[sethjohn]

"We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming."

"The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC"

"carbon trading is more about fraud than it is about anything else"

This is the sort of nonsense that makes me ashamed to call myself a 'climate skeptic'. Then of course, I watch Al Gore's film where he shows Florida sinking under the ocean and that is ridiculous as well. Climate change is a potential-problem about which there are great (truly gigantic!) uncertainties and therefore no easy answers.

[brlewis]

In Gore's film he talks about Antarctic ice melting much faster than scientists projected. That's part of the gigantic uncertainty you're concerned about. When there's gigantic uncertainty, a valid question is, "What is the worst-case scenario here?" Gore presented the Florida scenario as something that could happen if all the ice melted.

[sethjohn]

"What's the worst case scenario" may be a valid question, but it's not a very helpful question...particularly not in a mass-market film where the caveat 'this is extremely unlikely' will be forgotten and the take-home message is that Florida is about to disappear.

People should be informed about the issues in a manner that is as honest and realistic as possible, particularly when the uncertainties are so great.

[jraines]

It is a helpful question when thinking about what action to take. It's basic game theory, and it's why nobody ever launched a nuclear first strike during the Cold War.

Why is this being modded down? If you don't consider the worst case scenario in strategic decision making, you're a fool. Especially when the worst case is famine, plague, etc., not "my startup crashes and I move back in with the parents".

[te_platt]

It only makes sense to consider the worst case scenario in the context of the probability that it will happen. On my drive home the worst case scenario is that I will be killed in a car accident, yet I'm going to take that chance. Also we have to consider the worst case scenario of the other course of action. What if the actions taken to combat global warming cause worse famine, plague, etc.?

[jraines]

You are correct about this. Without getting into probabilities of the different outcomes resulting from action or non-action on climate change, I'd recommend the video someone posted lower down in this thread.

The weight given to an outcome in considering it in decision making would be the probability x magnitude (+ or -). So on your drive home the risk of death might not affect your decision to make the drive, if you had to drive across Johannesburg or Kuala Lumpar, you might consider taking a cab.

So even while the probability that the Country A would survive a nuclear first strike with the capability to retaliate was quite low -- the magnitude of the outcome from its doing so was enough to dissuade Country B from taking that chance.

To the other commenter below -- just google 'prisoner's dilemma' or 'Nash equilibrium' for some sources to get you started on game theory.

Note: I'm not claiming to be an expert on game theory by any means. I'm recounting the Mutually Assured Destruction example from an economics class's subsection on game theory and would be happy if someone wanted to prove me wrong or elaborate on the subject.

[downer]

> On my drive home the worst case scenario is that I will be killed in a car accident

No, the worst case scenario is you crash and are alive but trapped... At night, the ice weasels come.

[huherto]

You comment is very intriguing. Can you recommend any references to strategic decision making in basic game theory? Thanks.

[ekanes]

Here's a video exploring a game theory approach to the climate change problem: http://youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

[pixcavator]

> Antarctic ice melting much faster than scientists projected.

This only proves that those models were crap.

[pixcavator]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.ht...