humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Feb 22, 6:11 am, TC wrote:

> On Feb 21, 6:21 pm, David Schwartz wrote:

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

> But we *are* engineering the climate by our emissions of CO2 etc.
> Ignoring the problem does not make it go away.

There is no such thing as "accidental engineering". Engineering
requires intent. If there are people who are deliberately releasing
CO2 in an attempt to raise global climate and thwart a future ice age
or something, I would agree with you that they are acting
irresponsibly.

We don't know enough to engineer global climate.

> > We need a high threshold of
> > evidence to change our behavior based on purported climate effects.

> That is the argument. I think the threshold has been crossed,
> you do not.

Okay. Then there we are.

> > 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.

> The meaning is pretty evidence when a January/February tornado
> blows down your house and no tornado has been that early before.

I don't know why I waste my time. Have a nice day. If you're going to
revert back to confusing GW with AGW after all this, there's no hope.

DS