View Single Post
Old 10-30-2019, 05:23 PM   #7763 (permalink)
aerohead
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 12,107
Thanks: 19,408
Thanked 6,141 Times in 3,775 Posts
intent

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
When I get time I'm going to listen to the testimony (and one day read his book) so that I'm prepared to consider your specific accusations of deceit.

So far as I can tell, Crichton is acting in good faith in the same manner that Bjorn Lomborg is. That is to say, trying to shift attention to problem areas most likely to benefit humanity, and to find the appropriate level of concern. As an aside, it's often pretty easy to tell when someone is speaking from conviction, or when they are speaking to mislead. There is no indication from either person that they are speaking with the intent to mislead. Again, I'd ask for tell-tale signs that they are attempting to mislead, other than they disagree with your held position.

A disagreement about what level of concern people should have surrounding various issues is frustrating, but isn't an indication of malfeasance.

Let's imagine for a moment that the most extreme alarmist positions on global warming never come to pass, not because their prescription for the problem was followed, but because the problem was not as intractable as they imagined. Should those people be condemned for inciting undue worry and financial hardship?

I have seen no evidence that "the court of popular opinion" has convicted Crichton of anything except writing compelling stories and directing/producing some entertaining movies. Popular opinion doesn't consist of some small group of extremists, rather it encompasses all people.

Finally, I wouldn't even go so far as to call AOC a liar, as my best assessment of her is that she's embellishing the underlying beliefs she holds, similarly to how Trump operates. As you point out, squishing the facts to create a sense of urgency from the public. The second part of Crichton's quote is "Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.". My modification of that would be whenever you hear that you must quickly surrender freedom to avoid catastrophe, to reach for your levers of resistance, because your individuality is under assault.
I don't know what their intentions were.The fact that what they had to say about climate science,or not say,influenced policy decisions,and has implications as to whether or not we'll be able to act in time to avert a situation we'll end up regretting.We don't get a do-over on this one.
It's the Rumsfeldian conundrum.What Lomberg and Crichton didn't know is the dangerous part.And they didn't know they didn't know.Unknown unknowns.
And as an economist,Lomberg's especially dangerous,as he's unaware of the hidden costs/externalities he's omitted from his accounting.By not advocating for a transition to renewables,he's actually chosen the path of economic ruin.His status quo worldview chooses,and locks in, the most inefficient and expensive power sources imaginable,finally beginning the transition long after the ship has sailed.In his world,3.195 = 1.
As to your thought experiment,I would remark; I'm unsure who the 'alarmists' are and what they advocate.As to climate scientists,if they're alarmed,it maybe because they know the state-of-the-art in physics,materials technology,manufacturing feasibility,etc.,and they know better than anyone what our options,or lack thereof would be, when considering our circumstances.And their greatest fear may be that we're just going to argue this climate thing to death, while any door of opportunity quietly closes behind us while we argue.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
 
The Following User Says Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
NeilBlanchard (11-01-2019)