Are people voting this comment up because it's committing the mistake that Eliezer is talking about?
From the parent:
Regardless, the claim that rising temperatures will leave us worse off isn't remotely proven.
From the Less Wrong post:
And so the implicit emotional theory is that if something is not proven - better yet, proven using a particular piece of evidence that isn't available and that you're pretty sure is never going to become available - then you are allowed to disbelieve; it's like something a student says, not like something a teacher says.
What evidence would you expect to see today in a world where increased average global temperature helps humanity? If you're going to argue from ignorance, you should be on the side wanting to prevent change. Our understanding of the earth's climate is incomplete at best. The same is true of our understanding of the organisms that are adapted to that climate. We have historical evidence of changes CO2 in the atmosphere causing changes in climate, in turn causing extinction events. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoo_Ice_Age )
Your comment touches on a lot of topics, and I don't have time to respond to all of them. Still, here's what I gleaned of your opinions:
- AGW might not be true, so we don't need to worry about it.
- Even if it's true, it might not be large enough to have a significant effect, so we don't need to worry about it.
- Even if it's large enough to have a significant effect, it might be beneficial, so we don't need to worry about it.
- Even if AGW is harmful, current popular proposed solutions are ineffective, outrageously expensive, or both. Since the costs of the solutions are higher than the costs of AGW, we shouldn't do anything about it.
Doesn't this line of reasoning seem strangely convenient? Don't you think that you're being just a little bit biased toward the "do nothing" approach?
Both of the harmful climate events you have described were cooling events and were also many millions of years in the past. Why not consider more recent climate events which are closer in scale to those suggested by AGW proponents?
What evidence would you expect to see today in a world where increased average global temperature helps humanity?
Overall, if warming were beneficial for humanity, I'd expect to see human expansion during the medieval warm period, and human decline during the little ice age.
Further facts: quite a lot of land is too cold for humans to prosper in. Crop yields are poor, heating is costly, and life is generally unpleasant.
Regarding the "strangely convenient" line of reasoning by ellyagg, that's simply the line of reasoning we must take when evaluating any measure designed to prevent any event. We must evaluate whether the event is real, whether it is significant, whether it is harmful, and whether the cost/benefit of the mitigation scheme is favorable.
From the parent:
Regardless, the claim that rising temperatures will leave us worse off isn't remotely proven.
From the Less Wrong post:
And so the implicit emotional theory is that if something is not proven - better yet, proven using a particular piece of evidence that isn't available and that you're pretty sure is never going to become available - then you are allowed to disbelieve; it's like something a student says, not like something a teacher says.
What evidence would you expect to see today in a world where increased average global temperature helps humanity? If you're going to argue from ignorance, you should be on the side wanting to prevent change. Our understanding of the earth's climate is incomplete at best. The same is true of our understanding of the organisms that are adapted to that climate. We have historical evidence of changes CO2 in the atmosphere causing changes in climate, in turn causing extinction events. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoo_Ice_Age )
Your comment touches on a lot of topics, and I don't have time to respond to all of them. Still, here's what I gleaned of your opinions:
- AGW might not be true, so we don't need to worry about it.
- Even if it's true, it might not be large enough to have a significant effect, so we don't need to worry about it.
- Even if it's large enough to have a significant effect, it might be beneficial, so we don't need to worry about it.
- Even if AGW is harmful, current popular proposed solutions are ineffective, outrageously expensive, or both. Since the costs of the solutions are higher than the costs of AGW, we shouldn't do anything about it.
Doesn't this line of reasoning seem strangely convenient? Don't you think that you're being just a little bit biased toward the "do nothing" approach?