Freddy wrote:
whatEVer, you seem like a decent chap, so I'm going to assume you are presenting these arguments from the position of Devil's Advocate, and that you are not expecting them to be taken seriously. Accordingly, you will not be offended if I am a bit rude about them.
It never pays off to leave out the obvious...
Freddy wrote:
whatEVer wrote:
1."Not knowing the threat's size" is something completely different from "knowing that the threat size is negligible". Ignoring the threat is justified only by the second one. And the second one doesn't necessarily follow first one.
Completely ridiculous. What about the threat of invasion by the giant space jellyfish ? To say nothing of the Martian unicorns and the Venusian seahorses, both of whom are getting annoyed with us bombarding their planets with space probes.
You can't prove that these threats are negligible, so let's immediately treble the air force's budget, so they will be ready to shoot down the invaders before they can land on Earth.
Probability is not about "proving". We can estimate these threats as negligible - I really hope I don't need to go into further details.
Freddy wrote:
I think Carl Sagan referred to this sort of thing as fearing the dragons in the darkness. You cannot assume that we should react to every threat which some crazy person can think up. Or, rather, you're welcome to do so with your money, but keep your hands off my wallet – I don't want to join your cult.
This is what is called "false dichotomy". You don't react to "every threat". You make judgment based on probability, risk, and cost.
In this particular case, we know scientific mechanism of the threat and it works. We know we are producing greenhouse gases. What we don't know is scale.
Giant space jellyfish is it? So, we encountered them in space and we fought. We won, but they've send distress signal. They are coming - what we don't know is how many and how soon (size of the threat). Hmmm... Sounds familiar - "Ender's Game"...
Yes, under these circumstances we ARE preparing for a war. Yes, under these circumstances what you are doing is treason.
Freddy wrote:
whatEVer wrote:
2. Natural fluctuations make the situation more, not less dangerous. They can generate a false positive, but a false negative as well. If natural fluctuations change the temperature by 5 degrees down, AGW makes it go 5 degrees up, our measurements will tell us everything is ok - right until we get the +10 when the whole cycle swings back.
Not knowing the mechanism for natural changes in temperature, and therefore not knowing which change is natural (or what the natural change would be) is in no way reassuring when talking about AGW. Using our lack of knowledge in that regard as an argument AGAINST being cautious is unwise, gently speaking.
Bullshit, gently speaking. This argument is an attempted justification for the complete failure of observed data to match with the predictions of the global warmists. The global temperature has been cooling since the turn of the century while CO2 continues to rise gently. ( Just as it did from the 1950s to the mid 70s, when the greenies were all trying to sell the idea that industrialisation was bringing on the next ice age.)
The 3rd point was answering exactly that:)
Freddy wrote:
What this argument says is, if we have a warm summer, it is because of anthropogenic global warming, but if we have a cool summer, it is because natural variation is masking anthropogenic global warming. Otherwise known as : Heads we win, tails you lose.
This is not science.
This is "knowing limits of science and acting accordingly". Yes, this is "heads we win, tails you lose", that means, your position towards AGW is invalid, whatever the data shows. It's not a problem with the argument or the data, it's a problem with your position.
The giant space jellyfish revenge fleet was seen on long-range radar, but now gone. Was this a false alarm? Did they engage stealth? The long range radar is old crap, but DEFCON has just gone up.
Freddy wrote:
whatEVer wrote:
3.Being scientifically correct doesn't sell. PR is going on on many levels. Attributing observations to AGW to get grants is one (and then you get the funny, mutually exclusive AGW results). Simplification and enlarging the threat "ad usum populi" is another one. The so-called "deniers" can point out thousands of absurd things growing around the AGW theory, but that doesn't say anything about the basic problem. Keeping yourself distracted doesn't boost your credibility.
Sorry, I'm not sure what you are arguing here, though I agree there is a massive PR campaign.
Well, read your answer to 2.
Freddy wrote:
whatEVer wrote:
4. AGW is a common platform, a vehicle for other environment friendly actions. As it happens, reducing the CO2 in the same time helps reducing other pollutants, promotes savings etc. And "carbon footprint" is something Joe Average (and especially Joe Average Journalist) will understand. Even as a lie, it would be a white one.
Joe Average was doing perfectly well understanding the threat of acid rain long before the global warming campaign came along.
And didn't do anything about it.
Freddy wrote:
And the global warming campaign is far more pervasive than any previous greeny campaign. Given the utterly supine behaviour of the press, it is being used to justify an unprecedented level of completely spurious interference with free economies, all of which will make me, you, your children and your grandchildren far poorer than they would otherwise have been. I say this a bad thing, and as lies go, it is as black as they come.
Poorer like "having less cars". Don't care. We're superficial already. The game is for much higher stakes. Yes, the level of "interference with free economies" is unprecedented and creating a completely new mechanism for protecting common resources. Yes. That's the point. The mechanism is needed. Free market won't do it alone.
What you perceive as risk, I perceive as a chance to avoid future, much more serious risks.
Freddy wrote:
whatEVer wrote:
<socialist mode on>
5. Economical impact. Forcing people to switch to "eco" technologies makes them invest in those technologies instead of perfecting older ones, and that makes the new tech cost effective sooner. Of course it would be better if the eco tech matured first, and then people switch. But in the "forced switch" way we get same end result sooner, and without as much money poured into - ultimately - dead tech. Don't think "negative economical impact". Think "extremely long term investment".
Environment is a common resource. You know what Garret Hardin wrote about those? Individual players can't manage it well. And we can't turn environment private. We can only go the other way, towards common management.<socialist mode off>
Well, at least you have the honesty to admit it is socialism, with the immediate implication that it will fail as badly as all of history's other examples of socialism.
To quote you "this is not science". The science is, free market can't manage common resources well. Individual players destroy them. Known forms of socialism didn't manage them well, either, but hope still stands. There is no hope for free market to spontaneously protect the environment.
Freddy wrote:
Energy storage is not an engineering problem that can be solved by a massive budget and lots of bright engineers. It is a scientific problem – no-one knows how to store energy more efficiently than with fossil fuels.
And the science doesn't need money... And the needs don't help creating solutions...
Freddy wrote:
(With the possible exception, we all hope, of Dick Weir.) This sort of problem does not get solved by government fiat – if it could be, then Jimmy Carter would have solved it back after the 1970s oil shocks.
By all means, put public money into basic scientific research, or X-prizes for successfully building and EESU or its equivalent. But there is no justification for crippling the economy today in the hope that a solution will come along, born of a desperate attempt to avoid government-imposed poverty.
Poverty? Give me a break. Droping GDP growth by percent or two is not "poverty". And yes, the solutions do come from problems. Making the problems seem bigger helps more people focus on finding the solution. This is not a direct scenario "put in money, science jumps out", but the bigger the problem is, the more people think about it, and the chance somebody stumbles upon a solution rises. It's quite simple, I don't really know why are you arguing.
Freddy wrote:
So, yes I bloody well will think "negative economical impact", because that is exactly what it is.
Yes, I am aware of the tragedy of the commons. But, as with any infringement of liberty, government power should be subject to massive limitations, or the bureaucrats will take over.
"Bureaucrats taking over" is a risk both small and reversible. Destroying common resource known as Earth is neither. Free market economy is fun to play with, but we are talking SERIOUS things here.
Freddy wrote:
So, overall, thank you for your Devil's Advocacy, but I am afraid that you are overvaluing it; with respect, these arguments are worth considerably less than two cents.
My best wishes to you, whatEVer.
<Sigh...> Best wishes to you, too.
