next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
--Boundary_(ID_yt0rmKnbrvFk6dcg0DXSFQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Some points on the global warming issue. 1. It is true that a petition is not a way of determining the validity of a scientific hypothesis. Neither is an election, for that matter. The petition in question is old (one could say out-of-date), and was merely an attempt to counter the claim that the global warming hypothesis was settled and that there was no dissent in scientific circles. Of course, in science there is no body (not even one connected with the United Nations) which gives an ultimate opinion, as one might expect from a high court ruling on a legal case. 2. There is considerable diversity of opinion on global climate change, even among "supporters" and "opponents" of the various forms of the global warming hypothesis. I know people on bother "sides" of the issue, and they are among the most intelligent people I have ever encountered. This is a complicated problem, and does not have a simple solution. 3. My own approach is that there is no way to handle this issue except by breaking the problem into its parts. Some parts of the GW hypothesis are not at issue, some have intermediate certainty, and others are highly questionable. Then there is the matter of policy: what (if anything) should be done? The policy question is the final, and most troublesome part of the GW issue, not only because it rests upon all the other assumptions, but also because it involves a multitude of constituencies with different interests, but all united in the desire to have others pay the costs of any inconvenience. 4. There are also bad principles which go largely unquestioned in this discussion, which show the complete lack of economic understanding by the public, and even by people otherwise well educated. Two of these are: the sustainability argument, and the precautionary principle. There are very few resources in the world which are truly sustainable indefinitely. In the long run, the planet itself is not sustainable, but will be destroyed in the end, with all life on it. It makes no sense to eschew non-sustainable resources: just the opposite. Economic analysis shows that the most rational policy is to use resources, even non-sustainable ones, and the sooner the better. When considering sustainability, one must always take into consideration the time frame: products made from plants are classed as sustainable, but what about the soil from which those plants grow? How long will it last? No wonder some "greens" hate economics: it doesn't always give them the answers that they hold a priori. I suspect that some people at heart hate math because it shows their expenses exceeding income, and it's not the answer they seek. The precautionary principle is frequently spouted by politicians because it sounds so reasonable, but a few minutes thought should suffice to show that it is not a facile solution to all environmental problems, as is frequently assumed. The gist of the principle is that, no matter what our ignorance, it is best to play it safe by adopting various environmentally based policies, just in case. The fallacy ignores the cost that policies always carry, and not factoring the cost is simply irrational economically. To justify a cost, one must have an estimate of probabilities of success. There is no good policy which is likely to evolve within a fog of complete ignorance. An analogy might be that you suspect you have a disease. You aren't really sure, but there is a chance that you are sick. What treatment should you undergo? Will it do any good? What harm will it entail? Who will pay for the treatment? Is the therapy worse than the disease? --Boundary_(ID_yt0rmKnbrvFk6dcg0DXSFQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable <html><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; = -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Some points on the global = warming issue.<div><br></div><div>1. It is true that a petition is not a = way of determining the validity of a scientific hypothesis. = Neither is an election, for that = matter.</div><div><br></div><div>The petition in question is old (one = could say out-of-date), and was merely an attempt to counter the claim = that the global warming hypothesis was settled and that there was no = dissent in scientific circles. Of course, in science there is no = body (not even one connected with the United Nations) which gives an = ultimate opinion, as one might expect from a high court ruling on a = legal case.</div><div><br></div><div>2. There is considerable diversity = of opinion on global climate change, even among "supporters" and = "opponents" of the various forms of the global warming = hypothesis. I know people on bother "sides" of the issue, and they = are among the most intelligent people I have ever encountered. = This is a complicated problem, and does not have a simple = solution.</div><div><br></div><div>3. My own approach is that there is = no way to handle this issue except by breaking the problem into its = parts. Some parts of the GW hypothesis are not at issue, some have = intermediate certainty, and others are highly questionable. Then = there is the matter of policy: what (if anything) should be = done?</div><div><br></div><div>The policy question is the final, and = most troublesome part of the GW issue, not only because it rests upon = all the other assumptions, but also because it involves a multitude of = constituencies with different interests, but all united in the desire to = have others pay the costs of any = inconvenience.</div><div><br></div><div>4. There are also bad principles = which go largely unquestioned in this discussion, which show the = complete lack of economic understanding by the public, and even by = people otherwise well educated. Two of these are: the = sustainability argument, and the precautionary = principle. </div><div><br></div><div>There are very few resources = in the world which are truly sustainable indefinitely. In the long = run, the planet itself is not sustainable, but will be destroyed in the = end, with all life on it. It makes no sense to eschew = non-sustainable resources: just the opposite. Economic analysis = shows that the most rational policy is to use resources, even = non-sustainable ones, and the sooner the better. When considering = sustainability, one must always take into consideration the time frame: = products made from plants are classed as sustainable, but what about the = soil from which those plants grow? How long will it = last?</div><div><br></div><div>No wonder some "greens" hate economics: = it doesn't always give them the answers that they hold <i>a priori</i>. = I suspect that some people