= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Blueberry comments on You're Entitled to Arguments, But Not (That Particular) Proof - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (221)
I'm too lazy to write a top-level post about it, but the main problem with AGW as I see it is that most people have reference class of "statements said by people like IPCC and Al Gore, who think that AGW is real, and Kyoto Protocol and similar activities are a good idea".
One group of people look at pretty solid evidence that AGW is real, and from this and such reference class infers that Kyoto Protocol type actions must also be good.
Another group of people look at pretty solid evidence that Kyoto Protocol is a very bad idea, and from this and this reference class infers that AGW might not be real.
All media show these issues as highly entangled, even though they're not really (well, if AGW is false, then Kyoto Protocol is almost certainly bad, but all three other combinations are possible).
I have two reference classes - one for AGWers' statements about climate which I estimate to be almost all true, and another for AGWers' statements about proper policy which I estimate to be almost all false.
I think you're exactly right, and the problem is that people are often so partisan that they don't even think of this or understand it as a possibility. Unfortunately, this problem isn't just limited to AGW. I see it in many discussions of policy questions, where people argue about which statistics are right instead of saying, "Assume these factual statements are true: what is the proper policy?"