The anti-global-warming measure most commonly advocated as needing to be done immediately (or sooner) is reduction in fossil-fuel use. So far as I can see, this isn’t politically convenient for anybody.
Beyond that: sure, it’s worth distinguishing between “do experts agree that AGW is real?” and “do experts agree that AGW is real and likely to produce more than a 2degC rise over the next 50 years?” and “do experts agree that we need to cut our CO2 emissions substantially if the result isn’t going to cause vast amounts of suffering and expense and inconvenience and death?” and “do experts all predict exactly the same best-guess curve for temperatures over the next 50 years?” and all the other questions that one might ask.
Eliezer’s original nomination of global warming as something not to try to work out on one’s own was from back in 2007, and slicedtoad’s claim that “experts don’t agree” is from yesterday. There’s been a shift, over the years, in the commonest “skeptical” position on global warming (and hence in what question we might want to ask) from “it probably isn’t happening” to “well, of course it’s happening, everyone knows that, but it probably isn’t our fault” to “well, of course it’s happening and it’s our fault, everyone knows that, but it probably won’t be that bad” to “well, of course it’s happening, it’s our fault, and it’s likely to be really bad, everyone knows that, but major cuts in fossil fuel use probably aren’t the best way to address it”. I think we’re in the middle of the transition between the last two right now. My guess is that in another 5-10 years it may have switched again to “well, of course it’s happening, it’s our fault, and it’s likely to be really bad, and the answer would have been to cut fossil-fuel use, but it’s too late now so we might as well give up” which I’ve actually seen (I think here on LW, but it might have been over on Hacker News or somewhere of the kind).
In 2007, a little digging suggests that the transition from “probably not happening” to “probably not our fault” was in progress, so perhaps the question to look at is “are human activities causing a non-negligible increase in global temperature?”. On that question, I think it’s fair to say that “experts agree”.
Right now, though, the question is probably “how bad will it be if we continue with business as usual, and what should we do about it?”. My impression is that to the first part the experts all give answers of the form “we don’t know exactly, but here’s a crude probability distribution over outcomes”[1] and their distributions overlap a lot and basically all say at least “probably pretty bad”, so I’m pretty comfortable saying that “experts agree” although I might prefer to qualify it a little.
As for “what should we do about it?”, I’m not sure who would even count as an expert on that. I’d guess a solid majority of climate scientists would say we ought to reduce CO2 emissions, but maybe the nearest thing we have to experts on this question would be politicians or economists or engineers or something. I wouldn’t want to make any claim about whether and how far “experts agree” on this question without first making sure we’re all talking about roughly the same experts.
[1] Though they don’t usually put it that way, and in particular despite my language they usually don’t attach actual probabilities to the outcomes.
The anti-global-warming measure most commonly advocated as needing to be done immediately (or sooner) is reduction in fossil-fuel use. So far as I can see, this isn’t politically convenient for anybody.
Seriously? You don’t understand that there’s ideological opposition to fossil fuels (and to technology in general with unprincipled exceptions for such things as the anti-technology people’s personal iPads) and that global warming is extremely convenient for it?
Also, one of the if not the biggest measure advocated is government regulation and taxes. Surely you can see how that is politically convenient.
It appears to me that opposition to technology as such is rare among voters and even rarer among politicians, at least in the countries whose politics I know anything about. I’m sure there are some luddites who talk up the dangers of climate change in order to attack technology, but if you’re claiming that they explain a substantial fraction of what political support there is for taking action against climate change then I’ll need to see some evidence.
Yes, one way to discourage fossil-fuel use is to tax it heavily, and I can see why a politician might want more revenue to play with. But I can equally see why they might want to be seen not to favour high taxes; all else being equal, most voters prefer to be taxed less. If I imagine a Machiavellian politician thinking “I’ll advocate higher taxes to discourage the burning of fossil fuels, and then X will happen, and then I’ll be more powerful / more likely to be elected / richer / …”, I’m having trouble thinking of any really credible X.
If I imagine a Machiavellian politician thinking “I’ll advocate higher taxes to discourage the burning of fossil fuels, and then X will happen, and then I’ll be more powerful / more likely to be elected / richer / …”, I’m having trouble thinking of any really credible X.
I don’t see why you are having trouble.
“I’ll advocate higher taxes to get more revenue while saying it is to discourage the burning of fossil fuels, and then I will have control of of more money which I’ll channel to my cronies and use to bribe voters.
The common characteristic of most politicians is that they want more power. In Western democracies having control over budget and having money to allocate is a large part of that power.
First of all, for clarity, my imaginary politician was saying “I’ll advocate (higher taxes to discourage the burning of fossil fuels)” rather than “I’ll advocate higher taxes) to discourage the burning of fossil fuels”. That is, I wasn’t meaning to presuppose that the politician’s real purpose was as stated.
to get more revenue [...] channel to my cronies and use to bribe voters
OK, so if this sort of thing is (say) 50% of why those politicians who say we should take action to reduce or mitigate anthropomorphic climate change, then we should expect that (if politicians are perfectly Machiavellian and totally indifferent to what’s true and what’s beneficial) 50% of politicians who say that either are closely associated with “green energy” companies and the like, or else represent voters a substantial fraction of whom stand to benefit from “green energy” initiatives. If politicians are actually less than perfectly Machiavellian, and temper their pursuit of self-interest with occasional consideration of what would actually be best for their country and what the evidence actually says, then that figure of 50% needs to be correspondingly higher.
We should also, if politicians are that Machiavellian, expect to find that any politician who, e.g., represents a substantial number of voters who could be bribed in this way will advocate action against climate change.
I haven’t looked at the statistics, so my opinion isn’t worth much at present, but I don’t get the impression that things are anywhere near so clear-cut. Do you have data?
Just out of curiosity: What is your opinion about the motivation of politicians who say we shouldn’t take much action against anthropogenic climate change? If we discount the stated opinions of politicians on both sides, and of lobbyists for, e.g., solar panel fitters and oil companies, what opinions do you expect to find remaining?
It seems to me that this sort of argument constitutes a fully general justification for ignoring what politicians say. Which, actually, sounds on the whole like a pretty good idea.
I don’t get the impression that things are anywhere near so clear-cut
Things, of course, are not clear-cut at all because in reality you have a very complex network of incentives, counter-incentives, PR considerations, estimates and mis-estimates, the traditional bungling, etc. etc.
What is your opinion about the motivation of politicians who say we shouldn’t take much action against anthropogenic climate change?
The same :-)
what opinions do you expect to find remaining?
Well, the whole spectrum from “this is bollocks!” to “humanity’s survival is at stake!”, but probably dominated by “I dunno” :-D
I have to ask: Do you seriously think you are making a rational argument at this point? (Or have you, e.g., decided I’m an idiot not worth engaging with in actual rational discussion? Because if so, you could just say so.)
It makes no sense to answer my question “How do you know?” with “Same way you do” because I am not claiming to know anything about politicians’ motivations here, and you are.
When you imagine your Machiavellian politician, does your imagination provide you with something that plays the role of X for mine? Or does your imagined politician simply want more regulation as a terminal value, regulation purely for the sake of regulation? If the latter, what reason is there to think that the number of such politicians is not tiny?
I don’t expect a politician to literally want more regulation sa a terminal goal. However, I expect a politician to have terminal goals, such as doing better in the bureaucracy, signalling power to other politicians, etc. which more regulation helps him achieve. Bureaucracies given a chance to expand to encompass more regulation will take it.
It looks to me as if you’re mixing up two things that sound almost the same but are actually importantly different. (1) An actual preference for there to be more regulation. (2) A tendency to make there be more regulation. I agree that politicians are likely to have #2 because it may boost their status if their name is on lots of laws. But I don’t think that implies #1, and it’s #1 rather than #2 that I can imagine being responsible for insincere professions of belief in and concern about anthropogenic climate change.
I would expect #2 to manifest as politicians liking to introduce laws about whatever they happen to think important, or whatever they expect their voters to be impressed by. If you’re a politician with a severe case of #2 and not otherwise inclined to think climate change is a big deal, there’s no need for you to jump on the bandwagon just in order to have regulations to introduce. It’s not like there’s a shortage of other things to regulate. (Or, for some sorts of politician, to deregulate. That can go down well with voters and senior party officials too.)
In any case, I realise I’m not quite sure why we’re talking about politicians in any case. Do you have the impression that there is much push for action on climate change coming from politicians? It doesn’t look that way to me. I mean, for sure some politicians are saying there should be action on climate change, but I think there has consistently been less political support for such action than climate scientists’ analyses would lead one to expect.
There’s one obvious high-profile exception, namely Al Gore who has been unusually active in promoting action against climate change, and who (so I gather) has if anything overstated rather than understated the case in comparison to what actual experts would say. But this doesn’t seem well explained in terms of political considerations like “doing better in the bureaucracy” or “signalling power to other politicians”; Gore seems pretty clearly to be out of politics now. (I dunno, maybe he’ll surprise everyone by running for president in 2020 or something, but I bet he won’t. Aside from everything else, he’d be as old in 2020 as McCain was in 2008, and McCain’s age clearly hurt him.)
Do you have the impression that there is much push for action on climate change coming from politicians?
There seems to be much push for political solutions. Even if it’s not a politician who pushes for the solution, the people pushing for the solution generally benefit from increasing their side’s political power, and that includes proposing solutions that politicians on their side want because of other incentives.
There’s also interplay between different causes (if you can pull off a carbon tax, that increases the respectibility of taxes as solutions, which may help your side if your side also proposes taxes as solutions to other problems).
As I say, it looks to me as if politicians have generally favoured less intervention than the scientific consensus has seemed to warrant, which would be the exact opposite of what your analysis would predict. But I don’t have any very compelling evidence for this. How about you?
What matters here is the direction, not the end value. The idea is that politicians favor more intervention than we actually have, even if they favor less intervention than the scientific consensus. If so, then people allied with the politicians benefit from supporting intervention.
(Also, I don’t actually believe there is a scientific consensus on how much intervention is needed. That’s inherently a political question; it depends on how to value various tradeoffs, what you think the chance is of a policy being abused, etc. It’s like asking if there’s a scientific consensus about what to do to stop hunger.)
If we’re trying to assess the theory that AGW policies are strongly perturbed by politicians’ alleged desire to increase taxes and regulation, then we need to compare actual AGW policies with a baseline estimate that ignores the effects of that desire. There’s no point comparing against doing nothing, unless we know there’s no reason to do anything. (“The captain of this ship says there’s a big iceberg ahead and we have to steer to the left, but I think he’s mostly steering left because he likes the view in that direction. And look, we’re veering way further to the left than we would if we just kept going in a straight line—clearly that shows he’s biased.” Compare that with ”… way further to the left than I think we need to do avoid the iceberg I can see ahead”, which of course might be wrong if I am inexpert concerning either icebergs or steering but is at least trying to address the right question.)
I don’t actually believe there is a scientific consensus on how much intervention is needed.
I didn’t say there is (and agree that there probably isn’t, though there might e.g. be a scientific consensus that the answer is “more than we’re doing now”). By “less than the scientific consensus has seemed to warrant” I mean: look at what the scientists say about the likely climatic outcome of business as usual and of various levels of intervention, look at what politicians are actually doing, and consider whether it’s credible that this is close to optimal given any reasonable set of priorities. In general you’d expect this to be really hard because there are lots of difficult things to evaluate, but the politicians have made it easier by keeping the level of intervention almost indistinguishable from zero.
If we’re trying to assess the theory that AGW policies are strongly perturbed by politicians’ alleged desire to increase taxes and regulation, then we need to compare actual AGW policies with a baseline estimate that ignores the effects of that desire.
Yes, but the baseline itself is relative to the current situation. Politicians want to regulate more than the regulation we actually have, so if you also want to increase regulation to more than we have, that benefits politicians. It may be true that you want an end point far beyond what the politician wants, but that’s going to be irrelevant unless your push has some reasonable chance of going that far, which it probably doesn’t.
No, you did not. A Machiavellan politician wants to stay in power, that is, to be elected. You’re asserting a group interest that does not exist. We observe that politicians are happy to cut taxes (for people who can benefit them) if they personally get paid as much or more than before. Why would it be otherwise? (And any long-term interest, eg power for their family, should take the state of their civilization into account.)
We observe that politicians are happy to cut taxes (for people who can benefit them) if they personally get paid as much or more than before. Why would it be otherwise?
Having the ability to take and redistribute someone else’s money provides a concentrated benefit to the one doing the taking and redistributing. Cutting taxes produces a much more diffuse benefit. Concentrated benefits lead to Machiavellian behavior much more than diffuse benefits. It is possible, of course, to have an anti-taxes lobbying group which provides a concentrated benefit, but the overall balance between concentrated and diffuse benefits is on the side of the higher taxes.
(And any long-term interest, eg power for their family, should take the state of their civilization into account.)
That would be a diffuse cost. The politician may care about the portion of the diffuse effectthat affects his family, but that’s only a small portion of the total. If the politician makes policy based on which costs help him and his family and which ones hurt him and his family, the concentrated ones will win. The ones that affect all civilization, a small portion of which he actually cares about because it goes to his family, will lose.
a concentrated benefit to the one doing the taking and redistributing. Cutting taxes produces a much more diffuse benefit.
FFS, I shouldn’t have to tell you the government is not a person and does not make decisions like one. Show me a correlation between tax rates and benefits to individual politicians, or admit it’s diffuse as all Hell. Oh, wait:
Having the ability to take
Well then, since that’s always present, we seem to have reached agreement that actually using it is unnecessary for a given politician. Nor, I would say, do we need additional reasons to justify implied taxation threats in a world where the USA is deep in debt.
Here’s another comment for Eugine Nier to downvote: you are talking about a political issue and asserting by definition that politicians like Inhofe are not politicians. The real world doesn’t enter into it. You are spouting the most shameful tribalist garbage.
No indeed, your No True Scotsman fallacy is over here. Though as I keep saying, the more fundamental problem is that you haven’t shown anyone has the personal interest in question. And you try to hide this by talking as if the government were an agent, in violation of what should be conservative insights. I think I’m done with this.
and basically all say at least “probably pretty bad”
I don’t believe this is true. In particular, I would like to draw your attention to the Stern Review which came out with quite non-scary estimates for the consequences of the global warming even after its shenanigans with the discount rates.
As for “what should we do about it?”, I’m not sure who would even count as an expert on that. I’d guess a solid majority of climate scientists would say...
The climate scientists are definitely NOT domain experts on “what should we do about it” and I don’t see why their opinion should carry more weight than any other reasonably well-educated population group.
the Stern review which came out with quite non-scary estimates for the consequences
Some quotations from the Wikipedia page you linked to:
The Stern Review’s main conclusion is that the benefits of strong, early action on climate change far outweigh the costs of not acting. [...] According to the Review, without action, the overall costs of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. Including a wider range of risks and impacts could increase this to 20% of GDP or more, also indefinitely. Stern believes that 5-6 degrees of temperature increase is “a real possibility”.
And (from the WP page’s summary of the SR’s executive summary):
The scientific evidence points to increasing risks of serious, irreversible impacts [...] associated with business-as-usual [...] Climate change threatens the basic elements of life for people around the world [...] the poorest countries and people will suffer early and most.
I would say that (1) a permanent 5-20% reduction in global GDP sounds pretty bad, (2) a 5-6 degree increase also sounds pretty bad, (3) serious irreversible impacts on the basic elements of life, with the world’s poorest suffering earliest and most, sound pretty bad, and (4) it seems that Stern agrees that these are bad since the SR recommends strong early action.
The climate scientists are definitely NOT domain experts on “what should we do about it”
That was rather my point, and in particular I was not claiming that “their opinion should carry more weight than any other reasonably well-educated population group”. (Though I think that’s slightly overstated. They should be unusually well informed about what “it” is that we might want to do something about, which is useful information in deciding what to do.)
Not to restart the whole debate again, but first, let’s separate handwaving (20%, “serious irreversible impacts”, etc.) from specifics, and second, to quote the same Wikipedia page
most (greater than 90%) of the Review’s monetised damages of climate change occur after 2200
That is not 2020, that is 2200. I submit that anyone who monetizes damages after 2200 is full of the brown stuff.
In general, the Stern Review tried very hard (including what I think are clearly inappropriate assumptions—see the same discount rates) to produce a scary report to force action now… and it failed.
Originally you said: the Stern Review came out with quite non-scary estimates (“even after its shenanigans with the discount rates”). Now you’re saying: the Stern Review came out with really scary estimates but that’s OK because it fudged things, e.g. by using too-low discount rates.
The first, if it had been true, would have been good evidence against my statement that more or less all climate scientists say the consequences of business-as-usual would be pretty bad.
The second may be true (I haven’t looked closely enough to have a confident opinion) but even if true doesn’t give us good evidence that climate scientists don’t think the consequences will be bad. (It might indicate that they don’t think it’ll be so bad, else why not present their true reasons?. Or it might indicate that they’re so convinced it’ll be really bad that they’re prepared to fudge things to get the point across. Or it might be anywhere in between.)
Now you’re saying: the Stern Review came out with really scary estimates
No, not quite. The actual estimates from the Stern Review are non-scary. Indeed, non-scary to the degree that the authors felt the need to add some scary handwaving. But handwaving is not estimates.
doesn’t give us good evidence that climate scientists don’t think the consequences will be bad
Climate scientists are not domain experts in forecasting the effect of environmental change on human society.
5-6 degrees of temperature rise is scary. Economic loss equivalent to permanent 5-20% loss of global GDP is scary.
If you personally happen to be unscared by those figures, whether because you don’t believe them or because they’re about the fairly far future and your own discount rate is relatively high, fair enough. In that case we simply have a disagreement about what constitutes scariness.
scary handwaving
One difficulty here is that many of the things we may reasonably care about are not readily quantified; and any description of unquantified or barely-with-difficulty-quantified things can be dismissed as handwaving.
(But some of those things have less-handwavy more-quantified counterparts in the Report itself: e.g., tens to hundreds of millions of people displaced from their homes by the middle of the century because of flooding, sea level rise, and drought; 15%-40% of land plant and animal species extinct if temperatures rise a further 2degC. Again, how scary you think those things are depends on how much you care about the future, how much you care about people far away, how much you care about biodiversity, etc., and maybe we differ on some or all of them. I find them quite scary. Note that “how scary is this?” is a separate question from “will it actually happen?” and we’re discussing the former.)
Climate scientists are not domain experts in forecasting the effect of environmental change on human society.
I never claimed they are. I said only that climate scientists’ forecasts for the consequences of anthropogenic global warming are consistently at least “pretty bad”. (They are, of course, experts in forecasting what the environmental change is likely to be, which is an important part of the task of forecasting what its consequences will be.)
In that case we simply have a disagreement about what constitutes scariness.
We probably do. In this context, “scariness” mean willingness to spend resources now for expected mitigation of potential issues in the future. My willingness is lower than the current mainstream opinion and much lower than that of environmentalists.
many of the things we may reasonably care about are not readily quantified; and any description of unquantified or barely-with-difficulty-quantified things can be dismissed as handwaving.
Handwaving is not just lack of quantification, handwaving is asserting things without adequate support.
For example, I count the phrase “including a wider range of risks and impacts could increase this to 20% of GDP or more” as pure handwaving even though it includes a number.
how scary you think those things are depends on how much you care about the future
I don’t think we’re talking about “caring” in conventional sense. As I mentioned above, this is really about pricing of future risks with an overlay of generational transfer issues.
Just to be clear: The issue here AIUI is whether the Stern Report’s predictions, if correct, are scary. If we’re on the same page here, you’re saying that the prospect of a permanent loss of 5% or more of world GDP, of millions of extra deaths, and of tens to hundreds of people displaced from their homes, does not seem to you enough to justify the cost of the sort of mitigation the Stern Report proposes. Is that right?
If so: OK, fair enough; I’m not going to try to adjust your values. But I suggest that it’s probably quite unusual to regard those prospective harms as “quite non-scary”, as not “probably quite bad”.
pure handwaving
I think it’s actually somewhat impure handwaving because in the body of the Report there is a little explanation. But that explanation is itself fairly handwavy and in particular it’s not at all clear where the figure of 20% comes from.
pricing of future risks with an overlay of generational transfer issues
That seems to me like just one way of expressing “caring about the future”. In particular, using “caring” that way seems almost exactly as reasonable as using “scary” in the closely-related way you say you’re using it.
Not exactly—I don’t believe the “millions of extra deaths” projections and I strongly suspect that if I were to dig into the data, I would find the 5% GDP loss to be a shaky number.
In general, my position is that the best way to deal with uncertain threats in the future is to make sure future people are wealthy and technologically advanced. As an analogy, it would have been very unwise of, say, Europe in the XVIII century to suppress the industrialization because of concerns over deforestation, smog, and mines’ tailings.
This is irrelevant to the question we were actually addressing, namely how scary the predictions are. You made, in case you’ve forgotten, the following claim:
I would like to draw your attention to the Stern Review which came out with quite non-scary estimates for the consequences of the global warming even after its shenanigans with the discount rates.
but since then you have modified that by saying
that the SR’s NPV estimates of future harm are wrong because they should have discounted the future more steeply
that a lot of their predictions should be ignored because they are “handwaving”
that some of the more alarming other ones should be ignored because you don’t believe them
that the appropriate measure of scariness is your willingness to pay to make the scary thing go away.
At which point, it seems to me, you have completely abandoned the original statement that the Stern Review made non-scary predictions, and what we’re left with is that if we take only those parts of the Stern Review that you agree with and discount the future much more steeply than they do then you don’t find that considering what’s left makes you want to pay a lot of money to address the issue.
Or, to put it slightly differently, what we’re left with is: “Lumifer doesn’t think we should take drastic action to address possible negative future consequences of climate change”.
Well, fair enough. You’re a smart chap and no doubt your opinions are worth listening to. But this no longer has anything to do with the original issue, namely the extent to which climate scientists agree or disagree about climate change.
This is irrelevant to the question we were actually addressing, namely how scary the predictions are.
Let me, then, make the usual disclaimers which I thought were implicitly understood. I speak for myself, do not speak for anyone else, and when I discuss e.g. “how scary the predictions are”, I am talking about my perceptions, not about the reaction of an average (wo)man on the street.
Here I distinguish between what I think the Review actually says and what how it is presented. In my opinion, what the Stern Review says is not scary. It is presented as scary, of course, because that was the whole point of writing the Review. In fact, the shenanigans (e.g. discussed in the Wikipedia article) deemed necessary to produce the required degree of scariness reinforce my perception that the Review has major difficulties in creating a sufficiently fearful picture and contribute to my belief that what it actually found is non-scary.
the best way to deal with uncertain threats in the future is to make sure future people are wealthy and technologically advanced
The difficulty I have with applying that principle here is: which people? As the Stern Report says, the harms currently expected to result from climate change will fall overwhelmingly on the world’s poorest people. Ensuring that the inhabitants of the US and northwestern Europe are wealthy and technologically advanced will be very nice for us, but I’m not sure the people whose land becomes uninhabitable will (or should) consider that a great tradeoff.
The difficulty I have with applying that principle here is: which people?
I don’t understand your difficulty. The answer is: all and any.
This is similar to an observation that having a well-functioning immune system is the best way to deal with colds and other minor infections. The question “which people should have a well-functioning immune system?” makes no sense to me.
If indeed the answer is “all and any”, then the broad consensus that climate change under BAU scenarios will displace 50 million people in Bangladesh by the end of the century—turning vast numbers of prosperous farmers into penniless refugees—is a strong cause for action.
My guess is that in another 5-10 years it may have switched again to “well, of course it’s happening, it’s our fault, and it’s likely to be really bad, and the answer would have been to cut fossil-fuel use, but it’s too late now so we might as well give up” which I’ve actually seen (I think here on LW, but it might have been over on Hacker News or somewhere of the kind).
I doubt anyone was advocating this position seriously. More likely they were pointing out the logical implications of taking the alarmist position, with its ever shifting timeline for when disaster happens, seriously.
“do experts agree that AGW is real and likely to produce more than a 2degC rise over the next 50 years?”
I remember when the alarmist position was that it would happen in 20 years. Come to think of it, that was roughly 20 years ago.
More likely they were pointing out the logical implications [...]
That is not the impression I remember getting, but since I don’t even remember where I saw this you shouldn’t trust my memory much.
the alarmist position was that it would happen in 20 years [...] that was roughly 20 years ago.
Here is an IPCC report from 20 years ago. (Warning: large PDF file.) It predicted a 2 degC rise, relative to a baseline in 1990, by 2100.
The report mentions that its predecessor in 1990 gave a more pessimistic best estimate. Here is that report. (Warning: large PDF file.) Its best estimate (with much uncertainty stated) was about 0.3 degC per decade “during the next century”; according to that estimate, 2 degC of warming would take about 70 years.
So, please, whose alarmist position was that there would be 2degC of rise in the next 20 years, and why should we care?
(Thanks for the ~20 downvotes, by the way. You’re a real pleasure to talk to.)
The anti-global-warming measure most commonly advocated as needing to be done immediately (or sooner) is reduction in fossil-fuel use. So far as I can see, this isn’t politically convenient for anybody.
Beyond that: sure, it’s worth distinguishing between “do experts agree that AGW is real?” and “do experts agree that AGW is real and likely to produce more than a 2degC rise over the next 50 years?” and “do experts agree that we need to cut our CO2 emissions substantially if the result isn’t going to cause vast amounts of suffering and expense and inconvenience and death?” and “do experts all predict exactly the same best-guess curve for temperatures over the next 50 years?” and all the other questions that one might ask.
Eliezer’s original nomination of global warming as something not to try to work out on one’s own was from back in 2007, and slicedtoad’s claim that “experts don’t agree” is from yesterday. There’s been a shift, over the years, in the commonest “skeptical” position on global warming (and hence in what question we might want to ask) from “it probably isn’t happening” to “well, of course it’s happening, everyone knows that, but it probably isn’t our fault” to “well, of course it’s happening and it’s our fault, everyone knows that, but it probably won’t be that bad” to “well, of course it’s happening, it’s our fault, and it’s likely to be really bad, everyone knows that, but major cuts in fossil fuel use probably aren’t the best way to address it”. I think we’re in the middle of the transition between the last two right now. My guess is that in another 5-10 years it may have switched again to “well, of course it’s happening, it’s our fault, and it’s likely to be really bad, and the answer would have been to cut fossil-fuel use, but it’s too late now so we might as well give up” which I’ve actually seen (I think here on LW, but it might have been over on Hacker News or somewhere of the kind).
In 2007, a little digging suggests that the transition from “probably not happening” to “probably not our fault” was in progress, so perhaps the question to look at is “are human activities causing a non-negligible increase in global temperature?”. On that question, I think it’s fair to say that “experts agree”.
Right now, though, the question is probably “how bad will it be if we continue with business as usual, and what should we do about it?”. My impression is that to the first part the experts all give answers of the form “we don’t know exactly, but here’s a crude probability distribution over outcomes”[1] and their distributions overlap a lot and basically all say at least “probably pretty bad”, so I’m pretty comfortable saying that “experts agree” although I might prefer to qualify it a little.
As for “what should we do about it?”, I’m not sure who would even count as an expert on that. I’d guess a solid majority of climate scientists would say we ought to reduce CO2 emissions, but maybe the nearest thing we have to experts on this question would be politicians or economists or engineers or something. I wouldn’t want to make any claim about whether and how far “experts agree” on this question without first making sure we’re all talking about roughly the same experts.
[1] Though they don’t usually put it that way, and in particular despite my language they usually don’t attach actual probabilities to the outcomes.
Seriously? You don’t understand that there’s ideological opposition to fossil fuels (and to technology in general with unprincipled exceptions for such things as the anti-technology people’s personal iPads) and that global warming is extremely convenient for it?
Also, one of the if not the biggest measure advocated is government regulation and taxes. Surely you can see how that is politically convenient.
It appears to me that opposition to technology as such is rare among voters and even rarer among politicians, at least in the countries whose politics I know anything about. I’m sure there are some luddites who talk up the dangers of climate change in order to attack technology, but if you’re claiming that they explain a substantial fraction of what political support there is for taking action against climate change then I’ll need to see some evidence.
Yes, one way to discourage fossil-fuel use is to tax it heavily, and I can see why a politician might want more revenue to play with. But I can equally see why they might want to be seen not to favour high taxes; all else being equal, most voters prefer to be taxed less. If I imagine a Machiavellian politician thinking “I’ll advocate higher taxes to discourage the burning of fossil fuels, and then X will happen, and then I’ll be more powerful / more likely to be elected / richer / …”, I’m having trouble thinking of any really credible X.
I don’t see why you are having trouble.
“I’ll advocate higher taxes to get more revenue while saying it is to discourage the burning of fossil fuels, and then I will have control of of more money which I’ll channel to my cronies and use to bribe voters.
The common characteristic of most politicians is that they want more power. In Western democracies having control over budget and having money to allocate is a large part of that power.
First of all, for clarity, my imaginary politician was saying “I’ll advocate (higher taxes to discourage the burning of fossil fuels)” rather than “I’ll advocate higher taxes) to discourage the burning of fossil fuels”. That is, I wasn’t meaning to presuppose that the politician’s real purpose was as stated.
OK, so if this sort of thing is (say) 50% of why those politicians who say we should take action to reduce or mitigate anthropomorphic climate change, then we should expect that (if politicians are perfectly Machiavellian and totally indifferent to what’s true and what’s beneficial) 50% of politicians who say that either are closely associated with “green energy” companies and the like, or else represent voters a substantial fraction of whom stand to benefit from “green energy” initiatives. If politicians are actually less than perfectly Machiavellian, and temper their pursuit of self-interest with occasional consideration of what would actually be best for their country and what the evidence actually says, then that figure of 50% needs to be correspondingly higher.
We should also, if politicians are that Machiavellian, expect to find that any politician who, e.g., represents a substantial number of voters who could be bribed in this way will advocate action against climate change.
I haven’t looked at the statistics, so my opinion isn’t worth much at present, but I don’t get the impression that things are anywhere near so clear-cut. Do you have data?
Just out of curiosity: What is your opinion about the motivation of politicians who say we shouldn’t take much action against anthropogenic climate change? If we discount the stated opinions of politicians on both sides, and of lobbyists for, e.g., solar panel fitters and oil companies, what opinions do you expect to find remaining?
It seems to me that this sort of argument constitutes a fully general justification for ignoring what politicians say. Which, actually, sounds on the whole like a pretty good idea.
Things, of course, are not clear-cut at all because in reality you have a very complex network of incentives, counter-incentives, PR considerations, estimates and mis-estimates, the traditional bungling, etc. etc.
The same :-)
Well, the whole spectrum from “this is bollocks!” to “humanity’s survival is at stake!”, but probably dominated by “I dunno” :-D
It goes the other way around: They advocate taxing fossil fuels because they are generally in favor of government regulation.
How do you know?
Same way you do. You imagined a Machiavellan politician; well, I imagined another one.
I have to ask: Do you seriously think you are making a rational argument at this point? (Or have you, e.g., decided I’m an idiot not worth engaging with in actual rational discussion? Because if so, you could just say so.)
It makes no sense to answer my question “How do you know?” with “Same way you do” because I am not claiming to know anything about politicians’ motivations here, and you are.
When you imagine your Machiavellian politician, does your imagination provide you with something that plays the role of X for mine? Or does your imagined politician simply want more regulation as a terminal value, regulation purely for the sake of regulation? If the latter, what reason is there to think that the number of such politicians is not tiny?
I don’t expect a politician to literally want more regulation sa a terminal goal. However, I expect a politician to have terminal goals, such as doing better in the bureaucracy, signalling power to other politicians, etc. which more regulation helps him achieve. Bureaucracies given a chance to expand to encompass more regulation will take it.
It looks to me as if you’re mixing up two things that sound almost the same but are actually importantly different. (1) An actual preference for there to be more regulation. (2) A tendency to make there be more regulation. I agree that politicians are likely to have #2 because it may boost their status if their name is on lots of laws. But I don’t think that implies #1, and it’s #1 rather than #2 that I can imagine being responsible for insincere professions of belief in and concern about anthropogenic climate change.
I would expect #2 to manifest as politicians liking to introduce laws about whatever they happen to think important, or whatever they expect their voters to be impressed by. If you’re a politician with a severe case of #2 and not otherwise inclined to think climate change is a big deal, there’s no need for you to jump on the bandwagon just in order to have regulations to introduce. It’s not like there’s a shortage of other things to regulate. (Or, for some sorts of politician, to deregulate. That can go down well with voters and senior party officials too.)
In any case, I realise I’m not quite sure why we’re talking about politicians in any case. Do you have the impression that there is much push for action on climate change coming from politicians? It doesn’t look that way to me. I mean, for sure some politicians are saying there should be action on climate change, but I think there has consistently been less political support for such action than climate scientists’ analyses would lead one to expect.
There’s one obvious high-profile exception, namely Al Gore who has been unusually active in promoting action against climate change, and who (so I gather) has if anything overstated rather than understated the case in comparison to what actual experts would say. But this doesn’t seem well explained in terms of political considerations like “doing better in the bureaucracy” or “signalling power to other politicians”; Gore seems pretty clearly to be out of politics now. (I dunno, maybe he’ll surprise everyone by running for president in 2020 or something, but I bet he won’t. Aside from everything else, he’d be as old in 2020 as McCain was in 2008, and McCain’s age clearly hurt him.)
[EDITED to fix an inconsequential typo.]
There seems to be much push for political solutions. Even if it’s not a politician who pushes for the solution, the people pushing for the solution generally benefit from increasing their side’s political power, and that includes proposing solutions that politicians on their side want because of other incentives.
There’s also interplay between different causes (if you can pull off a carbon tax, that increases the respectibility of taxes as solutions, which may help your side if your side also proposes taxes as solutions to other problems).
As I say, it looks to me as if politicians have generally favoured less intervention than the scientific consensus has seemed to warrant, which would be the exact opposite of what your analysis would predict. But I don’t have any very compelling evidence for this. How about you?
What matters here is the direction, not the end value. The idea is that politicians favor more intervention than we actually have, even if they favor less intervention than the scientific consensus. If so, then people allied with the politicians benefit from supporting intervention.
(Also, I don’t actually believe there is a scientific consensus on how much intervention is needed. That’s inherently a political question; it depends on how to value various tradeoffs, what you think the chance is of a policy being abused, etc. It’s like asking if there’s a scientific consensus about what to do to stop hunger.)
If we’re trying to assess the theory that AGW policies are strongly perturbed by politicians’ alleged desire to increase taxes and regulation, then we need to compare actual AGW policies with a baseline estimate that ignores the effects of that desire. There’s no point comparing against doing nothing, unless we know there’s no reason to do anything. (“The captain of this ship says there’s a big iceberg ahead and we have to steer to the left, but I think he’s mostly steering left because he likes the view in that direction. And look, we’re veering way further to the left than we would if we just kept going in a straight line—clearly that shows he’s biased.” Compare that with ”… way further to the left than I think we need to do avoid the iceberg I can see ahead”, which of course might be wrong if I am inexpert concerning either icebergs or steering but is at least trying to address the right question.)
I didn’t say there is (and agree that there probably isn’t, though there might e.g. be a scientific consensus that the answer is “more than we’re doing now”). By “less than the scientific consensus has seemed to warrant” I mean: look at what the scientists say about the likely climatic outcome of business as usual and of various levels of intervention, look at what politicians are actually doing, and consider whether it’s credible that this is close to optimal given any reasonable set of priorities. In general you’d expect this to be really hard because there are lots of difficult things to evaluate, but the politicians have made it easier by keeping the level of intervention almost indistinguishable from zero.
Yes, but the baseline itself is relative to the current situation. Politicians want to regulate more than the regulation we actually have, so if you also want to increase regulation to more than we have, that benefits politicians. It may be true that you want an end point far beyond what the politician wants, but that’s going to be irrelevant unless your push has some reasonable chance of going that far, which it probably doesn’t.
The terminal value is power. Regulation is an intermediate instrumental goal.
No, you did not. A Machiavellan politician wants to stay in power, that is, to be elected. You’re asserting a group interest that does not exist. We observe that politicians are happy to cut taxes (for people who can benefit them) if they personally get paid as much or more than before. Why would it be otherwise? (And any long-term interest, eg power for their family, should take the state of their civilization into account.)
Having the ability to take and redistribute someone else’s money provides a concentrated benefit to the one doing the taking and redistributing. Cutting taxes produces a much more diffuse benefit. Concentrated benefits lead to Machiavellian behavior much more than diffuse benefits. It is possible, of course, to have an anti-taxes lobbying group which provides a concentrated benefit, but the overall balance between concentrated and diffuse benefits is on the side of the higher taxes.
That would be a diffuse cost. The politician may care about the portion of the diffuse effectthat affects his family, but that’s only a small portion of the total. If the politician makes policy based on which costs help him and his family and which ones hurt him and his family, the concentrated ones will win. The ones that affect all civilization, a small portion of which he actually cares about because it goes to his family, will lose.
FFS, I shouldn’t have to tell you the government is not a person and does not make decisions like one. Show me a correlation between tax rates and benefits to individual politicians, or admit it’s diffuse as all Hell. Oh, wait:
Well then, since that’s always present, we seem to have reached agreement that actually using it is unnecessary for a given politician. Nor, I would say, do we need additional reasons to justify implied taxation threats in a world where the USA is deep in debt.
Here’s another comment for Eugine Nier to downvote: you are talking about a political issue and asserting by definition that politicians like Inhofe are not politicians. The real world doesn’t enter into it. You are spouting the most shameful tribalist garbage.
“The politician” doesn’t mean that I am making the statement about every single politician in the world.
No indeed, your No True Scotsman fallacy is over here. Though as I keep saying, the more fundamental problem is that you haven’t shown anyone has the personal interest in question. And you try to hide this by talking as if the government were an agent, in violation of what should be conservative insights. I think I’m done with this.
I don’t believe this is true. In particular, I would like to draw your attention to the Stern Review which came out with quite non-scary estimates for the consequences of the global warming even after its shenanigans with the discount rates.
The climate scientists are definitely NOT domain experts on “what should we do about it” and I don’t see why their opinion should carry more weight than any other reasonably well-educated population group.
Some quotations from the Wikipedia page you linked to:
And (from the WP page’s summary of the SR’s executive summary):
I would say that (1) a permanent 5-20% reduction in global GDP sounds pretty bad, (2) a 5-6 degree increase also sounds pretty bad, (3) serious irreversible impacts on the basic elements of life, with the world’s poorest suffering earliest and most, sound pretty bad, and (4) it seems that Stern agrees that these are bad since the SR recommends strong early action.
That was rather my point, and in particular I was not claiming that “their opinion should carry more weight than any other reasonably well-educated population group”. (Though I think that’s slightly overstated. They should be unusually well informed about what “it” is that we might want to do something about, which is useful information in deciding what to do.)
Not to restart the whole debate again, but first, let’s separate handwaving (20%, “serious irreversible impacts”, etc.) from specifics, and second, to quote the same Wikipedia page
That is not 2020, that is 2200. I submit that anyone who monetizes damages after 2200 is full of the brown stuff.
In general, the Stern Review tried very hard (including what I think are clearly inappropriate assumptions—see the same discount rates) to produce a scary report to force action now… and it failed.
Originally you said: the Stern Review came out with quite non-scary estimates (“even after its shenanigans with the discount rates”). Now you’re saying: the Stern Review came out with really scary estimates but that’s OK because it fudged things, e.g. by using too-low discount rates.
The first, if it had been true, would have been good evidence against my statement that more or less all climate scientists say the consequences of business-as-usual would be pretty bad.
The second may be true (I haven’t looked closely enough to have a confident opinion) but even if true doesn’t give us good evidence that climate scientists don’t think the consequences will be bad. (It might indicate that they don’t think it’ll be so bad, else why not present their true reasons?. Or it might indicate that they’re so convinced it’ll be really bad that they’re prepared to fudge things to get the point across. Or it might be anywhere in between.)
No, not quite. The actual estimates from the Stern Review are non-scary. Indeed, non-scary to the degree that the authors felt the need to add some scary handwaving. But handwaving is not estimates.
Climate scientists are not domain experts in forecasting the effect of environmental change on human society.
5-6 degrees of temperature rise is scary. Economic loss equivalent to permanent 5-20% loss of global GDP is scary.
If you personally happen to be unscared by those figures, whether because you don’t believe them or because they’re about the fairly far future and your own discount rate is relatively high, fair enough. In that case we simply have a disagreement about what constitutes scariness.
One difficulty here is that many of the things we may reasonably care about are not readily quantified; and any description of unquantified or barely-with-difficulty-quantified things can be dismissed as handwaving.
(But some of those things have less-handwavy more-quantified counterparts in the Report itself: e.g., tens to hundreds of millions of people displaced from their homes by the middle of the century because of flooding, sea level rise, and drought; 15%-40% of land plant and animal species extinct if temperatures rise a further 2degC. Again, how scary you think those things are depends on how much you care about the future, how much you care about people far away, how much you care about biodiversity, etc., and maybe we differ on some or all of them. I find them quite scary. Note that “how scary is this?” is a separate question from “will it actually happen?” and we’re discussing the former.)
I never claimed they are. I said only that climate scientists’ forecasts for the consequences of anthropogenic global warming are consistently at least “pretty bad”. (They are, of course, experts in forecasting what the environmental change is likely to be, which is an important part of the task of forecasting what its consequences will be.)
We probably do. In this context, “scariness” mean willingness to spend resources now for expected mitigation of potential issues in the future. My willingness is lower than the current mainstream opinion and much lower than that of environmentalists.
Handwaving is not just lack of quantification, handwaving is asserting things without adequate support.
For example, I count the phrase “including a wider range of risks and impacts could increase this to 20% of GDP or more” as pure handwaving even though it includes a number.
I don’t think we’re talking about “caring” in conventional sense. As I mentioned above, this is really about pricing of future risks with an overlay of generational transfer issues.
Just to be clear: The issue here AIUI is whether the Stern Report’s predictions, if correct, are scary. If we’re on the same page here, you’re saying that the prospect of a permanent loss of 5% or more of world GDP, of millions of extra deaths, and of tens to hundreds of people displaced from their homes, does not seem to you enough to justify the cost of the sort of mitigation the Stern Report proposes. Is that right?
If so: OK, fair enough; I’m not going to try to adjust your values. But I suggest that it’s probably quite unusual to regard those prospective harms as “quite non-scary”, as not “probably quite bad”.
I think it’s actually somewhat impure handwaving because in the body of the Report there is a little explanation. But that explanation is itself fairly handwavy and in particular it’s not at all clear where the figure of 20% comes from.
That seems to me like just one way of expressing “caring about the future”. In particular, using “caring” that way seems almost exactly as reasonable as using “scary” in the closely-related way you say you’re using it.
Not exactly—I don’t believe the “millions of extra deaths” projections and I strongly suspect that if I were to dig into the data, I would find the 5% GDP loss to be a shaky number.
In general, my position is that the best way to deal with uncertain threats in the future is to make sure future people are wealthy and technologically advanced. As an analogy, it would have been very unwise of, say, Europe in the XVIII century to suppress the industrialization because of concerns over deforestation, smog, and mines’ tailings.
This is irrelevant to the question we were actually addressing, namely how scary the predictions are. You made, in case you’ve forgotten, the following claim:
but since then you have modified that by saying
that the SR’s NPV estimates of future harm are wrong because they should have discounted the future more steeply
that a lot of their predictions should be ignored because they are “handwaving”
that some of the more alarming other ones should be ignored because you don’t believe them
that the appropriate measure of scariness is your willingness to pay to make the scary thing go away.
At which point, it seems to me, you have completely abandoned the original statement that the Stern Review made non-scary predictions, and what we’re left with is that if we take only those parts of the Stern Review that you agree with and discount the future much more steeply than they do then you don’t find that considering what’s left makes you want to pay a lot of money to address the issue.
Or, to put it slightly differently, what we’re left with is: “Lumifer doesn’t think we should take drastic action to address possible negative future consequences of climate change”.
Well, fair enough. You’re a smart chap and no doubt your opinions are worth listening to. But this no longer has anything to do with the original issue, namely the extent to which climate scientists agree or disagree about climate change.
Let me, then, make the usual disclaimers which I thought were implicitly understood. I speak for myself, do not speak for anyone else, and when I discuss e.g. “how scary the predictions are”, I am talking about my perceptions, not about the reaction of an average (wo)man on the street.
Here I distinguish between what I think the Review actually says and what how it is presented. In my opinion, what the Stern Review says is not scary. It is presented as scary, of course, because that was the whole point of writing the Review. In fact, the shenanigans (e.g. discussed in the Wikipedia article) deemed necessary to produce the required degree of scariness reinforce my perception that the Review has major difficulties in creating a sufficiently fearful picture and contribute to my belief that what it actually found is non-scary.
The difficulty I have with applying that principle here is: which people? As the Stern Report says, the harms currently expected to result from climate change will fall overwhelmingly on the world’s poorest people. Ensuring that the inhabitants of the US and northwestern Europe are wealthy and technologically advanced will be very nice for us, but I’m not sure the people whose land becomes uninhabitable will (or should) consider that a great tradeoff.
I don’t understand your difficulty. The answer is: all and any.
This is similar to an observation that having a well-functioning immune system is the best way to deal with colds and other minor infections. The question “which people should have a well-functioning immune system?” makes no sense to me.
If indeed the answer is “all and any”, then the broad consensus that climate change under BAU scenarios will displace 50 million people in Bangladesh by the end of the century—turning vast numbers of prosperous farmers into penniless refugees—is a strong cause for action.
The default way to ensure future people are wealthy and technologically advanced is to let those who are not die.
I doubt anyone was advocating this position seriously. More likely they were pointing out the logical implications of taking the alarmist position, with its ever shifting timeline for when disaster happens, seriously.
I remember when the alarmist position was that it would happen in 20 years. Come to think of it, that was roughly 20 years ago.
That is not the impression I remember getting, but since I don’t even remember where I saw this you shouldn’t trust my memory much.
Here is an IPCC report from 20 years ago. (Warning: large PDF file.) It predicted a 2 degC rise, relative to a baseline in 1990, by 2100.
The report mentions that its predecessor in 1990 gave a more pessimistic best estimate. Here is that report. (Warning: large PDF file.) Its best estimate (with much uncertainty stated) was about 0.3 degC per decade “during the next century”; according to that estimate, 2 degC of warming would take about 70 years.
So, please, whose alarmist position was that there would be 2degC of rise in the next 20 years, and why should we care?
(Thanks for the ~20 downvotes, by the way. You’re a real pleasure to talk to.)