(my first attempt at a reply got lost somehow, this seems to happen
occasionally with google groups for me, not sure why)
> First of all, does this observation reinforce or contradict Jim's
> point? I think it is the former.
It depends on what Jim's point is. The debate in question wasn't about
whether the IPCC reports are excellent reviews of the current state of
knowledge of climate science, they were about whether climate change
is a "crisis" after all.
There were some strange points made in that particular discussion, but
a lot of it focused on issues of justice (who should do the cutting)
and cost effectiveness of any action (shouldn't other things be a
priority), rather than climate science, and I believe Stott, Crichton
and Linzen all acknowledged that greenhouse gases will warm the
planet.
> Heiko, this is the first hint of unfairness I have seen in your own
> postings. I find this response quite inconsiderate.
>
> Jim has not taken the position that these is significant hysteria;
> quite the contrary. For you to move from hysteria attribution when the
> proposition was invalid hysteria detection seems unnecessarily
> provocative. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding.
It wasn't intended as a provocation.
I had to think of a conversation I had with my mother in law. She is
highly apolitical and commented that she thought that the atmosphere
with regards to climate change in Germany was hysterical. I think that
has got very little to do with scientists being hysterical, or with
climate change deniers or oil companies feeding her with false
information. I think it's largely due to the fact that a lot of media
reporting on the issue comes across as hysterical to her.
So, if Jim talks about invalid hysteria detection with regards to
scientists, isn't it a fair point to say that one reason for this
invalid hysteria detection is that there's a lot of media coverage
that is questionable?
> In my opinion, the lack of a clear understanding of a not enormously
> complicated problem arises not because of the complexity of the system
> in which the problem arises, but because of deliberate obfuscation of
> the problem by self-interest on the part of owners of fossil fuel
> reserves, which plays on certain intrinsic beliefs in some segments of
> the society.
The self interest of oil companies is to make a profit, and climate
change action may actually enhance that profit. For example, a major
consequence of carbon trading tends to be that effective coal prices
rise, and therefore nat gas becomes more attractive. Exxon does not
produce any coal, but a lot of natural gas.
I am therefore not surprised that some oil companies take a stance
very much in favour of cap and trade, as they stand to benefit rather
than lose, especially so, if the cap and trade regime is designed
right. In Europe, it has been, and we've seen BP making a profit from
selling allowances (and even more profit from higher nat gas prices)
and NHS hospitals having to pay up for carbon allowances for example.
> I do not include yourself or other Lomborgists in this at all. You
> have a much more reasoned case. I think you are wrong, but I think you
> are wrong in the right way, in that you are accessible to reason and
> are willing at least to identify your core assumptions. At least we
> can come to agreement about where our assumptions differ, and perhaps
> we can reach policy compromise where a values agreement is
> unavailable.
That's a very important point, I'd put it as: there are issues, where
reasonable people can disagree because of the complexity of the
assumption you need to make to come to a reasoned judgment.
> I believe that when I was young this existed, and now it is gone. Even
> if climate change is overrated this is no small matter.
All generations seem to believe that things have gone downhill ;-), I
haven't really seen any surveys suggesting there's been a
deterioration in trust, but maybe there has been.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
