Global warming in global warming

Global Warming Settled?
February 6, 2017 – 03:15 pm

imageOn the causes of global warming, you really should, if only because the technology for the animation itself is outstanding.

I’ll probably run “climate change” through the Rationality Engine at some point, but for now I wondered what reasons the doubters are giving for their doubts. If you are a doubter, take a look at the animation and tell us what part it got wrong.

For the record, I hold the following opinions about climate change that I am happy to change if better data or better arguments pop up.

1. The science is clear that human activity is causing climate change.

2. Experts are often wrong about complex systems with lots of variables. By analogy, much of what you were taught about nutrition when you were young was wrong. Much of what you learned about history is probably wrong. And economic forecasts are generally wrong. None of that means climate change science is wrong. But climate change science does fit the pattern of things that authority figures tell us with more confidence than they ought to have. (I know economics and history are not science.)

4. Climate change might be catastrophic, but I don’t have a way to assess the odds. We can only know things would change if temperatures continue increasing. That change could be good or bad in the long run.

For example, I would expect some income redistribution as the best farmland becomes the worst, and vice versa. And I would expect some inventions to come out of the turmoil. We might even learn to control the global climate directly. Maybe some unexpected cooling event (volcano?) will buy us another hundred years.

My observation of this debate is that both sides are wrong but for different reasons. The skeptics are wrong in denying the data, which seems fairly clear to my non-scientist eyes. (But in all fairness, I would be easy to fool. So would you.)

On the other side, the believers are probably wrong that they can predict the outcome of the climate changes. Climate disruption might lead to the end of civilization. But if that happened, it would be different from every disaster humans have encountered to date. We’re good at solving problems once we get engaged.

Given the unknowns, and the size of the risk, the rational approach is to treat the problem as if it is both real and potentially catastrophic, even if you suspect none of that is true. But I would put the effort into technology solutions because those inventions will probably be beneficial no matter what else happens.

You might also like
Kerry, Obama to Raise Global Warming Issues in Alaska
Kerry, Obama to Raise Global Warming Issues in Alaska
John Doerr on Global Warming at TED : HowStuffWorks
John Doerr on Global Warming at TED : HowStuffWorks
Reducing Poverty, Protecting Livelihoods, and Building Assets in a Changing Climate: Social Implications of Climate Change for Latin America and the Caribbean (Directions in Development)
Book (World Bank Publications)
  • Used Book in Good Condition
Related Posts