Do you or do you not deny that an economic prediction that is based on predictions about future technology is, in general, sketchy?
Please stop your “tap dancing” and answer the question.
Well, I don’t know if that is realistic or not but on a smaller scale, BP claims that they did just this sort of thing…I.e., they cut their greenhouse emissions by a Kyoto-sized amount ahead of schedule and ended up saving more money than they spent:
I know that simplistic market economics would predict that such a thing shouldn’t happen … but then the world is a bit more complex than simplistic market economics theories assume.
So maybe you should try asking your wife! 
I, and the IPCC, will be the first to admit that making such economic predictions is not an exact science. However, that doesn’t mean that no estimates can be made. Your solution seems to be that rather than rely on the range of estimates from experts, we would be better off believing you.
Furthermore, the history of estimates of regulations to protect the environment is that they almost invariably cost not only much less than the industries predict but also less than the regulating agencies predict (see here). And, it is probably precisely because the estimates tend to underestimate the power of the market forces to find cheaper technological solutions once the proper incentives are in place. Unfortunately, after-the-fact remediation often ends up costing more than predicted.
:rolleyes: yeah, we should not trust what you posted there.
Your claim is useless if it has no support.
:rolleyes:
Straw man.
As posted already, it is not future technology what we are dealing with here.
:sigh:
Your personal attacks only confirm that you are unable to respond to my posts on their merits.
Of course it has support.
Again my question: Why should I go looking for evidence to support a claim that nobody seriously disputes?
How exactly have I misstated your position?
Here are a couple quotes from the linked paper:
(I added the bolding).
Clearly we are “dealing with future technology.”
Sure, it’s also possible that emissions stabilization will throught he world into a massive recession.
Interestingly, the IPCC is assuming, in effect, that the effect of additional CO2 emissions will be magnified and that the effect of emissions stabilization will be damped out (economically).
Then throwing figures like 0.12% around is irresponsible, since it suggests a certain amount of exactness.
No, that’s not my solution. What I would propose is (1) using an organization like the GAO; (2) full disclosure of the basis of all estimates; (3) limiting the cost estimate to the next 5 or 10 years.
Hence the reason that they call it a “prediction.” I think you’ll find that large quantities of what every company in the world does is based on predictions.
Sure, and some things are much more susceptible to prediction than others. For example, if I purchase a 30 year U.S. Government bond today at a fixed interest rate, I can make a pretty good prediction of how much I will be paid when the bond matures.
Changes in technology tend to be difficult to predict. In 1900, I doubt that many people foresaw the cell phone, the internet, television, etc.
Similarly, here in the year 2007, it’s difficult to predict the course of future technologies. (It does seem safe to say that computers will be a lot better in 50 years than they are today. My instinct is that the impact of data processing will be a lot bigger than any other issue facing the world today.)
Which is relevant in what way?
There’s no way to decide future cost of one path versus another without doing a prediction. That prediction will eventually come down to some numbers that may or may not have anything to do with reality–but are still the best that one can do.
If you can think of any alternative to making economic predictions then you’d do a lot better to write a book than hanging out on some BBS, since you’ll be in a position to make a fortune. Lacking that, saying that you don’t like predictions has little to do with anything to do with the real world.
Sometimes you are better off just saying “I don’t know” than making a bad prediction. Or making 100 bad predictions and then averaging them.
That’s not what I said. Anyway, a few posts up I made a specific proposal for dealing with the prediction problem.
Of course, predicting a big terrarium would put at risk a theory not related to the world at large or predicting computers would not be effective in the research of climate change is not a god bet.
The technological change you are insisting is future change is clearly referring to current technologies, the context shows that change is referring to the technologies not being implemented yet. And yet **jshore ** demonstrated there is plenty of precedent that future change can be predicted.
There is only nitpicking and not evidence produced against that study. And at worst it could be called an educated guess. As **jshore ** pointed out it is ridiculous to call it a wild ass guess.
And I also did say that that study did only referred to AGW in what are the recommended things to do, all that it takes to have that study’s recommendations not taking place is for people not to do anything. And there is plenty of evidence that people are demanding change.
However, nice to see that you gained the concept that data processing will be a lot bigger in the future, because as history showed, it was thanks to the advances in computational power that allowed the early GW researchers to give evidence to other scientists that CO2 concentrations were a problem.
Which brings us back to the subject: Clearly there is evidence that convinced climate scientists AGW is a problem, we are discussion how big it will be. But clearly it is silly to say like the OP that AGW is totally accepted on faith. And it is silly to say the latest study referred was a wild ass guess.
Yes. Of course it is also true that attacking straw men doesn’t advance your argument at all.
Did you even read the portions that I quoted?
I don’t understand your point.
As far as I can see, nobody has made such a claim.
But if it makes you feel better to attack strawmen, I can’t stop you.
Again my earlier question:
What evidence would it take to convince you that the economic projections that are based on predictions of technology over the next 30 years are unreliable wild-ass guesses?
:rolleyes:
You are still not getting it that it is your arguments that are not advancing because of it.
What I did notice was that you did present the big terrarium as an experiment to counteract a what it seems you thought it was a silly experiment, and yet that experiment mentioned did deal with the demonstrated effects of CO2 in the lab. Ok, lets assume that indeed you were counteracting a silly experiment with a silly one because you believed what **Sage Rat ** said was silly. (he was still correct in a lab setting!)
The effort becomes misleading when instead of acknowledging that your proposed terrarium experiment was useless (and if we concentrate on the demonstrated effects of CO2 in the lab, **Sage Rat ** was correct) you only jumped to defend it by proposing an even bigger one. As me and **tagos ** pointed out it was a useless experiment.
What is clear now is that you confused **Sage Rat’s ** experiment in a lab by implying he was presenting an experiment to be done in the atmosphere at large. You are now trying to pretend that me pointing at that straw man is a straw man.
You really need to get remedial logic 101.
Yes, I don’t see a contradiction with what I quoted too.
An early episode in this thread shows that **brazil84 ** is only willing to continue the discussion by bringing evidence of a nitpick. Earlier an image was brought in to show **Sage Rat ** was wrong, the only thing it did was to show us that the best evidence produced in favor of “the recent increase in heat being no worse than in the middle ages” was flawed. When cornered, **brazil84 ** came with the excuse that the evidence was only wrought in to show **Sage Rat ** was wrong for generalizing, for saying that the “hockey stick” did not disappear also for the critics. As Sage Rat showed on the pit, I was wrong only on the impression that he was generalizing, so in the context of the discussion, turning around (when (brazil84 had already said the image was posted only to show Sage rat was wrong) and then accuse me of lying (the image from 2004 from the critics remained the same in 2005 and just as discredited) was a very pitiful position to take. It is clear by his/her actions that the evidence was mentioned to deal with AGW not just with Sage Rat.
Now the thing is that all that was under the context that computer modeling was deemed not good for evidence by brazil84. What the evidence showed to me was that data comes first, History showed that there were ways to calculate the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere; however, lack of computer power delayed the examination of the data.
Once computer power increased then it was found CO2 in the atmosphere was a problem, and **brazil84 ** never took back his dismissal that computer modeling being effective was just “survivor bias”, the computer models on climate do not work that way.
I can see someone did:
The OP insisted that people are taking AGW on faith, as you even pointed out to Sage Rat, even if the evidence is flawed, it is a fact that people taking AGW into account and future planning is not based on faith.
Repeating this does not change the realization that it seems you keep using that and you do not know what it really means.
I thought that nobody had made such a claim…
I still say the evidence shows that at worst it is an educated/informed guess. Insisting it was a wild ass guess demands better evidence than “it seems to me”
Specially when **jshore ** showed there is relevant evidence to support the estimations of the study.
You still need to bring evidence to show the makers of the study are no experts in their field or that the protections are not based on what industry did when change was brought by regulations.
I have no idea what your point is.
That’s not an accurate description of the exchange. The image was used for the same purpose the whole time – to show that Sage Rat’s claim was incorrect.
Nope, that’s not the same. Re-read your own post.
You said this:
I was referring to some of the studies referred to by the linked study. Not to the entire thing.
But go right on attacking those straw men.
:rolleyes:
And you never answered my question:
What evidence would it take to convince you that the economic projections that are based on predictions of technology over the next 30 years are unreliable wild-ass guesses?
Here’s another question:
What kind of person refuses to say what evidence would change his mind?
I rest my case, you really do not know when to apply the accusation of using a straw man. Basically here I showed that I was not attacking a straw man, I only pointed out that **you ** did.
You came back then calling me a liar when I showed the evidence was not a good one, if it had been just against Sage rat then you would have acknowledged that alone and not come back calling people liars and attempt to defend the flawed research the image was based on.
As mentioned you still do not know how to apply that fallacy. Incidentally now the burden is higher on you, you need to justify the idea that many or all (even when shown in a question mark the intension is clear) the studies are wild ass guesses. Or just take it back.
You tell me.
Everyone can see that I already did mention what evidence could change my mind regarding this latest study. If you are failing to see it, there is no one else to blame.
Duly noted.
Please show me where in this thread I called any poster a liar.
Hint: There’s a difference between pointing out a false statement and calling the other guy a liar.
Perhaps, but first let me ask you this: Do you now agree that I NEVER claimed that the linked study was a WAG in whole?
And just using a is not excuse enough to avoid this:
I though it was odd than you acknowledged that it was a good prediction that computer power was clearly going to increase, it amazes me that you are ignoring that it was precisely the increase in computer power what allowed the few that thought CO2 in the atmosphere was a problem to compile the evidence to show to other scientists that indeed GW and then AGW was a problem.
AS for the OP, this also shows that GW and AGW are not ideas reached by faith.
In the context I got the impression you were no longer giving us the benefit of the doubt.
So I can grant you this one, not that it helps much to your point.
You still came defending the research by declaring what I said to be a false statement, it was not.
You did claim last it was some, that is a big difference with **most ** and all.