And yes, I have read much of the literature over the last decade. I'm not sure why you are emphasizing simply a PhD as credibility. I prefer to judge research on its own terms.
What argument? You asked me what the likelihood would need to be.
You mean the seat belt argument? The cost to society of reducing co2 emissions exceeds the cost of a seatbelt by a factor of several billion.. even trillion.
A nearby star could explode and kill us all. Should we figure out how likely that is before spending trillions to fix it?
Did you mean answer your question about what the odds would need to be? I would first need to see the rhetoric tuned down a bit, some listening to minority researchers first. Considering the effort spent in silencing them, the whole thing stinks to high hell.
Who else but phds have credibility in climate science, other than perhaps phds in another hard science? Some citizen advocate? Please. If we had this nonsense in medical science eggs would be illegal by now.
When considering insurance, one usually tries to estimate the cost of an event multiplied by the likelihood of an event. The insurance company needs to charge slightly more as a premium, but if it's not too much more, that's a good purchase. It's a good idea for individuals to trade a small amount of expected value for a big reduction in variance.
The odds of a nearby star exploding are fairly easy to calculate, as far as I know. I could inquire from a few astronomer friends if you'd like. It's probably on Wikipedia, too. The cost of avoiding a star explosion... I guess Elon Musk is working on it.
The US spends about $600 billion annually on defense. Investing a few billion in reducing the risk of catastrophic climate change sounds quite reasonable, since trillions of dollars are at stake. Heck, even the "non-catastrophic" result of only a couple feet of sea level rise would swallow hundreds of billions of dollars of land value.
I'm not sure what rhetoric needs to be tuned down, since I have already read much of the literature from "minority researchers". I guess not the recent stuff, as I've gotten tired of it. As far as I can tell, the effort spent silencing scientists is mostly the exertion of fossil fuel companies. Who stands to profit from restrictions on fossil fuel consumption? I guess some renewable energy companies do, but few others in the short term. I have a hard time understanding the theory of a vast left-wing conspiracy to get us all to... what? Where's the motivation? It clearly is an ineffective technique to gain political power. Much more plausible is the idea of a few businesses trying to spread uncertainty. We saw that before, with cigarettes.
When you say, "listening to" do you mean believing the analysis of? It's funny you seem to hold PhDs in such high esteem. Almost everyone I know has a doctorate. Well, about half of them. And many of those in "hard science" or specifically environmental studies. I respect them, of course (since they're my friends), but I also think about their claims critically. Many of them need some coaching with statistics and non-linear dynamics, but hey, we can't all be experts on everything.
I supervise "hard" scientists for a living... or did, up until a couple of years ago. You'd be surprised what a few try to pull, without the aid of a vast conspiracy.
But there is one to silence climate moderates.
The evidence is abundant. You have to actually look for it though. It won't fall in your lap. And providing you with it will probably only get me more nonsequiturs and naysaying, as all you have to do is start with the parent link, which you have already summarily dismissed without qualifications.
When you stop guessing at your opposition's motivations and listen to them, I can resume this conversation with you. No more nonsequiturs and guesswork.
> When you stop guessing at your opposition's motivations and listen to them
I honestly hadn't even considered what your motivations are, but now I am wondering. At the risk of being accused of a non-sequitur, I'll mention an interview I heard this morning on NPR. The host spoke with a white supremacist. The last exchange was a bit frustrating. I'll paraphrase:
(Guest) Why do they [non-white immigrants] come here if they're treated so badly?
(Host) The same reason people have immigrated for hundreds of years, for better opportunities.
(Guest) [laughs] You are so close-minded.
Somehow, it seems that both conversants think they are trying to honestly engage the other person, yet the other simply ignores what is said.
