From: vandal@leland.Stanford.EDU (Levan Frederick Hiemke)
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll on Global Warming
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 00:19:45 GMT

In article <BuD92A.B26@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.004656.16894@leland.Stanford.EDU> vandal@leland.Stanford.EDU (Levan Frederick Hiemke) writes:
>>In article <2401@unet.UUCP> philg@bozo.uucp (Phil Geller) writes:
>>>There was a column by George Will in the September 4, 1992 San Francisco
>>>Chronicle slamming Albert Gore's book "Earth in the Balance".  That
>>>was no surprise, but in the article he mentions a Gallup Poll on 
>>>global warming...
>
>>>"Gore knows, or should know before pontificating, that a recent Gallup
>>>Poll of scientists concerned with global climate research shows that
>>>53 percent do not believe warming has occurred and another 30 percent
>>>are uncertain."

>>I don't know how much bearing this poll has on climate change policy.  The
>>source of the greatest fear lies in the potential for future warming and
>>the climate change that may (or may not) occur as a result.  My understanding
>>is that there is pretty much a consensus among "scientists" on the fact that 
>>atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased over the past 
>>several decades.  Most alsoagree that the greenhouse effect is indeed real 
>>and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  
>
>I suppose so, but if one agrees with each of those statements and still 
>doesn't think that GW is a problem (as is the case with me for example) then 
>why should the government start rebuilding civilization on the basis of such 
>unfounded fears?  I have said for a long time that the political activists 
>pushing the GW doomsday scenario were not of the opinion that the scientific 
>evidence matters, but few say it as clearly and openly as you.
>
>>The scientific debates seem to be over whether the increase in greenhouse 
>>gases will beoffset by cooling effects (not terribly likely, but possible) 
>>and what the extent and impact of global warming would be (a wide range of 
>>opinions here).  
>
>>Like much scientific data in a political context, this poll has limited 
>>relevance to the global warming policy debate.
>
>So what you are saying is that whether GW is really a problem or not has
>no bearing on what the policy regarding it ought to be?  Do you really
>hate industrial civilization that much?
>

Hmmmm.  Brian, I think you've missed my point.  I am making no recommendations
about GW policy, merely noting that politicians and political observers
tend to misuse scientific data & opinions, as I believe is the case here
with Mr. Will.  

When I think about the policy issues, the key thing that jumps to mind is 
that a global warming policy is, in essence, an insurance policy.  I believe
that most scientists will agree that there is _some_ probability of negative
effects resulting from a future warming trend induced by human activity.
The actual probability distributions on human-induced GW effects will vary
dramatically.  

Proposed actions to influence human activity and thereby decrease the 
probability and magnitude of the negative effects of GW must be carefully
considered before they are taken.  The cost of the actions must be
weighed against a (probability-weighted) expected reduction in negative
effects.  

Furthermore, risk preference may play a role for many people.  I, for instance
am risk averse when dealing with environmental damage.  As a result, the
standard expected value measure doesn't tell the whole story.  For this
discussion, however, I don't want to get any more esoteric than I already
have.

To close, I'm not going to get up on a soapbox and call for one GW policy or
another.  I'm going to take actions in my own life that make sense to me.  I
believe that a whole lot can be done without a global warming policy.  I
don't want to rely on a government to coerce its citizens into doing this
or that.  I want my government to provide me with sufficient information to 
make decisions on my own.  I want other people in the world to transcend
their reliance on government to make decisions for themselves.  

The action that would suit me best would be providing me with more choices
to spend my money.  For example, given the option, I would pay the difference 
to have my electricity generated from a cleaner source.  I realize, however,
that many don't share this desire (perhaps they can't afford it or can afford
it, but don't believe that the environmental effects of electricity generation
warrant the change).  I want to take charge of my life and how I contribute
to society rather than electing a bell wether to take responsibility and 
guide the flock.  


-Van

P.S.:  I didn't want this to be such a lengthy discourse, but I wanted to make
sure that it is clear that I am not an environmental extremist who is trying
to take away your right to decide for yourself what should be done.  My
original point was that politics drives people to misuse science to persuade
the masses -- I believe George Will is guilty of this in his use of the
Gallop poll above.