![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, why NOT deal with climate change?
Oct. 17th, 2015 11:57 amEdited to Add: if you're not a climate change denier, feel free to comment, but I'm really more interested in hearing from friends who DISAGREE with me on this issue. I already agree with the people I agree with, so I'm not likely to learn as much from you than from people with whom I disagree.
I've got a couple people reading this who are climate change deniers. And I'm confused by that.
See, the general scientific consensus is that there is a near 100% certainty that some details that people are coming up with are wrong, but that the overall idea that more energy is coming into and staying in the earth's meteorological systems and that is creating higher-energy events, and that the only thing which has changed on a timescale that fits the data is human activity -- there is about a 95% chance that that general concept is correct. Will this particular year be warmer or colder? Will the storm surge around that particular island be high enough to cause significant damage? There is a near-100% certainty that at least SOME of those predictions will be wrong, which is why those predictions have things like, "there is a 60% chance that there will be a storm surge that will cause this level of damage within three years", and things like that.
It is, of course, possible to point to those predictions which don't pan out, because everybody KNOWS that some percentage of them won't. Heck, you're going to look at some people's models, and they're going to suggest that different events will have an 80% probability, and only 60% of them will come true, because the model is faulty.
But that doesn't mean that the OVERALL picture is wrong. When people discovered that gravity is different on different parts of the Earth, that didn't disprove the laws of gravitation -- rather, it ended up showing that the crust of the Earth has different densities at different places. When people discover unexpected things in the history of evolution, nobody sane says that that disproves evolution.
But, here's the point: those of you who deny the accuracy of the overall climate model -- you have to believe that there is a percentage chance that it is correct. I believe that the overall model has a 95% probability of being correct, which is the definition of "certainty" in science. Scientists always leave a little margin for the possibility that absolutely everything they know is wrong in ways that nobody ever thought of, so 95% is about as high as things go.
So, what is the probability that the overall concept of climate change is right? That there is some degree of extra energy being held in the system, that the amount is large enough to have effects that affect us, and that the most likely cause of that is human action? Is there a 5% chance that is right? 25%? 50%?
And given that there IS some sort of chance that it is right -- what are the negative effects to taking the sorts of actions that would mitigate the problems caused? Is there a downside to having less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Is there a downside to figuring out better ways to harness solar energy?
What IS that downside, and how significant is it? And when you multiply it out, what do you get? "Cost of climate change * chance it's actually happening" <> "cost of mitigation"?
I've got a couple people reading this who are climate change deniers. And I'm confused by that.
See, the general scientific consensus is that there is a near 100% certainty that some details that people are coming up with are wrong, but that the overall idea that more energy is coming into and staying in the earth's meteorological systems and that is creating higher-energy events, and that the only thing which has changed on a timescale that fits the data is human activity -- there is about a 95% chance that that general concept is correct. Will this particular year be warmer or colder? Will the storm surge around that particular island be high enough to cause significant damage? There is a near-100% certainty that at least SOME of those predictions will be wrong, which is why those predictions have things like, "there is a 60% chance that there will be a storm surge that will cause this level of damage within three years", and things like that.
It is, of course, possible to point to those predictions which don't pan out, because everybody KNOWS that some percentage of them won't. Heck, you're going to look at some people's models, and they're going to suggest that different events will have an 80% probability, and only 60% of them will come true, because the model is faulty.
But that doesn't mean that the OVERALL picture is wrong. When people discovered that gravity is different on different parts of the Earth, that didn't disprove the laws of gravitation -- rather, it ended up showing that the crust of the Earth has different densities at different places. When people discover unexpected things in the history of evolution, nobody sane says that that disproves evolution.
But, here's the point: those of you who deny the accuracy of the overall climate model -- you have to believe that there is a percentage chance that it is correct. I believe that the overall model has a 95% probability of being correct, which is the definition of "certainty" in science. Scientists always leave a little margin for the possibility that absolutely everything they know is wrong in ways that nobody ever thought of, so 95% is about as high as things go.
So, what is the probability that the overall concept of climate change is right? That there is some degree of extra energy being held in the system, that the amount is large enough to have effects that affect us, and that the most likely cause of that is human action? Is there a 5% chance that is right? 25%? 50%?
And given that there IS some sort of chance that it is right -- what are the negative effects to taking the sorts of actions that would mitigate the problems caused? Is there a downside to having less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Is there a downside to figuring out better ways to harness solar energy?
What IS that downside, and how significant is it? And when you multiply it out, what do you get? "Cost of climate change * chance it's actually happening" <> "cost of mitigation"?