US science teacher and youtube contributor wonderingmind42 has demonstrated an intelligent approach to assess the risk of global heating and climate change mitigation - one which I'm unable (yet) to challenge.
It seems too good to be true. At first I thought it was the climate change version of Pascal's Wager, but the more I've examined it the more I've become convinced of the logic of the argument.
True, it's based upon a simple set of parameters, but it works. When you drill down into more detail, applying weightings to the risks based upon the likelihood vs benefits, the position becomes even more convincing.
Even when you add in a third so far unconsidered scenario: climate change is real but not anthropogenic; doing something still provides a better outcome than doing little or nothing.
I'm keeping an open mind though, so I'm open to any sensible suggestions which will break the test or bring a reasonable cause for re-evaluation.
To really take effective action on climate change it must be driven by policy.
explaining accelarating economic growth - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eric Crampton is an economist who co-wrote an essay arguing that eco...
3 years ago