[Vision2020] Climate skepticism: another take

[Ted Moffett]

Exactly...

Consider risk taking probability and level of catastrophe.  A small chance
of a catastrophic event is reason enough for many people to pay to address
the possibility, just in case.  Fire or flood insurance, for example  You
hope it won't happen, odds are it will not, but you pay because if it does,
you lose your investment in your home, etc.  Or consider more high
probability but low catastrophe events, like a flat tire.  People also pay
extra to carry a functioning spare, even though if you get a flat without a
spare, this may not be catastrophic (well, it might be, if you're taking
someone to the hospital, or being late to a business meeting means your
career is damaged).

But anthropogenic climate change is both high probability and high level of
catastrophe.

As the video indicates, every major scientific organization that possess
the expertise to understand the issue, agrees climate change is happening
due to human impacts.  And there is substantial science indicating it will
be catastrophic, though I do not agree with the hyperbole in the video
asserting climate change "making the whole planet uninhabitable."  The
study of paleo-climate data regarding other hyper-thermal events in Earth's
history (PETM, for example) indicates this would not happen, though
habitable zones are likely to shift radically.  Hyperbole such as this does
a disservice to calm rational scientific analysis of the risks of climate
change, and gives ammunition to those arguing those warning of the dangers
of climate change are off the rails...

Anthropogenic climate change is likely to be highly catastrophic from sea
level rise, agricultural disruptions, water supply disruptions,
desertification, massive refuge problems, increases in human conflict
leading to war, species extinction,
pressures on energy supply (air conditioning in heat waves, for
example...), ocean acidification (which is not caused by global warming but
is caused by massive CO2 emissions), and no doubt other problems it is
reasonable to assume we cannot totally predict in advance.

So is it reasonable to take precautions to lessen the risk of an event that
is both highly probable and highly catastrophic?

Consider a flight where the pilot announced on the intercom there was a 70%
chance of a crash?  Get off now if you do not accept the risk... Unless
having no other reasonable options, like magma is descending on the town
and there is no other way out, or bombs are falling and the flight is the
only way out, who would take that flight?
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett


On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>wrote:

Actually, this is similar to the point I was trying to make to Paul the
> other day.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI5ulKiZAoE
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130727/a069803a/attachment.html>