yy2bggggs wrote:But no, not really. Yakk seems to think this is what we're talking about, I think, but I think it's because he's missing the point. On page 1, he talks about how difficult climate study is, how it's just too hard, etc. He points to a number of specific issues with climate study, all of them refuted, none valid.
I didn't see any strong refutations of my points. /shrug. So I saw no reason to change my position on it.
Yakk's trying to make the point that fixing the environment costs too much, but I don't think he really has enough information to say that, and in just mentioning it, he's not giving me or the community anything of value. But Yakk wants to go further than say what his opinion is--he wants us to share it, but to do so for the same fuzzy non-fact based reasons he does.
For a base step, look at Kyoto, which is viewed as "not nearly enough".
Under Kyoto, I see numbers like "300$ per metric tonne" as the cost of carbon emissions. I'll use that as an order-of-magnitude estimate.
At 6 billion tonnes annually, that is a cost of 2 trillion dollars per year.
The world's GDP is about 70 trillion dollars, so this comes to more than 3% of the world's economic output.
10$ per day is high enough to raise someone out of absolute poverty and into the realm of relative poverty. So the estimated costs of implementing the Kyoto protocol (very loose estimate) is roughly the cost of lifting 500,000,000 people out of absolute poverty (half a million, or roughly as many where lifted out of poverty by the recent Chinese industrialization).
If the Kyoto protocol isn't enough, then costs will go up.
The above is an attempt to back-of-the-notebook estimate the scale
of the costs involved in reducing world-wide CO2 emissions.
Once again, I'm not claiming that this very rough calculation of the costs of reducing CO2 emissions is accurate -- I'm simply trying to express that "reducing CO2 emissions is expensive
, and not cheap." The calculation asto how many people could be lifted out of poverty using the same resources is a handy way of grasping exactly how much resources we are talking about. If need be, I can point out that increased CO2 emissions in the developing world are viewed as one of the easier ways of lifting people out of poverty, ala China.
His cost analysis, quite honestly, is his latest attempt to defend what our opinions must be on the issue at hand, since the science of climatology actually is (in principle, which is all I care to convince him of) valid.
I agree it is a science and that it is valid. I never stated it wasn't, as far as I am aware. I simply stated that you strongly trust the results of a science after
it proves itself as producing accurate predictions, not before
it's predictions have been tested.
Yes, he's discussing what to do, but the context is in defending what our opinion should be on the issue, and it's just as irrelevant.
The issue, to me, isn't "is there human-caused climate change", or even "is this going to be apocalyptic" -- answering either of those honestly and with certainty is not practical by any human agent. The issue to me is "what should we do with the climate change information we have".
Besides, even though Yakk's quick to point out the dire costs of fixing the environment problem as prescribed by the vague group of global warming people's straw-manned view of doom, Yakk is only handwaving. We still don't really know what it is specifically that will cost that much. I'm not exactly sure whether I'll get taxed 80% of my salary, whether I'll be required to tear up my house and build a wooden hut, or what. Basically, Yakk's talking out of his ass to defend his conclusion based on a vague fear. Now, it's fine to speak generally, and talk vaguely, in certain contexts, but these things are so unformulated as to be completely unrecognizable. And they're still just as irrelevant--what Joe thinks about the issue, whoever Joe is, doesn't make theories more true or less true; it's different if Joe has a point, but then, it's the point, not the fact that Joe has it, that we should be hearing. If Joe GlobalWarming has no point, however, it's even more irrelevant to talk about it.
My fear is: using more expensive energy production technologies to avoid emitting CO2 will cost more than using cheap energy production technologies. And given the value of cheap energy, this impact will be non-trivial. This impact will hit both the first world and the developing world: areas of the developing world which historically have clawed there way out of absolute poverty have done so on the backs of mass energy consumption.
This seems like common sense, which is why I don't understand why it is being challenged? A mass reduction in CO2 emissions will be very expensive.
And I'm not saying he has nothing to fear--costs are important to consider. I just, quite frankly, don't care so much for the fact that the one doing the cost considerations is him. I'm perfectly aware of how to make decisions myself, and if he wants to convince me of something, he should just be presenting facts.
I assume you aren't ignorant, and the facts that I can casually get ahold of are facts that you can casually get ahold of. If you disagree with a conclusion or statement I'm making, just cite a fact that seems to undermine my position, and maybe I'll learn something!
So long as he does this, I have no qualms as to what those facts are, just that they're reasonable and true. He should, for example, pick out problems with single studies, problems with multiple studies, etc. Kind of like that conspiracy thing he did about climatologists getting paid to make specific conclusions, except not too unbelievably ridiculous.
What conspiracy thing? You mean that scientists who publish things that are in-line with the current consensus can get published easier than those who disagree? That isn't a conspiracy, that's human nature: humans review papers, and there is a higher standard of proof to convince someone if the paper they are reviewing is putting forward a position that is opposed to their own. And papers that say "I did massive models, and concluded that there isn't enough data to predict anything" are harder to publish than those that generate results.
No conspiracy is needed. Just humans being humans. /shrug. One should expect a bias towards consensus, and the less testable the field is, the larger the bias one should expect. In a field that is more testable, a consensus that is wrong can be exposed: in a field that lacks regular testability, any internally consistent consensus can self-sustain, because someone disagreeing with the consensus cannot produce a testable result that proves the consensus wrong.
Of course, this isn't a link to a paper on the subject, so has no value?http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118972683557627104.html
That's about improper analysis in scientific papers in general.
Here is a book about the structure of scientific discovery:http://www.iconbooks.co.uk/book.cfm?isbn=1-84046-722-3