Thou shalt not make a graph without error bars. In that respect, the error here belongs entirely to whoever made that graph in the first place. They plotted all those models together to try to convince the reader that all models point to doom. But in doing so without error bars, they implied a level of confidence for specific years that was entirely absent from the models.
It would be redundant to include error bars. Each path should be representing a random draw from the space of possible futures.
I don't know enough about meteorology to comment on the article, but this quote bugged me: "And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats." No, there's the exact same amount of reason. This isn't a morality play, who's "fault" it is doesn't matter. If there were a met…
prosperity-destroying energy policies Ever notice how climate change skeptics implicitly claim perfect economic foresight? They may not buy that the Earth is warming or what the cause is, but they're absolutely certain that trying to weatherproof our civilization is going to result in collective bankruptcy. Oh yes.
I knew a brilliant math professor who was a skeptic based on his statistical analysis, but did not have any interest in trying to influence policy there.
I don't know why the uncertainties of climate modelling is valid reason for inaction. When one of the possible outcomes of dumping trillions of tons of GHG into the atmosphere is global disaster, then the poorer our models the more we should be worried.
Exactly. There are two major questions: either the models are right or they are wrong, and either we successfully curb emissions on a very large scale (action) or we do not (inaction). This gives us four outcomes: 1. Models are Right + Action = huge spending on energy but we save the planet 2. Models are wrong + Action = huge spending on energy that otherwise would be spent on defense, etc. but we are left with a ren…
It is nice to see such innocence in this day and age. Regardless of whether or not we can manage to do anything about the problem, the fear people have is the vast amounts of power and wealth we are transferring to select groups of people based on political considerations, rather than market forces. Maybe we can select the perfect "leaders" to do this job justly. Prudence would dictate that you should imagine your political opposites coming into this position. So the worst case scenario is that we enrich a small minority, who are likely to stir up untold strife and suffering in wielding their unearned power. And we still don't solve the problems.
I don't know enough about meteorology to comment on the article, but this quote bugged me: "And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats." No, there's the exact same amount of reason. This isn't a morality play, who's "fault" it is doesn't matter. If there were a met…
If the impact of global warming is significantly smaller than predicted and the human-induced contribution to that reduced warming is also much smaller than claimed, then expensive "green" policies indeed need to be reevaluated. Your fault reasoning has nothing to do with it. Think of it from a programming perspective. You've suddenly discovered that your program runtime wasn't near as slow as you thought. Plus you'v…
Suppose that it's significantly greater than predicted? Are you willing to bet your future happiness, and the health and wealth of the rest of humanity, that it isn't?
I'm a natural skeptic, so when everyone believes something I think that is the most important time to question it. I found Economist Bjorn Lomborg's take on climate change to be very impactful... http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_prioritie... The basic idea is: that given our limited resources how can we do the most good? The answer is that focusing that effort on climate change is frivolous even by…
The problem with doing net present value calculations on climate change is the possibility of "infinite" cost events. Sure it might make more sense from a NPV perspective to spend a given number of dollars on say improving the water treatment in poor countries rather than stopping GHG emissions, but only if we know the maximum cost of climate change. The problem becomes how do you do a NPV calculation on the possibil…
I assume for this reason you also have become religious to avoid a small probability of burning in hell for an infinite amount of time? (See pascals wager.)
More on the author of this post: https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)#Views Another interpretation of this post: http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1xuccb/95_of_climat... (also see ovis's link in a reply below) Regarding very similar claims: https://www.skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-... http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipc…
It matters precisely in a moral sense. Because of the (in)effectuality of the action. Resources are scarce, and you are taking food from a baby...somewhere in the world. Of course none of this matters if you are having "first-world" pyschological problems about guilt...or you are trying to secure some money or presige for your first-world cushy lifestyle.
Energy production is the main 'human contribution' (I think?). Are you really saying, that the Energy industry is a starving baby? They are the richest companies in the world, they can easily afford ALL of the changes that have been suggested, but it isn't about 'affordability' it is about profitablity. Making things more efficient, and encouraging more self/clean power generation runs contrary to Energy companies pr…
This is an argument from convenience. Its like blaming the drug dealers for wall street's cocaine problems. Notwithstanding that issue, you have the opportunity cost of focus and attention on something. Which means you likely have remidiable inefficiency in other areas. It is that which kills...like taking your eye off the road and having a car accident. Again, that has nothing to do with the (oil,power,auto) companies or whether or not you dirve a prius, a tesla, or an F-150.
This is where the guy loses me: "then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats" and "increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good" As if he gives a crap about poor people. People freeze not because of energy policies but because we have poor social welfare and exploitive foreign policy that itself is motivate…
How about cheap and prosperity-inducing energy policies? Like weatherproofing, energy efficiency appliance standards, energy efficiency building codes, fuel efficiency auto standards, etc., etc.?