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.
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?
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.
> 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?
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.
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?
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.
> You'd have to prove more than harm in court, you'd have to prove that the harm outweighed the benefits.
It would take entirely too much effort to rebut you, but no, that's not how civil courts work.
In short, Libertarians often say that you don't need laws to protect things, people who are harmed just need to prove that harm in civil court.
Moving on...
> It's not a scientific debate it's a philosophical one.
No, actually, it's a public policy debate.
If the United States were under attack from another country, they could establish laws to enforce curfews and blackouts to thwart bombing runs at night. That would be a public policy to combat a military threat.
If the United States is threatened by Climate Change, they could establish laws to limit the use of certain chemicals in certain settings, could limit things like watering your yard with city water, limit energy usage, etc. That would be a public policy to combat an environmental threat.
> A threat people believe might happen
Yes, that's what the word THREAT means.
> indeterminate consequences
Yes, and I've specifically asked you, multiple times, how you think a society should try to predict what those consequences might be. Consensus of scientists is one approach. Do you propose another?
And listen, even if you think government shouldn't get involved, I suspect you would listen to authority figures that you trusted. For instance, even if you want to defund NOAA, if an authority you trusted told you to evacuate because of high likelihood of a major hurricane impacting your area, you would evacuate. You may even be willing to pay a fee to be informed of such news.
Well, what kind of authority would you trust to give you advice about climate change?
If you assert that there is no authority you would ever trust to give you advice about climate change, under any circumstances, then I think you're nucking futts.
> Governments have proved themselves to be useless at grand schemes.
HAHAHA. No, no they haven't.
Governments establish a system of laws that allow people to live their lives on a level vastly different from where they would be without government.
You would have tyrant warlords stealing your cattle right now, without government. You would be paying for protection in a racket.
Instead, we have the freedom to negotiate contracts confident that they will be enforced by governmental legal systems, allowing an almost unimaginable organization of resources and services, the likes of which the world had never known before.
So, yes, other than being the best system ever invented for allowing division of labor, ownership of property, creation of currency, and national defense, sometimes governments do fail at things like stupidly building bridges to nowhere.
Thanks for playing, though.
> $23 trillion of aid to the third world in 50 years. You'd be think there would be some results.
> 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.