The Urge to Explore

Shawn Wilson wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .

What you CAN'T cite is a cost-benefit analysis supporting the notion that
money should be spent to reduce CO2 emissions.

Of course not. Because doing so would be an attempt to prophesize
the future of events we cannot precisely predict.

Which is, of course, what you're doing already in claiming future global
warming...

If I say, "A terrorist bomb set off in downtown New York City could
kill between 100 and 10,000 people." (to pull figures out of my ass) I
would be attempting to prophesize the future of events which cannot be
preciesly predicted. Nor could you give me a precise cost-benefit
analysis of such a scenario.

But leaping from that perfectly valid conclusion to the perfectly
absurd one of, "Setting off a terrorist bomb in New York City would
probably not have any bad effects." As you are doing, is simply absurd.


--
Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net

wrote in message
oups.com...

What you CAN'T cite is a cost-benefit analysis supporting the notion
that
money should be spent to reduce CO2 emissions.

Of course not. Because doing so would be an attempt to prophesize
the future of events we cannot precisely predict.

Which is, of course, what you're doing already in claiming future global
warming...

If I say, "A terrorist bomb set off in downtown New York City could
kill between 100 and 10,000 people." (to pull figures out of my ass) I
would be attempting to prophesize the future of events which cannot be
preciesly predicted. Nor could you give me a precise cost-benefit
analysis of such a scenario.


Cost of between $1 billion and $100 billion, with an expected value of $10
billion (geometric mean). Benefit zero.

Turns out I can.





But leaping from that perfectly valid conclusion to the perfectly
absurd one of, "Setting off a terrorist bomb in New York City would
probably not have any bad effects." As you are doing, is simply absurd.


Answer MY question-

We can institute a security procedure that will prevent an attack (as above)
IF it occurs, but will definitely cost $1 trillion dollars.

Should we do it?


This is an archetypical public policy analysis question.

"Shawn Wilson" wrote:

If I say, "A terrorist bomb set off in downtown New York City could
kill between 100 and 10,000 people." (to pull figures out of my ass) I
would be attempting to prophesize the future of events which cannot be
preciesly predicted. Nor could you give me a precise cost-benefit
analysis of such a scenario.

Cost of between $1 billion and $100 billion, with an expected value of $10
billion (geometric mean). Benefit zero.

Oho! No wonder you're completely failing to communicate with everyone
-- you have your costs and benefits backwards (and it looks like at
least one is upside down).

And using numbers with an unspecified precision and an accuracy of no
better than two orders of magnitude is hardly "precise".

Turns out I can.

You've shown no evidence that that is the case.

We can institute a security procedure that will prevent an attack (as above)
IF it occurs, but will definitely cost $1 trillion dollars.

Should we do it?

The answer depends largely on the results of an actual cost-benefit
analysis, which you have not done. All you've provided is estimates of
cost. I'm not convinced that you even know what a cost-benefit analysis
is.

This is an archetypical public policy analysis question.

The answer to such questions is almost never obtained through simple
cost-benefit analysis -- because a simple cost-benefit analysis of a
problem with high uncertainties in both cost and benefit does not yield
useful answers. At best, it can yield useful *questions*.

"Alan Anderson" wrote in message
...

Turns out I can.

You've shown no evidence that that is the case.


Except that I showed you an actual cost-benefit analysis, which is proof,
not just evidence, that a cost-benefit anbalysis can be done.

You're just another stupid jackass.



We can institute a security procedure that will prevent an attack (as
above)
IF it occurs, but will definitely cost $1 trillion dollars.

Should we do it?

The answer depends largely on the results of an actual cost-benefit
analysis, which you have not done. All you've provided is estimates of
cost. I'm not convinced that you even know what a cost-benefit analysis
is.


Feel free to identify the benefit resulting from 100 to 10,000 New Yorkers
being killed.




This is an archetypical public policy analysis question.

The answer to such questions is almost never obtained through simple
cost-benefit analysis -- because a simple cost-benefit analysis of a
problem with high uncertainties in both cost and benefit does not yield
useful answers. At best, it can yield useful *questions*.


Yawn. Bull****.

"Shawn Wilson" wrote in message
news:Is7De.52235$ro.22117@fed1read02...

"Alan Anderson" wrote in message
...

Turns out I can.

You've shown no evidence that that is the case.


Except that I showed you an actual cost-benefit analysis, which is proof,
not just evidence, that a cost-benefit anbalysis can be done.

No, you just threw out some numbers without giving any basis for them.

That's not an analysis, that's wild ass guessing.


You're just another stupid jackass.


And you're certainly free with the insults.



We can institute a security procedure that will prevent an attack (as
above)
IF it occurs, but will definitely cost $1 trillion dollars.

Should we do it?

The answer depends largely on the results of an actual cost-benefit
analysis, which you have not done. All you've provided is estimates of
cost. I'm not convinced that you even know what a cost-benefit analysis
is.


Feel free to identify the benefit resulting from 100 to 10,000 New Yorkers
being killed.

More apartments open up.
Funeral homes do a great business.
More room on the subways.

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
nk.net...

Except that I showed you an actual cost-benefit analysis, which is proof,
not just evidence, that a cost-benefit anbalysis can be done.

No, you just threw out some numbers without giving any basis for them.

That's not an analysis, that's wild ass guessing.


snicker

Are you complaining about 'wild ass guessing'?

It was ten times more rigorous than ANYTHING that's been shown here in
support of CO2 restrictions. Funny how no one but me mustered a complaint
about that though...


Anyway, the figures on values of a human life are taken from numerous
studies of such, and do turn out to be about $10 million per each in the US.
You can look them up yourself. Other economic effects of a bunch of people
dying wash out, as the costs and benefts are equal. Nothing but loss of
life was mentioned, so there was no need to figure anything else in.




You're just another stupid jackass.


And you're certainly free with the insults.


I don't like stupid jackasses. I don't like having to waste time on the
bull**** they bring into a discussion. Yo u want to be treated with
respect? Then don't **** around.



We can institute a security procedure that will prevent an attack (as
above)
IF it occurs, but will definitely cost $1 trillion dollars.

Should we do it?

The answer depends largely on the results of an actual cost-benefit
analysis, which you have not done. All you've provided is estimates of
cost. I'm not convinced that you even know what a cost-benefit
analysis
is.


Feel free to identify the benefit resulting from 100 to 10,000 New
Yorkers
being killed.

More apartments open up.
Funeral homes do a great business.
More room on the subways.


The benefit of the demand for goods falling is equal to the cost of the
goods they aren't providing anymore. Think about it.

"Shawn Wilson" wrote in message
news:XygDe.52262$ro.1285@fed1read02...

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in
message
nk.net...

Except that I showed you an actual cost-benefit analysis, which is
proof,
not just evidence, that a cost-benefit anbalysis can be done.

No, you just threw out some numbers without giving any basis for them.

That's not an analysis, that's wild ass guessing.


snicker

Are you complaining about 'wild ass guessing'?

No, simply pointing out what you were doing.


It was ten times more rigorous than ANYTHING that's been shown here in
support of CO2 restrictions. Funny how no one but me mustered a complaint
about that though...

Bull.



I don't like stupid jackasses.

Wow, living with yourself must be living hell.

I don't like having to waste time on the
bull**** they bring into a discussion. Yo u want to be treated with
respect? Then don't **** around.

Shawn Wilson ) wrote:

: "Alan Anderson" wrote in message
: ...

: Turns out I can.
:
: You've shown no evidence that that is the case.


: Except that I showed you an actual cost-benefit analysis, which is proof,
: not just evidence, that a cost-benefit anbalysis can be done.

: You're just another stupid jackass.

Case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Eric


: We can institute a security procedure that will prevent an attack (as
: above)
: IF it occurs, but will definitely cost $1 trillion dollars.
:
: Should we do it?
:
: The answer depends largely on the results of an actual cost-benefit
: analysis, which you have not done. All you've provided is estimates of
: cost. I'm not convinced that you even know what a cost-benefit analysis
: is.


: Feel free to identify the benefit resulting from 100 to 10,000 New Yorkers
: being killed.




: This is an archetypical public policy analysis question.
:
: The answer to such questions is almost never obtained through simple
: cost-benefit analysis -- because a simple cost-benefit analysis of a
: problem with high uncertainties in both cost and benefit does not yield
: useful answers. At best, it can yield useful *questions*.


: Yawn. Bull****.

Shawn Wilson ) wrote:

: "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
: nk.net...

: Except that I showed you an actual cost-benefit analysis, which is proof,
: not just evidence, that a cost-benefit anbalysis can be done.
:
: No, you just threw out some numbers without giving any basis for them.
:
: That's not an analysis, that's wild ass guessing.


: snicker

I think s****** in your case...

: Are you complaining about 'wild ass guessing'?

No, he's claiming that your logic is "wild ass guessing", which is EXACTLY
what you do WRT the global warming issue. You're basically 'Chicken
Little' in reverse.

: It was ten times more rigorous than ANYTHING that's been shown here in
: support of CO2 restrictions. Funny how no one but me mustered a complaint
: about that though...


: Anyway, the figures on values of a human life are taken from numerous
: studies of such, and do turn out to be about $10 million per each in the US.
: You can look them up yourself. Other economic effects of a bunch of people
: dying wash out, as the costs and benefts are equal. Nothing but loss of
: life was mentioned, so there was no need to figure anything else in.

You go tell that to the US military for the dead in Iraq.


: You're just another stupid jackass.
:
:
: And you're certainly free with the insults.


: I don't like stupid jackasses. I don't like having to waste time on the
: bull**** they bring into a discussion. Yo u want to be treated with
: respect? Then don't **** around.

Then you don't like yourself, you stupid jackass!

Eric

: We can institute a security procedure that will prevent an attack (as
: above)
: IF it occurs, but will definitely cost $1 trillion dollars.
:
: Should we do it?
:
: The answer depends largely on the results of an actual cost-benefit
: analysis, which you have not done. All you've provided is estimates of
: cost. I'm not convinced that you even know what a cost-benefit
: analysis
: is.
:
:
: Feel free to identify the benefit resulting from 100 to 10,000 New
: Yorkers
: being killed.
:
: More apartments open up.
: Funeral homes do a great business.
: More room on the subways.


: The benefit of the demand for goods falling is equal to the cost of the
: goods they aren't providing anymore. Think about it.

lclough wrote:
David Johnston wrote:
On 8 Jun 2005 19:57:43 -0700, "L. Merk" wrote:


Paul Dietz, John Ordover, Brenda Clough and other Exploration Deniers
claim that humanity has no urge to explore. However, they are insular
nobodies attempting to project their own inner death upon humankind.
Psychologists agree that the drive to explore is a quintessential human
need.


How much exploration did you do last month?


He's obviously dived up his ass some.

Brenda

Um, you're the one who claims to lack any curiosity about the unknown;
i.e., that you live with your head up your ass.

So you're an alleged science fiction author who has no fascination
about the unknown. Well, that would explain why, from what I've read,
your books get less than rave reviews. I guess it's hard to type with
your head up your own rectum.