Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
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.
|
Not knowing what their intentions were is different from what I was previously hearing; that they know what they are saying is incorrect, yet they proceed to say it. A lie.
I'd say that the unknown, unknowns are part of the message of both Bjorn and Michael. If every action results in an infinite and complex series of reverberating reactions, then any drastic action should be as carefully considered as possible.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I just listened to a recent Lomborg interview where he advocates for developing alternative / advanced sources of energy. The thrust of his message is that we can't expect nearly 100% of countries on earth to act out of goodness, because tragedy of the commons will always result. There has to be sufficient self-interest to change, such as adopting new technologies that provide advantages over the previous technology.
Quote:
|
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.
|
You've failed to participate in the thought experiment, which wasn't meant to attach titles or precise definitions to the "alarmists", but to imagine that any person can hold a wrong conviction and speak to it, and that alone isn't sufficient to condemn them. Motive is important.
Finally, what to do about climate change exists on a continuum that spans from do nothing at all, to everyone killing themselves. The likelihood that someone else falls exactly on that continuum where I do is as close to zero as can exist. At what point do we condemn someone for not holding close enough view of what to do as we do? What I'm saying is that even the most educated and brilliant scientists studying climate change would not agree with each other on what to do. For that reason, the topic necessarily becomes one of politics and not one of science.