uncertainty loop

[overtone]

So if IAMs are worthless why are they used to set policy and compare costs?

Because bureaucracy has a need for justification.

 

But you won't save a nickel by not using them - you still have the CO2 boost and its various potentials and likelihoods of disaster, so you're just spending the money based on some other way of choosing the funding targets.

 

You are going to be doing something, or you're a damn fool.

 

Spending $100T needlessly will only make the world worse off not better.

If we got rid of coal fired power plants and energy dependency on the political snakepit that is the Middle East, it would be money well spent on that alone. Edited October 30, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

If climate change is a big hoax and we spend $100T on it, that will be $100T spent on nothing.

 

No.

It will not.

The idea is just plain silly.

Much of the money will be spent on people doing stuff. That will mean that they can afford to raise their kids and that they can buy stuff at the local store so the owner and staff of that store benefit and so on until you realise that the money doesn't just "evaporate".

 

Even if all you did was spend the money on a huge statue of Mickey mouse you would still keep a small army of concrete makers 9or whatever) in jobs and so on.

The only way to absolutely waste money is not to spend it.

[waitforufo]

No.

It will not.

The idea is just plain silly.

Much of the money will be spent on people doing stuff. That will mean that they can afford to raise their kids and that they can buy stuff at the local store so the owner and staff of that store benefit and so on until you realise that the money doesn't just "evaporate".

 

Even if all you did was spend the money on a huge statue of Mickey mouse you would still keep a small army of concrete makers 9or whatever) in jobs and so on.

The only way to absolutely waste money is not to spend it.

The money we are talking about isn't just sitting around doing nothing. It is in the hands of tax payers and energy consumers. They will spend it. Some will spend it on the necessities of life, some will spend it on education, others at the track, and people like me will spend it on motorcycles and fast women. So the money will still be spent on people doing stuff. Your Mickey mouse idea is just that, a Mickey mouse idea. It's the broken window fallacy. Perhaps you should study economics a bit more. Particularly focus on the multiplier effect. I see no benefit and little multiplier effect from figuring out more expensive ways of producing energy if anthropogenic climate change is insignificant or a hoax as your cartoon suggests. If it is a hoax, spending the money in that way will only produce suffering in the lives of those the money is taken from.

 

The article in my opener from the Climate Hawk says

 

 

the quest to predict what climate change (or climate change mitigation) will cost through 2100 ought to be abandoned. It is impossible, computationally intractable, and the IAMs that pretend to do it only serve to distract and confuse.

 

The IPCC says

 

we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

 

So we know very little. So considering all the motorcycles and fast women one can get with $100T and the known enjoyment both will bring, why spend the money on something we know so little about?

[studiot]

 

if anthropogenic climate change is insignificant or a hoax as your cartoon suggests.

 

I don't think John's cartoon suggests this at all, although it does examine the case as hypothetical.

[overtone]

So we know very little. So considering all the motorcycles and fast women one can get with $100T and the known enjoyment both will bring, why spend the money on something we know so little about?

You aren't going to save any money by ignoring an incoming avalanche - whether you know exactly what is going to be overrun, and how, and when, or not.

 

Your trillions are spent, already. They are money owed.

 

Complaining about the inadequacy of the models is one thing. Discarding all recognition of reality because the best efforts of the modelers haven't caught up with the complexity and scale and speed of the change is another matter entirely.

Edited October 31, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

So considering all the motorcycles and fast women one can get with $100T and the known enjoyment both will bring, why spend the money on something we know so little about?

Because, if we don't spend it on saving the world, the clear prospect is that there will not be many more years of women and bikes.

Did you think that was a serious suggestion?

 

Also, the cartoon doesn't suggest that global warming is a hoax.

Once again: did you really think that was a serious suggestion?

[swansont]

The money we are talking about isn't just sitting around doing nothing. It is in the hands of tax payers and energy consumers. They will spend it. Some will spend it on the necessities of life, some will spend it on education, others at the track, and people like me will spend it on motorcycles and fast women. So the money will still be spent on people doing stuff. Your Mickey mouse idea is just that, a Mickey mouse idea. It's the broken window fallacy. Perhaps you should study economics a bit more. Particularly focus on the multiplier effect. I see no benefit and little multiplier effect from figuring out more expensive ways of producing energy if anthropogenic climate change is insignificant or a hoax as your cartoon suggests.

Some of it will come from people who would otherwise not spend it, since putting it in the stock market is not spending.

 

But we could just not spend that money on some warships that will never fire their weapons in anger.

 

If it is a hoax, spending the money in that way will only produce suffering in the lives of those the money is taken from.

Good to know hyperbole is not in short supply.

 

So we know very little.

No, that's not it. That's a complete misread of the statement. It is well-nigh impossible to predict the specific state of the climate, just like can't accurately predict a random card from a standard deck. But there are still lots of things you know about the card, and lots of things that are ruled out.

[waitforufo]

Why don't you climate alarmist wake up? There are negative consequences for being wrong about anthropogenic climate change. Trillions of dollars spent on trying to prevent the replenishment of CO2 in our atmosphere just might be a bad bet. If it is, you will be creating nothing but poverty and suffering. Why do you think countries like India, China, and Russia are telling you to drop dead. Why do you think American politicians are trying to convince the the people that gee shucks even it we are wrong the result will only be a better planet line Johns cartoon suggests? If you are wrong, the lost opportunity of the money spent on preventing your predicted catastrophe that never comes will be enormous.

If you don't see the hubris of John's cartoon, you are blind.

[moth]

Why don't you climate alarmist wake up? There are negative consequences for being wrong about anthropogenic climate change. Trillions of dollars spent on trying to prevent the replenishment of CO2 in our atmosphere just might be a bad bet. If it is, you will be creating nothing but poverty and suffering. Why do you think countries like India, China, and Russia are telling you to drop dead. Why do you think American politicians are trying to convince the the people that gee shucks even it we are wrong the result will only be a better planet line Johns cartoon suggests? If you are wrong, the lost opportunity of the money spent on preventing your predicted catastrophe that never comes will be enormous.

If you don't see the hubris of John's cartoon, you are blind.

 

 

Or it might be cheap insurance agaist de-terraforming the entire planet.

You sound like one of those funny-looking guys from "They Live".

So do the executives at exxon/mob. Their climate scientists predicted this current warming in the arctic will make the oil there cheaper and easier to get to market at least 25 YEARS AGO.

With their obvious attempts to keep the public devided on accepting the science linking climate change and fossil fuels, I wonder if you can still get those Roddy Piper shades?

Edited October 31, 2015 by moth

[swansont]

Why don't you climate alarmist wake up? There are negative consequences for being wrong about anthropogenic climate change. Trillions of dollars spent on trying to prevent the replenishment of CO2 in our atmosphere just might be a bad bet. If it is, you will be creating nothing but poverty and suffering. Why do you think countries like India, China, and Russia are telling you to drop dead. Why do you think American politicians are trying to convince the the people that gee shucks even it we are wrong the result will only be a better planet line Johns cartoon suggests? If you are wrong, the lost opportunity of the money spent on preventing your predicted catastrophe that never comes will be enormous.

If you don't see the hubris of John's cartoon, you are blind.

Why won't you denialists learn the facts? Things don't become true, such as your economic alarmism, just because you say them.

[John Cuthber]

Why don't you climate alarmist wake up? There are negative consequences for being wrong about anthropogenic climate change.

There is no evidence that we even might be wrong about it in general.

The only uncertainties are how bad will it be and what can we do about it.

 

Twenty years ago you would have had a valid point- the uncertainties were much greater, but now there just isn't any reasonable doubt left.

 

image from

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/07/31/human-climate-link-still-97-nope-99-video/

[Phi for All]

Trillions of dollars spent on trying to prevent the replenishment of CO2 in our atmosphere just might be a bad bet.

 

Let's say deniers get their way and delay substantive efforts at mitigation, everything goes just the way you personally would have hoped. We don't spend the money, waitforufo is happy.

 

What would your response be if it then becomes worse than predicted, and consensus says we've past the point of no return, permanently altered our world's climate and oceans for the worse, and put all life as we know it at risk? Would you just say, "There was nothing to be done, we couldn't possibly have foreseen this, and no way we could have justified spending any money on it because it seemed like a bad bet"?

[swansont]

Or even no worse than predicted, but costs even more because we delayed our efforts, as often happens when you put off doing maintenance and repair.

[overtone]

 

 

There are negative consequences for being wrong about anthropogenic climate change.

Either way. So which way would the smart money bet?

 

Trillions of dollars spent on trying to prevent the replenishment of CO2 in our atmosphere just might be a bad bet.

Depends on what you buy with it. It's obviously a good bet if it buys stuff that works.

 

 

If you are wrong, the lost opportunity of the money spent on preventing your predicted catastrophe that never comes will be enormous.

Not if you spend it well. We could all use some independence from Middle Eastern oil and strip-mined Appalachian coal, for example - we have the opportunity to get two birds with one stone, here.

[studiot]

There are enormous spin-off and long term benefits to be gained for all humanity in changing our way of life for the better in response to the climate change issue.

 

For example as a youth I can remember walking round our towns and cities in the 1950s.

Most of the buildings and particularly the railway bridges were black, due to a soot coating.

 

Since the Clean Air Acts, I have watched the brickwork emerging from behind its coating and take great comfort that I am not breathing the shit that my ancestors did for the last couple of hundred years.

 

This is a small example that affects over 80% of folk in the UK.

 

The list of such improvements could go on and on.

 

We must not stop now and say, the job is done. It is not. We still have a long way to go.

[John Cuthber]

Since waitforufo seems to have missed the point of the cartoon things like this

 

Not if you spend it well. We could all use some independence from Middle Eastern oil and strip-mined Appalachian coal, for example - we have the opportunity to get two birds with one stone, here.

are worth spending the money on- even if there is no human driven climate change.

If we also save the planet that's a free gift.

 

Now, how does that look like a bad idea to anyone?

Well, it's bad news if you are in the business of selling oil or if your friends are in that business.

 

So, perhaps we should look at the people who are suggesting that we ignore climate change and see if they are in those categories.

Gosh!

[waitforufo]

There is no evidence that we even might be wrong about it in general.

The only uncertainties are how bad will it be and what can we do about it.

 

Twenty years ago you would have had a valid point- the uncertainties were much greater, but now there just isn't any reasonable doubt left.

 

image from

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/07/31/human-climate-link-still-97-nope-99-video/

Sure there is plenty of evidence, you simply don't listen to it. Your mind is made up and you label anyone who disagrees with the "consensus" a denier.

 

Since waitforufo seems to have missed the point of the cartoon things like this

are worth spending the money on- even if there is no human driven climate change.

If we also save the planet that's a free gift.

 

Now, how does that look like a bad idea to anyone?

Well, it's bad news if you are in the business of selling oil or if your friends are in that business.

 

So, perhaps we should look at the people who are suggesting that we ignore climate change and see if they are in those categories.

Gosh!

The question John, is it really worth the cost? Could the money be better spent elsewhere.

 

By the way, I'm not the only one not buying it.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-americans-understand-arent-too-worried-about-climate-change/

 

Is climate policy currently working? Let's check the UK.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QqQIwAGoVChMI1PvW0sL3yAIVgTSICh1tzwKj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F0f664c78-821b-11e5-8095-ed1a37d1e096.html&usg=AFQjCNGkUtaaCUk0WOcIsK3tPwH_FyMxzA&sig2=S4h6cbcuqc3zUS8w0slxQw

 

Lets check Asia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/world/asia/china-burns-much-more-coal-than-reported-complicating-climate-talks.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=3

 

[swansont]

Sure there is plenty of evidence, you simply don't listen to it. Your mind is made up and you label anyone who disagrees with the "consensus" a denier.

 

Where is it? Because invariably this "evidence" is based on cherry-picking or misinterpreting science, or something that's not science at all. That's why people don't listen — you don't listen to distortions, lies and irrelevant nonsense.

 

The question John, is it really worth the cost? Could the money be better spent elsewhere.

 

By the way, I'm not the only one not buying it.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-americans-understand-arent-too-worried-about-climate-change/

 

"Most Americans know the climate is changing" — how is that "not buying it"? And what does a public opinion poll have to do with scientific validity, anyway? (And it's this "any port in a storm" and "if I blast away with a shotgun I have to hit something" approach that gets people labeled deniers. Science does not depend on public opinion, but you provide a link as if it does. That shows a massive shortfall in the understanding department and/or tremendous deceit.)

 

Regarding the lack of urgency on the part of the public, is that surprising? Our modus operandi is to not worry about things until they become a crisis.

 

Is climate policy currently working? Let's check the UK.

 

Lets check Asia.

 

Science policy ≠ science. The former is politics, and sometimes ignores the latter. (See also sex education and the insistence on abstinence only , despite the evidence that it doesn't actually work)

 

So far you've brought public opinion and government policy to a science fight. And yet you complain about being labeled a denialist.

[waitforufo]

"Most Americans know the climate is changing" — how is that "not buying it"?

Because climate is always changing regardless of the actions of mankind. I believe the climate is changing.

 

 

The former is politics, and sometimes ignores the latter.

If you are going to scold me, why not scold John. His post 41 basically says carbon policy is not environmental, it is political. Talk about playing into the skeptic's hands.

[swansont]

 

If you are going to scold me, why not scold John. His post 41 basically says carbon policy is not environmental, it is political. Talk about playing into the skeptic's hands.

 

I think you've missed the point again, but this is what I just said. Policy is political and doesn't necessarily rest on science. So if your summary was accurate, why would I scold him? For agreeing with me?

 

Tsk, tsk, John. How dare you be right.

 

The problem is when you are asked for scientific backing for a claim and all you can come up with is policy (or public opinion).

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

If you are going to scold me, why not scold John. His post 41 basically says carbon policy is not environmental, it is political. Talk about playing into the skeptic's hands.

 

No.

I said the reason they are lying is political.

 

It's kind of hard to see how you can pretend that the Right wing's carbon policy (essentially- full steam ahead) is an environmental policy as such.

I think it's more reasonable to describe it as naked selfish greed.

 

But, never mind. Try to cite some evidence- you say there's plenty so it should be easy and the 99.99% consensus* are all involved in a conspiracy.

 

*

(or as you, for some reason, describe it "consensus"- what's with the quote marks ?)

Edited November 4, 2015 by John Cuthber

[waitforufo]

So then lets get back to the opener. The Climate Hawk and the IPCC say modeling is impossible and only produces confusion. If this is true, what science supports spending money on climate change policy?

But, never mind. Try to cite some evidence- you say there's plenty so it should be easy and the 99.99% consensus* are all involved in a conspiracy.

 

I have never said there was a conspiracy. There is simply a gravy train.

 

Americans were warned of the ill effects of this gravy train by President Eisenhower.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

 

 

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

 

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Edited November 4, 2015 by waitforufo

[overtone]

Sure there is plenty of evidence, you simply don't listen to it. Your mind is made up and you label anyone who disagrees with the "consensus" a denier.

That isn't true. Your sentence there contains several factual errors - a partial list: 1) there is very little if any evidence conflicting with the conclusion that boosting CO2 as rapidly as humans have has and will lead to major changes in the climate of the planet, driven by the extra solar energy trapped in the lower atmosphere by the extra CO2.

2) All evidence has been listened to, argued from, etc. No actual evidence has been ignored.

3) Many people who disagree with this or that aspect of "the consensus" are not labeled deniers - such as those on the minority side of the discussion over whether the Antarctic land ice volume will generally increase or decrease in the new climate regime.

 

 

The question John, is it really worth the cost? Could the money be better spent elsewhere

Which expenditures do you find misdirected? Obviously - this is the real world - some expenditures in any area will be worthless and foolish, others necessary and critical.

 

Americans were warned of the ill effects of this gravy train by President Eisenhower.

1) That was after the war. While the war was being fought, the military industrial complex was quite useful.

2) The military/industrial complex is currently financing and supporting the denialists - such as your sources, the think tanks you get your pov from, etc - while keeping their preparations for the climate change they too agree is coming out of the public eye.

Edited November 4, 2015 by overtone

[studiot]

 

(essentially- full steam ahead)

 

 

 

There is simply a gravy train.

 

Especially steam gravy trains.

 

Steam is So....o.....oh environmentally friendly

 

 

(Thanks to David Wardale)

Edited November 4, 2015 by studiot

[swansont]

So then lets get back to the opener. The Climate Hawk and the IPCC say modeling is impossible and only produces confusion. If this is true, what science supports spending money on climate change policy?

 

That's not what your IPCC quote says, though, and the article you linked to makes similar errors of misrepresentation/misinterpretation, so this is moot. Nobody said modeling is impossible. That's ludicrous. Models exist, so that claim is trivially falsified. Your quote says "long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible". That does not mean we know nothing about what the climate will be; that's a gross mischaracterization.

 

You may not be able to predict exactly where you will be at some specific point in the future. Whether you are at home or not, or what room you will be in, is not something you can predict with certainty. But the odds are quite high you will be on earth, and depending on your travel habits, you might be able to put decent odds on what country you will be in. That's a far cry from such analysis being impossible.

 

Americans were warned of the ill effects of this gravy train by President Eisenhower.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

 

How the hell is this anything like the industrial-military complex?