|
|
|
|
|
|
by cohomologo
3049 days ago
|
|
|
Is "beyond a shadow of doubt" the standard of proof we need to take action? I would advocate for an actuarial standard. (i.e. estimate the probabilities and costs/benefits of various outcomes and take the path with the best expected outcome, while continually updating your probability estimates with new information.) The issue with climate change is not that it is 100% certain, but that the responses require globally coordinated action where every nation is incentive to cheat; and as with other types of economic transition, there are huge inefficiencies if we try to transition too fast (i.e. global recessions required to build the necessary infrastructure as in https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/). So the downside risk if we fail to act and climate change is real is tremendous. |
|
|
Who would argue against this? (I am sure it's someone of course...)
>The issue with climate change is not that it is 100% certain, but that the responses require globally coordinated action where every nation is incentive to cheat;
Famine, war, poverty, etc... their are many things that we are 100% certain are happening right now. Compare what is more rational to solve with finite resources?
To attempt to solve absolutely certain problems that exist right now? Or divert those resources to a _mostly certain_ problem that _may_ exist in the future?
>So the downside risk if we fail to act and climate change is real is tremendous.
I grew up in a doomsday cult, and I see this statement as inflammatory. I've heard many similar statements meant to instil fear of a "possibility" of a doomed future. It manipulates the hearts of men to fear and to follow other men that champion an ideal, but not to address reality.
Maybe this is not your intentions. If so, please clarify.