[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]

wacki,

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I do have a question since the debate seems to center around both the predictive value of current models and what expense/measures should be taken in view of same. Implicitly this question is one of whether "best we have" is enough to justify certain responses and the expense of same.

To be more explicit, if the equation involves the following variables:

X: the degree of certainty as the accuracy of current models

Y: the severity of the consequences if those models were 100% accurate

Z: the cost of measures required to prevent those consequences

then what degree of certainty, X, as to the accuracy of current models do you believe is required to justify the expense, Z, of preventing the worst case scenario, Y?


[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Y: the severity of the consequences if those models were 100% accurate

Z: the cost of measures required to prevent those consequences

[/ QUOTE ]

This question is highlighted in the Stern Report and several others. Every major report from mainstream science, the pentagon, army corps of engineers and retired generals and admirals claims it's cheaper to act.

[/ QUOTE ]


wacki,

Again I'm not getting into the details of this debate. But I do agree with adios that you haven't truly answered my question, even though you seem to be dismissing its legitimacy. Most of us here came to these forums as poker players and have also studied the math of poker and EV calculations. Which means we *should* be willing to apply those calcs to other areas so as to be able to make better decisions than the general non-mathematically inclinded public.

The costs associated with preventing climate change, it the measures will even work (another variable actually), are not insignificant, and most are in the form of economic growth loss it seems. And I grant that the purported severity of the consequences means that one shouldn't wish to run high risks of same. Thus a lesser probability of the models being accurate can suffice to act. But still the degree of certainty of the accuracy of those models must matter. I mean if all agreed the degree of certainty was 1%, would you even be debating this?

I want to note too, that this question of mine applies to other areas of science, since as you know the scientific consensus of the moment or even decade, can turn out later to be wrong. So while you are correct that we shouldn't demand absolute certainty, it is legitimate to question the degree of certainty *even if* an overwhelming scientific consensus did exist on an issue. In fact, for such an overwhelming consensus to exist, one would think the degree of certainty vs. the possible consequences, was very high. So is that the case or not and what number would you put on it?