Interesting thoughts on Global Climate change

[LynzM]

Run time: 09:33 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oi8651Acu4   Posted on YouTube: June 13, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: June 16, 2007 By DU Member: LynzM Views on DU: 1275

 
I thought this was a rather interesting way to go about convincing people that we need to address this problem, even if they're not sure they believe it. What do you think?

[frogcycle]

1. its excellent

might be a tad too long

This basic logic exercise has been used on this and other topics repeatedly. The problem is that those in denial don't accept the uncertainty of the rows. They insist they KNOW we are in the top row, usually due to some weird religious beliefs, and thus just want to move to the upper right quadrant and stay fat dumb and happy. The arguement is great, but it will only work on those willing to listen - and most of them don't need it.

[fazoolius_2006]

4. Not really...

The error with this analysis is the assumption that we as humans, through our public policy, have the power or intelligence as to alter something so incredibly complex as the climate. We can't even tell what the weather is going to be 2 days into the future. Therefore, to apply logic so simple as this to a an issue that is still uncertain might be cute, but really borders on somewhat laughable.

Nice try though.

Is climate change happening, no doubt, but are humans causing it? Lets assume for a minute that humans are. What if stopping all production of carbon to the atmosphere is actually achievable. How do we know that this will solve the problem? What if it is only one variable in the equation? What if we need to remove more nitrogen or sulfur dioxide as well for the problem to be fixed, but we are only concerned with removing the carbon. We are screwed anyway and then we wasted all that time and money and still end up at the end of the world. Therefore, this exercise is too simplistic.

Also, how do we know that a little warming isn't good? Who is predicting that storm intensity and frequency will increase? I hope not the same people that predicted the worst storm season on record for last year.

With all that said, I try to conserve energy and do what I can to live clean. I work from home, recycle and use energy saving light sources, however, I believe the sun has a lot more to do with the changes in the climate than we humans do. Public policy can't fix health care or immigration, how the heck is it going to fix the climate globally?

Just my thoughts.

[greenman3610]

5. suggest you got to

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

and bone up.

Best site for answering your questions about
warming.

[frogcycle]

7. so you think

what the hell, I don't know what exactly to do, public policy can't possibly help, so screw it, let's just let it happen. Kind of like the bush administration's response to the threats before 9/11, huh?

[NW_BEAST]

2. WOW

Basic, Logical, I'm impressed.
So, if its horseshit, eh, we're in the economic dumps, maybe.
If its right, if its right.....we're DONE.

Keep going man.

[lostinacause]

3. I seem to remember conservatives using this exact argument as a justification of the Iraq

war. "What if Saddam has WMD and manages to...". The "logic" is both statements is just as weak.

In a situation such as this what you do is try to determine the risk and access it against that costs and benefits of each possible alternative.

[frogcycle]

8. and it was a valid argument

the "evidence" suggested he at least "might" be up to no good, and the argument that we should not sit back and wait to see what it was WAS valid.

That basic premise is why some people voted in favor of the force resolution, despite reservations.

The problem is that (1)bush then abused that authority and (2) once the premise was proven false, the conclusion was not revisited.


This presentation suggests that if we start spending money to address CO2 emissions but learn over time either that the climate change threat is not valid (unlikely - glaciers aren't regrowing yet) or that our efforts are ineffective (quite possible) we might have economic difficulties for having spent money needlessly. There is nothing in the presentation to suggest that we would CONTINUE pissing money down the rathole if we learned that.

The other factor not addressed in this simplistic presentation is that MANY of the things we would do to reduce CO2 emissions would be beneficial for reasons other than reversing climate change. Reduction in burning of fossil fuels will reduce other pollutants; it will reduce the global economic dependency on a limited resource. Saving rainforests would be nice. More recycling reduces landfills. Dealing with highway gridlock would be nice.

[lostinacause]

11. From the same argument follows that America should attack Iran, China, North Korea and Russia.

I don't buy it. When making a decision you make choices based on the best prediction for the range of the damages and the probability of occurrence.

[frogcycle]

12. no need to make a leap from

"should we be concerned?"
to
"should we attack?"

The argument does not dictate the response; it simply says should we ignore the situation, and the answer in all the cases mentioned is no.

[lostinacause]

14. The argument is based on extremes. If you line up each of the problems I mentioned in the way

that he does it looks like the obvious solution is to attack in each case.

[lostinacause]

15. So you know: I believe that action should be taken, just not based on the arguement he puts forward.

[frogcycle]

9. and that is exactly what he does

the risk in the lower right is doomsday

[uberllama42]

6. This is a variation on Pascal's Wager

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was a French philosopher and mathematician who explained the laws of probability and argued for strict and literal belief in the Bible. He was fiercely critical of the French nobility, chiefly because of their vanity, atheism, and penchant for gambling. He presented his Wager as a facetious argument for belief in God, supposedly using his superior understaning of probability to show the absurdity of refusing to believe in God.

The Wager relies on a matrix of two sets of two possibilities: Either one believes in God, or he does not; either God exists, or He does not. If God exists, the Christian goes to Heaven and the infidel is damned; if God does not exist, the believer has merely wasted his time and the atheist has broken even. Therefore the risk of belief is far less than the risk of non-belief.

The fallacy of the Wager is that it relies on a false dichotomy. It fails to take into account that there are numerous other religions besides Pascal's sect, Jansenism, which claim that all other religious believers, in addition to atheists, will go to hell. Since there is no way to distinguish between these sects using the postulates of the Wager, there is no clear choice as to which religion is the 'safe choice'.

P.S.: Actually, the video's argument is more logical than the Wager itself. Even presented in exaggerated and dichotomous terms, it bears some resemblance to the reality of the situation. The big difference between this debate and the argument about God's existence is that Global Warming falls within the realm of science, as there is a vast body of meteorological evidence with which to debate the issue. The Wager works with purely metaphysical propositions.

[emmadoggy]

10. I really like this.

His last line is really good too. "How lucky do you feel?"

That says it all.

[cynthia]

13. his argument is well-presented

I happen to favor logical thinking, but it seems that ths would make sense to everyone.

Doing nothing is not an option.