re: The mass freakout over Bret Stephen's climate change article on NYT

quote:

---

the overwhelming probability is that climate change is real and man-made, and action should be taken as if that were the case.

---

So war with China is on the horizon?

quote:

---

The idea that political messaging and public policy involving climate change should reflect the small degree of uncertainty that is characteristic of all scientific research. While there are limits to our ability to observe and model the outside world, the overwhelming probability is that climate change is real and man-made, and action should be taken as if that were the case.

The idea that models are "uncertain" in any meaningful sense exists in total contradiction with a vast body of evidence. You might as well be uncertain about the existence of gravity.

---

Now this is a very well articulated counter to Stephens inferred position of inaction based on his editorial.

The "consensus" as he frames it is already a consensus built around a range of probabilities. 1.5 to 4.5 degrees celsius rise in temperatures if a doubling of Co2(or comparable greenhouse gasses) is unleashed into the atmosphere compared to pre-industrial levels.

Is it possible that the real results will be outside that range? Yes, and the consensus acknowledges that as well.

But at this stage, to take the position against action, would basically put Stephens in a situation where he places the threshold so high in order to justify even minor policy action toward negative externalities, that to be logically consistent would place him in a camp arguing the consensus on the level of harm of second hand smoke is not high enough to justify policy to address it yet.