,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Personally I do not know whether the earth is warming or cooling over a given time span. Climate has changed and will keep changing and science should keep studying it. The issue is whether governments have a model accurate enough to attempt to control it.
We have been given a diagnosis and a drug, the alteration of the chemical composition of the atmosphere, at the cost of trillions with enormous economic consequences. How do we know it is safe? We don't. The patient population size is one and the test size is one.
If Climate Change were a drug, the FDA would never approve it for public sale. So it is marketed as a deathbed therapy. The risks don't matter because we're all going to die unless we ingest the potion. It is our "only chance".
The certitude of our death from rising waters and runaway Venusian heating justifies the risk of taking the carbon pill, even though it has not been tested on any other Earth before.
But if you were rational about it one might wait 50 years before taking the carbon pill or at least until humanity was established on Mars. In that way if the Climate Change medicine had bad side effects people would still survive off world.
Attempting to control the climate based on a model that cannot even predict when Obama's beachfront at the Vineyard will be submerged should await the insurance of an offworld human foothold because that's basic risk management.
I am reminded of the scene from Indiana Jones where the learned scientist drinks from the obvious Grail in the certitude it was the right one only to discover "he chose poorly". Even the best science rarely gets it right first time so it is best to plan for failure.
That's because the space of error is usually bigger than the space of solutions. There are a million ways to get engineering wrong and often only a few ways to get it right.
