Climate change: I don't need to know

I don't know whether the climate is changing. Most of the essays, books, articles, I read do make me believe that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are causing the climate to break down. But then I see papers like this, and I realise I just don't know:

The anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis, as articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and supported by researchers such as Mann, Schmidt, and Hausfather, lacks robust empirical support when subjected to rigorous scrutiny. This analysis integrates unadjusted observational data and recent peer-reviewed studies to demonstrate that the assertion of human CO₂ emissions as the primary driver of climate variability since 1750 is not substantiated. Instead, natural processes—including temperature feedbacks, solar variability, and oceanic dynamics—provide a more consistent explanation for observed trends. A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming Hypothesis, Grok 3 beta1, Jonathan Cohler et al, 'Science of Climate Change, vol 5.1 (2025)

Judging by the absence of any meaningful attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it seems that governments don't know either, or they regard climate change as a low priority for themselves or their citizens. What, then, is the best approach when confronted with what might turn out to be a hugely important and urgent problem - but might not? Our current policymaking systems require that we have a good idea as to the likely impact of a problem, and that we then take measures to reduce that impact. But climate change isn't like that. We just don't know enough to take actual (as against performative) measures to deal with it. Too many of us are unconvinced of the need to do anything and, for many of us, it's against our interests to believe anything to the contrary. 

One of the reasons I advocate applying the Social Policy Bond concept to the climate is that we can confront this lack of certainty by, in effect, contracting out the risk to those prepared to take it on. Let's assume that governments collectively decide to back Climate Stability Bonds; that is, to put up funds for redemption of the bonds once our climate goals have been achieved and sustained for a period, of, say 40 years. If the consensus of the market for the bonds is that the climate is unlikely to change very much, then the bonds would sell for a quite high price. The governments would not lose much by redeeming the bonds, as the bonds would not appreciate very much. But if the market believes climate change is happening and that therefore climate stability will be difficult to achieve, investors will attach a low value to the bonds when they are issued. Bond purchasers would stand to make large sums if they help bring about climate stability.

The crucial point is that under a Climate Stability Bond regime it would not be up to governments, the United Nations, or any panel of experts to make a one-time only assessment of the seriousness of climate change. Under a bond regime it would be the market that would be highly motivated to inform itself about all aspects of climate change, because it stands to gain most if they get it right. And investors in the bonds would be so motivated on a continuous basis, as the market for the bonds would be constantly generating opportunities for gain to successful gatherers and interpreters of the flow of data about climate change.

A Climate Stability Bond regime would thereby bring onside the skeptics, or those who are just reluctant to pay large upfront costs for an uncertain gain. It would contract out not only the achievement of climate stability, but also the assessment of how serious a problem it is. The costs of a poor assessment would be borne by investors in the bonds, rather than taxpayers. Action to bring about climate stability – significant action rather than what we've seen so far – would, I believe, therefore be more forthcoming.

I've written in depth about Climate Stability Bonds on this blog and on my main site there there are links to other essays here. The same reasoning applies to other potentially devastating events to which we just cannot assign a probability; nuclear war for example, and I propose a similar application of the Social Policy Bond idea to address that and conflict in general: links are here.