In Reply to: RE: Beware of Experts posted by Tony Lauck on October 21, 2010 at 08:25:09:
As I think I said, I don't consider myself qualified to weigh the scientific arguments. This is fairly unusual, even unique, given that I have a scientific and technical background. But warming is a complex modeled phenomenon, and I feel that I'd have to immerse myself in the literature before I could make a valid overall assessment; otherwise, I'd run the risk of concentrating on local phenomena without understanding their significance to the whole. And I'd be running blind without access to the models. So while I agree that science isn't done by majority vote, I have no scientific reason to suppose that this isn't playing out like a textbook paradigm shift -- lone scientists proposes a new theory, after a period of skepticism a majority of scientists come around, some gray hairs continue to raise objections.
As a practical matter, you speak of "doing nothing in the absence of knowledge," and yet it seems to me that we're actually doing something in the absence of knowledge -- pouring vast quantities of known greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. So --
- We're adding greenhouse gases
- Most climate scientists, and all the computer models, predict warming
- We measure warming unprecedented in modern times
- Barring extraordinary intervention with unproven technologies, the greenhouse gases we put in the atmosphere will remain there for many years
Do we then continue pouring vast quantities of known greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in the chance that a few elderly scientists are correct?
What I am qualified to comment on is the cost of preventing greenhouse gas emissions. It is negligible, *if* done in a timely matter. The average road life of an automobile is 13 years, and a coal-fired power plant is designed to have a 50 year life expectancy. It would cost little to replace infrastructure and equipment with low-carbon alternatives as they reach the end of their life expectancy, and most of the added investment and operational costs could be countered through efficiency improvements. It would cost a fair amount to replace it before the end of its life expectancy, though still less than the anticipated cost of warming, to the extent that can be calculated. An example of a crash program would be the French shift to fission generation in the wake of the oil crisis of the 70's. They did it in short order, without hardship or significant economic harm.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Beware of Experts - josh358 10:29:20 10/21/10 (1)
- RE: Beware of Experts - Tony Lauck 10:56:02 10/21/10 (0)