Pascal's Gaming Theory claimed that if you have two variables, then
there are four choices - Yes, No, Yes and No, Neither Yes nor No. We
tend to forget the second two. It is surprising how useful it is. In
this case -
1. It's a problem and we do something.
2. It's a problem and we do nothing.
3. It's not a problem and we do something.
4. It's not a problem and we do nothing.
The debate is between 1 and 2. I'm recommending that 3 has
substantial benefit and if, as Pascal would, we apply values to each
position, then 1+3 outweighs 2+4 by a substantial margin.
And as to Gore vs. Crichton.
Gore - long term policy activist and populist with a long term
documented interest in environmental issues.
Crichton - novelist who jumps on bandwagon and gets an audience
because his views are politically convenient.
Weigh those credentials.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 20/06/2008, at 1:18 PM, Robert Burnette wrote:
>> I prefer a Pascal's Wager approach - if global warming is an
>> erroneous
>> concept or not the monster that we fear, then so what?
>
> Is that a subjective or an objective probability wager? With the
> uncertainty of
> the greenhouse theory, it would have to be subjective (believed).
> If objective
> (proven), it should drive men all the harder to reduce emissions.
> The unhealthy
> effects of manmade pollutants is a proven fact, therefore an
> objective wager to
> curb them seems called for. We don't want anyone, present or
> future, to have
> to live with the consequences of doing less.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|