Failing to Assess Risk

 Denier myth #3 “It won’t be Bad”

Deniers often tell us we should ignore the science community. They tell us climate change will not be bad.

Here is an analogy for you to consider. It has to do with managing risk. It also deals with what is and what is not doomsaying. Pretend you and I have fallen into a meth addiction. We decide to consult a medical professional. The medical advisor tells us, “I know you enjoy the high from meth but here are the consequences if you do not stop and find a healthier way to enjoy life. If you do not switch to something healthier, your teeth are going to rot out, your skin will develop sores and boils, hallucinations will torment you to the point you will become deranged, you will suffer permanent brain damage and, in the end, you will die. If you do not find a healthier habit, those are the progressive risks.”

Is this medical advisor giving us wise advice or is he a negative doomsayer?

Years ago, the projected consequences of burning fossil fuels and the resultant changes were analyzed and a debate started.   A few scientists proposed the additional carbon dioxide we are pumping into the atmosphere would aid plant growth and create longer growing seasons in the higher latitudes.

In opposition, most climate scientists warned these benefits would be more than offset by dry areas suffering from deadly heat waves, water shortages, drought, an increase in species extinction, and more forest fires. Glaciers, which many communities depend on for drinking water, would melt.

Traditionally well-watered areas, the scientists warned, could expect more rain in increasingly large downpours causing flooding and crop failures. Hurricanes would strengthen.

The resultant warming and CO2 acidification of the ocean would kill or damage coral reefs which millions of people depend on for seafood.

Disease spreading mosquitoes would proliferate.

Many humans would have to leave their homes due to crop failures. These migrations would create zones of human conflict.

The slowest, but most economically devastating consequence of continuing to burn fossil fuels, would eventually come from rising oceans due to thermal expansion and added meltwater from the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Caps.

The analysis, debate, and forecasts were intended to inform us of the benefits and risks of continuing to meet our energy needs from fossil fuels rather than making a managed transition to less polluting energy production. This logical process is called Risk Management. Risk Management in the military and aviation is a way of life.

The debate about the risks and rewards started years ago. To sort things out, an international organization was created in 1988 to analyze climate data. It is called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC). Its primary directive is to deliver a risk assessment every four years to the world. Here are some key points in the IPCC’s 4th assessment in 2007:

* "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal…”

* “Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is "very likely" (greater than 90% probability, based on expert judgement) due to human activities.”

*  "Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt".

*  "Many impacts [of climate change] can be reduced, delayed or avoided by mitigation".

Mitigation simply means replacing bad habits with good ones. In the case of global warming, it means transitioning from dirty to clean energy.

The predictions of 2007 which prompted the IPCC report are today’s weather. Despite this, deniers still say we can ignore the risks. Is this responsible?

Life is our mission on planet earth. Life has its risks no matter what, but by adhering to the logic of risk assessment we can live wonderful meaningful long lives. Aggressive action to combat climate change is simply responsible risk management.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address - 335

Lincoln gave two great speeches: the Gettysburg Address and his second Inaugural Address. His second inaugural address must have come as a surprise to most Americans. He had just won a landslide election, and the Union Armies had defeated the Confederate Insurgency. You would think he would have taken a victory lap. But the President was wrestling with God's purpose. Why had the nation, both sides, suffered so grievously? In a country of only 32 million, 650 to 750,000 soldiers had died. Lincoln believed the nation was being punished for the institution of slavery. The South for creating its wealth on the backs of the blacks, but also the North for being too slow to challenge the appalling injustice of slavery. Seven times in his short speech, Lincoln referred to the book from which he had learned to read. The book he referenced was the King James version of the Bible. Here is his speech: "Fellow countrymen: at this second appearing to take the oath of the presidenti...
Read more

Right Wing Wokeism - 344

China Must Be Thrilled Donald Trump was elected to manage borders and curb left-wing wokeism, but his right-wing wokeism—attacking electric vehicles and renewable energy because they don't fit MAGA ideology—is equally senseless and against national interests. Ironically, his own base benefits from renewables. The five states with the largest share of wind power are red states, generating at least a third of their power from wind. This is about geography, not politics. Rural America has vast solar and wind potential and is already capitalizing on it, regardless of voting patterns. More critically, Trump's "drill, baby, drill" approach at a time when artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, and autonomous technology are advancing will not make America great again. Instead, it risks making China great again. Trump once boasted about sending Americans to Mars. The real question is whether a Chinese astronaut will greet them there, asking, "What took you so...
Read more

Power Corrupts - 342

A Link between Slavery & Big Oil   Noam Chomsky, one of the world's most quoted authors, expresses his opinion of the Big Oil misinformation campaign: "I don't know what word in the language—I can't find one—that applies to people of that kind, who are willing to sacrifice the existence of organized human life, not in the distant future, so they can put a few more dollars in highly overstuffed pockets. The word 'evil' doesn't begin to approach it." Was there another time in US history when evil ruled?  Let's look at the United States before the Civil War. In the South, there were 4 million enslaved people. The slaves, or their parents, or grandparents, or someone in their lineage had been kidnapped, shackled, and shipped to the Americas to spend their lives with no freedom whatsoever. This criminal operation started in 1619 and accelerated until the Union forces ended it. The black humans had no rights and were conveniently labeled as les...
Read more