Fundamentally flawed analysis...will_sampleApril 19 2008, 16:19:14 UTC
...as he doesn't reveal confidence levels involved in the negative outcomes. He discusses risk management without bothering to embrace its most basic principles.
Big action is *certain* economic devastation, paired with a benefit of dubious size-- presuming the Kyoto accord were implemented in full, the initial costs for US businesses (well before factoring in the further costs to consumers) is approaching $1 Trillion USD, for a benefit that Kyoto's own strongest backers say migtht, at best, shave .05 to .10 C off of Global Warming. If the worst projections of the Falling Sky movement are correct, that's a negligible difference at best- and there is no way possible to know what the natural climate will do without man's interaction; it could get warmer faster or plunge into an Ice Age .
He mentioned prudence, yet he failed to apply it in his own discussion; if I tell you there's a 1% chance you will have an automobile accident tomorrow, and offer you an insurance rate at ten times your normal cost, it may *seem* prudent to take that policy on the surface, but is it really? You risk an automobile accident every day you are alive, by virtue of being alive in an age where there are automobiles-- you need not be driving, even, to be affected. If you have an accident the day after the policy expires, are you going to shrug your shoulders and say 'Well, that really wasn't an accident, because it didn't happen on a day where I was told I was at an increased risk.'--- of course not, but the same logic is expected of people who are affected by hurricanes, famine, floods, disease, etc. ; all of the catastrophic outcomes that he lists are already naturally occurring, and have occurred for as long as there has been human civilization.
All economic decisions are either/or propositions; you chose among uncertain futures, the most profitable way to spend limited means, hoping for the best possible outcome. We've seen the track record of the environmental movement-- DDT bans that kills millions (after DDT had essentially pushed malaria to the brink of non-existence), developmental aid requirements that keep the black and brown of the world in grinding poverty, Global Cooling hysteria from the 70s, Global Overpopulation hysteria from the 60s, and Eugenics for the first 4 decades of this century.
Even assuming the worst case scenario, I'm perfectly comfortable risking my kids and potential grandkids lives on the prospect that Chicken Little is still Chicken Little. They're better served by living in a world where they can have lighting at night, petrochemical-based medicines to treat their illnesses, oil-burning cars that take them to and from schools, the doctor, and baseball practice than they are by spending *trillions* on dubious claims, for dubious benefits.
Click to view
Big action is *certain* economic devastation, paired with a benefit of dubious size-- presuming the Kyoto accord were implemented in full, the initial costs for US businesses (well before factoring in the further costs to consumers) is approaching $1 Trillion USD, for a benefit that Kyoto's own strongest backers say migtht, at best, shave .05 to .10 C off of Global Warming. If the worst projections of the Falling Sky movement are correct, that's a negligible difference at best- and there is no way possible to know what the natural climate will do without man's interaction; it could get warmer faster or plunge into an Ice Age .
He mentioned prudence, yet he failed to apply it in his own discussion; if I tell you there's a 1% chance you will have an automobile accident tomorrow, and offer you an insurance rate at ten times your normal cost, it may *seem* prudent to take that policy on the surface, but is it really? You risk an automobile accident every day you are alive, by virtue of being alive in an age where there are automobiles-- you need not be driving, even, to be affected. If you have an accident the day after the policy expires, are you going to shrug your shoulders and say 'Well, that really wasn't an accident, because it didn't happen on a day where I was told I was at an increased risk.'--- of course not, but the same logic is expected of people who are affected by hurricanes, famine, floods, disease, etc. ; all of the catastrophic outcomes that he lists are already naturally occurring, and have occurred for as long as there has been human civilization.
All economic decisions are either/or propositions; you chose among uncertain futures, the most profitable way to spend limited means, hoping for the best possible outcome. We've seen the track record of the environmental movement-- DDT bans that kills millions (after DDT had essentially pushed malaria to the brink of non-existence), developmental aid requirements that keep the black and brown of the world in grinding poverty, Global Cooling hysteria from the 70s, Global Overpopulation hysteria from the 60s, and Eugenics for the first 4 decades of this century.
Even assuming the worst case scenario, I'm perfectly comfortable risking my kids and potential grandkids lives on the prospect that Chicken Little is still Chicken Little. They're better served by living in a world where they can have lighting at night, petrochemical-based medicines to treat their illnesses, oil-burning cars that take them to and from schools, the doctor, and baseball practice than they are by spending *trillions* on dubious claims, for dubious benefits.
Reply
Leave a comment