Open dreeves opened 3 years ago
Economically illiterate climate activists may say dumb things like "you can't put a dollar value on human lives" or "you can never be too careful" or "if we save even one polar bear, it's worth it" or whatever but "we have no clue how catastrophic this will be or how soon, so let's take a chill pill" is even dumber.
https://twitter.com/esyudkowsky/status/852981816180973568?lang=en
PS: Oh look, Scott Alexander named Yudkowsky's thing: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mr-tries-the-safe-uncertainty-fallacy
Sure! I have a digital copy so it's easy to grep. Quoting a footnote: "See 'The Bathtub Problem' beginning on page 15 of chapter 1 and the 'Bathtub' entry of page 30 in chapter 2."
They do talk a lot about how cheap and easy it would be to bring global temperature down by injecting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. I said "seize" because of how your review focuses on that -- even concludes with it -- without the context of how dangerous it would be to actually implement that form of geoengineering.
I believe you successfully countered only the dumb arguments against geoengineering, like how hard it would be to agree on a temperature target, and didn't touch the important arguments like ocean acidity and other ecosystem impacts.
I think the entirety of your argument against urgency was "the soonest this may be catastrophic is 90 years from now so what's another decade or two?". I refer again to the bathtub analogy to rebut that.
I retract that accusation and I believe you. As for whether I read the footnotes, it looks like I did but it's been over two years so I'm not confident of how well I did.
But now, deep breath, I was ex ante hasty in my poor opinion of your review but I've now carefully read and reread it and I'm doubling down. Some specific responses:
Unspecified? They devote many pages to the danger of allowing atmospheric CO2 to increase while counteracting only the warming via reflected solar radiation.
Fair. Like I said to Bryan, the part about extreme weather events seemed least convincing.
This line of attack feels like it really misses the point. Wagner and Weitzman go to great lengths to describe the huge amounts of uncertainty surrounding the impacts of climate change. This is what's so frustrating about climate skepticism. "It might turn out fine! The models are horrible! We don't know anything!" Well, we are Bayesians. We put probabilities on everything no matter how deep our ignorance and we do what the math says to do. I think the math says to simultaneously (a) gather more information to refine the probability estimates and (b) reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Crude models and other forms of ignorance make our probability distributions more diffuse. Pointing out that diffuseness isn't a rebuttal.
Aha, that's what Bryan Caplan and Yoram Bauman's bet was about. There has turned out to be no pause. See my other comments in the dialog with Jonathan S above, with link to the temperature graph.
Other commenters are pointing out updates and errors in the IPCC's 2007 report that some of Climate Shock's numbers are based on. I haven't dug in on that but just want to emphasize that this update on the illusory pause in warming seems like a bigger deal.