Tough To Debate Climate Change Video

[areyoulookinatmepal]

with the skeletons coming out of the scientist's closet,i'd like to see him make a vid now to see which colum he's in now.

[puyen58]

His argument is simply a reworking of the "Pascal's Wager" argument.

In other words, take the course of action that has the least harmful consequences associated with it.

The problem with that sort of thinking is that you expose yourself to all kinds of nonsense and conspiracy theories, which you then must believe to be true if the alleged consequences are grave enough.

And BTW, this faulty reasoning has been responsible for countless human atrocities.

[zavindur]

Every building you step into catches on fire- now based off of your logic, from now on you should evac every building you step into, and the government needs to create laws and regulations to stop you from going into buildings.

Now all I lack is to get politics involved to make the above the "truth".

[muselarouge]

(continued)

The inaction column WCS does not just mean economic inconvenience - a 15-20% loss of cereal grain production (an optimistic estimate if we see a return to LIA conditions) will mean hunger and starvation for hundreds of millions.

BTW, there is nothing innovative about this argument - it's just a re-hashing of the perversely tautological Precautionary Principle, gussied up with a psuedo-logical chart.

[muselarouge]

The argument boils down to a comparative risk false dichotomy of action vs. inaction. But the real challenge is neither - it's about appropriate action.

While the soi-disant Knowlege Class has stampeded the world into a fixation on a trace, beneficial gas, the climate, in response to its main driver - the Sun - has begun another natural cooling cycle for which we are not prepared because we were looking 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

(continued)

[1milvies]

Global cooling? Hmm, where I live we haven't had a decent cold winter in the last 8 years. It has gotten hotter here.

[pvtw1974]

It´s not the question if it is fake or not! The real question is..... CAN WE MAKE CLIMATE CHANGE REAL? The ultimate goal of humans has all ways been, how to control nature there at this moment this is the ultimate power we can achieve. Yes, if we look at history data we could say this could be a scam but if we look at what we as humans are able to do than suddenly it becomes more likely that climate change can be produced, and this will happen. It´s just a matter of time!

[eyeglas1]

Governments around the world give scientists billions every year to research the GCC situation. These scientists make a fine living on this money. They are not inclined to publish findings that GCC isn't caused by man and that further research is not needed. Why would they? Would you? If they say it isn't so, the government stops their funding. Saying it IS so keeps their funds flowing. Al Gore and many others are getting rich off of their GCC advocacy. It's all about the money, folks.

[eyeglas1]

He appeals to people who know little about the GCC issues. He fails to tell viewers that the "cure" has great potential for unintended consequences having the potential to kill millions of people. Not too long ago, DDT was banned to "save the eagles". DDT was used in the 3rd world to combat diseases. As a result, millions died after DDT was banned. Now he askes us to take even more far-reaching measures to fight GCC...just in case he's right.

[nuceria]

i am strongly reminded of the nash equilibrium. DEFECT!

[rea9390]

Let build Nuke plants now!

[JonThm]

Global Warming is nuclear PR. Are tehy paYING YOU? iF SO, NOT ENOUGH.

[utubedaveg]

Do you work for the Government? You have learned the value of scare tactics. What if you are wrong? What if we are in a global cooling period in our planets life cycle. What if a little global warming is a good thing. Do you work for our Government? Do you trust our Government. What if they just want to get more control of our lives through scaring the people into giving up their freedoms. Maybe you work for one of the organizations that push GCC for economic gain.

[StarrRocker]

The funny thing about this is that actually the global temperature in the past year has dropped greatly.  And how much lower it has gone almost matches how high the temperature has gone up in the past 100 years. Global cooling again, anyone? It's like the 70s again, haha.

[StarrRocker]

The funny thing about this is that actually the global temperature in the past year has dropped greatly. And how much lower it has gone almost matches how high the temperature has gone up in the past 100 years. Global cooling again, anyone? It's like the 70s again, haha.

[syka16]

Global action is unlikely if not impossible. It is doubtful that as developing nations acquire the technological capabilities to pollute, such nations will be willing to act in ways to reduce GCC. The requisite global action, even if possible, still may not eliminate GCC. Thus, if GCC is true, catastrophes will be inevitable. Any action (global or otherwise), by your reasoning, will only result in undesirable economic consequences.

[Garbage101]

im feeling pretty damn lucky, column B it is

[klattimer]

He missed out a critical argument from the grid, that climate change is caused by an earth change and there's nothing we can do about it. In that instance we have the cost problem, global economic depression and associated issues, but at the same time we also have the failing crops and extreme weather regardless of whether or not we put our money into it.

The reasoning is flawed!

[nissen158]

well, then we'll all be dead, so it won't really matter where all our money's at, will it?

[AtticusAndy]

i vote column A

this guy is brilliant

what reasoning

[JonThm]

Why are you giving free PR to the nuclear industry?

[cukelley]

You must prove that global warming and its global consequences are a highly likely event. That is what is being debated now. Not whether or not we should act if it is probable. Essentially, yours is a straw man argument where you misconstrue the opponent's argument and present arguments against this misconception instead of the other side's true argument.

[cukelley]

Your argument is flawed. Conceivably, because we cannot predict Mother Nature with 100% certainty, a snow storm could occur in South Africa tomorrow. But one must demonstrate that this is a highly likely event before asking people to buy gloves, wintercoats, and galoshes. We all agree that if global warming and its global consequences are a highly likely event, we should act (i.e. if the risk of action does not exceed the risk of inaction).

[maddentim]

An issue with the video's 2x2 is the smiley face on the bottom left. If there is global depression resulting measures instituted from "acting" (whatever that is) why would'nt that depression occur when GCC is "true" (whatever that is). The cost is there regardless of the validity of GCC. So assuming the action to counter GCC is successful (a big assumption), then we have climate status quo. If GCC is false and the cost causes a depression, shouldn't the cost cause a depression when GCC is true?

[grewmj]

You are right. The Action and non action are the constants. No matter what, the effects of the constant will remain the same(cost and everything associated with it.) It is the variable that will change the results(global climate actually changing or not.) so basically if you are playing the lottery you will go with the column B, because you have a 50% chance of winning, where as in column A has a 100% chance of failure.

[Skipthomassedona]

Wow. Gauging by the blink stupidity and ignorance of some of this responses... we are doomed. Hopefully, those who think, "oh, everything is going to be just fine", when the dodo hits the fan.... just remember why... and then say to yourself, "oh, everything is going to be just fine!"

[communitywork]

Help our nonprofit build capacity for mitigating climate change in the Philippines.

[101skypilot]

HOW ABOUT THE THOUSAND OF COLUMNS IN BETWEEN THE BLACK AND WHITE AND THE THOUSANDS OR ROWS BETWEEN PROSPERITY DOOM AND GLOOM. Perhaps using ones head and not just accepting what others are saying as fact, when in fact, it might very well be fiction. There are smart solutions that help this planet and our living environment and then then there are dumb politicized solutions that have nothing to do with saving the planet and much to do with political power and manipulation of the masses.

[neo41182456]

Best layman's youtube global warming argument ever.

[hellasecret]

Yeah but you could make the same chart for going to war in Iraq. Action or no Action. And with that chart we would go to war. Every time.

[Arishtat]

This is game theory! Read "Prisoner's Dilemma" by William Poundstone.

[Dannyjgb]

It amazes me when people respond to this kind of analysis with claims of scare mongering. Climate scientists are 90% certain that anthropogenic climate change is happening right now - this isn't a Pascal Wager, its a near certainty. We're talking about thousands of Scientists not a small propaganda clique. The only debate remaining is the extent of climate change and the extent of remedial action required.

[remarkable1967]

This is a great video....apart from the fact that it deals with 'now' onwards. You can only buy into this explanation if you think that the climate has been constant up until 'now'...when we know it hasn't. Yes, the potential consequences could be catastrophic if you believe the climate has never been cooler or warmer than now. Otherwise the video itself becomes a mute point because it does not take into account 'known' historical climate.

[Dannyjgb]

It therefore follows that because the Earth has been both substantially hotter and colder in the past we don't need to do anything to stop all our homes being submerged by rising sea levels? Is there any logic at all to be derived from this approach?

[remarkable1967]

No, you are missing the point.. If we know it has been hotter, cooler, hotter, cooler in the past, why do we think that what is happening now is anything unusual and that hasn't happened in the past. In 200 years time they will be debating global cooling and so it goes on. It just creates a paranoia & hysteria that makes us easier to control & manipulate.

[Dannyjgb]

I see we're going to have to restate the scientific position. 90-98% of climate scientists believe that anthropogenic climate change is happening and that we should be doing something about it. These are biologists, chemists, physicists, climatologists etc.

[remarkable1967]

Why would you think that this period of warming is any different from previous period of warming? And you home wasn't engulfed by water then....

[remarkable1967]

In the video, he says, "When faced with the uncertainty" at around 1min.29secs... So.. was everything a certainty up until now? No it wasn't. We are faced with exactly the same uncertainty that we have always faced. That's the problem I have with this whole debate. Yes I know we are in a warming cycle but that's just it...its a cycle that the earth has gone through since the big bang. Warming & cooling.. Its simple logic

[Dannyjgb]

In the view of the experts recent changes are not natural at all and we can avoid future anthropogenic change by changing our behaviour. In the last 100 years (minute in terms of geological time) we have burnt a huge quantity of fossil fuels - who would really believe that this would have little of no effect?

[remarkable1967]

Scientists are not clairvoyants, they can only guess, it's an educated guess yes...but a guess all the same. As I said before, in 200 years time they will be debating global cooling. Never worry about something that 'you yourself' cannot confirm for 'yourself'. Life is far, far too short whether it's warmer or cooler.

[Dannyjgb]

So in the absense of absolute evidence we are helpless to take any action, even if the danger is regarded as highly probable by the vast majority of the Scientific community? If your car has a 90% chance of crashing, does that affect your behaviour at all? Or do you continue safe in the knowledge that it isn't 100% certain to happen?

[remarkable1967]

Again I say, What makes 'you' think that now is any different to warming cycles in the past? And in 200 years time "will they or wont they" be debating global cooling? It's cyclic pure & simple. Stop quoting Stats & think for 'yourself' for a change

[Dannyjgb]

When faced with a complex system you have to rely to a certain extent on the established scientific position (I don't have the time to do decades of research on this personally). We do this all the time with medicine, electronics, physics etc. No different with climatology. Exchanging Scientific probability with apathetic guesswork is inexcusable.

[remarkable1967]

It is catalogued that in the past the Romans grew vines on Hadrian's wall, that sailors sailed north of Scotland and found no pack ice and that Greenland wasn't always covered in snow (the clue is in the name). We can only ever have an educated guess at the future, but we definitely know the past and we should make the most of our time in the present. I refuse to sit and worry (guess) about something that (known) history tells me is nothing more than a perfectly normal event.

[Dannyjgb]

And as a result you take your own limited and mostly anecdotal evidence (not to mention highly tendentious) and rate it more highly than the research of many thousands of highly qualified Scientists, who have spent many years on this issue.

[remarkable1967]

In a nutshell.yes. Especially when all they are doing is having a guess at something that even they cannot guarantee as true. That's why after all it's just a "theory". By the way, I never knowingly waste anything, I recycle and I never leave appliances on standby, but I'm no environmentalist, I'm just a responsible guy getting on with life. There will be no catastrophe & no rising seas.

[Dannyjgb]

I think this is the point - we know the seas ARE rising. Admittedly very slowly at the moment - so, probably no catastrophe in our lifetime unless there is a tipping point. But the fact is that if there is going to be hardship for the human race there's a very good chance that it will have been caused by profiteering Multi-Nationals in our time.

[remarkable1967]

Ah, now we get to the truth... You're just another anti-capitalist that got bored with smashing Macdonalds windows and has jumped on the climate change gravy train to strengthen your cause. And I was actually beginning to like you. Shame on you.....

[Dannyjgb]

Why is anti-capitalism shameful? And why would anyone really want to preserve a status quo in which 5% have 90% of the wealth?

[remarkable1967]

You do like your stats don't you..Sorry, was actually joking with the "shame on you" line. I applaud you for caring but I'm afraid people vote with thier feet. Tesco only got so big because people keep shopping there... It's sad to say that we do live in a very narrow minded material world but unfortunately I think we are beyond the point of no return. sad...but probably true... I know that sounds very apathetic but i've never seen myself as a rock thrower...

[justinvt]

Sorry, but it's pretty obvious you aren't a scientist. Part of the reason scientists study things is to improve our ability to predict future events. During the medieval warming period there were certainly many instances of famine and drought. If we could iron out events as "minor" as the MWP, and a have a nice, steady predictable climate, would that not offer an economic advantage to lots of businesses over the long term?

[remarkable1967]

These are the same governments that convinced you that weapons of mass destruction existed to justify the war in Iraq, that there would be bird flu pandemic and that JFK was shot by Oswald. I would rather be an optimistic cynic that a pessimistic gullible fool. I live in a "cup half full" world safe in the knowledge that there is little or no chance of anyone ever conning me.

[Dannyjgb]

That may be healthy scepticism in the case of politics, but not, I would suggest, in the case of Science. Especially when the Scientisits involved are from many different fields and utilising finance from varied sources; public, private and charitable. So, a conspiracy seems very unlikely.

[remarkable1967]

please don't tell me that you think science is'nt being driven by politics on this !! Politics is currupt to the core, it infuences everything we do. And if politicians can latch on to a fad and milk it for all its worth then they will.

[Dannyjgb]

Scientists are driven by the search for truth and are very pleased to change their minds given a weight of evidence. Yes, I'm sure some can be bought, or mislead. But I don't believe that they are having some kind of group hallucination.

[remarkable1967]

No......when there is nothing to take any action over, then there is no need to take any action. My god they really have got you scared to death of your own shadow haven't they. 5 years ago we wouldn't be having this debate because no one had convinced you yet. Governments are in a win, win situation because in 100 years time when there has been no Armageddon, they will say it's because they convinced you to change to energy efficient light bulbs 100 years earlier. It's all vote scratching hype.

[neo41182456]

Dude, stick to the video. You're basically saying that you're choosing column B. Which is don't vote for significant action because that is risky economically. You are right that there is a chance that the doomsayers are wrong and this whole thing is cyclic but based on what we know and comparing the risks, the guy in this video convincingly shows that it is far worse to buy lottery ticket B than lottery ticket A. I'll pay for your ticket A if your a stingy old man.

[giselinde69]

You should apply for the 60 seconds to Save the Earth contest provided by Current TV and the Alliance for Climate Protection.

I especially like your closing comments, they are very compelling! along with the mention of this conclusion being something for the most hardened skeptic or panicked activist. I think it should hit home with TV viewers.

[LenGarc]

This global warming scare was fabricated by the "enlightened elites". A global crisis needing a global solution. The UN will be granted authority over the laws of all nations. Like Al Gore, these globalists have sold their souls and betrayed humanity. "A New World Order" is being prepared incrementally. They are succeeding because people are completely brainwashed by the media. The goal of these elite is to enslave the world by total control of the finances of a micro-chipped population.

[dryflier]

What a good 'evangelist' this fella really is yet that is exactly the reason why I personally would not trust him or what he says. He says you only get to play the game once. This is so similar to the bible-bashers choice 'their' god or hell which is in effect NO choice at all. He is every point - scoring politicians dream come true and great for their 'Green Tax' propaganda. Utter tripe!

[h09orizon]

your assumption that taking action will only result in economic loss comes from the assumption that any action we take will be effective. If the action we take is not effective, the argument is moot.

[Altourus]

I wonder how many of the people that are refuting this arguement are christians that throw around pascals wager as a good reason to be christian...

[Zantriel]

The purpose behind videos like this is not too necessarily to prove a point but to make people think. I looked up more information about global warming after watching the video.

If an argument moves people into action then it is still a successful argument, even if it is "shot full of holes".

[pureghetto]

In that case a more apt argument is 'dude look, pollution is increasing unless we do something about it'.

There was a commercial made in the 1980's about a man coughing because the city was so polluted you can see smog everywhere. Businessmen with gas masks walked past the man, one hands him a quarter, and the man goes to an air machine to breathe. Machine is out of air, so the man dies. That's a better argument, but so what?

[scstraus]

This argument is called a "Pascal Wager" and it's already been shot full of holes thousands of times. Google it.

I believe climate change is a problem, but I don't believe in this man's argument.

[scstraus]

Then we can make up anything- "The earth will be smashed by a meteor", "Aliens will come and attack and destroy the earth" and for each of these cases we must prepare for the worst. So not only do we have to make all our energy green, but we also must create a global asteriod shield and an intergalactic army to defend against little green men. Because all of those worst cases are the end of the world, and the alternative is to bankrupt our economies.

[BlazerSax]

heinous garbage.

[nicxvan]

No supporting evidence in this video at all. It's just a bastardized version of Pascal's wager.

[pureghetto]

Except that we can prove whether or not working towards stopping GCC is a success.

Also it's morally indefensible not to attempt to try because 'it might not work'

Try again.

[nicxvan]

That has nothing to do with what I said. The video still gives no supporting evidence for global warming, and if it hasn't been proven as happening how can you work to fix it and/or measure your success. Give me a break.

[pureghetto]

I agree the video gives no evidence for global warming, and you can surely doubt that it's happening ('it's not snowing this year but it did last year' is not evidence, and I agree), but the video makes the assumption it is happening, and if so, said argument makes sense.

[pureghetto]

In any case, 1) the video was about global climate change, not global warming (though GW is implied as the consequence), and 2) one can reasonably make the same argument against things with a definite and empirical consequence, such as pollution, and say, CFCs depleting the ozone layer. So while what the argument is against may be of question (at least to you), I feel it still applies.

[caspareisermann]

US spends about 400 bio USD p.a. for war machinery. This money could have been spent on social welfare, health, and education. Was there a decision made by the people? No. How can we then reasonably assume, that there even will be a decision "made" to stop global warming? While the first decision was made by corrupt politics and the weapons industry, the decision you have derived will be ignored by the same corrupt politics and the oil industry.

[Sunjammer]

Absolutely brilliant

[Rawrcopter]

^^I used to be religious, and this reason is actually the worst.. lol

But to everyone Thanks for spreading this, and again it is not my video, i am just sharing the word on youtube

[qborg69]

This sounds a lot like that old argument about god. We can't prove god exists or not, but do you really want to take the risk of ending up in hell? Spread the Word.

[trevdogg100]

I was gonna make fun of you, but dammit, you posed a good argument.

[adaminc]

Geologically speaking, we are still in an ice-age, so the glaciers will melt, ice caps will melt, the world will heat up, it will happen, we cant stop it, global warming WILL happen, when will it be bad enough to really effect us, no one knows, but whether or not we are speeding it up is what we need to find out, I think we are, so do a lot of others, and we need to find a way to stem the tide.

[16777216]

Linked to over 11 thousand people in my group. Being added to many other groups as we speak. I hope to reach all 7 million people on Care2 and most of Digg.

[kasimirneumann]

thx for uploading.

[j0nnnywaite]

Great video, great argument. however, to me it seems like the A-True square should be worse then you presented it, espcially if you treat the True row the same way you treated it in the B collumn. For example, it seems the worst possible outcome would be us spending money to prevent it, and then all those horrible things happening anyway, our efforts being in vain, which would be in the A collumn.

[kasimirneumann]

but then we would have died anyway.

which makes moneyproblems rather meaningless.

[DukeNaxen]

YES!! This is a message everyone should hear. It makes total sense. Besides, the worst case scenario of acting isn't quite as bad as he says. It wouldn't cost that much at all to go green. In fact, there's millions of cases where people have saved money by caring about the environment.

[Zantriel]

This is a good argument, and it makes sense, and I am going to try to get the word out about it, and so should you. If you tell others... what is the worst that can happen?