That comes across wrong. And for that matter, you might be one of those rare people that actually understands both sides of a debate fully.

My real point here is that on average, people on both sides of the debate haven’t much idea what the other side actually believes. The fact that they can list off concerns, but don’t know what the counter point is to each concern they listed suggests a one-sided understanding of the issue.

This might not be you at all specifically.

This was sort of my point, wasn’t it? That Superfreakonomics was colored as lying about what an expert said when in reality there was a legimate misunderstanding.

This type of binary thinking and demonization of “the other side” is to me the problem itself.

I have concerns over too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and not knowing what it will do. You have concerns that global warming isn’t caused by carbon dioxide. It seems to me that I’ve delinked these two and you have them linked so strongly you haven’t considered any other possiblity.

I don’t doubt that anyone on either side can make a list of one sided counter points like you did. I know for a fact that both sides can do it. I don’t consider a list of one sided counter points to be valid information by itself.

I guess I have the following question for you. Let’s say you raised those concerns with someone that is knowledgeable but in the “fear of man-made global warming” camp (this isn’t really me). Could you even anticipate correctly what their counter responses would be? I suspect you couldn’t.

Back in the Clinton years, the UN group got caught red-handed lieing in one of their big reports about who supported their report. They outright lied when they included scientists who didn’t agree, and published their names under the “agree” column.

Another reason I disagree with the climate alarmists is that too many regular everyday meteorologists, including TV weathermen who have college degrees in weather and climate, disagree with the alarmists.

Another reason I disagree with alarmists is that the temp fluctuations follow more the sun’s cycles and sunspots.

Another reason I disagree with alarmists is that much more “greenhouse gases” come from NATURE than from man.

Another reason I disagree with the alarmists is that there have been BIGGER temp changes in recorded history, since the 1600′s and 1700′s, that are well documented, when the planet’s population was much smaller, and humans were putting out much less greenhouse gases.

Another reason I disagree with the alarmists is that the avg temp increases happened more BEFORE WWII than after, when all the so-called greenhouse gases started to increase.

Another reason I disagree with the alarmists is that Dixie Lee Ray made good points and backed them up in her book “Trashing the Planet”.

I believe Bjorn Lomborg is correct that the world faces numerous problems, and that resources need to be allocated to problems that we can identify risk for and potentially solve. Governments unfortunately are doing what governments do best – misallocating resources to the overall detriment of us all.

I also like to have fun offering to wager with the alarmists regarding temperatures. To date every one has declined.

I can explain myself on this better.

What I am really saying is that there is no probabilities here. We either are going to destroy the planet or we are not going. It’s 100% and 0%.

What we don’t know is which is which.

Thus we have to treat it as a probability. But really, it’s not a probability.

If this makes sense, then you’ll see why I see both points of view as “rational” (i.e. rational people can derive either due to lack of information and differing gut feels.). But I see neither as “logical” (i.e. can be deduced.)

Now you can make a narrative like you just did, to indicate why you think it’s a “low probability.” But in reality, you are either right or you are wrong. If you argue it’s a low probability, say 1%, and you are wrong, then you’re off by 99%. If you say 1% and you are right, then you’re off by 1%. But either way, it wasn’t actually a probability, that’s just a convention to explain our lack of knowledge.

Ergo, take no action until we know more.”

Vader, I love you, but this isn’t logical. What this is is a good narrative.

The problem is that there is some objective reality out there of when too much CO2 is too much and it kills us and some objective reality where it’s helpful, etc. *We don’t know what it is!*

So as enticing as your narrative is, it misses the point that it might just plain be wrong. (It might also be right, we literally don’t know.)

Let me put this another way:

Let’s say we go with your narrative on the grounds that it makes sense. And let’s say you’re right. Gold! We end up with no reduction to economic output, no damage to the environment, and maybe even (as Bookslinger points out) improvements to the environment. It’s all good.

But it’s literally illogical to assume that just because such a narrative exists that’s its right. It’s illogical to assume that because that might be true that it is true. It’s illogical to assume that because the alternative point of view isn’t proven and has no proof that it can be dismissed.

Therefore, we now have to look at the possiblity (no matter how remote you may personally think it is due to your narrative) and consider that scenario as well.

In this scenario we really are on the brink of as disaster. We don’t have proof we are, but several tell tale signs that many many scientists are correctly reading the tea leaves on. It’s true they lack proof, but this is only because our science was insufficient to obtain proof. We then decide that the Vader narrative is just too compelling: i.e. Vader is right — we have to choose between doing real economic harm now vs. avoiding a disaster (that we’re assuming is for the sake of argument is real) so we make the “obvious” decision and avoid the real economic harm we know exists over the uncertain and we thought improbable global diaster.

It all makes perfect “rational” sense (i.e. it’s a good narrative and good “inductive reasoning”). Other than the fact that it’s wrong and destroys the planet, I have no issue with it at all.

The problem is that we *don’t know* which is the case. But we do know *one of them* is the case.

Furthermore, we have *no way* to measure the probability. You may personally feel it’s low probability, but I’d submit you actually don’t know at all.

Therefore, it’s obvious that we have to make a choice based on our “gut feels.”

In short, you are not using logic, just a good narrative to explain why your “gut” favors one scenario over the other. Responsible and intelligent human beings can and will decide otherwise. There is no possible way to “know” which is the right or wrong answer at this time. From this point of view, there literally is no logical answer. So we can “ergo” neither point of view. Yet we have to act one way or the other despite our lack of knowledge.

If you really want to reduce atmospheric CO2, don’t reduce it’s man-made production, increase it’s consumption by plants. Plant more trees, wheat, rice, soybeans, etc.