What I am saying is that there would be far more than just "cost / depression" in Column A Row 1. i.e. the sealevel will rise regardless of where the warming is coming from (natural or man made), just remember that the current sealevel is 15 Metres below the mean average for the last 2M years, and it is 130 Metres below the highest level recorded.

The sealevel rising by 15 Metres will be highly inconvenient for a lot of people, and that is only natural variance not induced.

It amazes me that people actually think that they can change what is just going to happen.


>I dont get that. Column A (do something) + Row 1 (no GCC) = cost / depression (in his example). Thats not the same as his Column B / Row 2.
>
>
>>Another flaw in his approach is that Column A Row1 will have the same outcome as Column B Row2 if the warming is being caused by processes other than our own, which is the case.
>>
>>>Now this is a really clever approach, imo. Very worth watching:
>>>
>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI
>>>
>>>
>>>Update: I would say there might be one possible flaw and that is that one would need to apply some sort of probability to the various squares. Sticking with his 2 columns; what if the probability of column B - bottom square is infinitesimally small. What if GCC is occurring (row 2) and we do nothing (column 2) but the extreme outcome case he presents is extremely unlikely and that a much milder outcome is most likely. Then it would not make sense to pick column 2 anymore. This would be the classic risk vs. cost of protection trade-off. If one argues that the potential consequences are so catastrophic that even a small probability event needs to be catered for then we could imagine a very long list of such events that would need to be attended to and then we would end up spending ourselves into oblivion.

bDsIFspVzfI