For what it’s worth, I’m not convinced that the possibilities of a global depression if we do act would be terribly high. Humanity would still benefit from many changes put into place as a way of staving off climate changes.
-
Archives
- October 2011
- September 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- January 2011
- November 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- July 2009
- May 2009
- March 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
-
Meta
I disagree that the percentage chance of global warming being true can be disregarded. If the odds on global warming are not taken into consideration, then all other threats must be addressed with equal resources. (Defending against asteroids, preparing for alien invasion, stockpiling antibiotics for a disease pandemic, populating other planets to survive a global catastrophe, etc.)
In oversimplifying, he also discounts that the threat of global warming is likely to fall somewhere between true and false, and the appropriate response somewhere between inaction and breaking the world bank. What we need now is more data and more science, rather than more histrionics and panic. Only then can we make informed decisions. However, in the meantime it does make sense to go for the “low hanging fruit” such as taking basic steps to reduce consumption.
His argument is quite similar to Pascal’s wager. See Wikipedia and the section about “Analysis with decision theory.”
I’m not convinced more science is needed. There’s plenty of countries who see the U.S. as being stubborn and backwater with regards to our current view of the current research. What would be nice is some honest debunking of special interest sham studies (likely on both sides) but the data seems to be already well established.
It be interesting how much more scientific data is needed before some nations threaten to/start going to war to change other nations’s ways.
I don’t think we need more science to determine that global warming is a real effect. However, I think that the details of the process aren’t well understood. To what degree is the effect caused by human activity and carbon dioxide? What amount of global temperature change is to be expected under normal conditions? How much is the effect likely to continue increasing, and are there natural processes that will react to the change and counterbalance it? What will happen in 50-100 years based on taking no action vs. moderate action vs. radical action?
I don’t know enough to even take a side on these questions. I just think we need to keep learning more in order to respond in the most intelligent manner. With 6 billion people mining, chopping, consuming, and burning, the possibility that it’s going to be severe is scary. But I don’t think anyone knows for sure how this will proceed.