Phil’s Diary - [Blog @ http://www.philsdiary.net/]
An interesting read on global warming courtesy of ABD.org.
The prof knows a good deal about biology and could well know a lot about the environment, and perhaps could even be right. He’s not the only scientist I’ve heard say this. I’ve yet to make my mind up, but it does remind me not to just follow blindly.
Posted by Phil on July 20, 2004 08:05 PM | Categories: Thoughts
OTOH, the people claiming that either 1) there's no global warming or 2) it hasn't been proven yet, by portraying the issue as purely scientific are ignoring the economic cost/benefit issues many are so eager to wave around when such analysis may support their favourite programs.
What's interesting is that if we applied the same reasoning to global warming that has been applied to international political issues, there'd be no question that most of the prominent political nay-sayers would have jumped on the bandwagon. Examples:
Europe 1930-1940. The policy of appeasement of Hitler didn't prevent WWII; it may have delayed it until the UK and the US woke to the reality of Sept. 1, 1939.
Europe (and Asia, and North America) 1945-1990. The premise was quickly accepted that Communist expansion presented a serious threat to the free world. The West acted on this premise and we managed to avoid any major wars, despite the weaponry buildup on both sides. As spinoffs we got serious aeronautical advances, rapid advances in nuclear power plant design, improved remote sensing instrumentation, rapid advances in electronics and computer technology, . . .
Iraq, 2003. The US acted on the administration's presumption that Saddam Hussein presented a real and serious threat. There was a benefit, in that Saddam is now out of power. Was it worth the cost? On the face of it, and at present (the supposed dangers he presented to the outside world haven't been located yet; the evidence seems to strongly indicate that selective reading of the record was used to bolster a very tenuous justification which has shifted several times as the various weak points were revealed), not to those who bore the brunt of the burden. But had we delayed until there was absolute proof, it might have come in the form of a catastrophe rather than through investigative findings. Compare this argument with the one that global warming hasn't been conclusively proven, therefore we should do nothing, and look at who espouses both arguments, for an interesting perspective.
Given: whether there's global worming or there isn't has not been determined. There are two possible courses of action: proceed to mitigate the (disputed) effects by reducing greenhouse emissions (which are not limited to CO2) or do nothing while further proof is sought. This leads to 4 possible outcomes:
1) There's global warming, and we've acted to mitigate. Benefit: We stop, or mitigate, the problem with less severe disruption than if we delay.
2) There's no global warming but we've acted to reduce greenhouse emissions. Many of the steps to reduce greenhouse emissions (alternative energy, cleaner-burning fuels) will also reduce other, toxic, emissions which are contributing to respiratory and other health problems. Some of these measures may also spark innovation in other areas such as space flight (powersats, remote sensing satellites for weather, environmental monitoring, . . .) I'd say that's a win, even if the premise was wrong.
3) There's no global warming, and we don't do anything unless it's proven. We don't spend money cleaning up a non-existent proble, but we don't get the side benefits which inevitably arise from researching and applying new technologies. Maybe not a loss, but certainly not a win. It's not going turn out any cheaper in the long run since there'll be no impact on health problems, or non-renewable resource consumption (to name two) and those costs will inevitably continue to rise.
4) There is global warming and we do nothing until it's indisputable to even those most opposed to the theory. By delaying, we've reduced the time to act, so we need to take more aggressive measures, which we aren't well prepared for. The odds of success are reduced, the cost will be greater, and disruptions will be more severe. We may see the onset of some of the predicted climatic shifts and have to try to reverse them, rather than being able to stave them off.
There is potentially another situation: global warming is not principally caused by greenhouse gas emissions. That's really a special case of 2) above. We still stand to benefit from spin-offs, and who knows? If warming is coming from outside factors, we may even be able to mitigate those effects by reducing insolation. That sounds like a win, too.
Posted by: Jon at July 23, 2004 1:48 PM
That prof is a real nuisence.
Not because he is stupid or wrong, he is neither. Just because the language and expression he uses often has others wondering what he smoked that day.
The biggest error the environmentalists +opinion makers make is taking scientific hypothesis for fact. If a scientists says "A could happen if B happens" they turn it around and announce "scientist x says A will happen". Because in general science -eventually- comes up with usefull answers they refuse the "we don't know" as an answer.
Posted by: sjon at July 22, 2004 11:39 AM