A thought experiment for the global-warming deniers
I want to try to take the temperature, so to speak, of the global-warming deniers on this blog and elsewhere. To do so, let’s run a little thought experiment:
It seems to me that from a policy angle, the climate-change debate comes down to a risk/benefit analysis. And in such an analysis, you first ask yourself two questions:
How bad is the projected outcome?
How likely is that outcome to become reality?
Once armed with those answers, you can then ask the third and most important question: What steps are reasonable to prevent the projected outcome? If the outcome isn’t that bad, or if its odds of coming true are pretty low, then maybe no action is required. If the outcome is bad and the odds of its coming true are high, then action is more justifiable.
So, how bad is the projected outcome? For that one, we have an answer. The U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change, in its 2007 assessment, projects a potential temperature increase of anywhere from 2 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, with the best estimate range of 3.1 to 7.2 degrees. If that comes true, the IPCC warns, the natural systems of the planet that we and other life forms now rely upon would be seriously disrupted.
However, I’m not asking you to accept those projections as fact. I understand that the deniers believe the IPCC is full of hot air, so to speak. My question is this:
What degree of confidence in the IPCC report would you need before agreeing to take action?
If you believed there was a 50 percent chance that such dramatic, man-made climate change will occur, would that risk be high enough to justify serious action?
If not, how about a confidence level of 70 percent? 90 percent?
For some, I suspect that even a confidence level of 100 percent would not justify action. In other words, even if they knew with certainty that the planet would warm by an average of 7 degrees by 2100 because of mankind, disrupting much of life as we know it, they would still not agree to take preventive action.
But that’s what I want to know: In your own risk/benefit analysis, what level of confidence would you need to have in the IPCC warning before agreeing that action was necessary?
And if you could, let’s try to stay within the parameters of the thought experiment, at least initially, so that this doesn’t degenerate into yet another “yes there’s a consensus/no there’s not a consensus” folly.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
142 comments Add your comment
I Report (-: You Whine )-:
July 9th, 2009
12:06 pm
It’s getting colder, bookman!
geez.
Besides which, many say that warming would be beneficial.
Find some other junk way to destroy the US economy, socialist.
Normal
July 9th, 2009
12:07 pm
Show me the facts and then let’s do what we gotta do…
I Report (-: You Whine )-:
July 9th, 2009
12:09 pm
Am I not a mind reader?-
I Report (-: You Whine )-:
July 9th, 2009
12:01 pm
I am not an environmental whackjob that thinks children are a “cancer” on this stupid rock we live on, nor am I selfish enough to take away another life for my misguided feel good cultish junk science “religious” beliefs.
A comment good for two topics.
Kayaker 71
July 9th, 2009
12:17 pm
Off subject…..
It appears that the city of LA was out 1.5M for extra security, police escorts, etc for the Jackson memorial service. They have asked people to donate money to help defray expenses but so far, only 17K has been donated, none of which came from the Jackson family. With the state of California on the skids, this seems like a financial horror story when you figure that this little pedofile paid out over 22M in hush money to the family of the little boy that he allegedly abused. Where is the justice?
Roy Lee
July 9th, 2009
12:21 pm
The IPCC is loaded with left-wingers who hope to cash in on the global warming fantasy. There’s actually been a bit of global cooling for the past decade. Whether warming or cooling, it’s activity on the Sun that makes it happen, not the activity of mankind. Man is not powerful enough to have a significant effect on Earth’s climate. It’s not an accident that the left has chosen the phrase “climate change” and all but dropped “global warming.”
retiredds
July 9th, 2009
12:22 pm
Jay, in Biblical times many laughed at Noah and his ark. They did not take him seriously. We know what happened to them.
RB from Gwinnett
July 9th, 2009
12:25 pm
Jay, there is an additional question you have left out of the equation. That question is how much confidence do you have in the body making the predictions? For example, if the IPCC was 90% sure, but I only have a 2% confidence they are correct and believable, I’d do nothing. Thats where this whole issue gets derailed. Both sides are making claims the climate is doing this or that and most of the people involved are being paid to voice an opinion biased in one way or the other.
That leaves rational people with the data and history to base opinions on. Forget all the “experts” opinions for a moment. What does the data show?
There will be 17 named storms this season with 3 of them causing major damage to the US….. From the same people…..
Stan - a man in womans blog
July 9th, 2009
12:26 pm
I would need to have ~65+% confidence in the UN, which I’m nowhere near, to agree to action. Then I would need to have confidence in the action being taken. That is the big one to me. Action for the sake of action is stupid.
Stan
July 9th, 2009
12:28 pm
Crap I knew I’d forget to readjust my moniker before my next post
USinUK
July 9th, 2009
12:30 pm
Whiney-Whiney-Whiner –
“I am not an environmental whackjob that thinks children are a “cancer” on this stupid rock we live on, nor am I selfish enough to take away another life for my misguided feel good cultish junk science “religious” beliefs.”
nah. you’re just off your meds.
booger
July 9th, 2009
12:32 pm
Jay,
If there were a 75% assurity that this would happen I would go along. This could not happen in my case however, If all the research was done with data from the UN, who has a strong bias, and research by government agencies and private sources who depend on govt. grants for their financial security. This is especially true since these agencies have now been known to bury any disenting research, and skeptics are under a gag order.
The most blatent problem with the temperature data is that the majority is fabricated. To believe a report that the earths temperature has risen X degrees over the past century, means that you have to believe that we were gathering temperature data at numerous places all over the earth 100 years ago. Does anyone really believe armies of people were taking reading in Africa? Siberia? S. America? Truth is outside of the US and Europe, almost all the data is fabricated.
Any science which starts with flawed data is not good science.
Joey
July 9th, 2009
12:32 pm
Jay:
Given that Global Warming is a religion rather than science the term denier could apply. But only if you apply the term Believer, or Apostle, to yourself and other Believers.
You are correct to label the IPCC Report as “an” answer rather than the answer. The box you insist that we stay in is not big enough to facilitate a discussion. So it is likely you hope to trap the Global Warming Atheist. But I will try to play.
If I, or people that I trust, had 65% confidence in the observations and software programs that established the basis for proposing some actions; and 70% confidence that the proposed action would result in the desired result rather than a catastrophic alternate result; I would support taking those actions.
Redneck Convert
July 9th, 2009
12:35 pm
Well, suppose the people saying all these things are right. What’s so wrong with it getting 7 or 11 degrees warmer in the next 100 years? You can always wear less clothes and besides womenfolks these days walk around showing everything they got anyway. Might as well let it all hang out. They can just change the fashion. Instead of rednecks walking around with no shirt on all the women would.
And it won’t break my heart if all the icebergs melt and a bunch of people from NY and CA drown. We could turn into a Red Nation again.
And then we get right down to common sense. I got to ask myself what’s in it for me. It’s a lead pipe cinch I’m going to be dead in 100 years. Either that or the Rapture’s going to come and take me up and away from this earth. So it won’t matter to me if the earth gets warmer or the seas rise.
So I say crank up the engines and let the smoke pour. We don’t need no laws that raise our costs just so people 100 years from now can be a little comfy.
That’s my opinion and it’s very true. Have a good p.m. everybody.
Joe Matarotz
July 9th, 2009
12:36 pm
Try this:
First visit http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
Then visit http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1_home.html
Take some time to actually read what is being discussed. Actually, it will take a lot of time to read and digest the content. ANd it’s dull – there is no Obama, no MJ, no John and Kate – nothing but science, at a level that most people do not wish to absorb. However, if you are going to debate an issue, shouldn’t you have an understanding of the issue and what is being debated?
I think today’s topic has been chosen by Jay to fill space. He has no desire to see an answer – only to stir up the masses and keep himself on the AJC payroll. How else could he afford to gas up his 1980 Toyota crapbox – a perfect specimen of a non-greenhouse emitting mechanical marvel.
And for the record, I believe the climate is warming. I believe that we are contributing to global warming. I have read enough scientific data to indicate that the climate has risen and fallen in cycles measured in hundreds of years. 10,000 years ago, Manhattan was under 1 mile of ice. I don’t know if changing emissions will have a significant impact on global warming. I do think it is the environmentally responsible thing to do.
Kamchak
July 9th, 2009
12:36 pm
“It’s not an accident that the left has chosen the phrase ‘climate change’ and all but dropped ‘global warming.’
Frank Luntz, spinmeister extraordinaire and linguist for the Republican party was the author of the phrase “climate change.”
Copyleft
July 9th, 2009
12:37 pm
Jay: You can see from the initial responses that actual science means nothing to the denialists of the right wing. (After all, they spent the last eight years trying to get rid of science!)
They’ll simply declare that every researcher–every climatologist and environmental scientist around the world, from dozens of different countries and agencies and scientific programs–is “biased,” “in the UN’s pocket,” “hates America,” and so forth.
Don’t you remember how they found some “doctors” to claim that smoking is actually harmless? Or, even farther back, how they claimed that scientists were “godless heathens” for pointing out the obvious fact of evolution? (Heck, some are STILL at it today!)
It’s called “denial” for a reason, Jay. Evidence, logic, and even coherent thought are not an option for the denialists.
TnGelding
July 9th, 2009
12:38 pm
Well, I would have to say at least 50%. But I’m thinking it’s already too late to do anything. Corporate America turning 2.5 billion Chinese and Indians into consumers sealed the deal. We’re doomed and will be extinct by 2100. Party on America!
anon
July 9th, 2009
12:38 pm
I require a high bar of proof before I will accept an end of the world prediction. I have this high bar because end of the world predictions have a very poor track record, and they historically seam to appear in every generation and in every culture.
If there was a 100% chance the UN was right of course I would support them, but I would never assign anything near that amount for an end of the world prediction. In fact, I would put my personally probability somewhere between 0 and 0%.
USinUK
July 9th, 2009
12:39 pm
“Does anyone really believe armies of people were taking reading in Africa? Siberia? S. America?”
hahahaha … yeah! because in 1909, we didn’t have explorers … or scientists … or any of your fancy-schmancy thermometers!! That’s right, it’s not like Africa and South America were COLONIZED or anything …
TW
July 9th, 2009
12:40 pm
C’mon Jay, you really think people who are against education/health care for TODAY’S kids give a rats behind about what happens to people a century from now?
No way – unless global warming is gonna take a bigger chunk out of THEIR bank account than will the cost of dealing with it proactively, they’ll have nothing to do with it.
Mrs. Godzilla
July 9th, 2009
12:40 pm
flat earthers…..
TnGelding
July 9th, 2009
12:40 pm
Stan
July 9th, 2009
12:28 pm
Why not just use one?
Tom
July 9th, 2009
12:42 pm
Well now, Jay. THIS should bring out the NASCAR intellects!
TnGelding
July 9th, 2009
12:42 pm
Joe Matarotz
July 9th, 2009
12:36 pm
Well put. It will have other benefits, if nothing else.
Shawny
July 9th, 2009
12:44 pm
I think the questions to ask is who is lining the pockets of (supporting) the IPCC? Which way to they lean politically, and don’t say they are neutral? Who stands to benefit and lose (the money, that is, not the environment – assuming that you believe there is an impending problem)?
Then the REAL question, knowing full well that due to solar and geothermic activities our climate has changed both warmer and colder for eons, is how much of the HUMAN CAUSED part is actually affecting the climate with all other factors taken out. Will action really do anything? If we did away with carbon emmissions completely and constructed a giant carbon filter to change it back to levels of a pre-industrial society, would the earth heat a few degrees anyway? Do you know? Does the IPCC know?
mike
July 9th, 2009
12:44 pm
“It seems to me that from a policy angle, the climate-change debate comes down to a risk/benefit analysis. And in such an analysis, you first ask yourself two questions:
How bad is the projected outcome?
How likely is that outcome to become reality?
Once armed with those answers, you can then ask the third and most important question: What steps are reasonable to prevent the projected outcome?”
This is the same rationale that drove Cheney’s thinking on Iraq. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but it puts both debates into context.
Jay should go through with the above exercise regarding Iraq in 2002.
Road Scholar
July 9th, 2009
12:47 pm
Joe M: “I think today’s topic has been chosen by Jay to fill space. He has no desire to see an answer ”
It’s a blog, not an editorial where positions are clearly defined!
What if the “Deniers” (to borrow a Bushism) are wrong? How do we then reverse the trend? Isn’t reducing hydrocarbons (less oil or cleaner fuels/combustion) in everyones best interest? Reducing the effects of foreign oil, cleaning the air, etc are a win-win for all. And, except for the Repubs who think we can wage a war for free, how does one pay for this?
Shawny
July 9th, 2009
12:48 pm
anon, your comment is right on the money. chicken littles abound.
Libs, remember post-911 dire predections and an agenda that came out of it? Fearmongering? No, doesn’t ring a bell?
TnGelding
July 9th, 2009
12:48 pm
I Report (-: You Whine )-:
July 9th, 2009
12:09 pm
Rejoice! Rasmussen at -8.
Joey
July 9th, 2009
12:50 pm
Interesting to observe who among us are trying to do as he ask and stay in Jay’s little box.
Bosch
July 9th, 2009
12:50 pm
Jay,
You are seriously gonna make the wingnuts head explode with that one. “A thought experiment” — please Jay, that’s just mean.
Copyleft,
This is my favorite personal example of the science haters. When I was little, let’s just say, I was a little precocious. One fine Sunday morning, we are discussing the Creation, and I had the nerve to ask, “Well, where do the dinosaurs fit into this equation.” To which my teacher replied that the dinosaurs fossils were a hoax perpetrated by the scientific community to make us have doubt in Jesus.
I looked at her and said, “You know that’s bull (excrement), right?” Sigh. My mother was quickly found and man the whoopin’ I got after church that day!!! Me getting a whooping after church was a regular Sunday activity at my house.
Dave R.
July 9th, 2009
12:51 pm
It had better be a 90% or better chance for me to climb on board this misguded train to nowhere. But why can’t you libs (you too, Jay) ever answer the following question regarding man-made global warming:
If man is responsible for global warming, and we have done nothing significant to change our involvement in that, why is the earth cooler this year and last year?
The silence will be deafening.
TGT
July 9th, 2009
12:52 pm
First of all, it’s hard to “deny” something that isn’t happening.
Secondly, I’m assuming that you want us to assume: 1.) global warming is occurring 2.) there will be devastating effects for the climate in the future 3.) the warming is caused by human activity 4.) therefore there are steps we can take to reverse it.
That is a lot to assume. If all of this is true to a reasonable certainty, of course we should do something. Then the debate turns to what to do. Of course, we are (some of us) still debating 1 through 4 above.
Also, as I’ve posted here before, take the most significant piece of data concerning “Global Warming”–excuse me, “Climate Change”–the mean temperature of the earth (or of any really large region of it). What exactly is the “mean” temperature of an area? How is it calculated? Where is it calculated (altitude, etc)? What is the ideal temperature of the planet? How do we know what the ideal temperature is?
It is a monstrous task to just get the current mean temperature correct, and experts (see here and here and here and here.) don’t agree exactly on how that should be done or what the ideal temperature should be. Before believing all of the hype about anthropogenic global warming, ask yourself this question: How many predictions about the weather and climate that you have seen and heard are really that accurate? Weather forecasters can barely get a 3 to 7 day forecast accurate. Hurricane forecasters are often way off predicting the number and intensity of storms. Yet we are to accept this impending gloom and doom concerning the climate that is at least DECADES down the road? No way.
Gandalf, the White! (!)
July 9th, 2009
12:54 pm
So we as AMERICANS quit spewing carbon gases into the sky and everything will be nice! Even if Global Warming wasn’t a myth, IF we quit adding carbon gases into the air, what would India do? Or Africa? Or Asian as a whole.
You people kill me! Not a person smarter than a box o’ rocks among ya! Think for yourself please!
Oh, I forgot the sky is falling!
What would happen if the super volcano we know as Yellowstone was to have an eruption? How much would we tax it? DUMBASSI tribe following aLgOrE! Nobel prize! Ha!
USinUK
July 9th, 2009
12:55 pm
Um, Dave:
“In a preliminary report, released today on behalf of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the global mean temperature for 2008 is 14.3 °C, making it the tenth warmest year on a record that dates back to 1850.”
– snip –
“The ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1997. Global temperatures for 2000-2008 now stand almost 0.2 °C warmer than the average for the decade 1990–1999.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html
nice try
USinUK
July 9th, 2009
12:57 pm
oh, and Bosch … you’re my hero.
getalife
July 9th, 2009
12:58 pm
Crap, el nino is back.
I feel the big one is coming.
I will post a video when it gets close then go bailin like palin.
USinUK
July 9th, 2009
12:59 pm
… and who doesn’t love a line graph:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Bosch
July 9th, 2009
12:59 pm
I’m off to load a chair into my house the other Bosch bought for $30 like I need another frakking chair in my house.
Oh, sorry, honey, I’m coming!!!
Bosch
July 9th, 2009
1:01 pm
USinUK,
Thanks! My superhero costume is at the dry cleaners right now, but it should be back in a couple of days!
Alright already, I’m coming!!!
USinUK
July 9th, 2009
1:01 pm
and, look! pretty colors that show temperature anomalies for 2008
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36699
DB, Gwinnettian
July 9th, 2009
1:02 pm
So far, one hour since Jay posted we’ve got how many GW deniers who’ve actually fulfilled Jay’s request –
Stan,
booger,
Joey, and
Dave R.
- is that gonna be it, I wonder?
Also, Dave R, if you’re going to assert that the planet’s gotten cooler the past two years (start/end when? asserted by whom?) might help to include a linkee.
Must run. Later, all.
DB, Gwinnettian
July 9th, 2009
1:02 pm
Oh, sorry, honey, I’m coming!!!
Not touchin’ that one.
(Really gone now…)
USinUK
July 9th, 2009
1:04 pm
oh, and Dave – more evidence that 2008 was a scorcher:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090116163206.htm
The United States recorded a preliminary total of 1,690 tornadoes during 2008, which is well above the 10-year average of 1,270 and ranks as the second highest annual total since reliable records began in 1953. The high number of tornado-related fatalities during the first half of the year made 2008 the 10th deadliest with a 2008 total of 125 deaths.
Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in December was 16.95 million square miles (43.91 million square kilometers). This was 0.17 million square miles (0.43 million square kilometers) above the 1966-2008 December average. Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent was below average for most of 2008.
but, yeah … that “climate change” stuff is really just a bunch of hooey so that greenies can get RICH!
Gandalf, the White! (!)
July 9th, 2009
1:05 pm
Bosch, your my disrepectful douchebag of the day!! Hope that’s not at the cleaners too!
mm
July 9th, 2009
1:05 pm
Jay,
As with any other subject, the wingnutties wait until the sh*t hits the fan to react. In this case, that’s too late.
getalife
July 9th, 2009
1:05 pm
The earth is 6000 years old cons are missing the point.
It does not matter if it is real or not.
They want to create a green energy bubble to replace the millions of jobs lost.
Get out of their way cons.
Geez.
Joey
July 9th, 2009
1:07 pm
Jay;
Given that you want to implement the IPCC report “corrective” actions, it is incumbent on you to answer:
What level of confidence do you have in the IPCC report?
Also you should encourage your fellow Believers to share with us their degree of confidence.
Shawny
July 9th, 2009
1:07 pm
Here is one for ya…10 warmest years since 1850…. So, what technology were we using in the 1800s to take the earth’s temperature?
Satellite, infrared, ????
1960s, even? What was used? Does that info rely strictly on ice core samples? If so, how does that translate to areas that aren’t always under ice?
Shawny
July 9th, 2009
1:09 pm
If you believe it or not…if you believe that actions of only the rich nations and not the rest can actually reverse it… be very wary and follow the money.