Golden Argument About Global Warming

I ran several searches and haven't found this video yet on ATS. Forgive me if it has already been posted.

This guy goes over the basics of why we need to act to slow global climate change. He makes his examples quite extreme, but it definitely drives the point home.



With the IPCC report concluding that climate change is real, it essentially eliminates the "False" row. So for me, this is an absolute "better safe then sorry" situation. But I plan on doing my part regardless.

What do you think of his logic?

TJ11240

Very good logic. But I would state that the uncertainties are not 50/50.

Cheers.

p.s. like the RH avatar.

[edit on 18-6-2007 by melatonin]

Unfortunately, I think the logic is really flawed.



Near the end of the video, his “inescapable conclusion” is that “when faced with uncertainty about our future, the only responsible choice is to eliminate ‘this’ [the worst consequences in column B] as a possibility.” And then says, “Because the risk of not acting far outweighs the risk of acting...”

The problem, of course, is that he converts a “consequence” into a “risk” as if they are equivalent concepts. They are not…which makes his argument largely meaningless.

I *might* be hit by a meteorite if I get out of bed in the morning…a dire consequence (to me anyway ), but with little risk… Using his logic, I should avoid that consequence altogether and never get out of bed.

But even far more problematic is that he divorces any consideration of the relationship between “action” and his presumed outcomes…and dare I say it… the issue of causation.

For example, how does he know the expense, whatever the amount, will be sufficient to avert any global catastrophe? What if it’s too late and no amount of human intervention will change matters? ( Read this. Things really don’t sound too promising. ) Wouldn’t that mean that one of the possibilities is that I might have the worst expense *AND* the worst consequence? Where is that in his matrix?

Also, the two ‘smiley’ outcomes are not really equivalents either. The first smiley in the do nothing column essentially represents the status quo. The second smiley in the action column is really the same consequence as the global-economic-meltdown-for-nothing consequence found in the first row of the action column… the only thing that changes is a justification for the consequence.

Look at his matrix this way:



Assuming each outcome has an equal chance of happening…

Is column A still the obvious choice?

Not really.

Nice try, though… I really do wish it were as easy as a simple logic test…



[edit on 19-6-2007 by loam]

My Opinion

Global warming

Could care less if it's real or fake.

The hot weathers nice

Originally posted by Miishgoos
My Opinion

Global warming

Could care less if it's real or fake.

The hot weathers nice

Thanks for contributing.

Originally posted by loam
For example, how does he know the expense, whatever the amount, will be sufficient to avert any global catastrophe? What if it’s too late and no amount of human intervention will change matters? ( Read this. Things really don’t sound too promising. ) Wouldn’t that mean that one of the possibilities is that I might have the worst expense *AND* the worst consequence? Where is that in his matrix?

I think we can both agree that Global Climate Change poses a serious threat to mankind. However, this thread isn't about debating that. It's about the following proposition:

It is in our best interest to extenuate the damage we are doing to the planet.

Even if GCC is unavoidable, we can certainly delay and soften its onset if we recognize the danger and make responsible changes in the ways we live, do business, and use transportation.

It doesn't have to be a painful process either. In many cases, it makes economical sense to lower carbon output (CFLs vs incandescents and compact cars vs SUVs). Other cases just require smart consumerism on similarly priced products (buying local produce or renewable electricity)


TJ11240