
Climate impacts 'overwhelming' – UN report - ColinWright
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26810559
======
SixSigma
BBC hypes / linkbaits the title by quoting _one word_ out of context.

> Dr Saleemul Huq, a convening lead author on one of the chapters, commented:
> "Before this we thought we knew this was happening, but now we have
> overwhelming evidence that it is happening and it is real."

Not that the scale is overwhelming.

Diverting resources to dealing with these consequences will probably kill more
people than it saves, but those people will probably be rich waterfont
property owners, not poor people walking 10km for water every day.

~~~
VikingCoder
> probably

Yeah, that's an interesting word. What if you're wrong? What if you're very,
very wrong? What if you're catastrophically wrong?

I'm not a climate scientist, and I'm guessing you're not one either. Are you
just going from your gut with that "probably" there? Should we really make
policy decisions based on your gut instinct? What threshold of consensus
should we have in the scientific community, before that's enough to drive
policy? Not that consensus means ANYTHING in science, but what other basis
would ever allow scientists to drive policy?

I'm genuinely curious, I'm not just trying to troll you. What do you think is
the threshold for scientists driving public policy?

~~~
SixSigma
My "probably" is based on reseach by Bjorn Lomborg [1] and other welfare and
environmental economicists.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg)

The waters are muddy and actually nobody knows. The BBC putting spin on like
this really doesn't help.

This headline is a total lie :

Climate impacts 'overwhelming' – UN report

If you want to spend money to save lives and promoting economic development,
you can do it now and get known outcomes.

The Grand Planners love climate change politics, they can have meetings and
summits and policy documents and reports and frameworks for change and all the
other unproductive stuff.

~~~
VikingCoder
From your own source:

> After the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg was accused
> of scientific dishonesty.

And:

> DCSD investigation - On 6 January 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the
> complaints. The ruling sent a mixed message, deciding the book to be
> scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of
> expertise in the fields in question...

So, you're citing an "expert" who won a case because he proved in court that
he wasn't an expert.

From Wikipedia:

\- Fabrication of data;

\- Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);

\- Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;

\- Distorted interpretation of conclusions;

\- Plagiarism;

\- Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.

I object to your claim that we should pay attention to Bjorn, when deciding on
public policy.

And I asked you what I hoped you would take as a serious question: what should
the standard be for letting scientists push public policy?

Instead, you chose to attack "The Grand Planners." Sounds to me that you think
governments are useless, that's a fine opinion as well.

But if you think scientists should ever drive public policy, what threshold
should be crossed before we listen to the scientists?

Putting it again, there's a significant portion of the population that
believes that there's a threat. If you really are opposed to government
action, then I'm guessing you think they should solve Global Climate Change
problems by donations and possibly suing people in civil court when they can
prove their actions cause harm. Correct?

~~~
SixSigma
You'd have to prove more than harm in court, you'd have to prove that the harm
outweighed the benefits.

It's not a scientific debate it's a philosophical one. A threat people believe
_might_ happen, with indeterminate consequences vs real change you could be
making now.

Air pollution affects millions of lives today, for instance.

Governments have _proved_ themselves to be useless at grand schemes. $23
trillion of aid to the third world in 50 years. You'd be think there would be
some results.

~~~
VikingCoder
And by the way, I'm pretty sure you meant $2.3 trillion.

[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/06/16/1149964738204.html](http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/06/16/1149964738204.html)

But I don't really mind that you were off by an order of magnitude, because I
honestly think it's a valid criticism. Sometimes governments spend a lot of
money with nothing to show for it, or end up making things worse. That does
happen.

So, you either believe that there's some standard a government should have to
reach before it decides to spend money on things... what standard?

Or you believe government should never get involved.

But, if you believe government shouldn't get involved, I bet you think there's
a valid way for people to organize themselves about issues they care about...

And what would you recommend to them, if they care about Climate Change, think
it's a real threat, and want to do something?

And, again, what metric should they use, to determine that scientists should
be listened to, when they describe threats?

~~~
SixSigma
Yes sorry, it is $2.3 trillion.

In domestic politics the recipients of the democracy get to vote on the govt.
if it is doing a good job. Aid recipients don't have any say, they just get
whatever comes and the feedback that makes markets work is missing. The
suppliers and recipients are disconnected, and there's possibly a corrupt
tyrant in between to make things worse. There's no accountability. The Western
donors (we taxpayers) are told "something is being done" and we see news with
grain being unloaded and given to hungry people with pots in their hands.

Good source material would be William Easterly's "The White Man's Burden".

If you think Climate Change is where the focus should be, you're going to have
to persuade a billion Indians and a billion Chinese that they don't need
fossil fuels and access to plentiful energy supplies in the near future.

Telling an Indian he can't have air conditioning from while you are sat in an
air conditioned office is going to be a bit one sided.

