo]

Pesty said:

Jesus are you being deliberately obtuse?

I make no argument either way good or bad to the logic. I just poinetd out that it sounded like a very very very famous argument put forward by a famous philosopher it even has a name as I stated above.

now if it does not at all resemble 'Pacals gambit' please tell me why it doesn't because basicaly thats all I asked.

If you have never heard of it thats fine but perhaps one should refrain from going on the attack until you understand what I have asked. just a thought

Pascals wager is an extreme example of statistical decision theory, which is provably the optimal way of rational decision making under uncertainty. Pascals wager is perfectly rational, IF, and it is a big "IF", you accept the premises on which it is based. This shouldn't really be a surprise as Pascal was one of the founders of the field of probability. If you don't agree with the premises, then you simply state what you think are more likely premises and the mechanics may guide you to a different conclusion.

The same argument applies to MMGW, where again rational decision making under uncertainty is what is required. If the loss is sufficiently large, it is worth suffering a smaller penalty now to avoid a possible huge loss later. We all insure against different things, that we consider unlikely, this is no different.