Evangelical Outpost has a great post feature which references one of my favorite topics: Bayes Theorem.
Bayesian thinking plays a role in the global warming debate. How so? Because the talking heads would have you believe that man is the main contributor to global warming. But, is that true?
It is a non-falsifiable statement. Therefore, the best approach is to assign probabilities and likelihoods, incorporate evidence, and adjust our beliefs in light of this evidence. Now you have entered the realm of Bayes Theorem. I spilled a fair amount of virtual ink last year on how to use Bayes Theorem.
The best post to start learning Bayes with is at the very bottom : Evidence, Probability and Belief : Introducing Reverend Bayes And His Remarkable Idea.
Please don't tell me you deny global warming has human causes.
Posted by: dopderbeck | February 10, 2007 at 11:37
I don't know ... I am maybe 70 percent sure we have something to do with it ;-)
I think methane is the real story to worry about ... not CO2. All those cows producing methane.
Are you absolutely certain it is man's fault?
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | February 10, 2007 at 12:29
Actually, I went and read Joe's post, and I think his comments are pretty fair. The percentage of confidence figures in the IPCC report can be a bit misleading.
Here's my perspective generally: we know Co2 is a greenhouse gas; we know we're pumping huge amounts of it into the atmosphere; we know we have a mandate to be stewards of creation. It seems like common sense to me that we should take reasonable efforts to reduce Co2 emissions, and not waste lots of energy (and credibility) arguing about whether humans are primarily responsible for global warming. I don't think this means accepting a Draconian solution like Kyoto, though.
Posted by: dopderbeck | February 10, 2007 at 12:54
David:
Hooray! Someone I agree with! This is my position on global warming, too. I think that we might not be the the entire problem, but we are part of it and we need to do something about it. We need to reduce emissions, but not spend a long time arguing about whose fault it is.
Posted by: Rachael | February 10, 2007 at 16:14
David:
I'm not sure Kyoto can fairly be described as "Draconian." The cost to implement, while high, has already been exceeded by the cost of the Iraq War, and that hasn't seemed to cripple our economy. And some argue that Kyoto simply doesn't go far enough.
I don't see a way to meaningfully reduce carbon emissions without some measure of compulsion. If it's voluntary, too many won't do it.
Posted by: tgirsch | February 12, 2007 at 17:53