5 ms·

Evidence of anthropogenic warming is real, verifiable, and weak. Evidence that it is problematic, or that scientists are even remotely able to predict its magni

by ellyagg 17y ago

Evidence of anthropogenic warming is real, verifiable, and weak. Evidence that it is problematic, or that scientists are even remotely able to predict its magnitude and effect is nonexistent. But the costs of prevention are 100% real and enormous. One common argument for drastic public policy initiatives is the attempt by some folks to seize the moral high ground with "humans are terrible at long term planning". Yes, they are terrible at long term planning, because humans are really terrible at predicting the future, e.g., predicting the size and magnitude of AGW. It's simply not true that preventing a worst case scenario is worth any price. Coming up with imaginary worst case scenarios 50 or 100 years from now is as easy as pie. That's not valid risk assessment. Typically, AGW[1] proponents only argue from the expected value of our investment in preventing global warming. Since the purported worst case scenario is the extermination of humanity, the upside is our survival. Essentially, the expected value is infinite, so the net present value is infinite, so we should be willing to spend all our money to prevent even a possibility of AGW killing us off. Since no one knows the risk, even to within several orders of magnitude, your guess is as good as mine. Your opinion on AGW policy comes down to something entire aside from the science, namely, your moral view of, and problem-solving assumptions about, humankind as a whole. AGW is not currently acute[2]. I choose to believe that in a hypothetical (and vanishingly unlikely) case where it becomes acute, humans would weather it. [1] There is currently no good way to describe the for and against on this issue. Almost every knowledgeable person believes in the theoretical model of AGW. Most people believe there has been some AGW. The true division is between people who believe it's been proven that AGW is alarming and those who don't. "AGW skeptics" is not really an appropriate term. [2] Don't say it is. That's preposterous. AGW itself is weakly shown. Regional climate changes have not been scientifically linked to weak AGW. Regional climate change is the rule, including changes that melt ice and extinguish species.

guelo 17y ago
"Evidence that it is problematic ... is nonexistent." Wow. What's amazing to me about this rant is how the debate has moved over the last 10 years from "it's not happening" to "it's not a big deal". So, our massively complex ecosystem is changing in ways that our scientists don't fully understand and it's not a big deal? The ecosystem so complex that scientists have a hard time using the world's fastest supercomputers to try to model it. These real, verifiable changes to OUR ONLY ecosystem are not a big deal even though nobody knows the outcome? Your position is that playing russian roulette with our grandkids future is worth it because the price of action is overwhelmingly expensive (or infinite). But that's wrong, it's not that expensive. The European economies that have reduced their emissions according to the Kyoto protocol have been doing fine. Reducing the world's carbon emissions is easy, cheap and prudent.
- artsrc 17y ago
  I suspect that reducing our emissions is actually not just cheap but cost negative. You invest in energy saving infrastructure, like insulation, solar hot water, public transport, more efficient appliances, lights, cars etc. Increase the usage of renewable resources, like solar, hydro and wind. And do R&D. Just wait for the next down turn and instead of cutting interest rates have the plans ready to do the investment. We probably have 4 to 10 years to do some good planning.
  - DaniFong 17y ago
    At present, it depends on the strategy taken, ad of course it will depend on the technologies developed. There are actually many many technologies which, at present, will save you money in the long run (and the run doesn't even need to be that long.) The main barriers to adoption are laziness, cost of capital, consumer behavior (not purchasing LED lights because they 'seem' too expensive), and most importantly, lack of education. Page 4 of this paper has a great graph where they examine costs and cost abatement for a variety of 'green' strategies. Hybrid cars are the most expensive! www.khoslaventures.com/presentations/Hybrids.pdf
  - Tichy 17y ago
    Exactly - I think the "enormous costs" argument is another fake argument. It's not as if these investments are just sunk, they are used to build infrastructure.
- fauigerzigerk 17y ago
  When was the last time our scientists fully understood anything as broad as climate change or "OUR ONLY ecosystem"? When mankind started to change the world through agriculture, deforestation and industrialisation, that's when we started to play russian roulette if you find that analogy useful. We didn't know what it would do to our ecosystems but we did it because life back then was horrible and because we could. One bad crop and people were starting to die from starvation. Life is better now so we were right to take that risk. It makes no sense to be alarmist about this basic disposition of mankind to take risks it doesn't fully understand.
petewarden 17y ago
> I choose to believe That is the key phrase for me. You're sharing your opinion, which sounds pretty plausible, but hey, why should I take it over anyone else's? That's where science comes in. It's messy, biased and often temporarily wrong, but it's the best process we've got for eventually getting to proven truths. This is a massively important subject, if you're right we're letting a lot of suffering elsewhere be neglected because of the resources we're putting into addressing AGW. Put together a paper detailing your models, assumptions and facts, or at the least promote somebody else's work. Bjorn Lomborg is the closest person I can think of to your position, but he's got a pretty nuanced take on the likely effects, and he's gone to a lot of trouble to quantify the costs: http://www.lomborg.com/ http://www.lomborg.com/ I want helpful references and links, material we can use to figure this out. Opinions on their own don't move anything forward. Debates with numbers and facts like these between the Economist and Will Eschenbach enlighten me a lot more: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/trust_scientists http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/tr...
artsrc 17y ago
> But the costs of prevention are 100% real and enormous. We don't know everything about climate. But we also don't know the return on investment for R&D in generation and consumption of power. Are you so sure that buying hybrid cars instead of F100's, insulating some buildings, and converting some power station to combined cycle would be an enormous cost? > AGW is not currently acute[2]. I choose to believe that in a hypothetical (and vanishingly unlikely) case where it becomes acute, humans would weather it. Perhaps. Perhaps I would weather it, and so would you. Some future two year old in Bangladesh maybe not. On the other hand lots of them don't weather their first 5 years of life anyway, so we don't value those humans much. Why start now? > Your opinion on AGW policy comes down to something entire aside from the science, namely, your moral view of, and problem-solving assumptions about, humankind as a whole. Totally true, although we generally argue as though we care about human lives.
- waterlesscloud 17y ago
  >Perhaps I would weather it, and so would you. Some future two year old in Bangladesh maybe not. On the other hand lots of them don't weather their first 5 years of life anyway, so we don't value those humans much. Why start now? The question becomes are those future two year olds in Bangladesh better served by a future in which the planet diverts massive resources into green tech or in to other social and technological advances? Resources to make these advances are, in fact, limited, and choices must be made. The correct choices are not at all clear, and not at all simple.
wendroid 17y ago
I heard an activist at Copenhagen try and be alarming by stating that the cost of doing nothing would become 20% of GDP. Big deal!

by ellyagg 17y ago

guelo 17y ago

"Evidence that it is problematic ... is nonexistent." Wow. What's amazing to me about this rant is how the debate has moved over the last 10 years from "it's not happening" to "it's not a big deal". So, our massively complex ecosystem is changing in ways that our scientists don't fully understand and it's not a big deal? The ecosystem so complex that scientists have a hard time using the world's fastest supercomputers to try to model it. These real, verifiable changes to OUR ONLY ecosystem are not a big deal even though nobody knows the outcome? Your position is that playing russian roulette with our grandkids future is worth it because the price of action is overwhelmingly expensive (or infinite). But that's wrong, it's not that expensive. The European economies that have reduced their emissions according to the Kyoto protocol have been doing fine. Reducing the world's carbon emissions is easy, cheap and prudent.

artsrc 17y ago
I suspect that reducing our emissions is actually not just cheap but cost negative. You invest in energy saving infrastructure, like insulation, solar hot water, public transport, more efficient appliances, lights, cars etc. Increase the usage of renewable resources, like solar, hydro and wind. And do R&D. Just wait for the next down turn and instead of cutting interest rates have the plans ready to do the investment. We probably have 4 to 10 years to do some good planning.
- DaniFong 17y ago
  At present, it depends on the strategy taken, ad of course it will depend on the technologies developed. There are actually many many technologies which, at present, will save you money in the long run (and the run doesn't even need to be that long.) The main barriers to adoption are laziness, cost of capital, consumer behavior (not purchasing LED lights because they 'seem' too expensive), and most importantly, lack of education. Page 4 of this paper has a great graph where they examine costs and cost abatement for a variety of 'green' strategies. Hybrid cars are the most expensive! www.khoslaventures.com/presentations/Hybrids.pdf
- Tichy 17y ago
  Exactly - I think the "enormous costs" argument is another fake argument. It's not as if these investments are just sunk, they are used to build infrastructure.
fauigerzigerk 17y ago
When was the last time our scientists fully understood anything as broad as climate change or "OUR ONLY ecosystem"? When mankind started to change the world through agriculture, deforestation and industrialisation, that's when we started to play russian roulette if you find that analogy useful. We didn't know what it would do to our ecosystems but we did it because life back then was horrible and because we could. One bad crop and people were starting to die from starvation. Life is better now so we were right to take that risk. It makes no sense to be alarmist about this basic disposition of mankind to take risks it doesn't fully understand.

petewarden 17y ago

> I choose to believe That is the key phrase for me. You're sharing your opinion, which sounds pretty plausible, but hey, why should I take it over anyone else's? That's where science comes in. It's messy, biased and often temporarily wrong, but it's the best process we've got for eventually getting to proven truths. This is a massively important subject, if you're right we're letting a lot of suffering elsewhere be neglected because of the resources we're putting into addressing AGW. Put together a paper detailing your models, assumptions and facts, or at the least promote somebody else's work. Bjorn Lomborg is the closest person I can think of to your position, but he's got a pretty nuanced take on the likely effects, and he's gone to a lot of trouble to quantify the costs: http://www.lomborg.com/ http://www.lomborg.com/ I want helpful references and links, material we can use to figure this out. Opinions on their own don't move anything forward. Debates with numbers and facts like these between the Economist and Will Eschenbach enlighten me a lot more: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/trust_scientists http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/tr...

artsrc 17y ago

> But the costs of prevention are 100% real and enormous. We don't know everything about climate. But we also don't know the return on investment for R&D in generation and consumption of power. Are you so sure that buying hybrid cars instead of F100's, insulating some buildings, and converting some power station to combined cycle would be an enormous cost? > AGW is not currently acute[2]. I choose to believe that in a hypothetical (and vanishingly unlikely) case where it becomes acute, humans would weather it. Perhaps. Perhaps I would weather it, and so would you. Some future two year old in Bangladesh maybe not. On the other hand lots of them don't weather their first 5 years of life anyway, so we don't value those humans much. Why start now? > Your opinion on AGW policy comes down to something entire aside from the science, namely, your moral view of, and problem-solving assumptions about, humankind as a whole. Totally true, although we generally argue as though we care about human lives.

waterlesscloud 17y ago
>Perhaps I would weather it, and so would you. Some future two year old in Bangladesh maybe not. On the other hand lots of them don't weather their first 5 years of life anyway, so we don't value those humans much. Why start now? The question becomes are those future two year olds in Bangladesh better served by a future in which the planet diverts massive resources into green tech or in to other social and technological advances? Resources to make these advances are, in fact, limited, and choices must be made. The correct choices are not at all clear, and not at all simple.

wendroid 17y ago

I heard an activist at Copenhagen try and be alarming by stating that the cost of doing nothing would become 20% of GDP. Big deal!