re: #186 Bacchus’s daddy

Well if you don’t dispute that humans are changing the climate and you acknowledge there is some possibility that those changes could be very damaging then shouldn’t we strive to prevent those changes? it’s the four quadrant argument.

Option 1: AGW is not real, We don’t do anything - little cost, little downside, world is fine

Option 2: AGW is not real, we do something - some cost, some downside, world is fine

Option 3: AGW is real, we do something - some cost, little downside, world is fine

Option 4: AGW is real, we don’t do anything - little cost, enormous downside, world is fucked

What percentage would you be comfortable attributing to scenario 4 to make not doing mitigation efforts a reasonable bet? For me, very low, perhaps .01%. Think of this as an environmental version of Cheney’s 1% doctrine. If we are willing to take on a war if there is a 1% chance of a catastrophic attack, shouldn’t we be equally willing to take on a massive challenge if there is a 1% chance of something else that would be catastrophic?