From: http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2017/02/carbon-compromise.html?m=1
“A plea to commenters. Don't fall in to the trap of arguing whether climate change is real or whether carbon (and methane) contribute to it. That's 5% of the debate…Science might tell us that the temperature will warm 2 degrees in a century, with a band of uncertainty. But the band of uncertainty of the economic, social and political consequences of 2 degrees is much bigger…Both sides have fallen in to the trap of arguing about climate change itself, as if it follows inexorably that our governments must respond to "yes" with the current system of controls and interventions. The range of economic and environmental effects from the "how" question are much, much larger than the range of the effects of the "is climate change real" question.”
This echoes what I have written previously:
If we are going to make progress here we
have to accept that it does not make one a climate change denier to
understand that our
response to climate change also has to be based on facts and evidence
held to the same level of rigor and scrutiny as the science supporting
its existence.
and mirrors the point Steve Horwitz made some time ago about the fallacy of jumping directly from the "science" to policy:
“It is perfectly possible to accept the science of global warming but
reject the policies most often put forward to combat it. One can think
humans are causing the planet to warm but logically and humanely
conclude that we should do nothing about it. In fact, those who think
they can go directly from science to policy are, as it turns out,
engaged in denial”
See also:
The Progressive Way to Deny Climate Change
Facts, Alternative Facts, Evidence, and the March for Science
Doing Nothing: A science based policy prescription for climate change
No comments:
Post a Comment