[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Human vs. natural influences on the environment
In <504hmm$pdp@spool.cs.wisc.edu> tobis@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael
Tobis) writes:
>What we should be concerned about isn't how much the
>temperature increases (we're pretty confident at this point that
>it's nonzero and positive) but what that means to the general
>circulation.
We cannot be confident of this in the least - *even* assuming,
for the sake of the argument only,
that the greenhouse effect and all the chain of
its indirect consequences (some of which may
well have opposite signs) is somehow modelled
perfectly.
We cannot, because there are other processes that
are simply not part of the model: e.g., solar
output variations; and volcanic activity;
there's also the chaotic or quasi-chaotic nature of the
climate itself, that may produce, from time
to time, great temperature jumps without any forcing
at all. Because of such things, the effect
of greenhouse gas emissions - nonzero, of course,
but possibly close to zero - may well be swamped
by other effects. E.g., if a new Little Ice Age
is coming, the emission effect (if indeed positive) might
mitigate it; or it may simply not be noticeable against
this background.
Since climate predictions are impossible now,
the most effective course of action is probably to wait
and see - and then, *if* there's an unfavorable
change in climate (whether manmade or not,
does not matter) - to counteract this change. To be
able to do this, we must maximize, not
minimize, our ability to impact global climate.
There's another consideration: climatology (like
some other disciplines) has been
corrupted as an objective science
by its new prescriptive role - because power corrupts.
One symptom of its corruption is that it is reversing
the wise dictum "extraodinary claims require
extraodinary proofs": instead, it demands weakened
standards of proof - *because* of the putative
practical importance of the issue. Nothing
could be more dangerous. This is how
inquisitors reasoned: the danger of witchcraft
or heresy is so dire that one can't be finicky about
judicial guarantees. (Stalin's political inquisitors
argued the same way.) Shall we give
pseudoscientists, sitting in global
committes and defining truth by consensus,
the keys to our freedom? - this is the main
issue; warming or cooling are trifles compared to this.
No, proof beyond reasonable doubt is the least
- the least! - that we need before controlling global
industry and economy on the basis of supposedly
scientific claims. Even then, it would be wiser
to subject what looks like proof today, to
the test of time. The main benefit of such an
approach is preventing the Faustian temptation
of science with power, as a result of which
that which gets the power ceases to be science.
If we want any science to be science,
we must refuse to listen to any policy
recommendations from it. Let
it testify to facts, and say how
certain they are, and stop there.
Then laymen can judge it by its prediction record,
and weigh its estimates accordingly, and make
the practical decisions.
Follow-Ups:
References: