humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Feb 21, 1:47 pm, TC wrote:

> On Feb 21, 3:00 pm, David Schwartz wrote:

> > On Feb 21, 11:44 am, TC wrote:
> > You are talking about small inputs into a massive feedback system. You
> > have to figure out the *net* effects on the entire system.

> That is precisely what scares me actually. Small inputs to a large
> non-linear feedback system can produce large effects.
> Unknown effects.
> Maybe good maybe bad.
> Call me risk averse but it worries me.

I agree, that's why we should *not* try to engineer the climate by
doing things like reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We don't know
what effect those changes will have. We need a high threshold of
evidence to change our behavior based on purported climate effects.

> > So we're back to how good are the climate models.

> The ultimate canonical model is the climate itself.

Right, but the problem is that it's hard to judge the meaning of short-
term changes in the actual climate without going back to the models.
For example, 2007 was an extremely cold year. The models say that is
not evidence against global warming but is actually due to things like
the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So without the models, it's hard to
understand climate observations, especially over terms less than a
hundred years or so.

> > > The issue in any case is that increased CO2 changes the
> > > climate. Earlier tornados, droughts, other annoying stuff.
> > > Doesn't have to be warming to disturb the lives of people.
> > The question is, does the increase in CO2 cause those changes. And are
> > the changes, on net, harmful. Let's not forget that things like cold
> > kill people too.

> Maybe we should just abdicate the ability we have to use
> our intelligence to foresee the results of our actions.

We also have enough intelligence to know when the results of our
actions are unforseeable. In that case, it's irresponsible to try to
engineer the actions to get particular results, especially by force.

> > > Yes the climate is complicated but it is undeniable that
> > > the contents of the atmosphere are being modifed by man.
> > Sure, that's undeniable. But there is no inherent reason changing
> > things would be better or worse than not changing things. The Earth
> > does things humans like and things humans don't like.

> Humans can shoot themselves in the foot as well.

Right, like by trying to engineer the climate without a sufficient
understanding of the factors driving it and the direction it's going.

> > > Perhaps you have a solution not involving government that will work?
> > > If so lets hear it.
> > Since we don't know what problem we need to solve yet, I think it's
> > awfully early to propose solutions.

> We know what the perturbation is.

But not whether the perturbation is good or bad. Cold kills more
people than hot.

> > First, it will be more obvious
> > what the problem is. Second, we'll have more technology to combat it
> > with.

> When dealing with a non-linear system this is not obvious.

Look at our understanding of global climate now compared to ten years
ago. You think we won't learn more over the next ten years?

Imagine if we had dumped tens of billions of dollars cutting over to
biofuels only to discover that in the process we had released billions
of tons of CO2. That's a mistake we could easily have made just two
years ago, and it's a mistake we won't make now.

How many more potential mistakes are out there for us to bungle into?

> >Third, oil will likely be more expensive.

> So you agree that raising the price of oil is good?

No. I agree that if the market raises the price of oil, that will make
it easier to switch to another energy source. Artificial increases in
the price of oil would likely do more harm than good.

The economy is going to go through a lot of pain no matter what, I'm
afraid.

DS