Climate science: scaring the sceptics
Oxford University economist Paul Klemperer has written a very interesting article in the FT, rebutting the climate change sceptics. If the scientific consensus is wrong (he argues), and our current models of climate change are inaccurate, then we should be more worried, not less. This is because, if the models are wrong, then our ignorance is greater and so too will be uncertainties surrounding future climate events and states. In other words, the more inaccurate are our models, the more likely it is that the future will not be as rosy as the present.
“Consider an analogy. If, like many of my neighbours in Oxford, you believe that new building exacerbates flooding, how would you feel if models that predicted bad news were discredited?
It depends. If the original models were biased, your best guess of the height of future floods is now lower. But if the models merely underestimated the uncertainty, the range of plausible outcomes is now greater, so flood defences would need to be higher for us to feel safe.
Likewise, if our understanding of climate systems is flawed, our best guess about the dangers we face may be less pessimistic, but extreme outcomes are more likely.
. . .
The continuing scientific uncertainty about the pace of climate change should make us more concerned, not less. And it is those who doubt the climatologists’ models who should be the most frightened.”