Sounds like a “natural upper bound” theorem. Still, 57:43 at a general election, were it to occur, would be spectacular in its consequences.

He also said that Liberal warfare only seems to affect the Libs’ primary vote, rather than the overall 2PP. (Does he mean Lib voters scurry away to minor parties, then drift back when a new, steady hand is on the tiller?)

Possum?

Nickws@96: I’m touched that you’re looking out for my sake, even if you must be ungrammatical in doing so.

Grammar folks. That’s what done gets a response from teh last liberal!

Though in my defence I think the poor grammar Andrew E thinks he identifies is just common post-19th century English usage.

What is happening now is that the Libs are basically defining it – Joyce and the far-right Libs as a tax grab and the end of capitalism in Australia, and Turnbull and Hockey in attempting to counter these perceptions (and of course the idea that the CPRS is basically the same as that proposed by Howard largely off the cuff in 2007). Adding to this has been the whole line from Rudd, Gillard and Wong that the Liberals “have a responsibility” to pass the CPRS. Keep that up and you have an issue that the Liberals own.

What the Libs then do is what Labor Premiers have been doing since Carr in the mid ’90s, and run against Labor governments. Labor’s nightmare scenario is for this legislation to be passed, for it to have a few teething problems and for Turnbull to represent himself as the only one who can be trusted to tweak it a bit and run environmental policy “properly”, while Rudd is left defending a status quo that nobody wants.

Jane@115: well then don’t vote Liberal. What I’m asking there is for you to get over yourself enough to imagine that you’re paying less attention to the issues than you do, i.e. the sort of person who voted Labor in ’07 but who voted for Howard beforehand, and who may be susceptible to voting Liberal again.

I suppose that was irony about releasing all the data and code in the spirit of open enquiry, as opposed to climate modellers at UEA CRU.

FYI. Data and code availability indexed here

Your 100% probability of disaster forecast – is that gloabl or local? Just wondering, because on a global and continental scale there are going to be winners and losers from climate change, natural or manmade, just as in most things in life. And as for the ability of Academics, Governments, Bureaucrats and the UN to pick winners -there is one born every day.

Your second point would appear to nullify the basis of the CPRS – the Garnautt Report (and even he thinks the CPRS is manure.)

And your third point is exaectly right – wjy should little old Australia commit economic Hari Kari when the likelihood of the rest of the world following suit so slim? We can’t get all nations to sign the UN Convention on Refugees or the Doha round of trade talks yet the NDCs want us to pump billions their way?? How is that rational??

* probability of disasters if no action: 100%

* probability of economists having anything useful to say about cost of doing what’s needed based on probability that science can give them sufficiently accurate numeric parameters: 0%

* chance of rest of world being any better than us at resisting vested interests: pretty slight, but better if we ante up

* point of multiplying odds of above three factors, or similar: none

Just sayin’

But still, why not pop those probabilities on the back of a napkin and leave them on Ken Henry’s regular table in his favourite restaurant? You just might save us all from economic DOOM!!!1!!11!

And just in case you forget, please remember, these are the rules

No I don’t have any certainty except that both the economic and climate modelling will not be accurate. I professionally live and die by economic forecasting and hasn’t that been fun recently!

I suppose that was irony about releasing all the data and code in the spirit of open enquiry, as opposed to climate modellers at UEA CRU.

The push for anti-carbon climate change action is reliant on climate modellers being right, economic modellers being right and from Austrlia’s perspective, the rest of the world doing something. If we apply a probabilities based approach, and assume the probability of climate modellers being accurate as 70%, economic forecasters being accurate of 70% and the rest of the world actually taking effective action as 30% then the probability of getting a “correct outcome” is 14.7%.

I think I have been very generous in my probabiltiy assumptions. In my opinion those odds suck, and I am a betting man.