The actions taken to mitigate or counter-act climate change could have 'collateral benefits', but be less effective than other environmental remediation or human charity. The 'loss' would be (the benefits of the best alternative program) - (the benefits of the ACC mitigation/counter-action).

If your priority is to save a few endangered species, the best way to do it is to go out and save those species, not to 'try to reduce or offset anthropogenic climate change'; there are many species which are extremely endangered, and for a great intro to the topic, I suggest Douglas Adam's brilliant book.[1]

We are faced with tough choices, and should acknowledge them to be difficult; I don't know that I could bear telling parents that their children will die because I see climate change as a higher priority than disease.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Chance_to_See

> I don't know that I could bear telling parents that their children will die because I see climate change as a higher priority than disease.

Could you bear to tell parents that their children or grand children will die because our climate will be irrevocably damaged?

I'd have trouble with that too, and don't particularly want to live on neo-Venus either.

I was trying to make the point that even if you favor a given course of action, the costs and benefits should be assessed, and neither should be dismissed.

I agree here. I think people who deny climate change just need to nut up and say that their priority is the economy. the economic cost in reversing climate change means they lose big time.

Is this a good reason to not favor that course of action? or is it laden with self-interest? is "I'll lose my whole business" a cost that anyone would be willing to pay for the benefit of the climate? how do we convince this kind of person? in the face of this opinion, should we not dismiss it?

The vast majority of people who take either side of a political debate do so on genuine belief that it is the best policy for everyone.[1] Very few take positions out of self-interest, unless the voting group is <100 people.[2] The problem is that most people make up their minds very quickly based on intuitive and emotional factors, and only bring in reason later on.[3]

As a result of all this, saying that they are dishonest or lying is wrong, but appeals to complex intellectual arguments won't work; you should give opponents their due though, as the complex intellectual arguments wouldn't convince you either (even if you are wrong).

[1] http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8756.html

[2] http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10843.html

[3] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/

So you're saying that oil companies are against climate change policy not because it directly harms their industry, but because they genuinely believe the climate is not being harmed by their industry?

even if that (their belief that it isn't being harmed being genuine) were true, there is literally direct evidence to show this (climate is being harmed by industry) is not true. carbon emissions and the greenhouse effect - it's a fact that industry contributes heavily to carbon emissions. and it's a fact that carbon emissions create increasing temperature by allowing heat to bounce around inside the atmosphere.

What you're saying is, I don't believe in climate change because of these scientific facts (which, are relatively non-complex. we put stuff in air. stuff in air makes air warmer), I believe in it because I'm a bleeding heart liberal? come on.

How many people really need to have their minds changed for congress to create legislation around climate change? Around a hundred eh.. hmm. Self-interest is definitely not a part of this though. they just don't want to change anything because its what they genuinely believe is best!

christ, even arguing that they have this genuine belief is a crock of shit. there's not test for sincerity of belief.

The majority of the people you are facing off against do not represent oil companies, or even work for them.

I am saying that you probably arrived at your view by your intuition, after looking at who was on either side of the debate, and how you felt about the 'issue', then you found evidence to support your view. The idea that any of us arrives at their view solely through a careful analysis of the facts is quite optimistic, and I think Hume was on the money 250 years ago. If you believe you are capable of a careful examination of the views on the other side, I implore you to read Alex Epstein's book all the way through, and give him a fair hearing; I would bet you $20 at even odds that you cannot read his book and give an accurate summary of his arguments, because you will find it too frustrating.[1] Changing your view because the facts contradict your intuition and peers is an extremely painful and slow process, which most of us resist at all costs.[2]

There are many tests for the sincerity of beliefs.[3]

[1] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20821049-the-moral-case-f...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_that_Failed

[3] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2703011

so you mean lobbying groups for big oil aren't involved in the legislative process? hm. coulda fooled me.

I literally formed my opinion this in grade 12 earth science class, where I was first shown inconvenient truth followed by a direct rebuttal. I found gore to be unconvincing, but I found the rebuttal even worse.

I'll see if I can find the book for cheap. From reading reviews it's fairly clear that the author isn't exactly unbiased or entirely fact-based.

you've got to be fucking kidding me if you think "intuition" is unrelated the self-interest. instead of side-stepping, might you answer my questions?

are you truly saying that politicians and public figures who are involved with oil companies and against climate change are doing so out of anything but self-interest?

ultimately your argument is fallacious. you're dismissing my more salient points by attacking my reasoning process rather than my argument itself. I'm just as self-interested as they are, right? I only believe what I want to believe, I'm just intuiting and agreeing with my peers.

Are you truly telling me that someone looks at industry, like actually looking at factories and the way they operate, and their intuition is that this is good for the environment.

furthermore general economics disagrees with you when it comes to the decisions of people who run the oil industry. how are they acting in anything but self-interest when they fund climate-change denial? it provides a direct economic benefit to them.