3 ms·

<quote>There are scientists who claim to be able to predict the behaviour of a whole host of complex systems and their interaction for decades and centuries in

<quote>There are scientists who claim to be able to predict the behaviour of a whole host of complex systems and their interaction for decades and centuries in advance.</quote> That may be, but very few of them are climatologists. If you take the time to read papers and articles by actual researchers in the field, you will find that they are careful to caution about making specific predictions about conditions in any given timeframe or area. They can make some general predictions based on past observations, however, and it's clear that global warming will bring about some drastic changes in local climates. Consequently it's wise public policy to try to mitigate the warming by reducing CO2 production. Is the scientific community 100% certain? No---as a 'denier of certainty', you're in good company. But you don't require certainty in your own life to make decisions (at least, I hope not for your sake). With the stakes so high, it's best to base action on the most likely scenario, and that is that global warming is caused primarily by human CO2 production.

fauigerzigerk 17y ago
I guess it depends on the extent of uncertainty. The issue I see is that at any given time we face a rather large number of uncertain dangers. Doing something about them costs resources and we cannot deal with all of them equally. There are opportunities as well, which also cost resources. So it's all about priorities. I think it's a very difficult decision problem. Do you try to prevent a very uncertain but potentially grave danger proactively, or do you use your resources where you can be reasonably certain about the effects of your actions? I don't know. It's a balancing act. I tend to lean on the side of not wasting too many resources on very uncertain future dangers. That said, changing something about how we produce and use energy makes sense for many reasons, not just climate change. So I'm willing to act in spite of the uncertainty, but I'm unwilling to ct radically or accept the kind of moral de-industrialisation and de-globalisation mandate that some global warming advocates are pushing so hard.
- vannevar 17y ago
  An argument against action in the face of uncertainty actually favors reducing CO2 production. The climate we have seems pretty good; overall, the world is comfortable and productive. So why risk changing it by pumping unprecedented amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere? Looking at the problem objectively, it seems like our current course of action is the most radical one. Contrary to your suggestion, we ARE acting radically in the face of uncertainty. And it's not even a 50/50 proposition: we are acting radically in the blind hope that the LESS probable outcome will happen. In this case, those urging CO2 curbs are the conservatives, and those pushing to produce more CO2 are the radicals.
  - fauigerzigerk 17y ago
    I'm not against action. I am in favor of cutting CO2 emissions gradually because of the uncertainty, but I don't want to change course radically because that would waste a lot of resources. And I'd rather not hear all the lies about certain doom coming from politicians and corrupt scientists. I agree with you that we are acting radically now. We always have. Industrialisation itself has been radically changing the planet. I'm in favor of doing that and I'm ready to take that risk in order to make life better and simply because trying to stop humans from tinkering with things, even with dangerous things, is futile.

fauigerzigerk 17y ago

I guess it depends on the extent of uncertainty. The issue I see is that at any given time we face a rather large number of uncertain dangers. Doing something about them costs resources and we cannot deal with all of them equally. There are opportunities as well, which also cost resources. So it's all about priorities. I think it's a very difficult decision problem. Do you try to prevent a very uncertain but potentially grave danger proactively, or do you use your resources where you can be reasonably certain about the effects of your actions? I don't know. It's a balancing act. I tend to lean on the side of not wasting too many resources on very uncertain future dangers. That said, changing something about how we produce and use energy makes sense for many reasons, not just climate change. So I'm willing to act in spite of the uncertainty, but I'm unwilling to ct radically or accept the kind of moral de-industrialisation and de-globalisation mandate that some global warming advocates are pushing so hard.

vannevar 17y ago
An argument against action in the face of uncertainty actually favors reducing CO2 production. The climate we have seems pretty good; overall, the world is comfortable and productive. So why risk changing it by pumping unprecedented amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere? Looking at the problem objectively, it seems like our current course of action is the most radical one. Contrary to your suggestion, we ARE acting radically in the face of uncertainty. And it's not even a 50/50 proposition: we are acting radically in the blind hope that the LESS probable outcome will happen. In this case, those urging CO2 curbs are the conservatives, and those pushing to produce more CO2 are the radicals.
- fauigerzigerk 17y ago
  I'm not against action. I am in favor of cutting CO2 emissions gradually because of the uncertainty, but I don't want to change course radically because that would waste a lot of resources. And I'd rather not hear all the lies about certain doom coming from politicians and corrupt scientists. I agree with you that we are acting radically now. We always have. Industrialisation itself has been radically changing the planet. I'm in favor of doing that and I'm ready to take that risk in order to make life better and simply because trying to stop humans from tinkering with things, even with dangerous things, is futile.