Talk:The global warming wager

	This Climatology related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

...and? --Gulik 16:24, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Isn't that enough? 'AL GORE!! --Kels 16:25, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I've been commenting on the article instead of here, very poor form. But it started as meaningless, and now it is meaningless with footnotes. I expect a description of the "wager", and why it should be in the religion category. Or it will disappear in a coming storm of malasysopism. human^{be in} 17:43, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Far as I can tell, there actually is the concept of the "wager" running around, but I can't find any reference to it being proposed by Gore. In fact, I can't find any mention in the provided cites that it's even mentioned by Gore. As to religion, I guess it counts since Pascal's Wager was about religion in the first place, but it's a tenuous fit here. Unless you're a "skeptic", I guess. --Kels 18:04, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I suspect it runs along the lines of "if we don;t do anything, we might be totally screwed, if we do do something, the other benefits are worth it anyway." But, fine, if it "exists", we have an article (just not yet). But if Gore ain't saying a version of it, we remove the ref to him from the article. human^{be in} 18:13, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

From what I can see, it comes from the Business Week article mostly. But Pascal's Wager isn't exactly obscure, and the connection is pretty obvious. So I'd imagine several people have come up with it independently. --Kels 18:17, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

...and a quick Google search bears that out. Several people talking about the concept, few if any referring to Al Gore, or each other. --Kels 18:18, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I fixed the article a bit, using the BW quote. Dirched two irrelevant cites, moved one to "see also". human^{be in} 18:21, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Looks good. I like how the article just sorta grew into something mildly informative. --Kels 18:26, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Thanks... as I said on NeoNazi's talk page, I found I could write reasonable bullshit faster than it could vandalize... I think it had to go eat or something, or got bored. human^{be in} 18:32, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Funny, isn't it

... that you liberals think this is reasonable while Pascal's wager isn't? Fall down 03:36, 16 November 2008 (EST)

• Pascal's wager depends on the existence of something that is inherently unobservable. We've got rather more data on climate change, which makes the Welch wager slightly fallacious as phrased, but pretty sensible in spirit. EVDebs 02:00, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Some BON

I just removed an edit from a BON. For the sake of fairness it is:

• [Both of these ideas are false. Some people claim to have observed global warming caused by man; others have not. Likewise, some people have claimed to observe God; others have not. The writer who pasted this info has simply chosen to take the former as fact and to disregard the later as not truly observed.]

Just thought that I would record it and if the BON wants to make an issue, it's here.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be much of a thing

Maybe it should be moved to a subsection of Pascal's Wager--"Shut up, Brx." 12:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)