This Surprised Me

[xoxoxoBruce]

Jerry Taylor spent 1991 to 2014 as Director of Natural Resource Studies, then as a Senior Fellow, and eventually Vice President at CATO Institute,
arguing while climate change is real, it’s no big deal, and the cost of fighting it would far outstrip the return.
He’s changed his mind for very logical reasons.

The big debate in climate science right now isn’t whether or not climate change is occurring—or whether human activity is the main cause. The big debate is about scale: How much change will there be, over how long a time frame, and how large (or small) will be the follow-on effects.

Now I don't know if he changed positions for a better paying job with an employer who has different goals than CATO?
But his reasonable, and logical thought process rings true. However I might be bias because he swung to my side.
Women have done that to me repeatedly. Yeah I fell for it repeatedly,
but that means nothing, this is worth the short read.

Try it, you'll like it.

[Griff]

I think he is is right, because I made the same journey.

The first is that surprises are weighted toward the bad. Despite some technical ambiguity, scientists believe that the chance of a nasty surprise on the climate front is much larger than the chance of a pleasant surprise. The second is that the risk of locking ourselves into a high-carbon, worse-than-expected climate world is larger than being locked into overly-expensive green energy. That is largely because once CO2 is in the atmosphere–where natural residence times are measured in centuries—it is very expensive to remove through technical means. Green energy boondoggles, on the other hand, can be reversed rather easily, and will at least deliver some health benefits from reduced air pollution, regardless of how climate change plays out. Lastly, societies have long demonstrated a willingness to pay in order to avoid prompting risks that are asymmetric, ambiguous, and irreversible. Global warming is all three.

[Diaphone Jim]

Well thought out and well written.
Irrefutable in fact, just the kind of argument that is challenging to understand and easy to ignore, which of course it will be.
I worry that not enough attention is paid to the already over-burden of human beings on the planet.
Our intentional destruction of the environment and its resources is economic, not climate based.
Food supply is already on the brink and competition for it soon to destroy just about all the systems we have developed to live together.
Surprises, as Taylor discusses, are more than almost certain to be of the unpleasant kind.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I just read an article today on the population shifts already taking place. Around the world too, not just some sea level islands. People in South Florida are getting nervous the bottom will fall out of their condo's value. I know a few guys who retired to Florida but recently moved to NC, TN, and PA.

[tw]

We build things with intent that they will still have value (will still contribute to the advancement of society) 100 years from now. That is the major disaster called climate change. So much of what we do today is on the verge of becoming useless due to a problem that we could address. And refuse to do.

Almost no one remembers how badly polluted every city was sixty years ago. We solved that. Few remember the near disaster called ozone depletion that was solved when science trumped emotions. Rivers were once sewers. It is still bad. But progress is being made.

But a serious diminished respect for reality and science today means a massive reduction of living standards over the next 100 years. So many are now incapable of intelligent thought as to even waste money in health food stores or say nice things about Trump. Even not vaccinate kids because a lying doctor and an uneducated blond bimbo movie star ordered them how to think.

A classic example was Saddam's WMDs. Facts said those did not exist. But emotions (adults who are still children) gleefully sent 5000 American servicemen to an unnecessary death. There is a serious shortage of people who can learn from what is obvious. And others who ignore numbers to conclude the world is about to end suddenly.

This problem, created by mankind, has long been obvious. And the damage is not easily reversed. CO2 is a very stable molecule that required energy to break apart.

Furthermore, we burn 100 hp in cars when cars when, most of the time, only needed is well less than 8. Numbers make it obvious. Therein lies an immediate solution to global warming. How many will even discuss that solution? Contempt for or ignorance of simple science (the ability to separate emotions from logical thought) is an underlying problem.