3 ms·

The right way to think about models at this scale is complexity isn't "Accurate" vs. "Inaccurate"; it's to use probabilistic/Bayesian reasoning. No map is a per

The right way to think about models at this scale is complexity isn't "Accurate" vs. "Inaccurate"; it's to use probabilistic/Bayesian reasoning. No map is a perfect representation of the territory, and no model can encapsulate the entirety of the earth. That doesn't mean maps and models are useless. A couple counterpoints from former climate skeptics: - Richard Mueller is a prominent physicist who founded an institute to debunk anthropogenic climate change, only to change his mind after thorough examination of the data. https://youtu.be/Sme8WQ4Wb5w https://youtu.be/Sme8WQ4Wb5w - Jerry Taylor is a libertarian and former climate debunker for the Cato Institute; a noteworthy pivot moment was speaking to a risk analyst for a financial institution, whose job it is to make bets on complex systemic risks in the context of uncertainty. He claimed that from a financial lens, AGW was a slam-dunk case for mitigation, not because of the certainty of any one model, but of the full probability distribution in aggregate. https://www.reckonings.show/episodes/17 https://www.reckonings.show/episodes/17

adamrezich 5y ago
sure, that's fine. the problem arises when politicians state that things must be done by x date or y year or else we're going to have a CLIMATE CATASTROPHE, because the models say so. models can't predict anything like this
- lukifer 5y ago
  I agree there is a moral hazard / perverse incentive when it comes to alarmism, especially in politics (eg, specious references to "mushroom clouds" in the run-up to the Iraq invasion). But as good Bayesians, we also have to consider the opposite case: crises and "black swan" events do happen. How do we filter signal from noise? We probably could have benefitted from more "enlightened alarmism" re: COVID in Jan/Feb 2020, when billions in preventative measures could have saved trillions to world GDP (and millions of lives). It's a double-bind politically: given a non-trivial long-term risk, how does one frame its urgency? A calm and measured tone spurs little action (the unsqueaky wheel doesn't get the grease); a tone of urgency and panic bypasses badly-needed rational faculties, and/or flips the "bullshit detectors" based on the history of proverbial boys crying wolf. While I'm not opposed to FDR-ish green infrastructure plans, the answer from economists is undramatic and uncontroversial [0]: tax the externality to establish a price signal, and return the dividend back to citizens, whose consumption behaviors then change in response to those signals [1]. Of course, we've had to contend with decades of FUD from vested O&G interests, no different than the tobacco cancer debacle [2], despite having had credible evidence for AGW since the late 70's. I'm happy to concede the potential for scientific groupthink and perverse Big Government incentives on the green side, so long as we're also acknowledging the enormous financial incentives for muddying the waters (uncertainty = inaction = status quo = profit). [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/economists-statement-on-carbon-dividends-11547682910 https://www.wsj.com/articles/economists-statement-on-carbon-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax [2] https://www.barbarafreese.com/industrialstrength-denial https://www.barbarafreese.com/industrialstrength-denial

adamrezich 5y ago

sure, that's fine. the problem arises when politicians state that things must be done by x date or y year or else we're going to have a CLIMATE CATASTROPHE, because the models say so. models can't predict anything like this

lukifer 5y ago
I agree there is a moral hazard / perverse incentive when it comes to alarmism, especially in politics (eg, specious references to "mushroom clouds" in the run-up to the Iraq invasion). But as good Bayesians, we also have to consider the opposite case: crises and "black swan" events do happen. How do we filter signal from noise? We probably could have benefitted from more "enlightened alarmism" re: COVID in Jan/Feb 2020, when billions in preventative measures could have saved trillions to world GDP (and millions of lives). It's a double-bind politically: given a non-trivial long-term risk, how does one frame its urgency? A calm and measured tone spurs little action (the unsqueaky wheel doesn't get the grease); a tone of urgency and panic bypasses badly-needed rational faculties, and/or flips the "bullshit detectors" based on the history of proverbial boys crying wolf. While I'm not opposed to FDR-ish green infrastructure plans, the answer from economists is undramatic and uncontroversial [0]: tax the externality to establish a price signal, and return the dividend back to citizens, whose consumption behaviors then change in response to those signals [1]. Of course, we've had to contend with decades of FUD from vested O&G interests, no different than the tobacco cancer debacle [2], despite having had credible evidence for AGW since the late 70's. I'm happy to concede the potential for scientific groupthink and perverse Big Government incentives on the green side, so long as we're also acknowledging the enormous financial incentives for muddying the waters (uncertainty = inaction = status quo = profit). [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/economists-statement-on-carbon-dividends-11547682910 https://www.wsj.com/articles/economists-statement-on-carbon-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax [2] https://www.barbarafreese.com/industrialstrength-denial https://www.barbarafreese.com/industrialstrength-denial