hmmm

[Unstoppable]

I think i'll pick column A

 

http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/244/hi...ate-change.html

[Komag]

Not me, B all the way.

[Crispy]

Not me, B all the way.

Have you found a flaw in the argument, or are you just stirring the pot?

 

My money is on the latter.

[OrbWeaver]

I saw this when it was doing the rounds on Facebook. It worries me[1] that such an obvious basic argument would even need to be made.

 

Of course it is a massive oversimplification, particularly in the way the he paints the issue as a one-off decision that has to be made now and stuck with for the rest of time, rather than a continuous process of re-evaluation and adaptation.

 

[1] Where "worries" means "does not surprise me in the least, but would worry me if I were still naive enough to think that the world wasn't populated by drooling half-wits".

[New Horizon]

Yeah, it's amazing that such an obvious argument needs to be made at all in this day and age. It's the half wits in government stalling on things...so many people have been crying out for action for years.

[oDDity]

Obvious argument, my ass. It's easy to come up with worst possible scenarios when you don't actually have to give any evidence to show that its our fault, or give any evidence that we can actually turn the climate around if it's due to natural forces.

To me, it's no better than the god argument - you may as well believe in god, because if he exists then you'll be fine, and if he doesn't, it won't matter anyway.

Worst possible scenario is that you end up burning in hell for eternity if you take no action.

So, we all start grovelling to god now 'just in case' ?

It doesn't cost us anything to do so, so when you consider the risk, it's definitely worth it.

I don't think that plucking worst case scenarios out of thin air and saying 'you better behave in a certain way or this might happen' is a very useful way to behave.

[demagogue]

First, a fun quote: "When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others." Bertrand Russell

 

As a lawyer that regularly argues about risk regulation, the precautionary principle, and climate change, I have to say his argument may be on the right track in trying to take a more economic approach, but his final analysis, on-its-face, is unsound and actually pulls a bait and switch (making you think you're going to be doing good economic reasoning, but actually not doing it in the end). I might forgive the guy just because it's obvious that he's not used to reasoning about uncertainty, risk regulation, cost-benefit analysis, modal logic, etc., so makes some common mistakes. But that also means I only have to take his argument as seriously as its untrained logic.

 

He's right that risk-risk tradeoffs are an important part of sound cost-benefit analysis under uncertainty. But what you aren't allowed to do is have one risk act as a *trump* card that negates the need to actually do the risk-risk tradeoff. The whole point of reasoning under uncertainty is that it's irrational, and terribly wasteful, to just close your eyes and pretend one option is 100% likely; then you're not reasoning about uncertainty; you're ignoring it. You should actually try to generate a quantifiable measure of all the risks and costs and benefits (where risk = severity (cost) of damage * likelihood it will occur), and then get an understanding of the whole risk-portfolio generally. It's the whole risk portfolio you should tailor your regulation towards ... that's the economically sound approach that most rationally maximizes the benefits over the costs/risks (which is what risk regulation is supposed to be about, isn't it?).

 

So one approach is you could add an "informed margin of risk" to the regulation you'd otherwise choose based on the best available information (in the face of some uncertainty of further risks, "informed" in that the uncertain risk at least has some rational basis to exist), with the margin being sensitive to the actual risk (cost * likelihood) of it, and that would be sensible.

 

Also, general (expert) opinion is veering towards the idea that precaution is much better handled as a procedural response (a list of things to do) as opposed to a substantive response (an actual target of protection to shoot for), so this includes things like requiring periodic risk analysis and regulation changes as new information comes in that further clarifies the risk.

 

 

There's a lot more to say than that.

But better to just stop here and give citations to more complete responses for the record:

 

Richard Stewart, Environmental Regulatory Decision Making under Uncertainty, in Timothy Swanson (ed), An Introduction to the Law and Economics of Environmental Policy: Issues in Institutional Design (2002).

 

Cass Sunstein, Beyond the Precautionary Principle, Univ of Chicago, Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper no. 38 (2003).

Edited January 13, 2008 by demagogue

[OrbWeaver]

I think that's pretty much what I said, but expanded to several hundred words.

 

Of course it is a massive oversimplification, particularly in the way the he paints the issue as a one-off decision that has to be made now and stuck with for the rest of time, rather than a continuous process of re-evaluation and adaptation.

[oDDity]

demagogue s a typical victim of having read too much. His opinions are no longer his own, but pieced together from what other people think. There's no point in even having an opinion unless it's your own.

[SplaTtzZ]

On the other hand, when was the last time you met an opinionated lawyer?

[demagogue]

demagogue s a typical victim of having read too much. His opinions are no longer his own, but pieced together from what other people think. There's no point in even having an opinion unless it's your own.

 

You may think that from my post, but I spent a good part of ~7 years hashing out my own opinions on this. I've written on these issues too. I didn't cite to my own work because those papers were more on point, and I've come to agree with their general approach, and with the "general opinion" I mentioned on that one point. At the same time though, there is plenty I could criticize about both of those papers/authors, and especially about general opinion [too much writing to put it here, though].

 

So trust me, I've worked very hard to make sure my opinions are my own and far from pieced together from what others think; I never miss an chance to overturn even the most established authorities when I disagree or take their own ideas in directions that they couldn't or didn't.

 

Also, keep in mind the issues here are still on a pretty Micky Mouse level, the sort of foundational issues that most experts agree on not because "important people" said them, but because, well, when you're right, you're right. Get into the meat of the issue and I can tell you what I personally think on each tangent, and how it relates to, overturns, agrees with, qualifies, etc, what everybody else talking about this has said (that's relevant, anyway). But that's better done over beers in a bar than a chat-forum.

 

................................

 

Finally, I find it laughable that you seem to think that reading is actually a detriment to independent thought; it's not that hard for a person to distinguish their own thinking from a book's. But what's laughable is the suggestion that apparently not reading what other people have already said about your topic will make the same ideas suddenly "independent" when you have them on your own. To me, that sounds less like independence and more like ignorance as a cover for it. I don't think a person's thinking can be entirely independent until they've read the important things that have already been said on the subject.

Edited January 13, 2008 by demagogue

[Vadrosaul]

From what I’ve gleaned from the debate on global warming, neither side is stupid enough to argue that it isn’t happening, but the critics of it have strong evidence that man-made carbon emissions are nothing more than a kiddy fart when against the maelstrom of volcanic emissions, livestock methane, human beings breathing, increased solar flaring, and being in a warm period of the earth’s history of warm/cool cycles. The proponents also have strong evidence via carbon dating, the reality of pollution, and depleting ozone from chloro-chemicals.

 

I’m not educated or knowledgeable enough to make a judgment call either way, so I haven’t, and it’s silly that I find people sheepishly taking sides when they are even less educated or knowledgeable than me. Most like that want to use anything as a crutch to assault the philosophical/political opposites. That’s essentially when the head gets stuck up the ass so much that obvious practical compromises don’t permeate through thick, angst-ridden skulls.

 

At least while they moan the movers & shakers are pushing nuclear & other alternate sources instead of wasting time playing the blame game. Self-sufficient power architecture, instead of relying on crazyville, aka Middle East, along with the eradication of pollution, is enough reason to push forward instead of berating the other side for who to blame the possibility of man-made global warming. Someone just needs to tell them to “get the hell out of the way”(Galt reference) when they start pissing in the pool of practical, encompassing progress, such as nuclear power.

[Macsen]

Does it really matter what we think? Even if global warming is man made, our small efforts to prevent it is just pissing into a volcano. Apparently even if everyone in the UK recycled and took public transport every day climate change would only be slowed by about 7 hours. All we can really do is vote for people who take their lead from scientists and not big business or religion.

[New Horizon]

Nobody completely owns their opinion.

[oDDity]

You may think that from my post, but I spent a good part of ~7 years hashing out my own opinions on this. I've written on these issues too. I didn't cite to my own work because those papers were more on point, and I've come to agree with their general approach, and with the "general opinion" I mentioned on that one point. At the same time though, there is plenty I could criticize about both of those papers/authors, and especially about general opinion [too much writing to put it here, though].

 

So trust me, I've worked very hard to make sure my opinions are my own and far from pieced together from what others think; I never miss an chance to overturn even the most established authorities when I disagree or take their own ideas in directions that they couldn't or didn't.

 

Also, keep in mind the issues here are still on a pretty Micky Mouse level, the sort of foundational issues that most experts agree on not because "important people" said them, but because, well, when you're right, you're right. Get into the meat of the issue and I can tell you what I personally think on each tangent, and how it relates to, overturns, agrees with, qualifies, etc, what everybody else talking about this has said (that's relevant, anyway). But that's better done over beers in a bar than a chat-forum.

 

................................

 

Finally, I find it laughable that you seem to think that reading is actually a detriment to independent thought; it's not that hard for a person to distinguish their own thinking from a book's. But what's laughable is the suggestion that apparently not reading what other people have already said about your topic will make the same ideas suddenly "independent" when you have them on your own. To me, that sounds less like independence and more like ignorance as a cover for it. I don't think a person's thinking can be entirely independent until they've read the important things that have already been said on the subject.

 

WHat kind of thinking is that?

You can't have an independent thought until you've heard everyone else's opinions on the subject?

That's the most whacko thing I've ever heard.

Certainly, it's true that you can't be sure your opinions are different from everyone else's until you've heard everyone else, but that's not the same as independence.

YOu have to base your opinion on data, facts (or apparent facts, obviously you can't personally conduct every experiment yourself), but there's a difference between looking at cold data and basing your opinion on that, and simply quoting what someone else has said after they looked at the data.

Of course, your ability to understand and interpret that data successfully is important, but I'd rather be wrong based on my own opinion than just ape what someone else says, because they are a supposed 'expert'. Those 'experts' are just out making a living the same as everyone else, and their opinions can be as biased as anyone else's.