
The Climate Change Climate Change - nice1
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html
======
callmeed
Here's my beef: I feel it's almost impossible to find (fairly) objective
information about climate change and then make my own, informed, decision.

Part of this problem stems from the fact I'm a christian and conservative in
ways ... yet, at the same time, the environment and stewardship are important
to me. Regardless, I'm not going to take a stand on climate change/global
warming simply because someone on the left or right says I need to.

How does one find information on climate change that _isn't_ politically
motivated?

~~~
curtis
I think most of the actual _science_ is pretty good. It's when people start
talking about what should be done about global warming that things get dicey.

~~~
bwhite
Mod parent up.

This is why Bjorn Lomborg is reviled: not because he doubts that anthropogenic
global warming is for real, but because he has the temerity to suggest that
the cure (spending a kajillion dollars to achieve relatively small changes in
climate) may be worse than the disease. See
[http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_prioritie...](http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html).

And dancing about, declaring that the science is settled, and claiming to know
the One True Solution to something as inherently complex as climate is
indicative of failure to understand the science, which leads to politically
motivated footballs like this: [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/source-
inside-epa-conf...](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/source-inside-epa-
confirms-claims-of-science-being-ignored-by-top-epa-management/)

~~~
Tichy
I personally disklike him because in his speeches (like the TED one) he seemed
to make a lot of strawman arguments - like dwelling on "heat deaths being a
non-issue" when really I don't think it ever was an issue.

~~~
Bjoern
In 2003 in Europe roughly 35.000 people died from heat. That is not an issue?

~~~
Tichy
Sure, but I don't think fear of an increase of heat deaths was an major
concern in the climate debate. At least I never heard about it before the
Lomborg talk. And I think he made it clear (if he is to believed), that heat
deaths indeed are not a thing to worry about with climate change.

------
yankeeracer73
Regardless of whether you believe global warming is real or bullshit, isn't
there a geo-political argument to be made that we should simply be using less
oil and trying to become more efficient so we don't continue to prop up
monarchies and radical theocracies in the Middle East who are wholly funded by
their oil businesses?

~~~
bwhite
This is a geo-politically complex situation. Assume this program was wildly
successful. All of a sudden Saudi Arabia is destitute; Venezuela is broke;
Russia is impoverished; Mexico is crippled; Nigeria is even poorer than it is
now. Has the overall geopolitical environment gotten any better? Or do you now
just have a bunch of very unstable countries, some of whom have WMDs?

~~~
hyperbovine
Well, how about we take some of the $700 billion a year that we would suddenly
/not/ be sending overseas to Russia, Latin America and the Middle East to
build schools, hospitals, libraries in the hardest hit countries? Increasing
efficiency _always_ has the potential to leave everyone better off. Econ 101.
What you choose to do with the extra money left on the table is up to you, but
you should never pass up the chance to do better simply because of inertia.

~~~
bwhite
TANSTAAFL.

We don't just punt money into Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc -- we exchange it for
oil which we then use productively. By definition, if we didn't want the oil
more than the money (or anything else we could get for that money) we wouldn't
make the deal. How does it increase the total efficiency to coerce people into
spending money on X instead of Y if when they have their druthers they clearly
prefer Y?

You can make the argument that we are in a sort of local maximum and that in
the long run, tolerating this inefficiency is worthwhile because it would lead
to the changing of the surface such that we can find an even better maximum.
Could be. All I'm saying is that it's complex and monolithic technocratic
solutions are doomed.

------
lesterbuck
As a scientist in a previous life, I love Michael Crichton's idea that there
should be strict separation between the people that collect the data and the
people that analyze & interpret the data for politically charged areas of
science. Both would operate from independent institutes, funded by all
stakeholders. If you let me collect and analyze my own data, I am open to all
sorts of influence depending on who is funding my work, peer pressure, etc.
Once the data has been collected, then the analysis portion could even be
split tested, with two independent groups funded to do the analysis
independently on exactly the same data set, and then we can compare truly
independent conclusions.

The other problem that pervades climate change is the shockingly bad
statistical analysis. At the least, there should be a separate statistical
institute that can put its stamp of approval on the statistical parts of the
results. With such limited historical climate data older than a very recent
period, and projections made far into the future, we must ensure that only the
very best statistical analyses make it into the public awareness. Alas,
climate researchers are often not at the leading edge of statistics.

------
Bjoern
[..] today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role.

Is this a bad joke?! Believe?! What has believe to do with this?

Please if you don't know - watch this talk from Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf (
<http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/> )

Video H264 720x576 Encoded [http://dewy.fem.tu-
ilmenau.de/CCC/25C3/video_h264_720x576/25...](http://dewy.fem.tu-
ilmenau.de/CCC/25C3/video_h264_720x576/25c3-2863-en-climate_change_-
_state_of_the_science.mp4) (From 12/2008, CCC Congress 25C3)

Information and further links about this talk:
[http://events.ccc.de/congress/2008/Fahrplan/events/2863.en.h...](http://events.ccc.de/congress/2008/Fahrplan/events/2863.en.html)

His job is to give scientific advice to people who need to make decisions on
these Global Warming topics.

Global warming will destroy the sea, the animals, plants and finally us. Stop
this whole argument of is this real or bullshit and read the research for
yourself if you still doubt it.

Who needs money when we all can't go outside anymore because its 50 degrees
Celsius outside?

~~~
jswinghammer
If you say something and claim it to be factual it's still up to me to believe
you or not. I think belief has a lot to do with it.

~~~
Bjoern
Thats the beauty of the argument. Science gives us a tool to eliminate believe
from the equation. Believe is something which has no place there.

With Science we make assumptions and lay them out for everybody to see or
counter argument. After enough iterations of opinions and results we end up
with something that gives us at least a high probability of being right.

Claim has to be followed by proof. Proof does not need believe as it stands by
itself. If you believe it or not.

------
Tichy
Surely any half-decent government should be able to find some scientists it
can trust? I don't think this issue should be decided by "number of believers"
vs "number of non-believers".

~~~
CWuestefeld
Sorry for a cynical answer, but your comment assumes that there are any
governments that believe it's important for them to be trustworthy. I
certainly don't get that feeling here in America, on either side of the aisle.

~~~
Tichy
Not the government, the scientists. Assuming that the government wants to make
the right decision about climate protection. But you are right - that is
probably too much to assume. Realistically they will only worry about
reelection.

------
maukdaddy
WTF? This is the second OPINION piece that's been posted today. Don't upvote
this crap!

