Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

Yes I do use “denier” as distinct from “sceptic”. Sceptic is a badge of honour (among scientific types) and is certainly not what many of the “denialist” community are engaged in. A review of websites like Watts Up With That or Climatescience.org.nz quickly reveals their biases.

I don’t actually think denier is a pejorative term….however, I can see that if one positions oneself as a sceptic and are called a denier then it could be thought of as a little irritating.

Your comments on the likelihood of success in the game theory/ tragedy of the commons sort of way are all fairly reasonable but your proposed solution of “coping” is very much a win-lose. With the worst of the impacts being inflicted upon those least able to adapt (think Bangladesh and sea level rise). I think Gareth “tweeted” a map that showed the shape of the world weighted by emissions vs impacts…from a Lancet study. (Gareth – can we find those old tweets?)

cheers, Andrew

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

Individuals are not hyper-rational. They don’t make the cost-benefit analysis I alluded to. They are social, they tend to want to do the right thing by their peers, for many reasons including fear of reprisals, to be liked, because it just feels good, and from an honest sense of morality. In the 60s and early 70s in the US, the highways became densely littered. Everyone just “threw it out the window.” Over time, social norms changed, and the amount of litter decreased substantially, but never completely. That change appears to have come from a simple change in social norms, rather than legal enforcement, although there was some of both.

However, companies and nations, especially companies, tend to be much more selfish and hyper-rational. Directors can be sued by shareholders if they don’t act in the interest of shareholder value, but rather harm the compnay to benefit the climate. It is in fact illegal for them to act in such a fashion, and so if we desire it, they must be constrained by laws in order to channel their behavior. They probably cannot even say this themselves: saying “pass a law to constrain me” could be considered an actionable offence, as it would detract from shareholder value. I don’t have certainty around this point, but I was struck hard by this thought when I watched a discussion between corporate executives and policy makers on climate change, and I watched the corporate executives struggling with their words. As people they want to do the right thing, but they seemed shackled. That’s ok. We don’t need business on board, we just need laws to constrain them. In the case of nation-states, it’s much sticker of an issue.

Rate this comment: 0  0

Bryan Walker: “We can’t in all conscience leave them to cope with that.”
I wholeheartedly agree. And I don’t mean to come off as a fatalist. I think humanity can solve this. My point is that I think the effort to inform has been successful, and now we need to move on to efforts to solve the problem. And the significant obstacle in my view is not a misunderstanding or miscomprehension or disbelief, but the simple economic incentive to cheat, and thus “pretend” to misunderstand or disbelieve or to simply ignore the issue on selfish/nationalistic economic grounds.

I don’t know enough economics to know if trade barriers would be of help (I know they are weapons of mutual damage, but the threat can have an effect), but it’s along the lines of where I’m thinking.

Rate this comment: 0  0

We’ll certainly need coping strategies for what is already in the climate pipeline, but the results of our not reducing emissions would be catastrophic for generations not far away from our own. Have a look at Gareth’s post today. We can’t in all conscience leave them to cope with that.

Rate this comment: 0  0

I also think religions have the ability to cause individuals to act against the own selfish interests for the benefit of the group, in the end helping all the individuals, which is exactly what we need here…. a spiritual belief in Gaia might save us. Although I’m not the appropriate salesman for this as I’m not a good lier, and I suppose a religion would need some believable lies to deceive people into compliance against their better option of cheating. Where is Gaius Baltar when you need him?

Rate this comment: 0  0

I’ve always been opposed to changing the meaning of a word just because people tend to imply and infer additional meaning over time. Alarmist means one sounding the alarm, and that is exactly what climate scientists are doing. Any associations with exaggeration are inferred, not necessarily implied, and in this case I think the question of exaggeration is posited provisionally… the whole question is “are they exaggerating?” Don’t be offended by the provisional implication if the conclusion is in favor of mainstream climate science. I think the word is very apropos.

On the other side, skeptics seem to have little problem with the word skeptic, even though
many people infer “disbeliever,” or “denier.” Skeptics are neither. They are agnostic, refusing to believe without evidence and not in possession of the necessary evidence. Yet many people infer “sourpuss,” “grumpy,” “angry,” “buzzkill” as well. I should think skeptics would be just as irritated if they made those same inferrences. But they don’t infer “disbeliever” or “denier” so they don’t seem upset by the word “skeptic.” But I’ll bet most people on this board do infer those things. In fact AndrewH and Le Chat Noir go so far as to use the word deniers (maybe to differentiate from skeptics, I’m unsure).

As an aside, I have become aware of the fact that many people have trouble distinguishing between the meaning of “imply” and “infer”. I hope this comment helps those people via context. As another aside, “incredible” means “not credible” and I continue that usage, often to fun and hilarious results when people misinterpret me thinking it’s a compliment! Though I have serious reservations about “inflammable.”

I think what many people who are worried about climate change fail to appreciate is the nature of game theory when it comes to sovereign actions. Cheaters prosper. Companies and governments that prosper become richer, larger, and the cheating ethic grows, while the ethic to do the right thing shrinks. Doing the right thing is not a survivable strategy. While it is in the best interest of the group (and thus each of the individuals) to reduce emissions, individuals (sovereign states in this case) can do even better by letting other people reduce emissions, while cheating themselves.

Stated another way: The damage I do to myself by polluting is infinitesimal, since my pollution’s damage is shared by 6 billion other people. maybe the damage is -100 on some arbitrary point scale. But the benefit only needs to be greater than 100 divided by 6-billion in order for the cost-benefit analysis to show that polluting is profitable for me. Within a nation, we can squash behavior based on this kind of thinking by creating environmental protection laws, and by assigning property rights (where appropriate, since people tend to care for their own property because they count the cost of pollution damage as affecting only themselves).

Across nations, there is no good solution at present. There is no international legal authority that has power over nation states, so this kind of cheating is not only possible, but fully expected. If the USA for example changed policy on Kyoto, I would wager a mint that some other large nation would defect (unless the USA acted as military police over the world). The fundamental game theoretic is difficult to change.

If you want to take action to prevent climate change, you need to think about how to solve this game theory problem between nations. Its solution is prerequisite.

Personally I think we can all get far more mileage with coping strategies. Accept climate change, and let’s figure out how we are going to deal with the effects. I, for one, will not be buying coastal property.

Disclaimer: when I say “wager a mint” I’m talking about those little peppermint candies.

Rate this comment: 0  0