No, it is noise - we are measuring human influence on climate and have to factor out the sun's variations... that makes it noise.I think it's premature (and foolish) to call it noise.
Hardly. The best news possible is that it has next to no influence. That's essentially impossible, but the degree of influence could change, so research into it continues to help us determine how things interact.all those years of research on carbon dioxide will have been a waste.
Current Measurements < Historical Measurements. The why is left for astronomy - the climate model doesn't care.How can you say solar output is "on the low end"? You don't know that. People assume that based on sunspot cycles, but we don't know much about other sun cycles.
Absolutely, which is why the video annoys me. What science is doing is quantifying the [chance] and [outcome], and he is falsely inflating the need to act by ignoring that the [chance] of the [outcomes] he uses are so small as to be irrelevant, when in reality the [chance] * [outcome] doesn't support the kind of intervention he is talking about.With "god", science makes no commentary either way on it, the 'yes' versus the 'no' side, on the other hand, for global warming (human and/or otherwise), scientific evidence can be applied to either side.
Decision making isn't reducible to 'act or not to act'. It's a matter of marginal costs, etc. Initial regulations are less onerous than later ones... reducing NOX is less costly than reducing CO2 (and the effects are different). As a result, the [outcomes] (as defined as [costs]+[benefits]) changes... and there is a point where [costs] > [benefits] (costs being up front costs we pay to change and costs of not acting - so it will end up having at least one max/min, if not many).
Absolutely nothing - I strongly believe we should. But I do not think spending money on global warming makes sense, and that game theory states that (when reasonable outcomes and probabilities are assigned - and this is *with* a high probability assigned to human influence). This is an economics issue, not a doomsday scenario. This is essentially what I believe (video @ TED by Bjorn Lomborg)What is wrong with using game theory in dealing with this issue?
Right - but if you remove the extremes, the logical conclusion is way different than what he demonstrates in the video.The premise of the scenario chosen is independent of the application of the game theory. You can choose as 'worse' to as 'good' a condition and do the same 2 by 2 to it.