The Precautionary Principle and Global Warming
The big problem here is that what we’re dealing with is not risk, in which the probabilities can be reliably quantified, allowing an expected value to be computed, but uncertainty, in which they cannot.
As an example, a thirty percent chance of rain represents risk. “It might rain, or it might not, but we have no idea what the probability is” constitutes uncertainty. It’s much easier to decide whether or not to take an umbrella in the first circumstance than the second.
For this reason, economists have come up with a more sophisticated technique for decision making in the absence of probabilities of outcomes. Rather than simply looking for the lowest maximum cost, they instead try to minimize how bad you’ll feel if you make the wrong decision — they minimize “regret.”
It’s based on the notion that when you make a decision, you shouldn’t compare it to some unattainable ideal of zero cost; you should compare it to the best decision you could have possibly made under the circumstances, whatever they turn out to be. This eliminates the oversimplicity of the one-sided Pascal’s Wager.
Take a simple case — do you take an umbrella when it rains, or not?
Consider a classical game-theory cost matrix. The center columns are two potential states of the world, and the rows are the actions one can take. I’ve put in notional cost numbers simply to mathematically demonstrate the concept. For instance, there might be a higher cost of carrying an umbrella on a non-rainy day because of the increased risk of leaving it somewhere because you don’t need it. Note that we are not restricted to only two of either states or actions — there could be many more of each — I simply chose the simplest case for the purpose of illustration.
| State 1 (It Will Rain) | State 2 (It Won’t) | Maximum Cost | |
| Action 1(Take Umbrella) |
3 |
4 |
4 |
| Action 2 (Don’t) |
5 |
0 |
5 |
It looks like we can minimize our maximum cost by choosing Action 1, since four is less than five. That is the so-called “minimax” solution. But is that really the right decision?
Let’s derive a “regret” matrix from it. This is done by finding the minimum cost for any state, and subtracting each cell of that state from it. The minimum cost for State 1 is 3, so the column would be three minus three for the first row (0) and five minus three (2) for the second row. That makes intuitive sense, since if you made the right decision for that state, you’ll have no regrets. The regret matrix for the example cost matrix is shown below:
| State 1 | State 2 | Maximum Regret | |
| Action 1 |
0 |
4 |
4 |
| Action 2 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
Note now that if we want to minimize regret, we should actually choose Action 2. Note also that this is independent of the relative probabilities of the two states. The regret analysis clarifies the choices. It also, at least in this case, shows why we don’t carry umbrellas everywhere and when, unless we live in Seattle.
Assuming, of course, that we have the right numbers to put into the matrix. The problem is that, with the heretofore monomaniacal devotion to the flawed precautionary principle by the warm mongers, we haven’t even defined the rows and columns, let alone attempted to come up with the numbers.
Doing so would obviously be far beyond the scope of this brief essay, but I would suggest that there are at least four columns: the world is warming, the world is warming as a result of anthropogenic activities, the world is cooling, and the climate is varying up and down.
There are also at least four potential actions: slamming the brakes on carbon emissions, letting the market determine our energy choices, making plans for damage mitigation and remediation, and developing geoengineering means of global temperature control. Of course, there is a fifth choice: doing nothing (or rather, continuing on with our terrestrial affairs without regard to the future of the planetary climate).
That may be the best option, but there’s no way to know until we actually compare it to the others in an economically sensible way, which is to attempt to minimize how much regret we’ll feel if we end up, panicked, doing the wrong (some)thing. That should be the biggest precaution we want to take.
It is no brainer that from precautionary principle we have to prepare to Climate Change (call it freaky weather, volcano eruption, or whatever). For warming, cooling, drying, or wetting. Build up grain reserves, keep strategic oil reserve full, build electricity generating overcapacity, develop drought-resistant crops, weather-up our homes, etc. Even corn ethanol mandates provide us with safety cushion in case of bad harvest.
But how wasting billions to wage war against plant food gas is going to help?
Hans Christian Andersen would be most amused by the fairytale exposition taking place in Copenhagen today. Alas, the gathering is more Orwellian in nature, scope and agenda. A fable or tragedy about man’s folly to tax the air we breathe and exhale is just waiting to be penned…
Very nice analysis! I wish more lawmakers would read it.
Much of what I’ve seen coming from the “sky is falling” crowd also seems like a thinly-disguised attempt to justify massive government controls over the economy.
In other words, suppose that cheap non-greenhouse-gas-forming energy became widely available (such as fusion power).
Most Americans would say, “Great — now we can keep our industrial society without worries!”. But many of the AGW crowd would be appalled, because they *like* the idea of reducing our technological footprint. They buy into the whole “Small is Beautiful” idea where human industrial activity AS SUCH as considered some sort of blight that must be minimized or eliminated.
In other words, I think that many of the AGW activists would just find some other reason to oppose capitalism, technology, and free markets, even if science and technology eliminated the specific alleged threat of carbon.
(Most ordinary Americans would not, fortunately.)
When insurance companies start selling policies protecting against the loss caused by global warming is when I just may reconsider the precautionary principle. Oh, and I don’t buy insurance for “comet hits my house” either.
Excellent. Here’s another recent take on Friedman and the “principle.” Since the probability of Mr. Friedman suffering in the future (say the next 30 years) from some type of brain malady is much greater than 1%, it would be best for him to have it removed, just as a precaution mind you.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/12/roger-pielkes-the-son-nonsense-his-comments-on-sarah-palin-tom-friedman-nyt-re-climategate-etc.html
Doing nothing is always an option.
No one on the left is trying to actually solve the “problem” of the crisis formerly known as “global warming”. If the “problem” were to actually be solved, the left would have to think up another scheme by which to blackmail the West into disgorging itself of its wealth. Why do you think they are all against nuclear power? No, Al Gore and his accomplices have too much money to make by prophesying doom. Resolution is not an option.
Nice, nice, very nice;
So many people, all in
the same device. :>
C&T could be the first domino
in a cascading collapse of the
US (and world) economies and
civilizations, which is the
Gaians goal; When in doubt,
don’t.
It is important to acknowledge that among the causes of the present ecological crisis is the historical responsibility of the industrialized countries.
Why is that so hard?
Remember:
The issue is never the issue.
The issue is control.
In the regret matrix, the first column and second row should be 2 not 3. It is correct in the text but wrong in the matrix.
Very interesting piece, Mr. Simberg.
One needs to look no further than the preponderance of flags w/ the hammer and sickle, signs to end capitalism and exhortations for social justice to understand what this is all about. Most here can see that, but we need to point it out to those who aren’t paying close attetnion.
To that point, Parabellum @6, doing “nothing” is not going to be an option for much longer. Excercise your 2d Amendment rights (as I’m reasonably certain that, with a screen name like yours, you have) and be prepared do do “something” to defend our Republic. Encroachment from many directions is evident, and it’s ‘gonna be time for push-back.
out
AnotherFord@5: Evidently, like most lefties, that’s already been done. The brain, however, is not physically removed, it’s chemically altered with the Koolaid.
5. AnotherFord:
No, no, removing Freidman is not the answer. Clearly, since we all enjoy the same probability of brain malady, the final solution is to remove everybody.
Hail Rush. Go Sarah!
With all the “facts” and figures my head is hurting, but here is a pro=warming site with some interesting things. Scroll down and check out teir take on natural causes of warming:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_cooling.html
10. Kazooskibum:
“Remember: The issue is never the issue. The issue is control.”
Ahhhh, so we didn’t go into Iraq for WMDs . . . not even to liberate a people from a brutal dictator? We went in because of Cheney’s obsession with being in control? Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering about that.
The AGW crowd seems divided into two major camps — one group seems to assume that we have a magical technology awaiting the demise of the car and that all we have to do is kill the car so this magical replacement can step up. The other is in lockstep with Lovelock et al and are beating the Malthusian drum: there are too many people on the planet and the carrying capacity of earth is really only 300 million.
The first group is stupidly optimistic and have a tendency to believe that (e.g.) windpower can provide for all of our needs. They prattle about alternative energy, which is a cargo cult incantation.
The bastardised version of Pascal’s Wager is promoted by the latter group. These are more realistic in that they know there’s no magical technology just around the corner to obviate the car, and they’re luddite enough to pray that this continues. They invoke the Wager because it makes sense until you examine it, and most people are too stupid to do exactly that. These people are the modern Hitlers and Stalins, at least in their belief systems. They prattle about sustainability, which is a euphemism for death camps.
Warmers esse delendam !!!!
***
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=esse+delendam&btnG=Google+Search
n&t: Do you think about what your post before posting it? First, what ecological crisis? Are we in eminent danger of total world catastrophe? Then what crisis are you referring to?
Second, what exactly does that mean? Were industrialized societies supposed to not industrialize, modernize and progress? Were we all to live like sub-sarahan Africa?
That is such a pointless post inside an illogical comment wrapped up in an comatose thought.
Very funny this precautionary principle! Is it the Bush Docterine for global warming?
This present ecological hoax would be settled if indeed the island of Maldive sank along with Toga Toga. Those citizens could relocated to Las Vegas and then most of the world would be convinced that man can change the climate. By 2040 Climatology would be less of an infant science and Gore would have lost his vested interest in offset carbon credits.
You did a somewhat better job of presentation than Economist Audio did this week.
They were FOR limiting carbon dioxide output through a cap and trade system.
I think the evidence is very strongly in favor of going away from fossil fuels if we want to NOT wreck the economy. While catastrophic climate change is based on quite a lot of quite arguable assumptions, other principles
1) peak oil
2) oil money goes to bad people who use it in bad ways
3) other energy sources will provide additional energy and allow more options (those Fusion energy folks with LaRouche were not entirely crazy).
4) not having other energy sources means less flexibility (in military contexts, in dealing geopolitically with Russia, etc.)
are pretty firmly based.
Your analogy is apt.
Rain is real. Its occurance is normal. It’s been raining for about as long as we can measure. Some years it rains more than others. Some years, floods occur. Some years, droughts occur. Man has always adapted to the amount of rainfall.
Only recently has man become so swollen with ego as to think he can control how much rain falls, and where. This fallacy has so permeated the popular culture that most people, when you tell them the truth (you cannot “save the planet”) look at you in disbelief. In politics, it makes gullible, weak politicians appear to be solving a problem that doesn’t exist in order to look good in their own eyes, while making erroneous laws based on a falsehood, wasting vast amounts of resources and money.
It’s time to recognize that we’ve been fooled for many years by contemptuous charlatans whose sole reason for living is to control the lives of others. “Climate change” is merely the lateast excuse.
Also, why don’t the people who apply the precautionary principle ever “eat their own dogfood”. That is, apply the precautionary principle to itself? After all, it’s applied precisely at times of uncertainty to make decisions with unknown consequences. They should show first that the precautionary principle doesn’t cause harm before applying it. My bet is that since the precautionary principle is a far from optimal risk assessment strategy, they’ll instead find that it causes not prevents harm.
Now and Then 9, regarding the West’s “Historical Responsibility”. Even if one were to believe in AGW theory, which obviously many don’t, how do you reconcile the benefit that other countries have received from the industrialized West?
How many airplanes/cell phones/transport ships/electrical generation equipment/synthetic clothing/motor fuels/etc… are developed/invented/manufactured in any of these countries? They have received the benefit of riding the coattails of Western ingenuity and investment, although not to the same degree for a variety of reasons (corruption and lack of a stable rule of law, primarily).
If these countries would like “Western reparations”, then they should give the rest of this stuff back.
18. blotto:
And the snare snaps shut again.
That’s not my quote. The Pope said it. Take it up with the Vicar of God.
dr matt …
peak oil ? right … how many times will that myth get crushed before you stop using it ?
we buy most of our oil from Canada and Mexico … are they “bad people” ?
other energy sources ??? … gee maybe the OTHER nuclear energy form besides fusion ?
So not drilling our own reserves seems pretty stupid now doesn’t it …
My favorite deductive fallacy:
The grass is wet, therefore the (manmade/anthropogenic) sprinklers must have been on last night. Evidence be damned that God made it rain.
So naive, this “precautionary principle”. Something only a child could adopt. I work for a bank that makes loans. Each loan carries a risk that it might not be paid back. So should we stop loaning money entirely? Rejecting a given loan means that we lose potential profit on the loan. So do we approve EVERY loan to avoid the risk of no profit? No, we take an intelligent approach where we balance profit against risk.
n&t@24: Do you think you are cute? Do you think you contribute to the conversation by playing small-minded word games. Is that the extent of your abilities to debate?
So you stole a quote without attribution. That is pi$$-poor etiquette. And it smacks of a simpleton trying to act like an adult. Because you just exposed yourself as a fraud.
Also you are still and forever will be the most vile person here because of what you said about Beck’s handicapped child.
Why should we even bother with you. You are a child no doubt regardless of your chronological age. The perfect tool for the left.
It is clear what we must do…
1. Stop buying anything new – only buy recycled/used items to minimize the impacts of extracting resources from the earth.
2. Stop farming – commercial farming poisons our water and air and decreases biodiversity. We should only eat fruits and nuts that have fully ripened and fallen off the tree.
3. Stop raising animals for food – again the environmental impacts are too great and it is inhumane to kill animals. If we have to eat animals, find one that has already died of natural causes. Save its skin to make clothing.
4. Stop having children – instead, adopt(by force if necessary) the children of the unenlightened and raise them to understand how humanity harms the earth.
5. Sacrifice unbelievers, preferably by throwing them and their worldly belongings into volcanoes. We will reduce their carbon footprint and their ashes will promote global cooling.
6. Believers who feel they aren’t doing enough may volunteer to sacrifice themselves and their loved ones.
We must do these things because it will be catastrophic for the world if we are right about global warming.
#22 BINGO
No thought seems to be given to the economic consequences of restructuring the economic basis of modern civilization, even though a lot of economists have predicted that there will some disastrous results flowing from the adoption of measures like “cap and trade.”
Why doesn’t the precautionary principle apply to social and economic engineering as well?
The precautionary principle is a red herring. There is no need to apply it in the case of AGW and fossil fuels. The evidence is far too strong to require such hedging.
Temperatures are rising, CO2 concentrations are rising rapidly, and the economics supporting a carbon-based energy economy are unsustainable. It is only a matter of time until fossil fuels are rendered obsolete – but the longer we wait to prepare, the farther behind we will be in the new energy economy.
Even a straight cost-benefit analysis makes it abundantly clear that carbon-intensive energy technologies are a poor investment in the long term. If you set aside the lobbying and obfuscation being paid for by the fossil fuel industry, there is no debate on how to proceed.
The cost-benefit analysis also would show that the sooner we invest in clean technology, the greater the benefit to our economy and our ecosystem. There is no downside to weaning our economy off of fossil fuels.
Peace.
DS
Progressives/Leftists are a nihilist death cult ever in search of a palatable Kool-Aid recipe for the rest of us.
G77 needs NOT accept anything. They should just watch Western nations commits mass suicide. Anyway according to self-loathing leftists, all the ills of the world came from these western greed. Please, drink the kool-aid faster the better.
Global warming theory is pushed because the British queen is a frigid b++++ and likes to be cold. That is why AAAS head Margaret Mead, in 1976 had the line switched from the perils of “Global Cooling.” Otherwise the data is all faked to fall in line with the theory. Will you committ Nazi genocide for a BS theory cooked up by the financial oligarchy? Will you let Obama sign the USA to this garbage?
Here’s a You Tube parody juxtaposing Al Gore’s reading of his climate change poem with apocalyptic imagery (and note the last clip from the old movie “Crack in the World”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mCngWelRTk
DS@31: I admit you are tendacious even in the face of evidence to the contrary that discredits everything you posted. Gotta hand it to you mind-numbed progressives, you are totally indoctrinated and brainwashed of any sanity or realism.
Blotto:
“n&t@24: Do you think you are cute? Do you think you contribute to the conversation by playing small-minded word games. Is that the extent of your abilities to debate?”
First, yep, I’m pretty sure that ‘Now and Then’ thinks he’s cute.
Second, I don’t think he cares to ‘contribute’ to the conversation. If he had anything of substance to contribute, he would. He doesn’t, so reverts to form – small-minded word games.
Third, laying ‘traps’ appears to be the extent of his debate skills. Period. Actually discussing points raised in a blog and offering different viewpoints supported by reason is (apparently) beyond his capabilities. Unfortunate.
But you have to admit, his approach has it’s advantages. It’s VERY difficult to debate with Now & Then when he doesn’t present any of his own arguments – you only end up ‘debating’ someone else….
I’m more concerned about a meteor striking the earth. Not only is it not improbable, it’s likely. That would have worse consequences than global warming. We need to put a defense system into orbit and colonize Mars immediately. I don’t care how expensive it is.
My alarmist fear trumps yours. In fact, we can invoke a near infinite number of disaster scenarios to which we can apply the precautionary principle. We need to do them all.
31, David S: “Temperatures are rising, CO2 concentrations are rising rapidly, and the economics supporting a carbon-based energy economy are unsustainable.”
The CO2/temperature thought clearly confuses correlation with causation. There is really not very much good, uncorrupted science that indicates that increased CO2 causes global temps to rise, and a lot of alternative ideas alive and well. It isn’t even clear that temps are now still rising even as CO2 increases. Also, the notion that a carbon-based energy economy is unsustainable is, in my opinion, nothing more than a silly assertion. Such economies have brought us unimagined benefits for over 100 years, and will continue to do so if luddites and statist politicians don’t get in the way.
Further behind whom? Behind the other nations who aren’t doing anything?
I think the word you’re looking for is certain. Unless we do something, that is.
Much like the combined threat of AGW and failing to achieve a position in the latest energy economy.
David S@31, you assume you are right. Let’s correct that assumption. First, the evidence for AGW is not that strong. CO2 levels aren’t rising rapidly. Sure, fossil fuels will eventually be rendered obsolete. But the strategy of anticipating that obsolescence, perhaps by centuries, seems poorly thought out. Why not switch when fossil fuels become obsolete rather than when they’re still useful?
One can’t set aside the debate merely because the other side has a vested interest different from your own. And by all means, conduct that cost/benefit analysis (since such has been lacking) though there’s no reason to assume that it’ll show that “clean technology” is the better choice.
28 blotto:
I’m sorry, but I can’t muster any respect for the opinions of someone who calls the Pope’s guidance illogical, pointless and comatose. That is so . . . what’s the word . . . vile.
37. Curtis M:
Nice of you to stick up for the downtrodden. I raise plenty of cogent arguments around here. They are not debated because they are unassailable. Take, for instance, my premise that conservatives are not interested in facts but only false pretense and knee jerk condemnation. I know I have a good example of that here somewhere. Let me check my files.
Stick together, fellas. It’ll ease the pain.
#31
“The evidence is far too strong to require such hedging.”
Evidence of what? Climate change? Or AGW? Because the two are NOT the same. I have seen lots of evidence for climate change, never mind the fact that the climate had ALWAYS changed and never mind the fact that the science behind saying it is warming was not really based upon scientific principals.
NO proof has been provided that mankind is the driving factor. Just a theory that their COULD be a relationship, a theory which many scientists say could have other meanings… but since all the data went missing its a little difficult to work with now isn’t it?
I agree there is no downside to moving toward alternate energy… the market will take care of this all by itself… it doesn’t require the government.
And here’s a related Precautionary Principle motivational poster: http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/12/precautionary-principle-motivational.html
The usual suspects tromp in and make unsubstantiated claims (unsubstantiated because of large numbers of scientists and engineers that don’t buy it and because the data has been shown to be specious) and think they have won the argument, without a cogent argument.
Just like all their other posts on all the other articles.
AGW has been busted. Swallow your pride and go talk to solar astronomers. The long term rise and fall of global temperatures mirror the activity of the sun. No “adjusting” of the data needed. It works for the other planets in the solar system too! I won’t say the science is settled because anyone who claims that is a politician or a fanatic. However it is closer than anything the AGW acolytes have produced (or manufactured).
To beggar the world, everyone who isn’t a politician or dictator, to condemn the world to a grey oppressive Orwellian society, this is a horrible thing. To guarantee billions more will face hunger or death by starvation to feed politicians grandiose megalomania is criminal.
I had to laugh when the African representative in Copenhagen demanded 100s of billions of dollars for Africa. That poor continent is misgoverned by more dictators and oligarchies and now is to be mismanaged and abandoned by the UN who will be pumping billions of dollars into a few hundred hands.
China demands that we do something, but refuses to be bound by any agreement made there while the US and Europe would be bound. Bound is the operative word.
This is vile work done by hucksters and idiots.
I am always amused by people who hide behind the precautionary principle. If they really thought it to be determinative, they would never do anything, because to do anything could always lead to a catastrophic consequence. If I eat, I could choke and I could die; If I go into car, it could crash and I could die; if I go into a plane, it could crash and I could die; if I go into the Washington Metro, it could crash and I could die; if I cross the street, a vehicle could hit me and I could die, etc., etc. Despite such catastrophic consequences, these people no doubt, eat, drive, fly, take public transportation, cross streets and so forth. If they think the precautionary principle is so determinative, why don’t they apply first apply it to themselves before imposing it on the rest of us?
Adapting the precautionary principles poses problem. The opposite may true of what you think is true and applying the precautionary principle could lead another kind of catastrophe. Just let’s suppose that in fact there is indeed AGW (man-made, not Mann-made) and CO2 is the cause; let’s suppose further, in view of the earth’s recent cooling, that we may be entering into another ice age. (Remember, at this point, none of the temperature reading can be viewed as reliable, so I can make the assumption of cooling without being contradicted by facts.) If my last supposition is true, then maybe AGW is preventing us from going into another ice age. An application of the precautionary principle in this case would be catastrophic (more so than the anything bad as a consequence of AGW).
Now and Then @ #9 – The response to you by Steeple @ #23 is spot-on. The points made by Steeple really show how starkly the West has improved the lot of the humanity. I just want to add a few more points to those made by Steeple. The first and most important contribution of the West is the concept of individual liberty and representative government; for the most part you won’t find that outside of the West. Then there are a couple of more things I should point out: polio vaccines, smallpox vaccines, antibiotics, medicine in general, computers, televisions, telephones, material abundance, etc., etc. I can go on and on. If you really think the West is such a bad place to be, I suggest you vote with your feet and find an appropriate third or fourth world country that suits your tastes better. Zimbabwe and Venezuela comes to mind.
Dr. Matt @ #20: You say: “I think the evidence is very strongly in favor of going away from fossil fuels if we want to NOT wreck the economy.” Dr. Matt, right now the only way we know how to produce energy efficiently is through burning hydrocarbons. Any movement away from that model at this time is likely to wreck the economy and make us all the much poorer. You mention several reasons why you think we should we move away from hydrocarbons. The first is the peak oil problem. The peak oil problem has always been there, but funny thing, it is always ten (or twenty) years in the future and we never seem to get there. I do not think it is a problem for the foreseeable future. (Of course Paul Ehrlich would disagree, but in the 1970s he claimed it would certainly have happened by now, and it hasn’t, so don’t listen to the worry warts who think we will run of hydrocarbons anytime soon.) Then you mention giving money to bad guys as well as having more flexibility if other sources were available. As for the bad guy problem, there is plenty of oil in and around the US: Alaska, off the Florida Atlantic coast and off the California coast (and probably other places I don’t know). Our whacko environmental laws have prevented us from exploiting those resources, and so we give money to bad guy. Also exploiting those resources would give much more flexibility to act then we have now. As for other energy sources outside of hydrocarbons, we have atomic energy which the environmental whackos have litigated to death. We also have hydroelectric energy sources (those big dams) – but those have been reduced in importance, again because of the environmental whackos. As for new energy sources, I think the private market should be allowed to continue developing them without government assistance. Eventually, substitutes will be found for hydrocarbons, but it will take a while.
Glenn Reynolds keeps saying that when the bigshots who say it’s a crisis start significantly modifying their own behavior, he’ll start taking them seriously.
I’ll start taking the AGW Greens seriously when they seriously push back against their own extremists who impede nuclear, solar and wind power. I’ll start taking them seriously when they get behind the solutions that moderate warmists and skeptics can both accept.
By refusing to do so, the Greens may be endangering civilization as much as they claim the traditional energy industry is doing.
No enemies on the Left. No enemies on the Green.
47. Well, we could use nuclear; we should use nuclear. The problem is that building nuclear plants is a massive capital expenditure. To eliminate the need for fossil fuels would require about $2-4 trillion. It would pay for itself eventually, but coming up with that kind of money up front is difficult to say the least.
now & then, you’re not clever enough by half! I can’t remember any links or facts cited by you that were attributable, though I don’t doubt that I’ve not seen all your posts. But from what I have seen, you’re worse than bc who cites the lamest most fact-barren “evidence”. That reminds me…
bc, you evidently didn’t read the atlasshrugs post. The character assasination piece you supplied the link for didn’t address the topic, which is no surprise. “Kill the messenger!”, right? She didn’t wtite the piece, bc. You’d know that if you read the article! Nor would you have supplied the link for MPI.
MPI is a well-renowned and prestigious institution, yes. But, since you evidently didn’t look too closely at that one either, please do so. You’ll find that the information they used (and they actually linked to wikipedia, the home page, not the relevant data sets which I found after five minutes!) for the 1000 yr temps were supplied by folks like Mann and other group-thinkers mentioned in the CRU e-mails. Further, the data for the last part of the graph (in black) was supplied directly by the CRU @ East Anglia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Referring back to the wattsupwiththat post (where she found it!),
you probably shouldn’t have used MPI as your evidence. Not only was it based on data that’s proven to be falsified, but it’s one (yeah, one) guy! try these German scientists, all 130+ of ‘em!
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Another-Hit-More-than-60-German-Scientists-Dissent-Over-Global-Warming-Claims-Call-Climate-Fears-Pseudo-Religion-Urge-Chancellor-to-reconsider-views
C’Mon, bc! If you’re interested in real answers, stop parroting the party line! Have you, in all seriousness, actually read the disections of the CRU e-mails? If you’re truly that hard-left, then you should do a better job of researching your arguments as you must know by now that most here are reading them and shooting them down. It took me about thirty minutes. The time stamp reflects the time I took to feed and bathe my kids. Point being, your stuff’s weak! I know others here bad-mouth you pretty regularly and have no hope for you, but I would like to know what you (YOU) think of the CRU e-mails, not the party line.
Try this link. I just found it. Frankly, it made my head hurt, but it’s another explanation of the falsification of the data.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/12/fables-of-the-reconstruction.html
over
I’d be interested in how this analysis would work if the possibility of global warming being a GOOD thing were accounted for. With all the uncertainty afoot, what about the possibility that a one degree warming might actually end up as an improvement?
What I find interesting here, is that the key reason why this question hasn’t been answered is because the AGW zealots consider any change as a priori a bad thing… which is funny, considering that these are mostly the same people who like to attack conservatives for their reactionary fear of… change.
The cost-benefit analysis also would show that the sooner we invest in clean technology, the greater the benefit to our economy and our ecosystem. There is no downside to weaning our economy off of fossil fuels.
You raise the issue of cost-benefit analysis, so tell us just which clean technologies can turn a profit anytime soon? Which clean technology has the best net energy yield? Which clean energy uses the least water to process? What about nuclear power – which probably is the most environmentally benign form of electricity generation? Will orthodox Environmentalists (it’s proper to capitalize names of religions), who revile things like genetic manipulation, object to biofuels made with genetically engineered biotics?
Dave S:
This link contains a chart on temperature and CO2 levels over geologic time:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Scroll down until you find the graph.
Observe that average global temperature has fluctuated in a fairly narrow range of approximately 10 degrees C irrespective of CO2 levels. You might also note that the current mean global temperature is far below the long term mean and median temperatures.
350 ppm CO2 is all the rage with today’s AGW believers yet the planet did not turn into Venus at CO2 levels far higher then 1000ppm. This alone should debunk the AGW thesis.
I admire your attempt to come in and argue your position on this scientific controversy. It would be helpful if you actually knew something about science.
Peace
47. Jack in Silver Spring:
Petrified by the Precautionary Principle.
Exactamundo. There is a very nice SF short
about that: Man reading morning paper full
of horrible examples, wife says “Do you want
ham or bacon with your eggs ?”…:)
The application of the PP to AGW & C&T is
also apt, and better founded; The world is
in enough economic trouble already.
Now and Then:
“Nice of you to stick up for the downtrodden.”
?
“I raise plenty of cogent arguments around here. They are not debated because they are unassailable.”
First, I personally haven’t seen any of your ‘cogent’ arguments around here. My fault; I guess I need to keep a sharper look out for them.
“Take, for instance, my premise that conservatives are not interested in facts but only false pretense and knee jerk condemnation. I know I have a good example of that here somewhere. Let me check my files.”
Oh goody goody goody, a ‘cogent argument’ from N&T. Oh, super. Let’s debate:
First, I’ll stipulate that you can find an example of “false pretense and knee jerk condemnation” from a conservative. Okay?
Second, just for shiites and grins, let’s stipulate that I could find an example of “false pretense and knee jerk condemnation” from (gasp) a liberal. I know, far fetched, but stay with me on this….
Third, would my one (or two or a thousand) of said examples of liberals resorting to “false pretense and knee jerk condemnation” mean that all liberals, as a rule, are not interested in facts? No? Okay.
Might it be more accurate to say that the individual (liberal or conservative) who resorts to false pretense and knee jerk condemnation is an individual who is not interested in facts?
BTW – would using quotes from someone else without attribution, in order to set a trap for other participants, be an example of “resorting to false pretense”? Just asking….
47. Jack in Silver Spring:
Tell it to the Pope.
#16 by NAT
“We went in[to Iraq] because of Cheney’s obsession with being in control?”
This person has a very bad memory. He/she thinks Cheney was the Potus, but he was really only the VicePotus. His/her question should be about Bush, no? In any case it is a stupid question.
I have spent many months studying AGW – it is a FRAUD.
The only real increase in temperatures is caused by manipulation by ‘scientist’ and extremely sloppy worldwide temperature records.
At most the temperature has really gone up 0.1 deg F in the past 100 years. The temp records have been adjusted up (+) about 0.5 deg F in UHI (Urban Heat Island) situations – when they should have been adjusted to ‘Rural’ zons to match historical records.
The temperatures have not been correctly normalized for humidity and elevation… and for ‘Climate Zones’ (California has 16 zones all to itself) – there are Thousands of these zones around the world and they are not accurately accounted for.
The thermometer data only goes back about 150 years… the rest of the data has been ‘proxied’ ‘faked’ or otherwise man generated.
Mike Man faked the hockey stick – this was hard coded into the data handling programs at the ‘research’ centers.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The earth has always undergone climate change… and always will.
We need to plan for these NATURAL DEVIATIONS from todays temps, and moisture, etc.
Rain Forests should not be cut down to make palm oil! and weneed to plan for change… but we are NOT going to stop the NATURAL forces.
CO2 is plant food, if you make the false assumption that it causes any problem, you must accept the consequences of reduced crop production (ask a farmer), starvation and upsetting the natural balance.
see http://joannenova.com.au/ for more info
#31 More false statements than stars in the heavens.
One. The Earth is cooling now not warming. Two, nobody knows if there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there ever was before because the Earth is over 4Bil years old. The instruments measuring CO2 in the atmosphere a billion years ago were not very accurate, now were they. Three, there is little to no evidence that warming nor cooling are related to CO2 in the atmosphere. Such evidence at best is, to use the librul-favored term of the day, not robust. (Is Nancy Pelosi the one who kicked off this buzzword in order to call attention to her ample and possibly amplified chest?)
Fred:
Well, yes we do know the answer to the CO2 question. CO2 is at the lowest level since the carboniforous era.
This is a giant environmental Ponzi scheme. Make room in prison for Al Gore and Hansen et al. and Jones et al. and Mann et al. and Solomon et al. etc. etc. 150 years each, minimum.
The data manipulation is just the tip of the Climategate iceberg. The hockey stick was used to ‘calibrate’ the IPCC models that then predict even more global warming. Garbage in, gospel out. The whole concept of radiative forcing used in these models is invalid. The Earth’s climate is not in equilbrium, so radiative forcing perturbation theory does not even predict a real surface temperature. The fundamental assumption that there is a CO2 induced warming signature in the meteorogical record is incorrect. Put some real physical meaning into those radiative forcing constants. How does a 1.7 W.m-2 increase in downward atmospheric LWIR flux over 200 years cause any kind of climate change? The flux interacts with the ground, along with 0 to 1000 W.m-2 of solar flux and at least 0 to 50 W.m-2 of changes in cloud cover. The meterological thermometer is in an enclosure at eye level. It is incapable of detecting a flux change of 1.7 Wm-2 in a 0 to 1050 W.m-2 signal on the ground below. The long term changes in the meteorological temperature record are from variations ocean surface temperatures. That’s where our weather comes from!
By the way, it is also impossible for that 1.7 W.m-2 of IR flux to warm the ocean. The penetration depth for LWIR radiation into water is less than 100 micron. Thats the width of a human hair. Only the sun can heat the ocean. Just count those sunspots. An index of 100 is + 1 W.m-2. Look at the satellite radiometer data (try VIRGO). That’s all it takes. The ocean just accumulates the solar flux below the surface, and then sends it to the poles. If a 1 W.m-2 flux heats a 100 m column of water with an area of 1 m^2 for 1 year the temperature rise is 0.075 C. 0.4 W.m-2 over 10,000 years is enough to end an ice age.
Shut down down those IPCC climate astrology models and remove the radiative forcing components. The question then is how much of the rest of the climate simulation code has been ‘adjusted’? And what jail sentences should be handed out for fraud? Remember Bernie Madoff. This is just a giant environmental Ponzi scheme. Make room for Al Gore and Hansen et al. and Jones et al. and Mann et al. and Solomon et al. etc. etc. 150 years each, minimum.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/16/copenhagen-highlights-the-latest-evidence-of-global-torture/#more-14230
57. Fred Beloit:
No. Fred, sorry, but Cheeney was president. Oh, and thanks for clearing up that whole “science” thing. But somebody should tell Sarah Palin that the Earth is 4 billion years old, not 6,000 years old. Sure would hate to see her blog that.
55. Curtis M:
So desperate is the heart stung by the arrow of truth. Keep pedaling. Keep believing you’ll catch me, and my little dog, too. And keep a sharp eye. You never know what lies hidden in the leaves.
Now and Then:
“So desperate is the heart stung by the arrow of truth. Keep pedaling. Keep believing you’ll catch me, and my little dog, too. And keep a sharp eye. You never know what lies hidden in the leaves.”
Okay, I’m keeping out a sharp eye. Was this an example of one of your ‘cogent arguments’?
Just asking…..
It’s time to kick now and then to curb. He has even less to offer a scientific discussion then BC but perhaps N&T is BC by a different name.
The last time I looked risk is quantified as the probability of an occurrence times the severity of the outcome. According to Friedman a 1% probability x 100 severity (extinction event) is still a 1% risk. This is not worth destroying the economy over when there our other ways to minimize the small risk.
It is said that the mathematician Blaise Pascal also invented differential equations for the fun of it solely because he thought them to be useless. Every engineer knows that he was wrong.
It seems to me that an even better criterion for making the choice if you know the probabilities is to minimize the expected regret.
This is what we normally do. That is, if it is already pouring out we take our umbrellas, if we have them. If the forecast is a 99 percent chance of rain we do so as well. As that probability goes down, our inclination to carry the umbrella does so as well, and at some probability we leave it home. That natural behavior is our way of estimating the minimum in expected regret.
It seems to me that an even better criterion for making the choice if you know the probabilities is to minimize the expected regret.
This is what we normally do. That is, if it is already pouring out we take our umbrellas, if we have them. If the forecast is a 99 percent chance of rain we do so as well. As that probability goes down, our inclination to carry the umbrella does so as well, and at some probability we leave it home. That natural behavior is our way of estimating the minimum in expected regret.
Leftists are predictable:
They hold up strawmen, destroy them, and then claim that’s what conservatives meant all along.
They make absolute and unconditional assertions of fact, and when those assertions are refuted, decline to admit error or to stand their ground.
They invoke “science” when real science is nowhere in sight.
They make ad hominem and tu quoque sallies as if they were proof of their position.
Likewise their appeals to emotion and accusations of hard-heartedness.
They cite “authorities” who have no claim to authority, but fail to respect authorities who’ve earned their authority.
When all else fails, they spout nonsense and blame conservatives for not understanding it.
There is absolutely no reason to argue with such persons.
myth buster #49 writes, “Well, we could use nuclear; we should use nuclear. The problem is that building nuclear plants is a massive capital expenditure. To eliminate the need for fossil fuels would require about $2-4 trillion. It would pay for itself eventually, but coming up with that kind of money up front is difficult to say the least.”
That amount of money is about 10x the market cap of Exxon Mobil. Here’s a possible scenario whereby a rational society might raise it:
The government does two things: it streamlines the regulatory process, and it provides extended tax guarantees on the nuclear profits. To mitigate against political meddling, the second thing, and perhaps the first, are backed with claims on the Treasury.
For their part, industrial consortia issue securities that cover the expenses of designing a set of plants and securing regulatory approval; the payout of the securities is future dividends (if any) or/and the right to buy shares in the actual plants at a discount to the IPO price. To cover the cost of construction and start-up, stock in the actual plants is issued when regulatory approval has been obtained.
Unfortunately–I’d like to be wrong–, the needed level of rationality probably makes this “possible” scenario an “imaginary” scenario.
Another point that seems to be missing from the discussion is what is the expected result of implementing all of these drastic measures on our climate. I have seen no claims that these drastic reductions would prevent global warming in any measurable way.
Since nothing we do can forstall the impending disaster, I find it odd that there is no mention of using our wealth to adapt to the changing environment. Here in CA I don’t see any of our educated ‘elite’ putting their beach front property up for sale and moving to higher ground. If I recall from “Inconvenient Truth” we only have six years and one month left.
65. tdiinva:
Nervous? Trust me, you have nothing to fear if you deal in truth. As for science, Sarah Palin says she knows that humans as we know us and dinosaurs co-existed because they found human footprints inside dinosaur tracks. That was just before she started speaking in tongues. If you’re looking to advise people who they should listen to, I’d worry less about me and more about her.
Here’s an example of the “Precautionary Principle” applied (from Chicago):
“Youse should give Vinny $150 each week lest something bad happen to youse business!!”
Now and Then: “I raise plenty of cogent arguments around here”
Not for quite some time now, N&T
Methinks you have delusions of adequacy.
Memo to the idiot “now and then”. Kinda hard not to notice your hatred of America. Funny how when it comnes to “green” issues you seems awfully quiet about oh say RED CHINA, the worlds most polluted nation. Or about the mess that CHERNOBYL created in 1986. Chernobyl was so bad no one can go near it even TODAY. Im wondering Soros butt kisser “now and then”-where is your criticism of RED CHINA, or the former SOVIET UNION? Or, do you REFUSE to include them because there COMMUNIST IDEOLOGY excuses them?
Now and Then @ #56: And how does that contribute to the conversation? In any event, the Pope and I don’t attend the same houses of worship, so I can never tell him.
“Leftists are predictable:……”
To be fair, I’ve been a participant on some boards which were populated by a (somewhat) even % of both liberals and conservatives AND (believe it or not) been able to engage in fairly intelligent debate….wherein rational arguments, and thoughtful discussions, came from both sides. It helps a GREAT DEAL if everyone on the board shares a common interest in something besides political ideology and so has a basis for respecting the other participants, at least on some level.
So it’s difficult for me to jump right into agreement with the balance of your post. I’ve seen my share of conservatives who, on occasion, erect strawmen, make absolute and unconditional assertions of fact, etc. etc.
To your last point: is there absolutely no reason to argue with such persons? Depends on what one considers a valid ‘reason’. Sometimes us rednecks enjoy getting just a dirty as the pig…..
Now and Then:
“Sarah Palin says she knows that humans as we know us and dinosaurs co-existed because they found human footprints inside dinosaur tracks.”
Source please.
Source please.
Hint: the creature had to pull down its diaper to get it.
79/80
The source is Sarah Palin. Oh, you mean a source source? Well, it’s not Fox News, it doesn’t come from a recovering drug addict and/or alcoholic or serial sexual harrasser, but maybe you can see your way clear to consider a source that is somewhat less . . . lurid. And remember, this is the savior of the conservative movement (actually, I shouldn’t be surprised about that). Worse yet, this is the “gal” you want as president.
The LA Times reports:
Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago — about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct — the teacher said.
After conducting a college band and watching Palin deliver a commencement address to a small group of home-schooled students in June 1997, Wasilla resident Philip Munger said, he asked the young mayor about her religious beliefs.
Palin told him that “dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time,” Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said “she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks,” recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska.
The idea of a “young Earth” — that God created the Earth about 6,000 years ago, and dinosaurs and humans coexisted early on — is a popular strain of creationism.
Though in her race for governor she called for faith-based “intelligent design” to be taught along with evolution in Alaska’s schools, Gov. Palin has not sought to require it, state educators say.”
And the snare slams shut again. I warned you about stuff hidden in the leaves. You really gotta start paying attention. Please, feel free to resume pedaling.
@81 – It took about 30 seconds with Google to find out that:
a) the comments Mr. Munger attribute to Sarah Palin have neither been confirmed by Palin nor corroborated by another source.
b) far more than being a “local music teacher”, Mr. Munger is a “progressive” activist who is an official in the Alaska Democratic party and who maintained a blog highly critical of Sarah Palin during the last presidential election.
It seems a bit ironic that you snark at Fox News and yet appear to take on faith that the LA Times has fully informed its readership about the provenance of information it considers derogatory to a conservative politician. Its almost like the LA Times was trying to assemble a story about Sarah Palin because it was . . . lurid.
So is that snare you have in your pocket part of the old line ” a delusion, a mockery and a snare?”
But that isn’t the reason I was posting here – instead, I want to miss the point of the essay completely and deflect discussion onto a side issue.
Mr. Simberg uses Pascal’s wager as an exemplar of the precautionary principle, but it strikes me that it can also be considered a special case of the game theory cost analysis (regret analysis) he uses so effectively to demolish the case for economic suicide being made by the AGW crowd.
The law of cosines doesn’t disprove the Pythagorean theorem – it just reduces it to a special case. In the same way, one can recast Pascal’s wager to being a valid special case of regret matrix based decision making.
One can make the case that the maximum regret in Pascal’s wager is infinite (since the outcome is an eternal sundering of fellowship with God.) Therefore, for any non-zero possibility, the regret matrix will always indicate taking the wager is a good idea.
I’m not advocating for that approach, but it strikes me that the wager is not necessarily an instance of the precautionary principle, or a good starting point for discussing why the precautionary principle makes no sense as a guide to decision making.
What I found upsetting even before Climategate is that slamming the brakes on carbon emissions was never even a realistic option. The countries that signed Kyoto didn’t fulfill their commitments to cut CO2. The lesser developed world won’t even make commitments. China and India will increase their carbon footprint into the indefinite future. The carbon footprint for the USA might reduce a little, but for the world as a whole it will continue to grow.
Atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise for decades under the most optimistic scenario. That raises the question of why the UN and many world leaders are so eager for so much resources to be committed to a plan that their own models say will not prevent the globe from continuing to warm.
This “precautionary principle is depended on who wants to what, right. What will actually happen is not a part of the consideration.
For example. Long ago it turned out that people thought the Missouri riverbottom–the part not currently occupied buy the river–was a fine place to farm.
But people worried that if it rained really hard like it does every now and again, the river might reclaim the part of its bed that they were living on and farming.
So the precautionary principle was invoked and the Corps of Engineers, in dire need of something to do, build big walls to keep the river out of the part of the riverbottom that was us4ed (by the river) to store excess water.
So it turns out that doing something was worse that not doing it.
Too bad we didn’t do like the Egyptians did–they dammed the river that gave them their life blood and kept it from ever flooding again.
Until it silts up like a lot of our “flood control” dams have done.
Some time not doing a thing is the precautionary thing to do.
Particularly when it becomes clear that you have no idea how something works and you have to lie about it to sell your precautionary damage.
82. sfalphageek:
What choice do you have but to say, “Nuh uh!” Clearly, you think anybody critical of Palin can’t possibly be right or truthful. And if you’re looking to Palin to admit to her failings you’re gonna have a long wait. So, all you’re left with is simple denial, adequate (even habitual) for many around here, but woefully short of the mark among adults.
Keep pedaling.
“In other words, I think that many of the AGW activists would just find some other reason to oppose capitalism, technology, and free markets, even if science and technology eliminated the specific alleged threat of carbon.
(Most ordinary Americans would not, fortunately.)” Paul Hsieh [emphasis added]
Absolutely true. The AGW crowd, like Progressives in general, care nothing about ensuring safe conditions for humans, just as they actually care nothing for the sick, the poor, the [fill in the au courant downtrodden group du jour]. They care about controlling the choices of others, or at least getting the sick, vicarious thrill of seeing those choices controlled.
The problem is that those AGW activists/progressives in general have extremely powerful friends who will similarly use any excuse to increase their control over those ordinary Americans and, as yet, no one has discovered any way to effectively counter them. As a result, while it will be pleasurable to see AGW tossed into the historical dustbin, we’re nowhere near advancing the cause of freedom yet.
Desperate, rearguard actions to avoid total fascism is essential right now, but simply keeping the mace from crushing your head during the battle is not the same as living a life of freedom.
We need to find a way to get off defense.
Now and Then -
“The source is Sarah Palin. Oh, you mean a source source? Well, it’s not Fox News……”
Philip Munger is the source? PHILIP MUNGER? A liberal activist (and AVOWED liberal activist)and regular blogger at Daily Kos and Progressive Alaska with an apparent fixation on Sarah Palin? THAT PHILIP MUNGER? THAT’S your source?
The guy is an avowed anti-creationist (recognized by New Scientist magazine for his efforts to counter creationism) AND a serial Palin-basher and HE, of ALL PEOPLE, just HAPPENED to have this conversation with Palin (back when she was just Mayor of Wasilla)?
How conveeeeeeeeeeeenient.
Did this random conversation between a conservative mayor of Wasilla and a liberal activist occur just before or just after the snake handling? I don’t suppose Munger also witnessed the ‘speaking in tongues’ that you mentioned earlier, or did you just throw that in for spice? I don’t suppose Munger also heard Palin accuse all scientists as being in league with……SAY-TON!!!!!.
You know, Now and Then you’re kinda funny. But also, Now and Then you’re kinda pathetic.
Now and Then:
“What choice do you have but to say, “Nuh uh!”…
And what choice do YOU have but to source your material from liberal bloggers reporting anecdotal conversations from the previous millenia?
Just asking….
@86 I choose to say “Huh?”
How do you get from my doubting the veracity of an unsubstantiated, unverified report from someone who is bitterly opposed to Sarah Palin politically, published in a newspaper that favors ideology over fact-checking to “clearly, you think anybody critical of Palin can’t possibly be right or truthful?”
Tell me, when you’re building your strawman, do you ever find yourself humming “If I only had a brain?”
BTW: Not that Sarah Palin would be my first choice to be running the country right now, but if I had to choose, I’d much rather have someone in charge who thought that the entire human race was descended from Fred Flintstone than someone who believed that Keynesian economics was a viable policy option. Its a heck of a lot easier to assemble an evidence based case for the first proposition than for the second . . .
Curtis, Curtis, Curtis . . . It’s kind of sad to see such gymnastic denial. I school your ilk. It hurts, I know. So many here have felt the same thing. Perhaps you should seek out those victims, maybe start a support group. Commiseration is good for the soul. They might be able to help you come forward into the light, set aside your Dana Carvey fixation in favor of thinking that is a bit more . . . contemporary.
Now, I know you’re used to getting your information from AVOWED rodeo clowns and AVOWED oxycontin junkies and AVOWED falafel fetishists. Don’t take it personally, I don’t blame you. I blame your lack of standards. Your paucity of discernment. Seems to me that a resident of Wasilla who knew Palin is a better source than you or anyone you listen to on Fuk Snooze. So, stop speaking for others and start thinking for yourself. It’s liberating! It’s free! It’s patriotic! But first, tell me, what’s a millenia?
Watch out for those leaves now. I sense danger.
Precautionary Principle: According to the Fermi Paradox, it’s likely that there are Klingons getting read to attack. We must divert all resources to be prepared for a space attack.
“Warm mongers like him propose to spend trillions of dollars now to prevent an unknown amount of cost later”
Actually, “billions” is more like it. And the changes can be reversed, despite what certain doom-sayers like to point out. The issue at this point isn’t about making all the changes overnight in a big bang – the problem for the advocates right now is to just get agreement globally to do anything at all. It’s a global problem, and the response IS going to be vast (so keep those big numbers rolling in – calculated globally, the world spends billions on pretty much everything, including toilet paper to pencils), but it’s not actually going to cost most people very much – again, despite what the doomsayers like to point out.
This is what politicians do all the time – weigh up risks (economic, person and political) vs evidence to come up with policy.
I’m comfortable with seeing an agreement to start getting mechanisms in place. Policy makers will be able to keep an eye on the science as it progresses. In 20-30 years time, if it does turn out to have been a giant boondoggle, we’ll just roll it all back. Putting aside the wailing and gnashing of teeth, the overall cost will actually be fairly small, given the possible risks.
Skeptics like to point out that the most extreme climate predictions are bogus – and they’re right to do so. But not enough people are pointing out that the most extreme economic predictions of doom and destruction (which is most of them) are EQUALLY bogus. We aren’t destroying the world economy by reducing CO2 emissions – unless you’re a jet-setter, you probably won’t even notice the impact at all.
Great comments on a very good article. The Scenario analysis must go something like this:
1) The earth is warming beyond normal variation (very difficult to prove).
2) Warming is bad (virtually all life likes it hotter, and sea doesn’t appear to be rising).
3) It is man’s fault (the Co2 thing).
4) Trillion dollar schemes now that disrupt the world economies, along with world taxation bureaucracies, even without world participation, is better than counting on continued innovation in the next 100-150 years.
Even using IPCC figures, you would never do what they suggest. Never. DRILL BABY DRILL.
from #93
“I’m comfortable with seeing an agreement to start getting mechanisms in place. Policy makers will be able to keep an eye on the science as it progresses. In 20-30 years time, if it does turn out to have been a giant boondoggle, we’ll just roll it all back.”
Actually, every source does say “TRILLIONs” is more like it. And how many massive government programs have you ever known to “just roll back”? It never happens, the only thing the government is getting adept at rolling back is personal freedoms.
For me it comes down to a simple tenent…. do you trust the government? I don’t. Therfore I do not want to give them greater power.
Here’s how we know this isn’t about global warming:
IF all we wanted to do is lower CO2, we would:
1) legislate new building laws that use cisterns and put more of the building under the earth as an insulator, and institute existing technology which uses the earth to cool and heat air; much more efficient.
2) Collapse zoning laws so corner markets, offices and pubs, etc. would have a much higher chance of being within walking distance. BTW, it would lower crime as well.
3) Propose tax incentives for work from home programs.
The above would drastically reduce fossil fuel use, with no cost to the taxpayer.
I agree with Brian@95. It’s trillions of dollars and a roll back would have to occur against a lot of opposition since a) program advocates never willing roll back, and b) the evidence will never be conclusive (namely, plenty of AGW supporters will claim the policy worked). AGW supporters need to show that human activity is directly linked to extremely harmful levels of global warming, that near future action is required, and that alternatives (including doing nothing) are inferior to CO2 emission reduction. That’s because we’re otherwise committing to the largest and most expensive pig in a poke in history.
90. sfalphageek:
“favors ideology over fact-checking”
Ever here of a little piece of fiction called Going Rogue? She makes Ann Coulter look genuine. (No easy feat.)
Folks, don’t feed the troll. It’s science.
Precautionary Principle is nothing but a Panic Principle, that says ‘while we are running around like chickens with our heads cut off and dont’ understand the problem or even if there is one….. we should DO SOMETHING, even if it means burning up the worlds food supply (corn) and turning the worlds rain forests into biofuels plantations.
I prefer the ‘precauyionary principle’ that says until there is a fair scientific debate with adequate peer review and no attempt to silence scientists on an issue, we don’t over react, that we don’t create panic, don’t burn the worlds food supply (corn) at the behest of the EU policy to turn corn fields into biofuels to fight a non existent or nonsolvable problem, and don’t cause riots (Indonesia), world food shortages in third world countries (2005), and certainly don’t deny the abilities of human beings the right to improve their standard of living and pull themselves out of poverty, have cars in China, India, Africa, etc….”
How many riots, how many people did we starve, a few years ago while the European Union and world forced so much of the worlds corn and food supply to instead be burned up to create biofuel to save the planet that didn’t need saving….all based on bad science and the precautionary principle?
We started bringing on the very catastrophes we were trying to avoid.
Now and Then, you are just embarassing yourself now. Verbal gymnastics are all well and good but at least be good at them. The last time I heard your level of debate was in 7th grade. She didn’t win either.
Please give verifiable facts from reliable sources. You have not done so to this point.
The precautionary principle and, indeed, global warming itself, is just a means to socialist and anti-progress ends here. If it were not, how else to explain the opposition by AGW proponents to active measures to counteract warming’s effects such as carbon sequestration, high-altitude SO2 injection, ocean algae seeding, nuclear energy, etc? If their claims of the planet being in jeopardy are to be taken seriously, what can we conclude from their intransigence on these economical and effective counter-measures? That they put their anti-capitalism, anti-technology and anti-western civilization leanings ahead of the survival of the planet’s ecosphere?
Never believe a leftist’s words; believe their actions. Global warming is about draining capital and influence from successful industrialized western nations and distributing it to poorer third-world nations. “Saving the planet” is of secondary concern to its advocates, if they believe it at all.
Now and Then:
“Curtis, Curtis, Curtis . . . It’s kind of sad to see such gymnastic denial.”
Yes Mary Lou, it is….and so that I don’t have to watch it anymore, and because engaging you has proven to be completely pointless (even to me and I have a pretty thick skull) I bid you adios. Now, do your little dance, claim another scalp and celebrate the fact that you have managed to be so inane that even I couldn’t stomach it any longer. And yes, I’m sure you’ll continue to leave steaming piles of Mastif droppings throughout the ‘leaves’ here at PJM.
Karl Hallowell:
“It’s trillions of dollars and a roll back would have to occur against a lot of opposition since a) program advocates never willing roll back, and b) the evidence will never be conclusive (namely, plenty of AGW supporters will claim the policy worked).”
This is because the point of these programs is to ‘redistribute’ wealth, because the source of their power is tied to wealth redistribution. Period. Everything else is window dressing. Screw the means, all that matters is the end.
morpheus:
“Folks, don’t feed the troll. It’s science.”
Unfortunately, it’s not science. It’s the abuse and hijacking of science in the name of ideology.
“When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.”
So he lives in a bomb-proof underground bunker to be protected from fallout and meteor strikes? Or can we assume he doesn’t believe this for all drastic “1%” problems, just this one?
gs@48,
The Greens intend to endanger humanity, so you can lose the “may.”
Locobreath@38,
A missile shield (dual purpose – incoming meteors and/or missles) would be opposed by a new AGW crowd, through their now being against manmade galactic warming.
Gs@71
Good. Let’s issue an RFP for 100 at a time and watch the price drop.
Knotacommie@76,
Not quite true. Chernobyl has touristas now. People can’t stay long, but the wildlife is thriving.
The climate is changing but nobody has proved it is caused by humans. We also live in a world of finite resouces so it makes sense to conserve. But all the scientific quick fixes, all the electric cars, poo fuelled power stations, carbon capture devices and windmills are not going to make much impression.
If a quick fix is needed we are nowhere near finding it yet.
The answer is humans will adapt to new conditions if they need to as we always have.
103. Curtis M:
Replete with defeat, your retreat is complete. Move on to lesser challenges. I’m sure baal would appreciate a hand-woven oven mitt.
One last word – leaves.
I could be paddling a rowboat down Market Street in San Francisco after the poles have melted, and there will still be conservative fanatics who deny that humans are responsible for Global Warming or that it is even real. I invite you to my web-pages devoted to raising awareness on this urgent issue: http://pltcldscsn.blogspot.com/2009/12/conservatives-still-deny-global-warming.html