Jim Torson wrote:
> At 07:56 PM 11/7/2006, James Annan wrote:
>
>> Even if one assumes the premise that we are "optimally adapted" to the
>> present climate (which I think would be difficult to rationally defend),
>> it does not follow that changes to the climate would result in net costs.
>
> Perhaps it would be useful to examine studies of potential
> effects of climate change such as the US National Assessment
> of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability
> and Change. See:
>
> The "Vanishing" National Climate Change Assessment,
> Part 1: The Administration
> http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/vanishing-na-part1/
First, I thought I made it clear that I was not advocating that a
specific (large) climate change was necessarily a good thing, merely
that "no change" cannot be automatically considered a optimum...but anyway:
That report (I've only glanced at the summary) is interesting in the way
that substantial aspects are couched in terms of *risk* rather than
*harm* per se. Even then, I note that it expects agricultural
productivity will grow - even asserting that downward pressure on prices
will be bad for farmers but good for consumers!
Being concerned about risk is in principle a rather different matter
from being concerned about change. I think many people are confusing the
two concepts, indeed they may jump freely to the former for support when
pressed on the latter. It is also easy to show (there are many simple
demonstrations) that attitudes to risk are often impossible to reconcile
with any model of reasonably rational behaviour. While irrationality is
something that we have to deal with in practical situations, I don't
think that means it should be put on a pedestal as a foundation of our
scientific and decision-making process. I'm also concerned that when
people start out with the mind-set that change is a bad thing, they are
likely to look harder for bad outcomes than good ones, thus skewing the
scientific debate. I think the discussion (both scientific and public)
of hot and cold weather deaths provides striking support for this
hypothesis.
James
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
