I plead guilty as charged. My reasoning is fragile because the way I see it there are significant uncertainties. My (granted fragile) point is that there are empirical data that casts serious doubt on the accuracy of the climate models. It seems to me that in the real world, as opposed to in the modelling world, we are not heading towards a climate disaster.
In concept I agree with your second point. Rather safe than sorrow. But, I'd like to extend it to other global risks as well, not only climate change. So, rather than just "buying insurance" for climate change, why not do a study of other global risks and solutions and analyse how we can get the most bang for our "do good for the world"-buck? Like the work done by https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/ I quote from their website "The Copenhagen Consensus Center is a think tank that researches and publishes the smartest solutions to the world's biggest problems. Our studies are conducted by more than 300 economists from internationally renowned institutions, including seven Nobel Laureates, to advise policymakers and philanthropists how to achieve the best results with their limited resources." Just a last point. I'm all in favour of moving away from fossil fuels. But, if you make it such a huge political play-ball, you run the risk of doing stupid things in the name of doing good. An example: I live in Mossel Bay in South Africa and from my house I have a view of the bay. One evening a month or so ago we saw what looked like a small island in the bay. We inquired and it turned out to be an oil platform that was manufactured in China and is being towed for use in the North Sea and there was bad weather in the open sea and they took temporary refuge in the bay. Just think about this - Iron and steel is produces huge amounts of CO2. Europe, as a proud sponsor of the Paris agreement, are serious about reducing their CO2 emissions. So they let China do the dirty work, pay them for it and just buy the manufactured oil platform. My point is - I just don't join in the fearmongering. I say recognize the uncertainties and be realistic about the actions. On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 18:13, uǝlƃ ☣ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > You're laying out a fragile chain of reasoning here: 1) Estimates: > [1.5,4.5], 2) Data: [1.5, 1.5+ε], 3) No serious harm. > > We know that people aren't swayed by data. Even when contradictory data is > staring someone in the face, they tend to reinforce their prior held > belief. So, the question I ask is more about opportunity cost. What's the > lost opportunity if we *stop* burning fossils? (lost plastics in medicine, > higher cost for agricultural pest control, lost convenience, single parents > having trouble getting to work, 3rd world economies' quality of life, etc.) > And what is the opportunity cost if we continue burning fossils? (less > innovation in diverse energy supplies, risk of global warming > 1.5+ε and > all that entails, toxic air, etc.) > > The ethical question is which set of costs are worse than the other? And > it seems pretty clear to me (were I an engineer who wanted to foster > innovation or a humanist who wanted to limit suffering) the costs for > *continuing* to burn fossils is higher than the costs for stopping burning > fossils ... at LEAST for the wealthy countries. There's simply no excuse > for a healthy person in a developed economy to argue for burning more > fossils. There *is* good cause for the poor in undeveloped countries to > continue burning fossils ... to which it's a bit of an ethical burden for > the wealthy to mitigate that, as well as stop burning fossils ourselves. > > Given this, your fragile chain of reasoning becomes irrelevant, even *if* > it stays intact after all's said and done. > > On 1/21/20 12:23 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote: > > For example, the latest available figures from the IPCC reports give the > climate sensitivity as within the range of 1.5 to 4.5 (that is the expected > increase in global temperatures per doubling of CO2. This is according to > the models. Empirical data studies show it to be close to the lower end. If > this is true, then the IPCC figures are correct and we don't have to be > concerned about CO2 causing serious harm. > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> > http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
