5 ms·

I'm a natural skeptic, so when everyone believes something I think that is the most important time to question it. I found Economist Bjorn Lomborg's take on cli

I'm a natural skeptic, so when everyone believes something I think that is the most important time to question it. I found Economist Bjorn Lomborg's take on climate change to be very impactful... http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_prioritie... The basic idea is: that given our limited resources how can we do the most good? The answer is that focusing that effort on climate change is frivolous even by the most optimistic predictions. Now that doesn't mean we should ignore it entirely. I'm generally of the mindset that problems aren't solved by "steady progress" rather by radical innovation that changes the game. To that point... it can be seen as a waste of time to enforce rules today that really won't make a difference tomorrow. Instead today's effort should be spent to enable the rapid innovation that when applied will actually make a significant difference tomorrow.

danieltillett 13y ago
The problem with doing net present value calculations on climate change is the possibility of "infinite" cost events. Sure it might make more sense from a NPV perspective to spend a given number of dollars on say improving the water treatment in poor countries rather than stopping GHG emissions, but only if we know the maximum cost of climate change. The problem becomes how do you do a NPV calculation on the possibility of a positive feedback warming event that causes the Earth to become uninhabitable. This is effectively an infinite cost event. Even if such a risk is small, no NPV calculation has any value.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  ...the possibility of "infinite" cost events. Never having taken place, thinking about such events would seem to challenge to both frequentist and Bayesian schools of thought.
  - TheEzEzz 13y ago
    A charitable interpretation of daniel's comment would assume "infinite" meant "very, very, very large", for example: the extinction of humanity. There have been similar events to the extinction of humanity (past mass extinctions), so there is every reason to assign non-zero probability to human extinction from both frequentist and Bayesian perspectives. There are actually a multitude of events that happen in this universe with non-zero probability (from both probability philosophy perspectives) that could eradicate humanity. Catastrophic climate change may very well be one of them. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#Evolution
    - danieltillett 13y ago
      Yes. I really don't know how to do NPV calculations on any event that involves the extinction of humanity, but with any NPV calculation where the cost is more than three orders of magnitude greater than benefit it doesn't really matter how much greater the cost is.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  I assume for this reason you also have become religious to avoid a small probability of burning in hell for an infinite amount of time? (See pascals wager.)
  - TheEzEzz 13y ago
    These are very different. There is evidence for the possibility of future catastrophic climate change. There is no evidence for the existence of hell. There are also arguments against Pascal's wager that do not apply to climate change. For example, you can postulate an anti-Christianity Hell, where only non-Christians are spared. This poses a new Pascal wager. There's no reason to think this wager has any different odds than the original: they have the same prior, hence cancel out in an expected value calculation.
    - nickff 13y ago
      >"There are also arguments against Pascal's wager that do not apply to climate change. For example, you can postulate an anti-Christianity Hell, where only non-Christians are spared. " Could one not also postulate that we are approaching a new ice age, and that carbon emissions are keeping the world from freezing over?
      - TheEzEzz 13y ago
        Definitely, although the evidence seems to point to warming as a greater risk than cooling. In addition, there is little evidence for the possibility of a catastrophic cooling capable of making the planet uninhabitable (and not just less ideal), whereas there is evidence that a runaway greenhouse effect could actually make the planet uninhabitable for humans (Venus).
    - yummyfajitas 13y ago
      Sure there is some evidence - the existence of a guy claiming to be god's son, a bunch of people claiming miracles occurred, etc. These things are weak evidence in favor of christianity - similarly, there is weak evidence in favor of islam, mormonism, etc. Given that there is no similar evidence for the Anti-Christianity you postulate, the odds don't cancel. Another interesting result of this line of thinking: a rational Buddhist/Hindu should convert to Islam/Christianity. If Christianity is correct then you avoid burning in hell forever. If Buddhism is correct you reincarnate and get another shot at enlightenment.
Zancarius 13y ago
> The basic idea is: that given our limited resources how can we do the most good? The answer is that focusing that effort on climate change is frivolous even by the most optimistic predictions. This is actually a fantastic point. Given the real, quantifiable health effects pollution has on humans (and other species), it seems more beneficial as a whole to deal with more immediate issues. Rather than quibbling over something that might, maybe, possibly reduce global temperatures by a few tenths of a degree. Maybe. Great video, by the way. Thank you for sharing! Bjorn's basic premise could apply to so many things beyond simply world problems, which is what makes his talk fantastic. Judging by the emotional investment some people have had in this thread, it'd be shameful if your post is missed. But, reasonable, balanced, rational measures seldom get people quite as excited as those that evoke emotion.

danieltillett 13y ago

The problem with doing net present value calculations on climate change is the possibility of "infinite" cost events. Sure it might make more sense from a NPV perspective to spend a given number of dollars on say improving the water treatment in poor countries rather than stopping GHG emissions, but only if we know the maximum cost of climate change. The problem becomes how do you do a NPV calculation on the possibility of a positive feedback warming event that causes the Earth to become uninhabitable. This is effectively an infinite cost event. Even if such a risk is small, no NPV calculation has any value.

jessaustin 13y ago
...the possibility of "infinite" cost events. Never having taken place, thinking about such events would seem to challenge to both frequentist and Bayesian schools of thought.
- TheEzEzz 13y ago
  A charitable interpretation of daniel's comment would assume "infinite" meant "very, very, very large", for example: the extinction of humanity. There have been similar events to the extinction of humanity (past mass extinctions), so there is every reason to assign non-zero probability to human extinction from both frequentist and Bayesian perspectives. There are actually a multitude of events that happen in this universe with non-zero probability (from both probability philosophy perspectives) that could eradicate humanity. Catastrophic climate change may very well be one of them. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#Evolution
  - danieltillett 13y ago
    Yes. I really don't know how to do NPV calculations on any event that involves the extinction of humanity, but with any NPV calculation where the cost is more than three orders of magnitude greater than benefit it doesn't really matter how much greater the cost is.
yummyfajitas 13y ago
I assume for this reason you also have become religious to avoid a small probability of burning in hell for an infinite amount of time? (See pascals wager.)
- TheEzEzz 13y ago
  These are very different. There is evidence for the possibility of future catastrophic climate change. There is no evidence for the existence of hell. There are also arguments against Pascal's wager that do not apply to climate change. For example, you can postulate an anti-Christianity Hell, where only non-Christians are spared. This poses a new Pascal wager. There's no reason to think this wager has any different odds than the original: they have the same prior, hence cancel out in an expected value calculation.
  - nickff 13y ago
    >"There are also arguments against Pascal's wager that do not apply to climate change. For example, you can postulate an anti-Christianity Hell, where only non-Christians are spared. " Could one not also postulate that we are approaching a new ice age, and that carbon emissions are keeping the world from freezing over?
    - TheEzEzz 13y ago
      Definitely, although the evidence seems to point to warming as a greater risk than cooling. In addition, there is little evidence for the possibility of a catastrophic cooling capable of making the planet uninhabitable (and not just less ideal), whereas there is evidence that a runaway greenhouse effect could actually make the planet uninhabitable for humans (Venus).
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    Sure there is some evidence - the existence of a guy claiming to be god's son, a bunch of people claiming miracles occurred, etc. These things are weak evidence in favor of christianity - similarly, there is weak evidence in favor of islam, mormonism, etc. Given that there is no similar evidence for the Anti-Christianity you postulate, the odds don't cancel. Another interesting result of this line of thinking: a rational Buddhist/Hindu should convert to Islam/Christianity. If Christianity is correct then you avoid burning in hell forever. If Buddhism is correct you reincarnate and get another shot at enlightenment.

Zancarius 13y ago

> The basic idea is: that given our limited resources how can we do the most good? The answer is that focusing that effort on climate change is frivolous even by the most optimistic predictions. This is actually a fantastic point. Given the real, quantifiable health effects pollution has on humans (and other species), it seems more beneficial as a whole to deal with more immediate issues. Rather than quibbling over something that might, maybe, possibly reduce global temperatures by a few tenths of a degree. Maybe. Great video, by the way. Thank you for sharing! Bjorn's basic premise could apply to so many things beyond simply world problems, which is what makes his talk fantastic. Judging by the emotional investment some people have had in this thread, it'd be shameful if your post is missed. But, reasonable, balanced, rational measures seldom get people quite as excited as those that evoke emotion.