Henry, I liked this comment you made the other day, and planned at the time to address it directly, since you did address the taproot of the argument, but never got around to it. I would like to make one correction to it, though. It is Mr. Gary not Mr. Fenton. "This seems like an interesting update on your conversation with Mr Fenton a few days ago. The debate about the theory of global warming (an unfortunate application of the English language) is not about the existence of an either/or situation. The primary differences from what I have been exposed to seem to lie mostly in the degree of certainty pertaining to the predictions and causes reported by the IPCC. While certainty is itself a much more interesting subject to me, the general interpretation of this word seems to indicate that climate science, like economics, just cannot produce answers as certain as those other so called hard sciences. This may be a sign that such "soft" sciences are actually much harder to master than the hard sciences. But with regards to the proposed practical solutions, there ought to be a congruence between the level of tradeoff and the degree of probability. The inconvenience of carrying an umbrella should correspond to the probability of rain. On a much more complex level, proposed economic tradeoffs to offset global warming should correspond to the degree of accuracy in predicted outcomes. The complexity in climate science solutions does not simply lie in one side of the equation -- the accuracy of predictions -- but also in the interpretation of the more immediate inconvenience (or suffering) -- the tradeoffs -- as a consequence of policies for all the different individual human beings from different parts of the world. Politics cast climate science as a battle between provident scientific altruism against short-sighted self-interest. But self-interest is everywhere in everyone. Owners of oil companies who desire profit even at the degradation of the environment for all are no more selfish than experts who produce dishonest reports out of eagerness for funding, ambition, or fear of rejection. The erudite professor who wants to save the planet is no less self-interested than the ignorant peasant who wants to feed his family. Accusations require the backing of evidence, a tedious lot of work. Easier it is view the different arguments with a disinterested mind."
Posted on: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 15:46:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015