Which is the best policy for climate change, that of deniers or believers?

For the purpose of this argument, let us accept the idea that we do not know, with 100% absolute certainty, which of the two groups are correct.

So...If we go with either policies, we could be wrong, we could be in err.

So, the way to figure out which, is to figure who which side would we rather err with, if err we must.

The best policy would be the one which is to err on the side that will, if they are wrong, provide the least damage, if they are right, provide the greatest benefit.

So, if we err with the climate deniers, and they are right, by doing nothing, we save a few jobs and some money ( or so the logic goes )
If the climate deniers are wrong, worst case scenario, we lose the planet and/or we all suffocate and become extinct.

IF we err with the climate change believers, and they are wrong, the worst case scenario, we lose some jobs and some money ( or so the logic goes )
IF we go with the climate change believers and they are right , and try and do something about it, we might save the planet and its inhabitants.


From the standpoint of pure logic, which of the above paths is the wisest?

 

We have already erred with the science deniers. And we have lost many opportunities. The opportunity to take the world leadership, not only in policies, but in technology. If we had only understood the threat when we first knew for a fact that it was a real threat (i.e. early 2000s), investment in green technology would have soared. We would not have lost jobs or anything. We would have created them. By the millions.

We had the best resources to actually profit from climate change. We had the capitalists, we had the know how, we had the drive, ... But denialists blew it! We had the opportunity even in 2017 to use our advantages. Denialists blew it!

Maybe we'll still have it in 2021. Who knows... but it will be much less likely.

 

The 'consensus' last it was shoved down my throat was that the changes necessary to have a meaningful impact (ie- prevent catastrophe) would fundamentally alter our way of life by totally banning fossil fuels, forcing the entire planet into austerity and enforcing population controls (and it had to be done years ago or it was 'too late'). Assuming its not actually too late, thats still an awful lot to commit to without any guarantees that A- it'll work and B- humans are actually the problem. 'Losing some jobs and some money' is putting it disingenuously lightly.

I say we continue to advance renewable energy alternatives, recycle what we can, protect the environment from things we can prove are dangerous like heavy metals and toxic waste, and build a strong global economy that will be able to more easily adapt to climate change. The less destitute we are if/when our current farmland turns to desert and our sea levels rise, the easier it will be to move our farmland to newly thawed regions and move our cities away from the coast.

We're not turning into Mars. We can adapt to whats happening. The more resource we pour into trying to stop it, the less resource we'll have in reserve to use while we adapt to it.

 

It is like I posted on the other thread.

I have a major problem with that approach. It is not one or the other. It is a continuum. We could throw all logic to the wind and just keep on burning fossil fuels with the accompanying pollution. Not just CO2, but all the other contaminants that go along with it.

The other extreme is that we are going to quit burning any kind of fuel that puts off CO2. That means no more cars. Nothing. We just huddle around in blankets. No more meat. Kill all non-human animals. We all grow our own food.

The answer is somewhere in between, And that is where the controversy lies. Moving the goal post in either direction has undesirable consequences and good consequences.

Personally, I like wind turbines and solar panels. However, I also like a good economy and in spite of how they try to convince you, a rapid change to "green"{ energy will hurt the economy. That is for a very simple reason. Anything that subtracts from the consumer goods we like and enjoy will hurt the economy. It is similar to putting someone to work digging holes and then filling them in just to keep them employed. If they are not producing something we want or need, it is of less immediate value. We should be shifting to green energy has it becomes less expensive to do so.

I don't buy the argument that the world is going to come to an end if we do not do it fast enough. Humans are amazingly adaptive. We have been doing it as long as we have been on this earth.

 

The hardcore believers are welcome to live as simple as possible. Ride a bike, plant a garden, turn up/off the ac. Etc.

I would like to see them at least attempt the effort on their own.

 

It would be helpful if the people would stop trying to sneak in their social policies into anything we do related to climate change.
There are a lot of technological and security benefits to progress in solar technology and battery tech but instead of focusing on promoting those benefits they focus on moral and emotional things like polar bears and end of world scenarios.

 

NO one is making a claim one way or the other, I'm positing worst case scenarios on each if either were wrong.

One can posit a worst case scenario, plan for the worst, hope and strive for the best. Nor am I saying, necessarily, it's all one or the other, but what I'm asking is which of the two is the wisest path we focus the most on, use as the guiding principle.

 

My point is that there is no plan which can plan for the worse, because going either way has unacceptable consequences. It is a matter of how far you go in either direction. The further you go in either direction, the worse the consequences.

 

Which is the best policy for climate change, that of deniers or believers?

That depends on whose policy it is and how much it will cost the economy. If you want me to think that government can control climate change, then you will fail. If you think the private sector can control it, then please explain how. Climate will change no matter what we do. Tides will continue, volcanoes will erupt, hurricanes will develop. The planet is in charge. We should spend our time worrying about how to adapt to what the planet does. Trying to control it reminds me of an ant crawling up the leg of an elephant with rape on its mind.

 

I don't believe it's how far we go, but how fast. Elon Musk has proven an entire factory can be powered by and profitably run using renewable energy. When you drive off in a new Tesla, the energy powering the car came directly from the sun and wind. This is the future. It can't be stopped.

It will take time to get costs down - everyone can't afford a Tesla - and drastic change is never good, but it seems inevitable that 100 years from now, crude oil and coal will be used for things other than energy.

The environment is important. I'm not an alarmist, but the science is undeniable. Many people think climate change is a new science. It's not. Scientists have been observing man's influence on climate since the late 19th century. The greenhouse effect was first calculated in 1896 by the Swedish physicist Svante Arrhenius. With 99% of the world still using horse and buggy at the time, the contemporary consensus among researchers was that it would take 1000 years to reach a critical stage.

What's just as important - probably more so to most - is the economics of renewable energy. Gone will be the days of paying the power company every month. Homes will be heated not with maintenance-heavy gas furnaces, but with efficient electric elements placed in walls throughout the home. Gone will be the days of paying at the pump. Our cars will be charged by the sun and wind.

Renewable energy is the future. It's already here. Everything I mentioned above is already being done. Rational people realize we can't transition from fossil fuels in a matter of a few years. We also understand that any transition should have a plan.

 

You can believe whatever you want, but when scientists examine the data, plug that data into the various equations, it becomes undeniable that man's influence on the environment is responsible for the rise in global temperature.

If we're causing it, correcting it becomes possible. No elephants. No ants.

 

What part of the chart covers man's influence?

 

How about an honest policy that states that we just don't know if it's a natural phenomena or man somehow contributes and do our absolute best to clean up and maintain the environment. We should also be looking at ways to cope with climate change such as it is because it is here and will be for generations. I see reasonable mitigation efforts as a plus, we've just witnessed a major change in air quality because of the Covid shutdown. It is certain to return to former levels once the crisis is over if we don't change our ways. There has to be consensus and arguing about whether or not it's man made has become pointless and unproductive. We can do better, we've seen it, but can't get there as long as the issue remains political.

 

I don't care so much for climate change. Yes, it exists, yes, it is man-made. Okay, some rich people might lose their ocean front homes, they can deal with it. On the other hand, warmer climate up north can extend the growing season. Some will win, some will lose. I don't believe that it is clear whether overall it is going to be detrimental for humanity or not.

I believe, however, that no matter what policy decision are made with respect to climate change, we will eventually be forced to switch from fossil fuels as our main energy source because of the simple reason that FOSSIL FUELS ARE NON-RENEWABLE. To repeat: NON-RENEWABLE.

Right now, people act like oil will last forever. Well, if you are 55 years old, as I am, that's probably true. If you are born today, I am 100% certain that you will see the end of the fossil fuel energy economy. Every gallon of oil we use today, we basically steal from future generations. That means we will FORCE the transition to alternative energy sources on them, that we are too cheap to promote right now, while we still can. Note: it is a lot easier to make solar panels when oil is still abundant, than to make them when oil prices go through the roof.

 

The real dilemma is that neither camp has the full and correct understanding of global warming. One cannot take either camp's argument as unassailable or correct. The vast majority of both the warmers and the so-called deniers have very little understanding of climate science. The scientists in both camps, who do have some knowledge of climate science (which is one of the most difficult sciences to grasp) are adamantly pushing their own current beliefs and agendas more than searching for scientific truth. For instance there is no scientific evidence that, left unchecked, global warming will 'destroy the planet and make us all extinct', not by a long shot or even close. Your question as phrased is a Hobson's choice.

 

You missed the point of the OP. The OP doesn't state any position with certainty, so the premise was how do choose which path to base policy on given the POSSIBILITY that we could err on either path?

The way to do that is to understand "possible" ( note I didn't say '100% certainty" ) worst case scenarios which might be the outcome of either path.

So, in order to choose which path we establish what are the potential worst case scenarios of each, and the best case scenarios of each, and after looking at each, noting that either path to be totally wrong, so we decide which to choose based on possible outcomes if we err.

See, the MISTAKE you are making is that you appear to be certain.

There is no way in hell you can be certain.

But, there are a number of scientists who seem agree that there is, indeed, evidence, such as these people. Now, I have no idea as to their credibility, etc. But, I will leave that to others fo duke it out.

Perhaps these people are just making stuff up to mess the heads of people like you, what the **** do I know?

https://ipbes.net/news/Media-Release-Global-Assessment (summary here: )
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/yd8l2v0u...lease+Global+Assessment+Final+Errata2+ENG.pdf

 

Is it possible? Do you know with 100% ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY?

What are your qualifications for that determination?

 

Only until the wind dies off. And it does over an large areas for extended periods in the middle of a hot summer.

 

I think it depends, some people look forward to the end of the world, see it as part of God's plan

 

I have seen this exact same argument made in regards to believers and non believers regarding religion. For that matter, the parallels between AGW and religion are uncanny.

 

One of the smartest guys in the country is the conservative Republican Judge Posner (He was Republican, he may not be now).

20 years ago, in the Posner/Becker blog he argued we should make an all out effort on climate change using a decision chart similar to what you seem to be saying there. Managing risk...

But that combination, conservative (the real thing, not the extremists you see today), smart and extremely well informed was rare back then. I think the breed may have gone extinct.

 

Yes, but if we wait until we are forced to switch, would it be too late at that juncture? This is the potential worst case scenario I think it would be wiser to prevent, even if that outcome is, in fact, a mirage ( see, at this juncture, we don't know, but it just might be true ).


Do we know with 100% certainty the eventual outcome of our current path of ignoring climate science?

I don't think we do, therefore...

I think we should base our decision on which is the wiser path based on potential worst case scenarios. In short, prepare for the worst but strive an work towards the best.

That was the point of the OP, not to state with 100% certainty which camp is correct, but to look at worst and best case scenarios that MIGHT be the outcome of each, and decide which is the better path. In short, we should be basing policy on which camp should we err on, if err we must?


Climate change denier camp: Worse case potential outcome: Extinction of mankind. Best case potential outcome: Nothing happens, normal survival of mankind and species outside of normal extinction patterns for non human life. Jobs and incomes and bank accounts not affected.

Climate change believer camp: Worst case potential outcome: Jobs lost and incomes diminished / bank accounts shrunk due to environmental policies preparing for worst case scenario in order to prevent it (or so the logic goes, though I doubt it, but let's, for argument sakes, say it's true). Best case potential outcome: Extinction of mankind thwarted.

Note, no one is claiming either camp is the correct one, this is just a worst case/best case POTENTIAL outcome of each.

So, if we do err on either camp, which camp would we rather err with, IF err we must?

Seems to me that the wiser path is the climate change believer camp.

 

Unfortunately, stupidity is not a crime, and by and for the stupid among us, they have found their champion, his name is Donald Trump.

 

That is false! Pure right-wing fake propaganda. None of those things are even remotely true.

 

Yes, but being an deist, theist, monotheist, pantheist, or atheist, none of these directly affect the environment.

Or maybe it does, is there a correlation?

It has been said that correlation is not causation. However, I assert that that proclamation is not quite correct.

To restate it to be more correct, let's think it through to it's logical conclusion, and see where we wind up.

For example, whom should a detective suspect, first, in the following scenarios given these facts?

Person A is present or in the vicinity of over 100 murders all of which happened at different locations and different dates.

Person B, who has been known to associate with A in some capacity, was not present nor in the vicinity of over 100 murders all of which happened at different locations and different dates.

So, these are possible answers as to who the culprit is

1. Person A is the culprit.

2. Person B and A are the culprits because B hired A to do the murders.

3. Person B is innocent as there is no evidence.

4. Person A is innocent, it was a coincidence and there is no direct link to the murders beyond proximity.


So, where does the detective begin his search for the culprit?

I should think the wise detective starts questioning person A.

Therefore, the statement 'correlation is not causation' should be stated, in order to be more correct, thus:

Correlation may, or may not be, causation, but it is at least one of the logical places, if not the first place, to begin the search for the culprit or cause.

However, claiming Christianity or being religious is the cause of climate change denial, I don't know how to connect the dots on that one, nor do I think we should or even want to do that.