Barry Jones brings some much needed common sense to the climate change ‘debate’
a way of evaluating the risk of action v. non-action:
* If we take action and disaster is averted, there will be massive avoidance of human suffering.
* If we take action and the climate change problem abates for other reasons little is lost and we benefit from a cleaner environment.
* If we fail to act and disaster results then massive suffering will have been aggravated by stupidity.
* If we do not take action and there is no disaster, the outcome will be due to luck alone, like an idiot winning the lottery…
Climate change debate? Pity about the science, ABC Radio National 2 Oct 11, Barry Jones was Minister for Science in Bob Hawke’s government and is a Fellow of all four of Australia’s Learned Academies. Today he discusses the development and the debate of climate science over the years…
The rise and rise of democratic populism has made serious debate on climate change almost impossible. Much of this manifestation has been very ugly, with crude appeals to ignorance and fear, unprecedented and appalling personal attacks, especially on the Prime Minister, the generation of hate mail and death threats against a Minister and some scientists.
These actions have been fed by rage and mistrust and a relentless concentration on the immediate, personal and short-term – next month’s electricity bill and regional employment, rather than higher levels of confidence and understanding about climate security for the long term, and Australia playing a leading role in attempts to secure global agreement.
While the basic science of climate change is not seriously contested, there is great diversity of opinion about the speed of change and its severity. The major issue for debate should centre on risk management. It is likely that the greatest impact of climate change will not be experienced for decades.
The difference between current ambient temperature and the last great Ice Age is only 5C. We won’t feel the impact – but our descendents will. Posterity, notoriously, has no vote.
I have proposed my own variation on Pascal’s celebrated wager on the existence of God, set out in his Penss, and applied it to climate change, as a way of evaluating the risk of action v. non-action:
* If we take action and disaster is averted, there will be massive avoidance of human suffering.
* If we take action and the climate change problem abates for other reasons little is lost and we benefit from a cleaner environment.
* If we fail to act and disaster results then massive suffering will have been aggravated by stupidity.
* If we do not take action and there is no disaster, the outcome will be due to luck alone, like an idiot winning the lottery…
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2011/3327622.htm
No comments yet.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 
Leave a comment