humanities.philosophy.objectivism

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.

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

The ultimate canonical model is the climate itself.

> > 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.
.........
> > 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.
.....

> > Stuff that nudges the market. Like carbon tax or higher gasoline
> > tax or ....

> Exactly. Who gets to do the social engineering to try to fix the
> weather?

The people being engineered.
.....
> > 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.

> > > If so, then
> > > I would say governments should immediately stop doing all the things
> > > it's doing that make this problem worse.
> > Like what? Protecting sea lanes for tankers?
> > Supporting open trade with coal fueled producing nations?

> Well, all kinds of things. For one thing, building the Federal highway
> system. It's a bit hard to undo that, but we can try to avoid similar
> mistakes in the future. Certainly political efforts to keep oil
> flowing don't help.

Love those railroads in AS!


> .... Fortunately, the longer we wait, the
> easier the problem will be to solve.

Nonsense.

> 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.

>Third, oil will likely be more expensive.

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

....
> > So we just sit buy and wait to see what happens?
> > I guess that is an approach.
> > Rather evasive but an approach.

> Yes, that's what we do. We're largely passengers on the Earth.

I think we can do better.
Now who is sounding like an eco-person?

....

> > But I guess it would then be argued that reducing the land area
> > could be good because it would drive up land prices.

> No, higher land prices are almost entirely bad.

Yes! Stop sea level rise!

Tom