3 ms·

The climate is an enormously complex thing with so many variables that it's difficult to analyze. If you do not believe the claims for Anthropogenic Global Warm

by poutine 17y ago

The climate is an enormously complex thing with so many variables that it's difficult to analyze. If you do not believe the claims for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) I suggest you consider the Precautionary Principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle In the context of the environment it essentially states that if there is a reasonable chance that AGW can be true then since the risks are so great we must take action as if it were true. This is what leads me, a hard core skeptic (and trained but very long ago lapsed climatologist) to support reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. We can not afford to be wrong.

Dove 17y ago
Are you also a fan of Pascal's Wager? I personally do not find persuasive the idea that decisions involving high stakes should warrant an approach which embraces risk management over skepticism. All things in proper order. It all depends on the probabilities you assign things. If Traditional Christianity has a 50% chance of being true, then of course the risk mitigation of heaven and hell dominate decision making. But I should like a better assessment of the odds before entering risk management mode. If the odds are near zero, I shall ignore the claim--however horrid the hell or enticing the heaven. So with AGW. Perhaps the doomsday is quite terrible (though even this does not seem obvious to me). I should like to see sound evidence that results in--at a minimum--clear odds before I am willing to worry about it. After all, as with Pascal, I may have other doomsdays to worry about. Perhaps the real doomsday event is a killer asteroid, and nothing matters except a relentless pursuit of technology aimed at a robust presence in space. If that were the case, retarding industry out of a concern for your bogeyman might actually be the cause of doom. One cannot worry about every street preacher who claims the end is near.
- poutine 17y ago
  No, Pascal's Wager is foolish since you could not possibly select the correct god from the myriad of gods available (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc) given that belief is mutually exclusive. At any rate it's not the same thing. The precautionary principle is an insurance sale, not some metaphysical nonsense. And you're being unfair about your characterization of Global Warming. It is just not any doomsday scenario. There's enough reputable scientists getting their panties in a knot that it should be cause for concern.
  - Dove 17y ago
    It is not being metaphysical in nature that makes Pascal's Wager nonsense. It is that it demands action without sufficient rational foundation. The rational reaction to a possible crisis in which one lacks information is not to jump immediately away from what looks like the scariest outcome. That tends to make things worse. The right reaction is to focus on research until a decision absolutely cannot be avoided--and even then, make the minimum decision the evidence warrants. I view that as the case here. If the evidence is sufficient to convince and act on, okay. Act on it. But if it is not, the stakes being high do not change anything. By all accounts, there's time yet to be more certain, so let's take the time and be more certain. Incidentally, "a lot of reputable scientists are concerned" is a statement about state of the evidence, and not a very persuasive one to me. I know a thing or two about simulating complex systems; a non-predictive simulation, a theory concerning a single variable input, a loose-but-not-awesome correlation? In a complex system, that really is street preacher kind of evidence. Absolutely it warrants theoretical concern; follow that line of research. But as a call to action? Nah. Call me when you've got a robust enough model that you can use it to win wars or make money, and we'll talk.
    - poutine 17y ago
      Well, the problem here is that we're talking about a possible run away greenhouse effect that will condemn most of humanity to death. The point being is that you must act now in order to stop it and that this is the rational approach even if you do not have conclusive evidence. Your gamble is an unacceptable risk, or so the principle would say. I spent a couple years living in mainland China with pollution so bad that you literally could barely see across the street. On many clear sky days you could look directly at the sun with no issue. I flew over the country to different cities dozens of times and always the entire country was covered in a thick smog for thousands of kilometres. We really have no idea here in North America of the scale of things going on. And China is going to massively increase their emissions in the coming decades.
jacoblyles 17y ago
The precautionary principle provides little basis for cost-benefit analysis. Should we be willing to spend a trillion dollars to stop global warming? Half the global economy? 90% of it? Probably not the last one, because billions would die. Assuming the worst-case will happen if we don't act isn't a good way to make rational decisions.
- poutine 17y ago
  Correct, it doesn't really guide you here. It just tells you that you don't need to be certain of the outcome before acting due to the potential extreme costs of inaction.
  - jacoblyles 17y ago
    Sure. I think what you're arguing for is probabilistic cost/benefit analysis, which I think is a fine idea.
    - poutine 17y ago
      Basically, yeah.

by poutine 17y ago

Dove 17y ago

Are you also a fan of Pascal's Wager? I personally do not find persuasive the idea that decisions involving high stakes should warrant an approach which embraces risk management over skepticism. All things in proper order. It all depends on the probabilities you assign things. If Traditional Christianity has a 50% chance of being true, then of course the risk mitigation of heaven and hell dominate decision making. But I should like a better assessment of the odds before entering risk management mode. If the odds are near zero, I shall ignore the claim--however horrid the hell or enticing the heaven. So with AGW. Perhaps the doomsday is quite terrible (though even this does not seem obvious to me). I should like to see sound evidence that results in--at a minimum--clear odds before I am willing to worry about it. After all, as with Pascal, I may have other doomsdays to worry about. Perhaps the real doomsday event is a killer asteroid, and nothing matters except a relentless pursuit of technology aimed at a robust presence in space. If that were the case, retarding industry out of a concern for your bogeyman might actually be the cause of doom. One cannot worry about every street preacher who claims the end is near.

poutine 17y ago
No, Pascal's Wager is foolish since you could not possibly select the correct god from the myriad of gods available (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc) given that belief is mutually exclusive. At any rate it's not the same thing. The precautionary principle is an insurance sale, not some metaphysical nonsense. And you're being unfair about your characterization of Global Warming. It is just not any doomsday scenario. There's enough reputable scientists getting their panties in a knot that it should be cause for concern.
- Dove 17y ago
  It is not being metaphysical in nature that makes Pascal's Wager nonsense. It is that it demands action without sufficient rational foundation. The rational reaction to a possible crisis in which one lacks information is not to jump immediately away from what looks like the scariest outcome. That tends to make things worse. The right reaction is to focus on research until a decision absolutely cannot be avoided--and even then, make the minimum decision the evidence warrants. I view that as the case here. If the evidence is sufficient to convince and act on, okay. Act on it. But if it is not, the stakes being high do not change anything. By all accounts, there's time yet to be more certain, so let's take the time and be more certain. Incidentally, "a lot of reputable scientists are concerned" is a statement about state of the evidence, and not a very persuasive one to me. I know a thing or two about simulating complex systems; a non-predictive simulation, a theory concerning a single variable input, a loose-but-not-awesome correlation? In a complex system, that really is street preacher kind of evidence. Absolutely it warrants theoretical concern; follow that line of research. But as a call to action? Nah. Call me when you've got a robust enough model that you can use it to win wars or make money, and we'll talk.
  - poutine 17y ago
    Well, the problem here is that we're talking about a possible run away greenhouse effect that will condemn most of humanity to death. The point being is that you must act now in order to stop it and that this is the rational approach even if you do not have conclusive evidence. Your gamble is an unacceptable risk, or so the principle would say. I spent a couple years living in mainland China with pollution so bad that you literally could barely see across the street. On many clear sky days you could look directly at the sun with no issue. I flew over the country to different cities dozens of times and always the entire country was covered in a thick smog for thousands of kilometres. We really have no idea here in North America of the scale of things going on. And China is going to massively increase their emissions in the coming decades.

jacoblyles 17y ago

The precautionary principle provides little basis for cost-benefit analysis. Should we be willing to spend a trillion dollars to stop global warming? Half the global economy? 90% of it? Probably not the last one, because billions would die. Assuming the worst-case will happen if we don't act isn't a good way to make rational decisions.

poutine 17y ago
Correct, it doesn't really guide you here. It just tells you that you don't need to be certain of the outcome before acting due to the potential extreme costs of inaction.
- jacoblyles 17y ago
  Sure. I think what you're arguing for is probabilistic cost/benefit analysis, which I think is a fine idea.
  - poutine 17y ago
    Basically, yeah.