I'm happy that the CRU hack has introduced all of this healthy skepticism back into the debate. Any time people are so sensationalist about anything, there should be a lot of concern.
The skepticism is good, but my concern is that the issue has become so politicized, and people are so emotionally invested in the outcomes, that true objectivity is nearly impossible. Mix in natural variations and the fact that the timescales are not intuitively understood by most people, and I really doubt we'll be able to save ourselves from massive global catastrophe if that's the way this ends up going.
In my mind, the real problem is that we do not account for the value of natural resources and the environment in our economics. That, combined with a rabid consumerist mentality is rapidly leading us down a rode of polluted resource-exhaustion.
> In my mind, the real problem is that we do not account for the value of natural resources and the environment in our economics.
Couldn't agree more. We're not going to get anywhere by turning the issue into a polemic "debate". We should be focusing on central tenets so obvious they're impossible to disagree with: wealth is derived from the underlying ecosystem of nature, and securing the long-term health of that system is in everyone's best interest.
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
Whereas the continued trumped up 'debate' over AGW demonstrates that our society is full of wealthy old men quite willing to sacrifice the distant future for their own profit today. There is no scientific debate here, only the appearance of one. And in the end, that's all those corrupt old men need.
Are you saying that you think this article is an example of "paranoid conspiracy theories"? I'm sympathetic and partial to the view that AGW is probable but I'm not married to the view. I also question the policy prescriptions based on the underlying science given the costs.
It strikes me as somewhat arrogant and insulting though when others ask seemingly legitimate questions, "scientists" and policy advocates attempt to crush those who ask them instead of at least attempting to make a reasoned response. Immediately they label these people as "deniers" / "skeptics" or even paranoid. Now we learn that one of the leading climate institutes (not just some university in the UK) didn't keep/destroyed original data sets and even a number of their defenders are calling for heads to roll (e.g. George Monbiot).
From TierneyLab @ the NYT (http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/hacking-the-c...):
"I’ve long thought that the biggest danger in climate research is the temptation for scientists to lose their skepticism and go along with the “consensus” about global warming. That’s partly because it’s easy for everyone to get caught up in “informational cascades”, and partly because there are so many psychic and financial rewards rewards for working on a problem that seems to be a crisis. We all like to think that our work is vitally useful in solving a major social problem — and the more major the problem seems, the more money society is liable to spend on it.
"I’m not trying to suggest that climate change isn’t a real threat, or that scientists are deliberately hyping it. But when they look at evidence of the threat, they may be subject to the confirmation bias — seeing trends that accord with their preconceptions and desires. Given the huge stakes in this debate — the trillions of dollars that might be spent to reduce greenhouse emissions — it’s important to keep taking skeptical looks at the data. How open do you think climate scientists are to skeptical views, and to letting outsiders double-check their data and calculations?"
Are you saying that you think this article is an example of "paranoid conspiracy theories"?
No, I didn't read the article. But lately there have been far too many items on the HN front page that are nothing more than conspiracy theory ramblings, and with comments to match. There -have- been a few with reasonable takes on the scandal, but most are just... bleh.
That so many, in my opinion, stupid items end up on the front page annoys me for two reasons: 1) they're not "hacker" (and not business either) and obscure real content, and 2) it lowers my respect for the HN community.
I came here to scan the comments to see if this was one of the conspiracy articles or one of the decent ones. I saw something that could be commented on without having read the article, and did so. Not too terrible, I think, but feel free to disagree.
Oh, and the comments did suggest that the article was something I might want to read, I just haven't had time to do it yet.
OK these anti-climate articles are getting really lame. This is a fucking opinion piece from one of the most conservative papers in the US.
Why do so many hackers/HN types seem to be skeptics? I would have thought of all people, hackers/entrepreneurs would be forward-thinking and realistic about what is happening to our environment!
Considering the credentials of the author and the arguments presented, I don't understand how you say the skepticism is unfounded, or even a "bit" unfounded.
There are several very well-credentialed members of the 9/11 Truth movement. Sure, their theories still fly in the face of overwhelming evidence and the great majority of experts in terrorism, building demolition, etc., but there they are.
I see a pretty strong parallel between 9/11 truthers and global warming deniers.
They are many of the same arguments we see everywhere else. Most of them are true-but-irrelevant (the 2% number given early in the article is essentially meaningless, as it's a percentage of one component of a derivative in a complex system). He's at least smart enough to leave out transparent falsehood.
The basic problem is that the Wall Street Journal is a newspaper. You can't address scientific questions in a newspaper. You just can't. It's a tightly-controlled broadcast medium, in which all arguments must be kept simple enough for the average reader to understand without being a professional in a related field. All three of those factors (control, broadcast, simplicity) actively work against science.
What scientists need to do is find ways to address these kinds of oversimplifications in ways that the average reader can understand. It's hard, yes, but someone's going to need to do it if the public discourse is ever going to get onto the right track.
most of the WSJ stuff on climate change is partisan garbage, but i would point out here that this author is actually someone with credentials.
Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940, Webster, Massachusetts) is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 books and scientific papers.
i agree, which is why i only said he had credentials :)
i know nothing more about him than what wikipedia says, and having credentials does not make one ethical by default. i'm taking everything from either side of this issue with at least a grain of salt thanks to the politicization of the science.
Because skepticism should be the natural state of being of any intelligent person.
Unwavering belief and fanaticism is inherently dangerous and stupid, yet unwavering belief and fanaticism is all global warming has had for the past decade. The fanaticism has clearly got to the point of doctoring evidence and attempting to sabotage critics. How long would it have been until we got to an asinine crusade against non-global warming believers . . . oh wait, that's already started amongst the GW scientists!
But on the other side the evidence selectivity and baseless opinion pieces fighting for mindshare are 100 times worse.
Of course it's healthy to be skeptical, but it really seems like most people writing about GW have an agenda. The politics of the issue are simply too charged for any objectivity to sneak in.
It's emotionally draining to wade through all the crap being spewed around (I'm not blameless!).
But in a "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" kind of way, I'm hopeful this mess spurs renewed efforts to (re)construct a healthier, scientific basis for objective analysis.
If I remember correctly, "Unwavering belief and fanaticism" also seem to be near the crux of the argument by the folks equating the global warming crisis as being another form of religion.
I used to be "forward-looking" and "realistic" about global warming. And by forward-looking and realistic, I just mean ignorant.
Here's how I knew that global warming was happening and caused by man: a friend told me the top scientists agreed it was true.
I will actually accept a lot of information based on scientific consensus. However, recently, I learned eminent scientists are lying to me (and their colleagues), so my whole basis for belief fell apart. Also, I started looking at some of the data and discussion, and there are plenty of reasons to doubt - sane, statistical reasons... not like 9-11 is an inside job type conjecture.
I am an Obama-loving, liberal, pro-recycling, bike-owner, but I am no longer convinced that climate change is human-created, and I'm not satisfied that carbon abatement is the one true path to salvation. I actually do tend to believe these things are likelier true than not, but I am no longer one of the faithful.
When top scientists start lying to us, "cleaning up" data, and warning of the apocryphal end of man, I start to wonder if these scientists aren't just the witch doctors of another era, with different vestments and potions. But then I think, nah... the WSJ is right. They aren't superstitious, they are just human, corrupt, and greedy.
I liked your analogy to witch doctors better. Where do we turn to understand the universe and frame our decisions? Science. And why do we vest science with such authority? We trust it. We trust the scientific process, we trust the Space Shuttle and our little iPods, which seem the very embodiment of science's revealed truths.
Enough with the scientific exceptionalism. There is only rigorous reasoning and solid evidence, and flawed reasoning. It's the same in any human endeavor, whether we're talking phds or plumbers.
Any time people start throwing around the words "science" and "scientists" a lot I get increasingly skeptical. They don't add much to any discussion that isn't centered on appeals to authority.
If anything, we should be more skeptical than most. Lorenz pretty much founded modern chaos theory when he learned how ridiculously hard it was to simulate (and therefor predict) weather. The whole butterfly flapping in China thing isn't a cute little metaphor, it is a very real statement about how complicated weather truly is.
We might be able to make some observations about trends in the weather, but we don't have long enough baselines to really be able to tell what is going on.
I'm not saying that I think the whole anthropomorphic global warming thing is completely false, I'm just saying scientists who point to what is essentially noise in our woefully short record don't do a good job of convincing me.
I'm a fan of sustainability, and mining economies make me edgy. For that reason, I think a move away from fossil fuels is the obvious choice.
I'm also a fan of not screwing up the environment, but most of the green movement ends up as barely disguised anti-corporatism, with a fair amount of dead-horse beating.
Because so many of the proposed solutions 1) will actually be worse for the environment, and 2) be massively expensive, and 3) will provide massive opportunities for rent-seeking and gov't corruption.
Even before the CRU leak, I suspected the science behind it was bad, because there was no transparency, skeptics were being marginalized, and discussion about the core issues behind it were forbidden. These are not the actions of concerned scientists trying to get the word out, these are the actions of political thugs angling for more power.
I think the majority of skepticism is rooted in folks smelling something fishy with this whole issue.
It's not just any old lame opinion piece, though. Here is how the author is described by Case Western Reserve Professor Jonathan Adler:
"MIT’s Richard Lindzen is one of the world’s leading climate scientists. He is also a climate 'skeptic,' rejecting claims that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are likely to create a climate catastrophe. Above all others, he is the climate skeptic environmental activists most fear, as he has unimpeachable credentials. As a prominent climate scientist who believes global warming could cause an environmental catastrophe confided to me, Dr. Lindzen’s views are not easily dismissed, even if his views are somewhat outside the 'mainstream' of climate science. (Of course, we may have to reconsider what constitutes 'mainstream' climate science after the leak of e-mails and other documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.)"
I think it's important to look at both sides of the debate, especially when it appears one side or the other has been fudging data for years.
But it's also important to realize that even if Climate Change isn't man made pollution still is and we need to do our best to reduce it.
Global Warming has been the specter hanging over our heads for the last decade telling us to clean up our act but we need to start stressing the importance of pollution cleanup and recycling outside of the climate change debate as it is hugely important in its own right.
But it's also important to realize that even if Climate Change isn't man made pollution still is and we need to do our best to reduce it.
It's not that simple. "Doing our best" to reduce pollution is a process that carries staggering costs of its own.
It is not realistic to achieve a pollution-free lifestyle across all segments of humanity, so we're going to have to decide where the lines are drawn. That, regrettably, is always going to be a political process, and not a scientific one.
Really? It isn't pollution that is the supposed cause of man-made Global Warming?
I agree that pollution is a very general term that encompasses things which don't 'contribute' to Global Warming but saying that Pollution and Global Warming are different issues is misleading.
You may have different definitions for Global Warming vs. Climate Change but I have heard them used interchangeably, if there is a difference I'd like to know what it is.
1. Pollution is listed as one of the sources of the (alleged) artificial global warming, but not the only one.
2. Pollution and global warming may be related but they are different issues. For example, even if it turns out that global warming is not happening or is not a problem, pollution will remain a big deal and will have to be taken care of.
3. They are sometimes used interchangeably but this is a logical error (if not worse) and should be avoided.
But it's also important to realize that even if Climate Change isn't man made pollution still is and we need to do our best to reduce it.
Global Warming has been the specter hanging over our heads for the last decade telling us to clean up our act but we need to start stressing the importance of pollution cleanup and recycling outside of the climate change debate as it is hugely important in its own right.
That's rather a strange and arbitrary direction to turn the discussion. You could just as well have said:
But it's also important to realize that even if Climate Change isn't man made (Pollution | War | Starvation | IE6 | C++ | Rape | AIDS | Child Porn | Stubbed Toes) still is and we need to do our best to reduce it.
The climate is an enormously complex thing with so many variables that it's difficult to analyze. If you do not believe the claims for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) I suggest you consider the Precautionary Principle:
In the context of the environment it essentially states that if there is a reasonable chance that AGW can be true then since the risks are so great we must take action as if it were true.
This is what leads me, a hard core skeptic (and trained but very long ago lapsed climatologist) to support reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. We can not afford to be wrong.
I personally do not find persuasive the idea that decisions involving high stakes should warrant an approach which embraces risk management over skepticism. All things in proper order.
It all depends on the probabilities you assign things. If Traditional Christianity has a 50% chance of being true, then of course the risk mitigation of heaven and hell dominate decision making. But I should like a better assessment of the odds before entering risk management mode. If the odds are near zero, I shall ignore the claim--however horrid the hell or enticing the heaven.
So with AGW. Perhaps the doomsday is quite terrible (though even this does not seem obvious to me). I should like to see sound evidence that results in--at a minimum--clear odds before I am willing to worry about it.
After all, as with Pascal, I may have other doomsdays to worry about. Perhaps the real doomsday event is a killer asteroid, and nothing matters except a relentless pursuit of technology aimed at a robust presence in space. If that were the case, retarding industry out of a concern for your bogeyman might actually be the cause of doom.
One cannot worry about every street preacher who claims the end is near.
No, Pascal's Wager is foolish since you could not possibly select the correct god from the myriad of gods available (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc) given that belief is mutually exclusive.
At any rate it's not the same thing. The precautionary principle is an insurance sale, not some metaphysical nonsense.
And you're being unfair about your characterization of Global Warming. It is just not any doomsday scenario. There's enough reputable scientists getting their panties in a knot that it should be cause for concern.
It is not being metaphysical in nature that makes Pascal's Wager nonsense. It is that it demands action without sufficient rational foundation.
The rational reaction to a possible crisis in which one lacks information is not to jump immediately away from what looks like the scariest outcome. That tends to make things worse. The right reaction is to focus on research until a decision absolutely cannot be avoided--and even then, make the minimum decision the evidence warrants.
I view that as the case here. If the evidence is sufficient to convince and act on, okay. Act on it. But if it is not, the stakes being high do not change anything. By all accounts, there's time yet to be more certain, so let's take the time and be more certain.
Incidentally, "a lot of reputable scientists are concerned" is a statement about state of the evidence, and not a very persuasive one to me. I know a thing or two about simulating complex systems; a non-predictive simulation, a theory concerning a single variable input, a loose-but-not-awesome correlation? In a complex system, that really is street preacher kind of evidence. Absolutely it warrants theoretical concern; follow that line of research. But as a call to action? Nah. Call me when you've got a robust enough model that you can use it to win wars or make money, and we'll talk.
Well, the problem here is that we're talking about a possible run away greenhouse effect that will condemn most of humanity to death. The point being is that you must act now in order to stop it and that this is the rational approach even if you do not have conclusive evidence. Your gamble is an unacceptable risk, or so the principle would say.
I spent a couple years living in mainland China with pollution so bad that you literally could barely see across the street. On many clear sky days you could look directly at the sun with no issue. I flew over the country to different cities dozens of times and always the entire country was covered in a thick smog for thousands of kilometres. We really have no idea here in North America of the scale of things going on. And China is going to massively increase their emissions in the coming decades.
The precautionary principle provides little basis for cost-benefit analysis. Should we be willing to spend a trillion dollars to stop global warming? Half the global economy? 90% of it? Probably not the last one, because billions would die. Assuming the worst-case will happen if we don't act isn't a good way to make rational decisions.
Correct, it doesn't really guide you here. It just tells you that you don't need to be certain of the outcome before acting due to the potential extreme costs of inaction.
Thanks, I appreciate this article, despite my being essentially convinced that it's important to do something significant to reduce carbon emissions. The fact of the matter is that the climate science isn't settled. It's a shame that the nuisances of this have been glossed over for the purpose of the public and policy makers.
Why have carbon emmissions to be reduced, unless climate warrants it? The question is: of a dollar budget, how much should go into reducing emmissions?, and how much should be spent to cure cancer, bring education to Africa, and so on. There are rarely that absolute problems which justify any cost for a solution.
"Climate change is real enough, with enough backing observations and theory, to run with the assumption that it is most likely true - but probably more complex than we realize right now."
49 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 110 ms ] threadIn my mind, the real problem is that we do not account for the value of natural resources and the environment in our economics. That, combined with a rabid consumerist mentality is rapidly leading us down a rode of polluted resource-exhaustion.
Couldn't agree more. We're not going to get anywhere by turning the issue into a polemic "debate". We should be focusing on central tenets so obvious they're impossible to disagree with: wealth is derived from the underlying ecosystem of nature, and securing the long-term health of that system is in everyone's best interest.
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
It strikes me as somewhat arrogant and insulting though when others ask seemingly legitimate questions, "scientists" and policy advocates attempt to crush those who ask them instead of at least attempting to make a reasoned response. Immediately they label these people as "deniers" / "skeptics" or even paranoid. Now we learn that one of the leading climate institutes (not just some university in the UK) didn't keep/destroyed original data sets and even a number of their defenders are calling for heads to roll (e.g. George Monbiot).
From TierneyLab @ the NYT (http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/hacking-the-c...): "I’ve long thought that the biggest danger in climate research is the temptation for scientists to lose their skepticism and go along with the “consensus” about global warming. That’s partly because it’s easy for everyone to get caught up in “informational cascades”, and partly because there are so many psychic and financial rewards rewards for working on a problem that seems to be a crisis. We all like to think that our work is vitally useful in solving a major social problem — and the more major the problem seems, the more money society is liable to spend on it.
"I’m not trying to suggest that climate change isn’t a real threat, or that scientists are deliberately hyping it. But when they look at evidence of the threat, they may be subject to the confirmation bias — seeing trends that accord with their preconceptions and desires. Given the huge stakes in this debate — the trillions of dollars that might be spent to reduce greenhouse emissions — it’s important to keep taking skeptical looks at the data. How open do you think climate scientists are to skeptical views, and to letting outsiders double-check their data and calculations?"
No, I didn't read the article. But lately there have been far too many items on the HN front page that are nothing more than conspiracy theory ramblings, and with comments to match. There -have- been a few with reasonable takes on the scandal, but most are just... bleh.
That so many, in my opinion, stupid items end up on the front page annoys me for two reasons: 1) they're not "hacker" (and not business either) and obscure real content, and 2) it lowers my respect for the HN community.
Oh, and the comments did suggest that the article was something I might want to read, I just haven't had time to do it yet.
Why do so many hackers/HN types seem to be skeptics? I would have thought of all people, hackers/entrepreneurs would be forward-thinking and realistic about what is happening to our environment!
I see a pretty strong parallel between 9/11 truthers and global warming deniers.
The basic problem is that the Wall Street Journal is a newspaper. You can't address scientific questions in a newspaper. You just can't. It's a tightly-controlled broadcast medium, in which all arguments must be kept simple enough for the average reader to understand without being a professional in a related field. All three of those factors (control, broadcast, simplicity) actively work against science.
What scientists need to do is find ways to address these kinds of oversimplifications in ways that the average reader can understand. It's hard, yes, but someone's going to need to do it if the public discourse is ever going to get onto the right track.
Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940, Webster, Massachusetts) is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 books and scientific papers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
As the leaked emails have demonstrated, merely having credentials does not prevent your work from being partisan garbage.
i know nothing more about him than what wikipedia says, and having credentials does not make one ethical by default. i'm taking everything from either side of this issue with at least a grain of salt thanks to the politicization of the science.
Unwavering belief and fanaticism is inherently dangerous and stupid, yet unwavering belief and fanaticism is all global warming has had for the past decade. The fanaticism has clearly got to the point of doctoring evidence and attempting to sabotage critics. How long would it have been until we got to an asinine crusade against non-global warming believers . . . oh wait, that's already started amongst the GW scientists!
Of course it's healthy to be skeptical, but it really seems like most people writing about GW have an agenda. The politics of the issue are simply too charged for any objectivity to sneak in.
But in a "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" kind of way, I'm hopeful this mess spurs renewed efforts to (re)construct a healthier, scientific basis for objective analysis.
http://www.independentweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/...
http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-global-warming...
Here's how I knew that global warming was happening and caused by man: a friend told me the top scientists agreed it was true.
I will actually accept a lot of information based on scientific consensus. However, recently, I learned eminent scientists are lying to me (and their colleagues), so my whole basis for belief fell apart. Also, I started looking at some of the data and discussion, and there are plenty of reasons to doubt - sane, statistical reasons... not like 9-11 is an inside job type conjecture.
I am an Obama-loving, liberal, pro-recycling, bike-owner, but I am no longer convinced that climate change is human-created, and I'm not satisfied that carbon abatement is the one true path to salvation. I actually do tend to believe these things are likelier true than not, but I am no longer one of the faithful.
When top scientists start lying to us, "cleaning up" data, and warning of the apocryphal end of man, I start to wonder if these scientists aren't just the witch doctors of another era, with different vestments and potions. But then I think, nah... the WSJ is right. They aren't superstitious, they are just human, corrupt, and greedy.
I liked your analogy to witch doctors better. Where do we turn to understand the universe and frame our decisions? Science. And why do we vest science with such authority? We trust it. We trust the scientific process, we trust the Space Shuttle and our little iPods, which seem the very embodiment of science's revealed truths.
Any time people start throwing around the words "science" and "scientists" a lot I get increasingly skeptical. They don't add much to any discussion that isn't centered on appeals to authority.
We might be able to make some observations about trends in the weather, but we don't have long enough baselines to really be able to tell what is going on.
I'm not saying that I think the whole anthropomorphic global warming thing is completely false, I'm just saying scientists who point to what is essentially noise in our woefully short record don't do a good job of convincing me.
I'm a fan of sustainability, and mining economies make me edgy. For that reason, I think a move away from fossil fuels is the obvious choice.
I'm also a fan of not screwing up the environment, but most of the green movement ends up as barely disguised anti-corporatism, with a fair amount of dead-horse beating.
Even before the CRU leak, I suspected the science behind it was bad, because there was no transparency, skeptics were being marginalized, and discussion about the core issues behind it were forbidden. These are not the actions of concerned scientists trying to get the word out, these are the actions of political thugs angling for more power.
I think the majority of skepticism is rooted in folks smelling something fishy with this whole issue.
"MIT’s Richard Lindzen is one of the world’s leading climate scientists. He is also a climate 'skeptic,' rejecting claims that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are likely to create a climate catastrophe. Above all others, he is the climate skeptic environmental activists most fear, as he has unimpeachable credentials. As a prominent climate scientist who believes global warming could cause an environmental catastrophe confided to me, Dr. Lindzen’s views are not easily dismissed, even if his views are somewhat outside the 'mainstream' of climate science. (Of course, we may have to reconsider what constitutes 'mainstream' climate science after the leak of e-mails and other documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.)"
But it's also important to realize that even if Climate Change isn't man made pollution still is and we need to do our best to reduce it.
Global Warming has been the specter hanging over our heads for the last decade telling us to clean up our act but we need to start stressing the importance of pollution cleanup and recycling outside of the climate change debate as it is hugely important in its own right.
It's not that simple. "Doing our best" to reduce pollution is a process that carries staggering costs of its own.
It is not realistic to achieve a pollution-free lifestyle across all segments of humanity, so we're going to have to decide where the lines are drawn. That, regrettably, is always going to be a political process, and not a scientific one.
I agree that pollution is a very general term that encompasses things which don't 'contribute' to Global Warming but saying that Pollution and Global Warming are different issues is misleading.
You may have different definitions for Global Warming vs. Climate Change but I have heard them used interchangeably, if there is a difference I'd like to know what it is.
1. Pollution is listed as one of the sources of the (alleged) artificial global warming, but not the only one.
2. Pollution and global warming may be related but they are different issues. For example, even if it turns out that global warming is not happening or is not a problem, pollution will remain a big deal and will have to be taken care of.
3. They are sometimes used interchangeably but this is a logical error (if not worse) and should be avoided.
Global Warming has been the specter hanging over our heads for the last decade telling us to clean up our act but we need to start stressing the importance of pollution cleanup and recycling outside of the climate change debate as it is hugely important in its own right.
That's rather a strange and arbitrary direction to turn the discussion. You could just as well have said:
But it's also important to realize that even if Climate Change isn't man made (Pollution | War | Starvation | IE6 | C++ | Rape | AIDS | Child Porn | Stubbed Toes) still is and we need to do our best to reduce it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
In the context of the environment it essentially states that if there is a reasonable chance that AGW can be true then since the risks are so great we must take action as if it were true.
This is what leads me, a hard core skeptic (and trained but very long ago lapsed climatologist) to support reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. We can not afford to be wrong.
I personally do not find persuasive the idea that decisions involving high stakes should warrant an approach which embraces risk management over skepticism. All things in proper order.
It all depends on the probabilities you assign things. If Traditional Christianity has a 50% chance of being true, then of course the risk mitigation of heaven and hell dominate decision making. But I should like a better assessment of the odds before entering risk management mode. If the odds are near zero, I shall ignore the claim--however horrid the hell or enticing the heaven.
So with AGW. Perhaps the doomsday is quite terrible (though even this does not seem obvious to me). I should like to see sound evidence that results in--at a minimum--clear odds before I am willing to worry about it.
After all, as with Pascal, I may have other doomsdays to worry about. Perhaps the real doomsday event is a killer asteroid, and nothing matters except a relentless pursuit of technology aimed at a robust presence in space. If that were the case, retarding industry out of a concern for your bogeyman might actually be the cause of doom.
One cannot worry about every street preacher who claims the end is near.
At any rate it's not the same thing. The precautionary principle is an insurance sale, not some metaphysical nonsense.
And you're being unfair about your characterization of Global Warming. It is just not any doomsday scenario. There's enough reputable scientists getting their panties in a knot that it should be cause for concern.
The rational reaction to a possible crisis in which one lacks information is not to jump immediately away from what looks like the scariest outcome. That tends to make things worse. The right reaction is to focus on research until a decision absolutely cannot be avoided--and even then, make the minimum decision the evidence warrants.
I view that as the case here. If the evidence is sufficient to convince and act on, okay. Act on it. But if it is not, the stakes being high do not change anything. By all accounts, there's time yet to be more certain, so let's take the time and be more certain.
Incidentally, "a lot of reputable scientists are concerned" is a statement about state of the evidence, and not a very persuasive one to me. I know a thing or two about simulating complex systems; a non-predictive simulation, a theory concerning a single variable input, a loose-but-not-awesome correlation? In a complex system, that really is street preacher kind of evidence. Absolutely it warrants theoretical concern; follow that line of research. But as a call to action? Nah. Call me when you've got a robust enough model that you can use it to win wars or make money, and we'll talk.
I spent a couple years living in mainland China with pollution so bad that you literally could barely see across the street. On many clear sky days you could look directly at the sun with no issue. I flew over the country to different cities dozens of times and always the entire country was covered in a thick smog for thousands of kilometres. We really have no idea here in North America of the scale of things going on. And China is going to massively increase their emissions in the coming decades.
There are other reasons to stop the burning of coal, for example: respiratory illness.
From:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/dear-science/Content?oid=...