Opinion vs Belief

So after having decided that people must try harder to think about issues they previously did not think about and avoid blind belief, I find myself at a point of contradiction...

On my slow path towards understanding the issue of climate change, what it is and how it relates to all facets of our society, I have been recommended "Cool It" by Bjorn Lomborg. So, of course I've put aside my other books for a while, and started reading this. Seeing his TED talk also is quite curious (it's actually the weirdest thing to hear a Danish person speak with a British accent! Hahaha!)... I like his approach to the 'issue' of climate change, and his arguments while not so cohesive (I image however that he is much more eloquent in his native language), are sound and rational (oh, forever that word will remind me of the brilliance of Dan Ariely!). Yes given a finite amount of resources, we must prioritise our actions, neither scientists, environmentalists can or have the place to make that decision.

But you know the questions is, what is our aim? He talks about the 'most good' but what does that mean? Will most good be most lives saved on a given day, even though the day after those same people due to increased scarcity of resources start riots? He mentions that increase in temperatures as the IPCC predicts won't be so bad as it will actually decrease the total number of deaths (due to less people dying from the cold). Also, I read in another document assessing the impacts of climate change on the US, that while it may adversely affect the skiing industry, it may benefit the beach side resorts..... I find that argument particularly distasteful....perhaps because I find myself personally incredibly averse to change to the point of being autistic. To me, the Earth should always be as it is, and the less we affect it the better. We are like a virus on the planet (brilliant Matrix idea), and we've infected Earth.

Reading his book, I find myself presented with many arguments as to why the Kyoto protocol (as an example), isn't such a good idea, for example, p22 of the book: "The temperature by 2050 would be an immeasurable 0.1F lower and even by 2100 only 0.3F lower. This means that the expected temperature increase of 4.7F would be postponed just five years from 2100 to 2105."

I follow the numbers, but of course I have no idea whether the premise is correct: "The temperature by 2050 would be an immeasurable 0.1F lower..." I am sure that he has a very good source for this statement, and this is the point where I make the decision to believe or not... Hmmm... how important the opening lines of a book must be... he knows that he cannot possibly in the framework of the book (which is surprisingly written in an almost colloquial language) supply all the detailed economic treatment and study that has gone into deriving these numbers, even if he had the time and space to write it all out, I do not share his background, and hence I will probably need to study as many years of economics to begin to understand where he got that from.... so in the first few pages of the book he must provide the reader with the easiest, same framework/context argument which will irrefutably setup a firm foundation and create a solid first impression, everything else will be easy. My logic will then follow as: he was right in the first argument, which implies that he must be right in the following as well....

So this is my dilema... I had just written about how we must all start to think more about these issues, but I find myself constanstly going around and believing people. I like Lomborg's first argument, it is convincing and hence I find myself wanting to believe the rest of the contents of the book, but I find myself reading argument upon argument, where I must trust in the validity of a premise, which is just a bit tiring.

His argument is infallible, yes, we must prioritise, as we have scarce resources. But what is 'our' aim? Not ours I guess, of those people holding the purse strings... what is it that they are trying to achieve? Perhaps with all this media directed to climate change our attention is being redirected away from more pressing issues... I find I am always so ignorant of the 'real' global issues.