Pascal's wager: “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.”
Garnaut and his disciple Rudd (we can get all Papal on matters Australian at the moment) extend Pascal's wager to Climate Change; but with a major flaw - 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: 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.
In contrast to Pascal - where there is no cost in going along with a belief, there are real costs in the Rudd Wong climate change policies. Climate Change with politicians involved is not a game of no consequence. If Garnaut is wrong - and the evidence of anthropogenic warming is not good - the direct and indirect costs inappropriately applied will be in the billions.
Viv Forbes at the Carbon Sense Coalition had this to say.
The Government Green Paper completely ignores the main question – should Canberra try to control the weather, or is it better to foster a strong Australia able to cope with whatever climate change brings us?
Minister Wong obviously believes that if we give her enough powers to tax and regulate, she can change the world’s weather.
This Deep Green Paper should be recycled and replaced by an enlightened White Paper outlining how to make Australia strong and prosperous. This will provide the best insurance for our children against any climate change.
Perhaps you prefer Galileo
Climate changes constantly but in reality it changes not at all.
Sense at Nexus