4 ms·

The article makes a false assumption. He starts by saying that AGW has the ball, but then carries that on through the rest of his reasoning as a proxy for "glo

by ellyagg 17y ago

The article makes a false assumption. He starts by saying that AGW has the ball, but then carries that on through the rest of his reasoning as a proxy for "global temperatures will be 6 degrees higher in 2100 hundred has the ball", although he doesn't come out and say it. Few educated people disbelieve in the evidence for some AGW. There are a few things that many of us don't believe. We don't believe that there is any reasonable evidence that the magnitude and impact of AGW will be dire. When the IPCC reports come out, there is tons of evidence for weak AGW. But that tons of evidence applies to weak AGW. Each of those studies is evidence for modest claims. It doesn't matter if you accumulate 10 times as many studies supporting those modest claims, it will not be evidence for the incredibly less likely hypotheses that they are made to do work for by the press and politically-motivated scientists. In fact, there's plenty of reason to believe increased temperatures will be a net benefit to humanity. Humanists, but not reactionaries, should be open to this. There is no reason to believe we're currently at our "ideal temperature", and there's no reason to freeze our current ecosystems in time as if they're sanctified objects of a disorganized but fervent religion. Regardless, the claim that rising temperatures will leave us worse off isn't remotely proven. The author waves his hands by the "cost-effective things we can do to mitigate global warming" as if such a thing exists in the current public debate. Almost every proposal normally under discussion in the public venue have overwhelming costs.[1] This is a costs/benefits judgment, and you can't make that judgement without knowing the benefits. On an episode of Mad Men, Don Draper is standing in the living room with his wife and the interior decorator. His wife asks him what he thinks about the new furniture and its arrangement. He says, "Well, it's kind of hard to judge without knowing the price." People seem to forget that. Concerning the benefits, there is no plausible, let alone tested, theory of risk prediction for climate temperatures in 2100. At all. So we're not talking about science here anymore. When you say, well, we can't calculate the risks, but the worst case is the extinction of mankind, you're getting dangerously close to the St. Petersburg paradox. Spreading FUD is a principal mechanism by which con men of all stripes manipulate. [1] Although I'm all for as many nuclear reactors as we can build. By the steady resistance to this cheap and plentiful source of new energy, it's clear that a certain segment of the alarmist AGW movement is only willing to solve our energy problems by putting a cap on human productivity. Edit: Meant to write 6 degrees higher, not 106, in the first sentence.

AngryParsley 17y ago
Are people voting this comment up because it's committing the mistake that Eliezer is talking about? From the parent: Regardless, the claim that rising temperatures will leave us worse off isn't remotely proven. From the Less Wrong post: And so the implicit emotional theory is that if something is not proven - better yet, proven using a particular piece of evidence that isn't available and that you're pretty sure is never going to become available - then you are allowed to disbelieve; it's like something a student says, not like something a teacher says. What evidence would you expect to see today in a world where increased average global temperature helps humanity? If you're going to argue from ignorance, you should be on the side wanting to prevent change. Our understanding of the earth's climate is incomplete at best. The same is true of our understanding of the organisms that are adapted to that climate. We have historical evidence of changes CO2 in the atmosphere causing changes in climate, in turn causing extinction events. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoo_Ice_Age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoo_Ice_Age ) Your comment touches on a lot of topics, and I don't have time to respond to all of them. Still, here's what I gleaned of your opinions: - AGW might not be true, so we don't need to worry about it. - Even if it's true, it might not be large enough to have a significant effect, so we don't need to worry about it. - Even if it's large enough to have a significant effect, it might be beneficial, so we don't need to worry about it. - Even if AGW is harmful, current popular proposed solutions are ineffective, outrageously expensive, or both. Since the costs of the solutions are higher than the costs of AGW, we shouldn't do anything about it. Doesn't this line of reasoning seem strangely convenient? Don't you think that you're being just a little bit biased toward the "do nothing" approach?
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  We have historical evidence of changes CO2 in the atmosphere causing changes in climate, in turn causing extinction events. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoo_Ice_Age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoo_Ice_Age ) Both of the harmful climate events you have described were cooling events and were also many millions of years in the past. Why not consider more recent climate events which are closer in scale to those suggested by AGW proponents? What evidence would you expect to see today in a world where increased average global temperature helps humanity? Overall, if warming were beneficial for humanity, I'd expect to see human expansion during the medieval warm period, and human decline during the little ice age. Further facts: quite a lot of land is too cold for humans to prosper in. Crop yields are poor, heating is costly, and life is generally unpleasant. Regarding the "strangely convenient" line of reasoning by ellyagg, that's simply the line of reasoning we must take when evaluating any measure designed to prevent any event. We must evaluate whether the event is real, whether it is significant, whether it is harmful, and whether the cost/benefit of the mitigation scheme is favorable.

by ellyagg 17y ago

AngryParsley 17y ago

Are people voting this comment up because it's committing the mistake that Eliezer is talking about? From the parent: Regardless, the claim that rising temperatures will leave us worse off isn't remotely proven. From the Less Wrong post: And so the implicit emotional theory is that if something is not proven - better yet, proven using a particular piece of evidence that isn't available and that you're pretty sure is never going to become available - then you are allowed to disbelieve; it's like something a student says, not like something a teacher says. What evidence would you expect to see today in a world where increased average global temperature helps humanity? If you're going to argue from ignorance, you should be on the side wanting to prevent change. Our understanding of the earth's climate is incomplete at best. The same is true of our understanding of the organisms that are adapted to that climate. We have historical evidence of changes CO2 in the atmosphere causing changes in climate, in turn causing extinction events. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoo_Ice_Age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoo_Ice_Age ) Your comment touches on a lot of topics, and I don't have time to respond to all of them. Still, here's what I gleaned of your opinions: - AGW might not be true, so we don't need to worry about it. - Even if it's true, it might not be large enough to have a significant effect, so we don't need to worry about it. - Even if it's large enough to have a significant effect, it might be beneficial, so we don't need to worry about it. - Even if AGW is harmful, current popular proposed solutions are ineffective, outrageously expensive, or both. Since the costs of the solutions are higher than the costs of AGW, we shouldn't do anything about it. Doesn't this line of reasoning seem strangely convenient? Don't you think that you're being just a little bit biased toward the "do nothing" approach?

yummyfajitas 17y ago
We have historical evidence of changes CO2 in the atmosphere causing changes in climate, in turn causing extinction events. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoo_Ice_Age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoo_Ice_Age ) Both of the harmful climate events you have described were cooling events and were also many millions of years in the past. Why not consider more recent climate events which are closer in scale to those suggested by AGW proponents? What evidence would you expect to see today in a world where increased average global temperature helps humanity? Overall, if warming were beneficial for humanity, I'd expect to see human expansion during the medieval warm period, and human decline during the little ice age. Further facts: quite a lot of land is too cold for humans to prosper in. Crop yields are poor, heating is costly, and life is generally unpleasant. Regarding the "strangely convenient" line of reasoning by ellyagg, that's simply the line of reasoning we must take when evaluating any measure designed to prevent any event. We must evaluate whether the event is real, whether it is significant, whether it is harmful, and whether the cost/benefit of the mitigation scheme is favorable.