You’re missing a very very important logical step, and I really want you to take that leap.
Do you think man made climate change is a 5% likelihood? 10%? 20%?
And once you’ve answered that question, what do you think the chances are of you having a car accident this year? What are the chances of your house burning down?
How much do you spend on insurance for all these things? How much is sensible to spend on insurance against the chance that climate change is real?
Because if you take a 0% chance and $0 spend, do you see why people like myself consider you to be totally insane?
Thats such an arbitrary statement though. The range of predictions is so varied. Everything from “we’re all dead” to "there will be some difficult new issues to navigate (climate refugees etc).
I’ve made references to information I have read/observed.
I don’t have much faith in any of the models/predictions. I do however see the variations in mapped data and consider “I wonder what one is most correct”.
Really to summarise my position, I’m skeptical because there is no certainty. I’m not going to believe something with blind faith if there are no outcomes to prove either position…therefore I will keep questioning things.
There was a good rule of thumb from the US military- P=70. Which basically means that the right amount of information that you need before making a decision in a complex scenario is about 70%.
If you wait until you’ve got 100% of the information you are not making a decision at all, you’ve got analysis paralysis.
We’ve got more than enough information to make the decision to act on climate change already.
Time may prove us incorrect, in which case we have cleaner tech and the coil, oil and gas is still in the ground for future generations. Not a bad thing.
But if time proves us correct we are getting pretty close to the ■■■■ around and find out point with the planet.
Completely agree with you. I don’t think I need certainty (probably a bad choice of words), but I still don’t feel like there is enough to stop being sceptical. Plus agree with all the cleaner fuel/energy stuff, I have no qualms with that…as long as it make people poor and desperate as a side effect.
I’m usually like that with risk, tend to sit on the more skeptical side of things, so I appreciate your position.
I just think that the potential consequences of getting the decision wrong here are catastrophic so I’m willing to put some of my natural skepticism aside.
I also find that whenever I dig into the stuff that prominent skeptics release it is all smoke and mirrors
On this topic there is a bit of….if you’re going to be wrong, which side of wrong would you want to be.
If it turns out man made climate change is a myth (parking the weight of scientific opinion) but the pursuit of action has led to a decrease in consumption and consumerism, a push towards more renewable energy sources and a general mindfulness of our environmental footprint then ok, I’m happy with that still.
I actually have solar and the price is better, but I also have gas and it ridiculously expensive. I just don’t want irrational policy decisions that cause fossil fuel energy sources to skyrocket as we’re a long way from being reliant on renewables.
For instance, why the hell are we sourcing domestic natural gas, selling it off overseas and then buying it back at significantly inflated prices?! This literally makes no sense. I don’t know how Australians on low incomes, with heavy reliances on grid power can afford to live. Ridiculous.
Australia has the lowest disposable in the west and our cost of living ratio is one of the worst.
Also our footprint is basically negligent. We could do nothing and it wouldn’t make a difference to net targets. Why not just focus on trying to give Australians a fair price while also investing in future energy resources. We have lots of natural gas and coal, we don’t need to gouge the public the way we do.
Ahhhh… yep… there’s two options a country can take when given a short term hydrocarbon export boom. There’s the Norwegian path, where the government banks over $1T into a sovereign wealth fund that secures the nation’s financial future. Or there’s the Australian path, where you don’t tax the industry at all and peg the domestic gas price to the international market with zero protections, thus crippling domestic industry.
None of that is due to renewables. If anything, renewables being accelerated will mitigate the damage of such an immense policy disaster.
Ok, so you preferred it when the govt of the day was ardently pro fossil fuel industry, and demonstrative in it’s disdain for renewables? Did that flavour of govt seem more likely to steer the ship to you? The ones now in opposition and pretending to like impossible nuclear concepts?
Ironically we have the option to do the Norwegian path with renewables now. We could build a shitload of solar in the red centre and links into Asia on the public purse and we’d have a $T sovereign wealth fund within three decades
They’re basically cut from the same cloth, but I didn’t necessarily prefer the opposition. I like the investment and innovation in renewables, just needs to be balanced so the ass doesn’t fall out of the market.
