The Urge to Explore

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:30:06 -0000, in a place far, far away,
(George William Herbert) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

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.

We can put various statistical bounds around the likely futures,
and attach reasonable cost estimates to those, and create a
cost-benefits envelope. But that's not an analysis, which presumes
actual hard numbers to work with.

Naive cost-benefits analysies are the wrong tool.

Given the high levels of uncertainty in all of the relevant factors, a
"regret" formulation would be more useful.

http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/002051.html

"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...



We can put various statistical bounds around the likely futures,
and attach reasonable cost estimates to those, and create a
cost-benefits envelope. But that's not an analysis, which presumes
actual hard numbers to work with.


It's called an 'estimate'...

We know ALL ABOUT uncertainty, economist kinda invented information
economics...



Naive cost-benefits analysies are the wrong tool.


Cost-benefit analysis is ALWAYS the right tool for public policy.



Given the high levels of uncertainty in all of the relevant factors, a
"regret" formulation would be more useful.



Sure, if you want a certain public policy that cost-benefit analysis won't
support...

"Shawn Wilson" wrote:

Cost-benefit analysis is ALWAYS the right tool for public policy.

George's comments apparently went right over your head. When neither
the costs nor the benefits are known with much certainty, trying to do a
simple analysis of them is just not going to give useful results.

In Dread Ink, the Grave hand of George William Herbert Did Inscribe:
Shawn Wilson wrote:
Plonk.

Apparently not, as you keep responding to me.

Do you not know what "Plonk" means, or are you
just unable to keep a killfile active for a whole day?

He uses OE, NOT a proper newsreader

begin DelHD.exe
This won't show up at his end; due to a years old bug,
that has been tagged won't fix.

--
haiku's inventor
must have had seven fingers
on his middle hand

"Alan Anderson" wrote in message
...

Cost-benefit analysis is ALWAYS the right tool for public policy.

George's comments apparently went right over your head. When neither
the costs nor the benefits are known with much certainty, trying to do a
simple analysis of them is just not going to give useful results.


Guffaw...

Uh, then you can't make recommendations, can you?


But I like your act before thinking philosophy...

Thinking's hard, why bother?

Cost-benefit analysis is hard, why waste time doing it?

Shawn Wilson wrote:
"Alan Anderson" wrote:
Cost-benefit analysis is ALWAYS the right tool for public policy.

George's comments apparently went right over your head. When neither
the costs nor the benefits are known with much certainty, trying to do a
simple analysis of them is just not going to give useful results.

Guffaw...

Uh, then you can't make recommendations, can you?

But I like your act before thinking philosophy...

Thinking's hard, why bother?

Cost-benefit analysis is hard, why waste time doing it?


Yeah, my comments went right over his head.

Why apply a complex, more accurate, but less precise tool
when you can apply the simple, more precise, and demonstrably
wrong ones, Shawn says...

I guess that the complexity of statistical analysies of
cost spectra, benefits spectra, risks spectra et al in
a situation with unknown but statistically describable
costs, risks, and benefits is too much for an economist
to take all in one sitting.

Must be that hard upper division and grad level math stuff again.


-george william herbert

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

Cost-benefit analysis is ALWAYS the right tool for public policy.

George's comments apparently went right over your head. When neither
the costs nor the benefits are known with much certainty, trying to do a
simple analysis of them is just not going to give useful results.

Does anyone believe that Shawn's really an economist? That claim came long
after the initial "I know more about global warming than any lying, moronic
expert" one.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:46:13 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
wrote:


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

Cost-benefit analysis is ALWAYS the right tool for public policy.

George's comments apparently went right over your head. When neither
the costs nor the benefits are known with much certainty, trying to do a
simple analysis of them is just not going to give useful results.

Does anyone believe that Shawn's really an economist? That claim came long
after the initial "I know more about global warming than any lying, moronic
expert" one.

An economist? I think this loon's notion of balancing a checkbook
involves setting it over a pivot.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]

"Shawn Wilson" writes:


And fools often think scientists aren't like normal people in the appeal of
money and glamor and security.

Don't forget the groupies. That is why I went into science, the huge
hordes of adoring fans.... The huge amounts of cash and constant media
exposure are just an added plus.

--
Bradford Holden
"Is that even legal?" CMR on the use of a turn signal.

"Mike Schilling" writes:

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

Cost-benefit analysis is ALWAYS the right tool for public policy.

George's comments apparently went right over your head. When neither
the costs nor the benefits are known with much certainty, trying to do a
simple analysis of them is just not going to give useful results.

Does anyone believe that Shawn's really an economist?

*Never* give a meteorologist(1) a straight line like that to
use about economists.


(1) Well, sort of.


--
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University