Comments on: Hierarchy of climate change uncertainty

By: Arguments with climate change deniers

Arguments with climate change deniers — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:45:20 +0000

[...] Hierarchy of climate change uncertainty [...]

By: .

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:24:17 +0000

"Uncertainty about the consequences of climate change makes it hard to persuade people to spend money on it, for where the damage is uncertain, so are the benefits of averting it. Yet uncertainty is also why mankind needs to take the problem seriously. If we were sure that the temperature would rise by 2-3ºC, then we could choose to live with that. But we do not know how far the rise might go. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the body set up by the UN to establish a scientific consensus on the subject, puts the range of possible increases by the end of this century at 1.1-6.4ºC. At the bottom end of the range, the difference would be barely noticeable. At the top end of the range—well, guesses about what the world would look like then read rather like science fiction. Although the benefits of averting that sort of catastrophe are incalculably large, the costs of doing so should not be enormous—as little as 1% of global output, if policy is well designed. This newspaper reckons that the world should fork out, rather as householders spend similar proportions of their income on insuring their homes against disaster."

By: .

Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:27:26 +0000

"Yes, science has clearly revealed that humans are influencing global climate and will continue to do so, but we don't know the full scale of the risks involved, nor how rapidly they will evolve, nor indeed—with clear insight—the relative roles of all the forcing agents involved at different scales. Similarly, we endow analyses about the economics of climate change with too much scientific authority. Yes, we know there is a cascade of costs involved in mitigating, adapting to or ignoring climate change, but many of these costs are heavily influenced by ethical judgements about how we value things, now and in the future. These are judgments that science cannot prescribe."

By: Confused about climate » a sibilant intake of breath

Confused about climate » a sibilant intake of breath — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:02:50 +0000

[...] is true but misleading. As discussed here before, the core facts about climate change are now beyond dispute. The biggest uncertainties have to do [...]

By: a sibilant intake of breath » Blog Archive » The media and climate change ‘dissent’

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:49:46 +0000

[...] appreciate the character of the consensus on climate change and the character of opposition to it. As discussed here before, there are areas of greater and lesser certainty, when it comes to climate change. What is [...]

By: .

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:50:18 +0000

The rational for the FPS publication of this note was to 'open up the debate' on climate change. The obvious ineptitude of this contribution underlines quite effectively how little debate there is on the fundamentals if this is the best counter-argument that can be offered.

By: .

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:45:52 +0000

Although there remains uncertainty in many aspects of climate science, as in all science, over the past few years an overwhelming and well-founded acceptance has emerged, not only in the scientific community, but among the general public and in political arenas, that human activity, and in particular the burning of fossil fuels, is warming the planet. Far from the debate being over, with this awareness the discourse on climate change has largely moved from one of questioning the science to disputing what ought to be done about the problem.

By: Milan

Milan — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:53:59 +0000

XUP,

Scientists have made mistakes in the past. That said, people are sometimes far too quick to dismiss their work, just because it clashes with something they want to believe.

If you want to gain some appreciation for how meticulous and precise a lot of climatic science is, read Richard Alley’s “The Two Mile Time Machine.”

By: XUP

XUP — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:27:23 +0000

Excellent post, Milan. As a non-scientist, I’ve often found the arrogance of some in the scientific community astonishing. There is plenty of historical evidence after all that scientific certainties become less certain and even refuted as time, experience and other influences intervene. Medicine is a prime example of this.

By: Milan

Milan — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 04:33:04 +0000

It was intended for use as a wall-sized poster, illustrating the concepts therein for underlings…

By: Emily

Emily — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 03:41:14 +0000

I think it’s a great doc. Clear and succinct.. But it’s the size of Texas when you open it..

Can you resize it so it opens to a normal size?

By: Nobody

Nobody — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:13:07 +0000

Ugly. Ugly Visio.