Comments on: Climate Change deniers and skeptics

By: Joe Otten

Joe Otten — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:34:26 +0000

Sorry, Tristan, I was getting your second and third groups confused. So I withdraw my original comment.

So going back to the third group: “They also acknowledge that we don’t know enough about the other possible causes of climate change.”

This is a bit odd. We want to improve the accuracy of the estimates of all the parameters in the climate models, there isn’t a sound scientific reason to treat the parameters representing anthropogenic factors differently from the others in the modelling process.

The contrarians make use of the fact that few people understand how mathematical modelling and statistical inference work, to paint a conclusion as an assumption - in this case that the anthropogenic factors are needed to explain the observed climate changes, that models without those factors clearly and grossly fail to do so.

By: Joe Otten

Joe Otten — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:36:33 +0000

Sorry, your other point:

“The best thing to do may be to adapt, to increase globalisation to make poorest richer.”

Yes, well I would say “is” rather than “may be”. Everybody but the Green Party agrees with this, don’t they? Have I missed something? Why don’t you save this remark for when somebody advocates the opposite.

By: Joe Otten

Joe Otten — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:17:15 +0000

Tristan, I don’t suggest for a moment you shouldn’t be skeptical of scientific research, never mind green lobbyists.

But if you want to adopt a position that is contrary to the mainstream science, such as that warming is not due to anthropogenic gas emissions, then you are the one who has a lot of work to do to justify it.

One doesn’t go round arbitrarily believing things for which the weight of evidence is against. Unless there is some psychological factor, such as wishful thinking, involved.

Libertarians can’t cope with global warming, for example, because it doesn’t fit their agenda. Without these irrational psycological factors, the percentage of libertarians who are deniers would be similar to the proportion of non-libertarians who are deniers, don’t you think?

By: tristan

tristan — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:51:59 +0000

Well, perhaps people should stop aping the hysterics and citing Al Gore at every turn, it may actually do their credibility some good.
Perhaps they should actually look at the IPCC report rather than appealing to cheap emotional argument like ‘think of the poor polar bears floating on ice floes’ or ‘the Inuit lifestyle might have to change’ (oh I’m sorry, we must preserve their lifestyle as a museum piece because its so romantic).

Heterodox science needs to actually be looked at rather than swept under the carpet. We must ignore any ’science’ for which methodology is not given. We must be rational.

Nobody has demonstrated that we’re all doomed, just that our lives might change a bit and that the poor will be more severely affected, so lets look at this rationally.

The best thing to do may be to adapt, to increase globalisation to make poorest richer. In fact, surprise, the IPCC recommends just this, alongside developing technologies which emit less carbon.

I am actually calling for a look at all the science. Mainstream and heterodox. It must all be evaluated for its validity. ALL methodology must be given, all data must be supplied. Given its estimated that the majority of scientific papers produced today are not worth the paper they’re written on I think this is imperative.

So I’m not guilty of wishful thinking, I’m guilty of being skeptical of the politicians and the green lobbyists who have other agendas as well (just as I’d be skeptical of anything emanating from Exxon or a company selling solar panels).

By: Joe Otten

Joe Otten — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:16:02 +0000

Tristan, lumping the hysterics with the mainstream science is a cheap rhetorical device.

What you call the ‘rational’ group is as guilty of wishful thinking as the deniers.

By: Tinter

Tinter — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:24:01 +0000

The impact of climate change on many poor people is well documented, not only at home, but indisputably in areas such as India and Sub-Saharan Africa. As a free trader the knock on should be obvious. Even without this, liberal internationalism would call for a response.
It is a clear case of an externality that justifies government intervention. Of course, that should come in the form of generalised measures against emissions and not penny-packet attacks against the lefts pet hates.
However, the propensity to do this and to bring in other issues (nuclear power!) should not allow us to be misled into thinking that the many serious reports into the issue have all reached the wrong conclusion. The case for climate change, and its huge downside, is clear.
I am interested in what conclusions you think clear thinking will lead us to do. I know you are pro-nuclear power, and also do not support specific targeting of measures without evidence. I agree on both points, but surely you must have some idea of the wider program required?
Personally, I think a direct tax targeted at emission levels of a good or service is the solution. This way, the external costs will be accounted for and the market can find the cost/benefit ration by itself, whether this meets the desires of the sandal brigade or not.
This is an unfortunately regressive tax, but I believe the long term economic benefits will produce returns for everyone. Breaks on essential goods, as seen with vat, would help this also. Carbon trading schemes and the like are simply too bureaucratic and ineffective.