3 ms·

So if the models are wrong, and wrong in such a way that the impact of climate change is much worse than they predict, then what?

by rp1 5y ago

refurb 5y ago
But that goes both ways? If I told you “my model predicts a 50% chance you be diagnosed with cancer and a 50% chance you wont” how do you make a decision. When both are equally probable?
- notreallyserio 5y ago
  When the options are keep smoking or stop smoking, the obvious choice is to stop smoking to improve your odds. The positive side effects are worth it on their own.
  - refurb 5y ago
    That’s if you have solid evidence that smoking harms you.
  - syshum 5y ago
    Except here the options are not as simple as "stopping smoking" which in this context would be "stop emitting co2" doing so would cause extreme economic harm, lower living standards SUBSTANTIALLY, and be very regressive to the poorest people. Smoking is not needed for life to function, energy production, food production, heating, etc is very much needed for life to function.
    - notreallyserio 5y ago
      Put another way, ignoring the risks and contining our reliance on CO2 and methane and etc emissions has put our economy and living standards in jeopardy, especially for the poorest people. It didn't have to go down this way but certain powerful folks have been more interested in maintaining the status quo than making improvements, and that pattern continues today. Even basic economic concepts like externalities are ignored because folks embrace thought-terminating terms like "job-killing policies".
    - triceratops 5y ago
      > cause extreme economic harm, lower living standards SUBSTANTIALLY, and be very regressive to the poorest people. Isn't that a bit hyperbolic? "Extreme" economic harm? Define extreme, please. Also account for all the increased economic activity related to climate change mitigation (renewable energy, carbon capture, construction). "lower living standards SUBSTANTIALLY" - Climate change will do that too. Try cooling your house cheaply, or getting enough freshwater or fresh produce when the climate goes haywire. "be very regressive to the poorest people." - Again, needs context. The "poorest people" are precisely the ones who will suffer the most if climate change isn't averted. The Indian subcontinent, to take one example, will have acute water shortages and/or sea-level rises (in Bangladesh) which will lead to crop failures and famine.
- ziddoap 5y ago
  There isn't a 50/50 distribution of models predicting nothing and models predicting something negative.
- rp1 5y ago
  Other commenters are pointing out the logic issues with your question, but I would like to provide a direct answer. If a number of people told me that there was a 50% chance I had cancer, then I would first check their qualifications to make sure their predictions were worth my time. Then, if I found them credible, I would be really worried about getting cancer and go through all the screenings and tests necessary to figure out which side of the 50% I was on. Would you not do the same?

So if the models are wrong, and wrong in such a way that the impact of climate change is much worse than they predict, then what?

by rp1 5y ago

So if the models are wrong, and wrong in such a way that the impact of climate change is much worse than they predict, then what?

refurb 5y ago

But that goes both ways? If I told you “my model predicts a 50% chance you be diagnosed with cancer and a 50% chance you wont” how do you make a decision. When both are equally probable?

notreallyserio 5y ago
When the options are keep smoking or stop smoking, the obvious choice is to stop smoking to improve your odds. The positive side effects are worth it on their own.
- refurb 5y ago
  That’s if you have solid evidence that smoking harms you.
- syshum 5y ago
  Except here the options are not as simple as "stopping smoking" which in this context would be "stop emitting co2" doing so would cause extreme economic harm, lower living standards SUBSTANTIALLY, and be very regressive to the poorest people. Smoking is not needed for life to function, energy production, food production, heating, etc is very much needed for life to function.
  - notreallyserio 5y ago
    Put another way, ignoring the risks and contining our reliance on CO2 and methane and etc emissions has put our economy and living standards in jeopardy, especially for the poorest people. It didn't have to go down this way but certain powerful folks have been more interested in maintaining the status quo than making improvements, and that pattern continues today. Even basic economic concepts like externalities are ignored because folks embrace thought-terminating terms like "job-killing policies".
  - triceratops 5y ago
    > cause extreme economic harm, lower living standards SUBSTANTIALLY, and be very regressive to the poorest people. Isn't that a bit hyperbolic? "Extreme" economic harm? Define extreme, please. Also account for all the increased economic activity related to climate change mitigation (renewable energy, carbon capture, construction). "lower living standards SUBSTANTIALLY" - Climate change will do that too. Try cooling your house cheaply, or getting enough freshwater or fresh produce when the climate goes haywire. "be very regressive to the poorest people." - Again, needs context. The "poorest people" are precisely the ones who will suffer the most if climate change isn't averted. The Indian subcontinent, to take one example, will have acute water shortages and/or sea-level rises (in Bangladesh) which will lead to crop failures and famine.
ziddoap 5y ago
There isn't a 50/50 distribution of models predicting nothing and models predicting something negative.
rp1 5y ago
Other commenters are pointing out the logic issues with your question, but I would like to provide a direct answer. If a number of people told me that there was a 50% chance I had cancer, then I would first check their qualifications to make sure their predictions were worth my time. Then, if I found them credible, I would be really worried about getting cancer and go through all the screenings and tests necessary to figure out which side of the 50% I was on. Would you not do the same?