The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Global Warming Danger: Catastrophic? > Comments

Global Warming Danger: Catastrophic? : Comments

By Geoff Davies, published 8/2/2011

New work by James Hansen shows Antarctic ice melting at an exponential rate leading to 5 metres of sea rise in 89 years.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. All
Thanks Geoff

"Scientists (including me) who appeal to the precautionary principle do so as ordinary people, not as part of their science. It is NOT a scientific conclusion, just something that seems a sensible way of proceeding, like buying insurance, or not getting on a plane that has a 10% chance of crashing.

If you say scientists should stick to science, well I don't agree. We are people too, with as much right as anyone else to argue for a policy."

If climate (and other)scientists also want to be activists arguing for a policy, if they want to use the so-called precautionary "principle" to justify their views, that's fine.

Unlike you, however, quite a few folk do so while either hiding behind a public cloak of being disinterested seekers of truth. So-called 'facts' are all too often "theory-laden" and contaminated by confirmation bias, "projections" morph into "predictions", etc.

Now you, a physicist, are using "mainstream economists" to justify imposing a 'carbon (dioxide) price'/tax/ETS on Australia based on some kind of "risk-management" argument.

Why all the kicking and screaming, Geoff? Many believe this is unjustified, based on hard empirical evidence - not hypotheses, models, proxy datasets, circular arguments, and so on.

As for mainstream economists, their "cost/benefit" assessments of the future are just as, perhaps even more, debatable and controversial than those of climate scientists.

As one economist said recently: "In economic (climate) policy we are necessarily dealing with the future and in this we are all blind. I suppose economic theory is a bit like the blind man's stick, of some but limited use, particularly when crossing a busy road and the path of economic activity is a busy road indeed. Too much reliance should not be placed on it."

Alice (in Warmerland)
Posted by Alice Thermopolis, Friday, 11 February 2011 12:10:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alice-

Just to be clear, I'm no fan of mainstream economics. I said "even" mainstream economists.

The better approach is to look at the many things that have already been done to reduce emissions dramatically, and work on moving those out to everyone. It's a very cost-effective investment. The big advantage, when done the right way, is that you also reduce the many other assaults on the planet we depend totally on. If global warming doesn't get us, several other crises are brewing that will.

Yes, I know, you don't believe such things, you label them Malthusian or whatever, but the symptoms of distress are all around us and in the news virtually every day.

I think the underlying factor is that people who refuse to take *any* warnings seriously just can't face a (modest) change in their conception of the world. It's just too scary to step out of their comfort zone. Sorry, there have been plenty of opinions here on what motivates me, so that's my opinion on what motivates many "sceptics", for what it's worth.

If you think your arguments are backed by "hard empirical evidence - not hypotheses, models, proxy datasets, and so on", then there's not much more to be said. You simply reveal your lack of appreciation of the assumptions and biases behind the interpretations you prefer.

I think this exchange has about run its course.
Posted by Geoff Davies, Friday, 11 February 2011 1:01:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't have a problem with global warming or what else you call it. It's great to see things changing away from carbon based manufacturing.
Electric cars are coming along nicely.
It is a thorn in the side of people that are pushing their own barrow.
Move away from a carbon tax and it won't hurt you.
Posted by a597, Friday, 11 February 2011 2:54:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geoff

You have been generous with your time. Thank you.

"The big advantage, when done the right way, is that you also reduce the many other assaults on the planet we depend totally on. If global warming doesn't get us, several other crises are brewing that will.

Yes, I know, you don't believe such things, you label them Malthusian or whatever, but the symptoms of distress are all around us and in the news virtually every day."

As for me, I try not to justify belief in one potential "crisis" (CC, AGW, ACC, EWEs), by mixing it into a stew of "other crises".

That said, and contrary to your suggestion above, the term "Malthusian" for me is not pejorative at all. Ultimately, his Principle of Population - or a recasting of it - may be closer to the truth than the perspectives of his many critics.

One number known with reasonable accuracy in the global population. While it took a million years for humankind to reach 1,000 million two centuries ago, sometime this year there will be 7,000 million people on the planet.

"Non quantitas, sed qualitas!"

Alice (in Malthusiana)
Posted by Alice Thermopolis, Friday, 11 February 2011 7:15:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Alice, and I'm glad we can agree on population and its several consequences.
Posted by Geoff Davies, Saturday, 12 February 2011 2:26:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy