You also have to factor in that no one trusts scientists anymore. We saw for example with the lab leak hypothesis that most scientists are entirely political and will lie at the drop of a hat. To others and to themselves. So your probabilities are likely wrong to begin with.
As William Happer contends, CO2 contributes a tiny amount to climate change. Watch him and many other "denier" scientists at Tom Nelson Youtube channel. The climate changes due to many factors (changes in sun, cosmic rays, geothermal. Volcanic, earth orbit and angle) and always has. The unique attribute of some CO2 is human GUILT. All great religions know that if you can convince the people that they are guilty, that you can rule the world. Think INCENTIVES.
I have a huge problem with this type of "cost-benefit analysis." The proposition that human-emitted CO2 may adversely affect human civilization is an arbitrary assertion - the only "evidence" for it is a series of extrapolations of cherry-picked correlations. You cannot assign probabilities to the arbitrary. Cost-benefit analysis based on arbitrary assertions is also arbitrary.
Isn't a 50+ percent reduction of per capita consumption an explicitly stated goal of a lot of environmentalists?
You also have to factor in that no one trusts scientists anymore. We saw for example with the lab leak hypothesis that most scientists are entirely political and will lie at the drop of a hat. To others and to themselves. So your probabilities are likely wrong to begin with.
As William Happer contends, CO2 contributes a tiny amount to climate change. Watch him and many other "denier" scientists at Tom Nelson Youtube channel. The climate changes due to many factors (changes in sun, cosmic rays, geothermal. Volcanic, earth orbit and angle) and always has. The unique attribute of some CO2 is human GUILT. All great religions know that if you can convince the people that they are guilty, that you can rule the world. Think INCENTIVES.
I have a huge problem with this type of "cost-benefit analysis." The proposition that human-emitted CO2 may adversely affect human civilization is an arbitrary assertion - the only "evidence" for it is a series of extrapolations of cherry-picked correlations. You cannot assign probabilities to the arbitrary. Cost-benefit analysis based on arbitrary assertions is also arbitrary.