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!
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
If there was a god then “he” certainly would be above rewards and punishments based on ritual sacharrine adoration and flattery. Any self respecting god would want you to find the truth and only act on that basis.
ps This Paul Kelly is a joke jellybean.
The usual straw-man arguments are used, such as ‘climate change is real’ (who says it isn’t!?) and ‘denial,’ which could apply to those who deny natural variability and the diversity of climate factors.
The word ‘indpendent’ is always used to describe authors of government reports – in my experience few if any are genuinely independent – they are chosen to report what the government wants to hear. Stern was a member of the UK Treasury.
The real risks here are the assumptions that atmospheric CO2 can be reduced without huge cuts in emissons by developing countries, that attempting to manipulate atmospheric CO2 will allow predicatable alteration of the climate, and that unverifiable future projections from climate models represent reality.
I first raised Pascal’s Wager in a discussion on climate change in Sweden in 1991. How did Garnaut get hold of it?
Pascal’s Wager is an unfortunate argument to use because the belief in God is a personal thing that usually affects no one else but the believer.
With climate change the law of unintended consequences can have catastrophic effects on others. Such as the use of land to grow biofuels which effect many people by increasing food costs and by diverting money from things that could help the poor of the world, possibly meaning the deaths of many innocent people.
In this case the use of the word wager seems to be rather sick because wager means to “stake something”. In this case the stake is other peoples lives.
The carbon trading scheme was and remains the mechanism to redistribute wealth from the industrialised world to the developing world.
It’s the same at the local scale – say the profits of some company is X dollars which, when divided by Australia’s population, results in, say, $1 per person.
Redistributing this is quite meaningless – but the loss of this capital would be tragic and unfortunately socialists don’t understand that capital isn’t something that has an independent existence – it has to to be continually created by human effort.
Pascal’s wager is the basis for Henry Thornton’s position on climate change, and until now I found it difficult to counter until Paul Kelly’s op-ed.
The wager is all about betting on the existence of something which cannot be proven or, for that matter, falsified. As Chris before me points out, its a personal thing.
Whether it is a variant of the Precautionary principle, or whether the Precautionary Principle is a derivation from the Wager, remains conjectural. In any case it’s the coward’s refuge of abrogating self responsibility.
The tragedy is that science has again, been hijacked by the Whigs to further a political agenda, and as they control the universities, public service and governments, there is nothing one can do but make sure we are the ones with the life-jackets when the logical outcome of these policies start to bite.
There is a global recession looming over the horizon, so this policy is quite ill-advised. However as the Whigs are also devout Keynesians, they will assume they can also micromanage the economy by intervention, (as the Fed is doing in the US at present and that will result in is further government encroachment into the US economy.)
It is an inauspicious time indeed.
Not sure where to post these but here goes 😉
here’s a couple of interesting papers I’ve recently come across.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/McLean_IPCC_bias.pdf
http://www.restena.lu/meteo_lcd/globalwarming/GW_whatdoesthedatatellus.pdf
ps This Paul Kelly is a joke jellybean.
He sure is. Remember when JWH was going to sell uranium to India? Kelly had a front page article supporting this where amongst other things he said India hadn’t signed the NPT and had exploded a nuclear weapon in 1974 but had been well behaved since. Completely missed the India/Pakistan test series (mine is bigger than yours)in 1997.
Not that I care about selling uranium to India but Kelly could at least get his facts straight.
I emailed him on the issue, didn’t get the courtesy of a reply but he did fudge a correction into his next story on the issue without acknowledging he had got it wrong.
“as they control the universities, public service and governments”
Can someone start a conspiracy theory count? It might be interesting to also have a count per day so we can graph it and then test if there is a correlation with any issue on that day.
Patrick B
Stating a simple fact is a conspiracy?
The ALP does not control all our state governments and federal? The looney left don’t control the education system in Australia? The ALP does not control most of the shire councils?
More of a fact than a conspiracy, though insinuating it’s a conspiracy theory identifies you as one of the usual suspects.
Well Keiran and Eyrie if he’s a jelly bean – you’re nougats – strange and hard to get through – did you read the article – of course not – it’s easier to rant first.
Kelly has summed the up the issue quite well and has hardly given a ringing endorsement.
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.
I read the article, Luke. Kelly is approximately as thick as two short planks, like many in the media and yourself.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
“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.
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.
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?
“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.
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.
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.
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.
And we keep repeating that you’re a twit who has never looked further than his nose. Doesn’t read – doesn’t know.
Luke,
You would not be John Hunter of CSIRO would you?
Your manner of interlocution seems very familiar.
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.