Modern Pascals wager...a la John McCain

[kittynh]

Listening to John Mc Cain last night. I'm an admitted Republican...but this really has nothing to do with politics. Because I'm very undecided right now.

This actually has to do with his answer to a question about reducing greenhouse gasses.

What if it has nothing to do with global warming and what if global warming just simply is natural and not a product of what man is doing.

He answered with a kind of Pascals wager. If we do nothing and the scientists are wrong, then it's win/win but we're behind the rest of the world in new energy sources and the planet is messier. If we do nothing and it's TRUE it's lose/lose, because it's too late to do anyting. If it IS true and we do reduce greenhouse gas it's a win/win. If it's NOT true and we reduce greenhouse gas we end up leaving a cleaner planet to our kids which is also win/win.

He also felt that developing the technology involved would be a great benefit economically to the US. And, that while business whines (and they always DO) that reduing CO2 is rather like when acid rain was reduced. Businesses said "it can't be done without us going broke"....but it worked. It can't be done without some effort and cost to the bottom line, but it can be done.

It's also the old keeping the horse whip factory in business. New technologies and energy sources are good economically. You can prop up and old business structure only so long.

I may or may not vote for the man, but I'm going to steal his little wager for the next person that complain global warming is NOT REAL.

Mind you his next answer was all about how he had to protect companies from going out of business...blah blah blah... typical great answer followed up by backpeddling to appease the audience. But I was born in Washington DC, I'm used to politicians. Oddly they sometimes get stuff done.

[JoeEllison]

I think that the real problem highlights one of the inherent flaws in our economic system: economic health is tied to the excessively volatile stock market. Any dip in short-term profitability can result in stockholders selling off their stock in a company. The sort of large-scale investment in the necessary innovations required to exploit more "green" energy sources will likely cut into profits for a sustained period before profits pick back up. In the meanwhile, investors are likely to more their money to greener(as in cash) pastures.

This is a place where all the money squandered in Iraq over oil could have been better spent on R&D towards renewable energy sources.

[Soapy Sam]

Not messing up your own neighbourhood makes sense under any circumstances.
What politicians must avoid is keeping their neighbourhood clean by exporting their mess elsewhere.

[I Ratant]

"backpeddling to appease the audience"

The consumate politician's dilemma.. How to keep the funding for the campaign, AND talk real science that the money sources really don't want to hear.
(backpedaling is the more correct spelling. :) )
But he is "peddling" himself.

[Travis]

....and yet the far left says that McCain is indistinguishable from Bush.

[technoextreme]

....and yet the far left says that McCain is indistinguishable from Bush.
If you read his solution to the energy crisis you would discover he is indistinguishable in that regard. What McCain doesn't know is that the economic forces involved are not anywhere close to helping us to develop alternative energy. He also felt that developing the technology involved would be a great benefit economically to the US. And, that while business whines (and they always DO) that reduing CO2 is rather like when acid rain was reduced. Businesses said "it can't be done without us going broke"....but it worked. It can't be done without some effort and cost to the bottom line, but it can be done.
False dichotomy. If you knew anything about this problem it's much more massive than the pittance of reducing acid rain.

[mhaze]

Listening to John Mc Cain last night. I'm an admitted Republican...but this really has nothing to do with politics. Because I'm very undecided right now.

This actually has to do with his answer to a question about reducing greenhouse gasses.

What if it has nothing to do with global warming and what if global warming just simply is natural and not a product of what man is doing.

He answered with a kind of Pascals wager. If we do nothing and the scientists are wrong, then it's win/win but we're behind the rest of the world in new energy sources and the planet is messier. If we do nothing and it's TRUE it's lose/lose, because it's too late to do anyting. If it IS true and we do reduce greenhouse gas it's a win/win. If it's NOT true and we reduce greenhouse gas we end up leaving a cleaner planet to our kids which is also win/win.

He also felt that developing the technology involved would be a great benefit economically to the US. And, that while business whines (and they always DO) that reduing CO2 is rather like when acid rain was reduced. Businesses said "it can't be done without us going broke"....but it worked. It can't be done without some effort and cost to the bottom line, but it can be done.

It's also the old keeping the horse whip factory in business. New technologies and energy sources are good economically. You can prop up and old business structure only so long.

I may or may not vote for the man, but I'm going to steal his little wager for the next person that complain global warming is NOT REAL.

Mind you his next answer was all about how he had to protect companies from going out of business...blah blah blah... typical great answer followed up by backpeddling to appease the audience. But I was born in Washington DC, I'm used to politicians. Oddly they sometimes get stuff done.

My opinion is that the logic he used is false. By the way, he did not come up with this it's circulated on the web for a while, I think originating with some nut on youtube. Debunkery follows.
If we do nothing and the scientists are wrong, then it's win/win but we're behind the rest of the world in new energy sources and the planet is messier.
No as to being behind the rest of the world in new energy sources. Maybe, maybe not. If true we should have seen something fantastic come out of Italy since they've got really expensive fuel. No? Guess there isn't much support for this theory.
If we do nothing and it's TRUE it's lose/lose, because it's too late to do anyting.
No. Historically man has adapted to changing circumstances, including climate. Adapting is smart. Changes occur slowly, over decades or hundreds of hears. Might need to adapt anyway, who knows to what.
If it IS true and we do reduce greenhouse gas it's a win/win.
No. Ignores relative cost and benefits of the actual analysis. Were greenhouse gases reduced by 0.0000004% and were benefits $111 Trillion dollars? Etc.
If it's NOT true and we reduce greenhouse gas we end up leaving a cleaner planet to our kids which is also win/win.
No. Production moves to dirty energy in China/India, planet is dirtier.

[technoextreme]

No as to being behind the rest of the world in new energy sources. Maybe, maybe not. If true we should have seen something fantastic come out of Italy since they've got really expensive fuel. No? Guess there isn't much support for this theory.
You have no clue what you are talking about. The answer is yes we are behind. The reason why we haven't seen anything fantastic come out of Italy is because it's hard. We are talking about on a scale of years here not "BAM New technology".