The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (Best) study was set up to test the findings of other studies and was part-funded by US billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch.
The results of BEST match those of prior studies.
So far this week the conservative main stream media has largely ignored the study. Maybe because they're waiting for it to be officially published. That'd be a first. Probably because they're working on the Spin job they'll do.
@mav7469 Sepero's replay was quite clever though you are too dull witted to see why... Your response is an ad hominen. Educate yourself before you make a bigger fool of yourself...
This man must have never taken a logic class. He makes untrue assumptions, assigns conclusion from invalid premises, and disregards entire variables from the truth table.
If you are looking for a solid argument for global warming, this is not it.
Please do your own research into the validity of Anthropogenic GW. The best utilities are University and Public Library scholarly journal databases. There are many studies showing vastly different predictions for our future. Good luck in your research!
I still feel , if it is possible we are a factor in climate change, error on the side of action is still better than inaction due to selfishness based in fear of loss of revenue. Even if we can't stop climate change, we could slow it to buy us time to develop and implement a new energy infrastructure. Some of these comments are still the exact problem this argument is trying to put to rest. Hair splitting finger pointing obstructionist arguments that pulls us away from the issue. .
A class of mine had a debate on this video's argument, and I'm sorry to say that this logic is full of holes so spacious that anyone proficient with a double-clutch could drive trucks through them. That said, you did a good job in that the argument here was straight forward and convincing. Few people would be willing to argue with you on this topic, and that skill (namely showmanship) will help you in whatever you choose to pursue in life. I do suggest that you revisit the skeptical argument.
other possibilities: coercion was excercised, and it did hardly make a dent. But it costed 3 trillion dollar for which world hunger could eliminated, everybody made literate, malaria and aids eradicated.
This is actually truth: expected temperature change in case of coercion is not even noticeable on a kitchen thermometer.
Downside of coercion is that in the past 100 years governments killed 262 million people, excluding wars. Want to take the bet that this time they can handle the coercion?
Some actions we take can save the planet in more ways than just reducing global warming. Switching to renewable energy resources saves a lot of the natural environment that we are destorying at the moment. And is somethine we have to do to secure our future
This is Pascal's Wager reworked for the environment.
I don't think it's a bad argument. However, Most people want to do SOMETHING about the environment. Even people that don't believe there is a crisis still want cleaner air would love to eventually power there entire house with solar or wind energy.
The question isn't should we act, because most people want to. The question is how much should we spend and how many freedoms are we willing to give up?
Nice and convincing, but misleading. You state right out that we can't know for certain if GCC is true or false. Fine. But you must also admit then that we can't know for certain that whatever we do to try to fix it won't make the problem worse. You need to add all the problems from the "true/no" box into the "false/yes" box.
"We can't know for certain that whatever we do to try to fix it won't make the problem worse?" So true -- so let's do nothing. Let's not even try to find better solutions. Let's just 'see' what happens. Your comment is misleading to a burn.
the goal of the united states future presidents(obama/mccain) is to reduce emissions by 60% by the year 2050. that means that we are going to still be effecting our enviornment for lots and lots of decades, if not a century.
sure if we shut down all power plants and stopped driving today. we would be in good a shape. but that senario is almost equal to no/true. if not worse
You are forgetting that there can be environmental catastrophes on the yes/false side as well such as global cooling and slipping into another ice age. The trick is what exactly to do and in what amount. Please stop drinking the kool aid and do some actual critical thinking.
I agree that there can be catastrophes and things that were not expected. But keep in mind that the scientific community has stated that "Humans are the main cause of Global Climate Change". If humans caused the problem, shouldn't humans fix the problem? Let me put it another way. We knew about the Sub Prime Mortgage problem at least 2 years ago. If we had done something about it then, would be in as bad a mess as we are now?
On the plastic bottle thing: I'm assuming your serious about this question- you could probably look it up. But i'd think it would have to do with how people have been getting sick by using old water bottles. like, bacteria builds in them and then people re-use them. But i could be wrong
You take for granted that we can stop climate change. In reality, i don't think we can. No matter how much money we spend, we cannot alter our climate. It is a natural process which has been going on for ages and ages since the beginning of all times. What we can do, however, is prepare ourselves for a warmer world.
Well, if we applied that logic to every idea that surfaced, without concern for validity... wouldn't that just be a recipe for tasty ruination? Say, for example, giving into the global cooling fears of the 70's. Your brilliant theory seemingly hinges on giving into fear at every juncture instead of relying on reason. I'd say that would be one of many holes.
Well everybody, even if human pollution isn't contributing to a climate change, what's the harm in trying to make it cleaner? Eventually we will need to preserve the Earth to maximize the time the human race is in existence, so why not start now and be prepared? We shouldn't have to make this decision. It would be 10 times easier if everyone did what they could just to help the Earth.
If you listen to the worst predictions about an alien invasion, there will be a lot of bad things that will happen. The complete destruction of the planet, the complete erasing of humanity's existence on Earth, the enslaving of all children. If we followed this argument, we need to start preparing for an alien invasion. All reasonable people would agree with this.
Except for the fact that 98% of all astronomers and physicists DO NOT believe in a nearby alien invasion, whereas 98% of all climatologists, geologists etc. believe in global warming.
Hence I would still buy "lottery ticket A" any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Yes, understood, but your case for the alien predicament is completely based around history and science etc... - showing the unlikly-hood. Which you accept. But that same method and reasoning is how we see global warming, which (hipocritcally speaking) you do not accept! Have aliens been attacking? no. has it been getting warmer? yes. So your answer should be to take action - but how much is the tricky part :)...... in a way we
Well mav7469, are you still reading comments? I think I can poke a hole in the idea that this argument makes False vs True "moot"; there are other risks to taking action when unnecessary than just the financial cost; there's also a cost to credibility. If what we do causes a depression and we later find out it was unnecessary, how inclined are future generations going to be to listen to future warnings that sound similar to ours? Of course society needs to be careful; careful about crying "wolf"
As stated on the video, the statement is simplified. The largest two arguments against doing anything about most environmental issues including global warming are that it is not really happening and the cost to do something about it. That is why those were chosen in this experiment.
"The largest two arguments against doing anything about most environmental issues including global warming are that it is not really happening and the cost to do something about it." - mav7469
Well, those are the most common, but that doesn't make them the most significant; if we are to "assume global warming is real" for the sake of the results of that assumption, it could have counterproductive effects, such as future generations not taking more legitimate environmental concerns seriously.
Now I am no "tree hugger". I do not drive a hybrid car, I take public transportation due to time constraints but I would much rather drive into the city each day. However, I do believe in leaving this planet in a good condition for my children and grand children (if I have any grand kids).
I don't even drive. Last semester at MUN, I walked about a mile to my first class from my apartment behind Churchill Square (and about a mile back from my last) most of the time, and when I didn't feel like walking I took the Metrobus. Gander doesn't have public transit, but I bike to my summer job in it on sunny days, and only take a ride from my parents when they want to give me one.
"I do believe in leaving this planet in a good condition for my children" - mav7469
I believe in leaving this planet in a good condition for future generations of human beings. I don't even plan on having children.
However, it's important to remember that leaving it in good condition doesn't mean basing decisions on worst-case scenarios, and if doing so results in false alarms people might be less inclined to listen to other environmental concerns and cause harm to the planet indirectly.
As far as credibility, I will not even mention how our current administrations is viewed in most of the world for everything else they have done, most of the rest of the world has already acknowledged that global warming is a problem and that it needs to be resolved. The problem is that the three biggest makers of CO2 gas do not think there is a problem. They are the USA, Russia and China.
"As far as credibility, I will not even mention how our current administrations is viewed in most of the world for everything else they have done" - mav7469
You just did. o.o I presume you're referring to US government crediblity? In which case, I think that's all the more reason to see a lesson to learn.
That said, I wasn't referring to the credibility of 1 nation, but the credibility of environmentalism; we have to be careful about what causes we take on, if we want to keep our momentum.
This is like statistics type I error and type II error, type I error being row two and type II error being row one. Lol...did anyone else get reminded of this?
ok so i have 1 problem and its not with the thinking in this vid. the global depression in column A could cuase WW 3 and that would be bad ... real bad as the US alone has enough Nukes to destroy the world i think 20+ times over that is my only criticism of the thoery at this time ... it potentially trades 1 apocolypse for another and weather is something we can adapt to but radiation we cant
general motors have produced a car that runs on batteries and water but the governments wont allow mass production as water cannot be taxed ! but i thought they wanted to save the world ? we contribute less than 3% of the co2 in the atmosphere and water vapour is the biggest contributor. do you really think that you as "man" really have the power to destroy a 4 and a half BILLION year old planet in 200 years of the industrialised world ? dont listen to this twat, he just wants fame like Al Gore.
Water is removed from the after 10 days, no matter how much we put in. If more water goes into the atmosphere, it will just rain more. CO2 however lasts for 100 years in the atmosphere.
if the ''twat'' ur talkin bout is this guy in the vid then im sorry u missed the point of this vid. he even says that humans would probably survive and that the planet would it just wouldnt be hospitable ... watch listn and learn before u comment plz
Global warming made by human is one of the biggest lies in history. If it's not how could you explain that people in North Europe in middle ages could grow oranges and more exotic fruits, while now they can do it only by using greenhouses. There is global warming and global colding, but it all happens naturally and periodically. Why only institutes sponsored by governments, which get money from "ecotaxes", say about that people are the only cause of global warming? Find the answer by yourself...
Haha, let's all point and laugh at magicjakub. His argument (or challenge) basically amounts to this: "if X really is caused by Y, then explain why X happened in the past". This is no different than asking us to explain our childhood flu because we said that our current flu is caused by a virus.
If anyone wants to know why magicjakub is an idiot, watch my video, "An Even Simpler Proof of Global Warming By Greenhouse Gases"
The law which tells that you can say what you think is not a law too offend people you don't agree with. If you believe in this lie so strong that you can't accept any other opinion, then you are an idiot and let's laugh at you. Best wishes for all and Happy Easter;)
The most likely and attractive scenario is that good science will discredit the IPCC and it's political affiliates.The global warming panic will become rationalised and retrospectively recognised as an information catastrophe/fraud.His chart and commentary were psuedo logical and hubristic.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is not real. The real cause is solar radiation. When there is a rise in temperature there is rise in CO2(800 year lag). If this guy did his homework he would alread know that the worst option wont happen, at least not for thousands of years. Politicians like to use scare tactics to get your money. He would love to give another chunk of his paycheck to the government for nothing, except making the "corrupt" UN even more powerful, while 3rd world nations suffer.
This is not even interesting, too clever by half. Nothing more than Pascal's argument for believing in God... penalty is too great to not believe. Fallacious precautionary principle ... Delaney Clause ... give enough water or air to a human being and the person will die. Let's walk around in sterile white suits. Climate change is not an epistemological problem about perception or nature it is first of all about science. The climate has warmed, GHGs force warming.
The major conclusions being used to alarm the uneducated public and feed the media are projections of models of highly non linear systems based on business as usual assumptions.
IPCC itself says models cannot be used for forecasting but politicians writing the Policy Summary use a very tricky way of getting around by attaching a qualitative probability measures ("highly likely" > 90% ...) which is meaningless. Rubbish. Unquantified risk is uncertainty is unknown.
Not cutesy pictures of polar bears and penguins. So we can all become movie stars or like Gore take financial positions in companies that could reap huge financial returns. Real climate science is more complex than particle physics and is incapable of being modeled.
Science is not consensus that is an oxymoron. Science is not done by politicians. Real science is done by individuals. Galileo, Newton, Einstein, superconductivity ... knowledge comes from evidencial discovery not politicians dictating science.
The only problem with this idea is that we can make a difference. We already have.... And that alone has brought us to where we are. We decided to bring more and more people into the world and advance or ways from no technology to where it is today. We cannot turn that around. We have made such a bad influence on the planet that we cannot stop or even barely slow the result.
Good point! Pretty obvious, lol.TY for the black and white message. I'm pretty sure that CO2 actually absorbs heat. anyways money is jst a alot of numbers which can easily be displaced and manipulated sooo it would make sense to spend the green on the green, yeah know what im saying.
Fair enough argument, even if the main point is the sensible 'safe route'. What i would like to see, and what is really missing from youtube, is a video that actually explains how the concentration of CO2 is linked to rising temperatures in the Earth's atmosphere with scientific evidence and not just "it causes energy from the sun to reflect back" as they teach in most schools. Untill then i'm never going to be completely convinced that this is true.
The problem with the argument is that it does incorporate time.. The yes row will be within a decade the no row will maybe be within 50-100 years. The depreciation of the cost will probably make the two choices about equal at the moment.
Alright, what if we don't do anything and global climate change DO happen, BUT it turns to be a good thing. Imagine the same world but better. I'm just giving another possibility to the matrix.
Would it not be better to actual understand what is warming the earth if it is warming? If we are not warming it then going with "A" will not solve anything and we would still end up in the worse case. I think it would be better to invest our time and resouces to finding out what is causing warming if any.
Catholics tell us if we don't live as active, baptized Catholics we will burn forever in hell when we die.
Jews and Buddhists tell us there is probably no hell.
I'm less afraid of the results of failing to believe and follow Jews and Buddhists; if I ignore them and it turns out they were right, the results won't be so bad.
Catholics have the worst punishment for not believing and following them, so I'll ignore the facts entirely and follow the Catholics. That's the lotto ticket I'm gonna buy.
Seems that you have it all figured out. But I would say that you are WRONG. The effects of a Global Depression as you put it could be just as bad or worse than your worst senerio. And until you can give some facts that the Earth is warming more than .01 of a degree over the last 50 years I think the risk in action outweighs the inaction.
one very important thing u dint show in ur arguement is the fact that different people will be affected to a different extent and contribute to a different extant too.. and this would mean that the developing econmies like central asia and africa will be hit most severly for no fault of theirs..heck without even their knoledge...
Very good argument indeed. Good to see a fellow oregonian taking action. Saw an article in my local paper about this video, and had to check it out. Too bad the government will probably be the death of us all due to their foolish and greedy inaction.
Here is relevant question to ponder: Is it feasible that human culture can do whatever it likes within the biosphere with no lethal consequences, or are there natural rules of some kind that govern the way the biosphere functions? If the latter is true, then culture must perforce integrate itself into the larger whole in order to maximise biospherical health.
Oh wait, he did talk about the probabilities. The illustrious, "if you check em they'll come up like my graph." Leave the key issue out. As a Christian, I don't like to give this type of response. Yet we Christians do it all the time. grr
Absurd. This brand of reasoning is behind so many terrible decisions mankind has made its not funny. Basically its fear-mongering. "Column" logic doesn't supersede "row" logic in most cases or in this case.
Lets take this idea and apply it to invading Iraq over the possibility of WMDsI think you will find that (using this type of analysis) going into Iraq was the "best" ticket to go for... as doing nothing... well least we wouldn't have climate change to worry about.
Truth is we don't know enough about the way the world heats up/cools down... but if global warming or the thought of it stops us being wasteful and makes us become more efficient then that's a good thing.
Lets take this idea and apply it to invading Iraq over the possibility of WMDsI think you will find that (using this type of analysis) going into Iraq was the "best" ticket to go for... as doing nothing... well least we wouldn't have climate change to worry about.
Truth is we don't know enough about the way the world heats up/cools down... but if global warming or the thought of it stops us being wasteful and makes us become more efficient then that's a good thing.
So, basically, Global Warming doesn't exist, and it's just another controversy (like the global cooling controversy up until the late sixtees) And even during the "global cooling crisis" they said it was caused by humans. So I get it...humans caused both global heating and cooling. Makes sense...
Bottom Line: Global Warming is a natural occurance. They just want gov. funding.
It is the most absurd "logic" I have ever seen. Same "logic" can be applied to reach conclusions like :
"do not go for a swim on a warm summer day". The worst outcome of swimming is you drown. The worst outcome of not swimming is just feeling less comfortable or not being able to do something pleasant.
According to "logic" it is useless to debate the probability of drowning since it cannot be known for certain.
WHich is exactly why you need to look at the probabilities.
This video is from Wonderingmind42, and he acknowledges he made a mistake or two in this video. That's one of them.
The revised argument -- the one you should be attacking, because this one's obviously flawed -- is How It All Ends. (v=mF_anaVcCXg) Check that one out and see if your logic still holds.
"According to "logic" it is useless to debate the probability of drowning since it cannot be known for certain. "
no, the conclusion that that person would come to, based on the logic in the video, is that they will avoid swimming, as drowning is a possible result of swimming, and drowning is the worst case scenario. Not taking part in the actual action of swimming would mean no chance of drowning
This video would look like a better solution if I wasn't so positive that humans are not the cause of global warming. I can confindently say that I feel comfortable with no action being taken, because valid scientific evidence says that the earth has consistantly gone through periods of natural heating and cooling. In the sixtees it was global cooling (also "caused by humans").
My point is this: Humans are not causing global warming and therefore no action needs to be taken. Arguements?
Yes, there have been natural heating and cooling periods, but the amount of heating we're currently going through is far greater than anything else history has every seen.
Would a lack of action against GCC cause global catastrophe?The midievel warm period led to increased economic wealth due to better crops.A switch to alternative energy sources will have a negative impact on developing countries who simply cannot afford it. Also, there is a possibility that global warming is out of human control. Taking actions against GCC then, would lead to an even worse case scenario: global economical depression on top of the problems caused by global warming.
1 flaw is the assumption that a GW solution must only come from proactive governmental measures. Most innovation has not arisen in this way. A solution can arise "accidentally" in the absence governmental measures, which measures may deter a solution. For example, a growing economy may produce investment dollars that lead to a technological solution. If the economy suffers from governmental action, it may take away the critical investment dollar that would otherwise solve the problem.
That is true, the point is that the analysis (based on Pascal's wager) is oversimplified. To be fair, another outcome (in my view, less likely) would be that the regulatory measures have a benign economic effect.
Sounds like Pascal's wager. Hahaha I hope this guy is an atheist too. It would be too funny. Let me create some imaginary horribly bad problem that we all need to prepare for. Haha. Who hasn't dealt with this logic before anyway? Should I prepare for the worst or not waste my time?????????? IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE PROBABILITY!!!!!!!!!! Something completely left out of this arguement, making this arguement MOOT.
But without the governments help in the situation, things can not happen quick enough. Do you want to take the chance that you are screwing up the planet for your kids? I don't
The issue is "what is the chance?" What if I told you that you have to eat 10 snicker bars today at 3-3:30 or else the moon will crash into your face at superman speeds? You would ignore me, based on the probability, not the severity of the outcome. My point is that you shouldn't leave the scientists out of this debate and simply say that the worst possibility is too bad. This is Pascal with<inf. gains and <inf.costs. Making it a less strong version of pascals wager.
Stupid. You simplified 2 choices into allways single one. This is not an argument. What if we fuck up climate by trying to change it, since uptill now we changed it without will, imagine that we change it in bad direction. What you are saying, is "GIVE MONEY, IF YOU GIVE MONEY WHAT'S THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN"
Nice. But full of errors. You added a grid for 2*2 choice. What i would like you to do is add time cause in this form you could try convinceing people 5K years ago. Also you didn't say that lott-ticket B is for free, and lott-ticket A must be bought over and over again. But hay, glad to see young persons are thinking.
Right now, it seems that science can say that yes, human industrial activity is producing more CO2 emissions than nature itself (arguably though, WE ARE a manifestation of nature).
I don't believe that reasonable climatologists are willing to make any concrete predictions as to what the effect of that increased CO2 content in the atmosphere might have on the global climate.
Great video, only one litle mistake: if the GCC is false and we take no actions, we won't be completly happy, we would still have looses, like many spieces who would disapers when cutting down forests... so it's even better to take action :)
Doctor: Hell if I know, son. Maybe you are and maybe you aren't.
Patient: Then why are you giving me an injection?
Doctor: It's better to do something than nothing at all, right?
Patient: What's in that shot, anyway?
Doctor: Beats me. I'm just going to assume this medicine will cure you of whatever you may or may not have. The consequences of doing nothing are too great. Here. This chart will explain everything.
well, it looks like you came down with this a long time ago. but then you got better without doing anything. then seems like you "got sick" again without anything causing it and got better. looks like your body knows how to take care of itself.
Wow, it's like Pascal's Wager except for global warming. Pretty damn good! At least you are applying P's Wager to something that actually matters, unlike whether or not you actually die when you ... die.
That's not the only problem with this type of argument: death isn't the only outcome of being struck by lightning. Similarly, global catastrophe on that scale isn't the only outcome of global warming. Sure, it's the worst, but how likely is it? That's an answer reserved for psychics and super computers able to model the incredibly complex human socio-economic system, and nobody has done that accurately yet.
Feel free to send this response to the original video author. - Maddox
Hey there. This is the guy in the video (wonderingmind42). I've read through the comments on this page, and thought people might be interested in my three follow-up videos, where I address (or so I think) most all of the concerns expressed here. You can find them on my YouTube or Break accounts, title "Patching Holes" #1-3. Thanks for the time and thought!
Is lightning going to strike me if I leave the house today? Yes (stay home) | No (go out)
---------------------------------------
True | I live. | I die.
False | Waste my time. | I'm happy.
I can't predict the row (I don't know if I'll get struck by lightning or not), but I can choose the column, and the only column I can choose to minimize the risk of dying from a lightning strike is to choose the "yes" column and to stay home for the rest of my life.
I emailed Maddox about this, here's his response in a bunch of posts.
I'm not sure I entirely buy the argument because the outcome of column B might be inaccurate. Breadbaskets turning into dust bowls, causing global famine? Maybe. This model doesn't allow for probabilities of each outcome.
I could make a similar argument for never leaving the house:
the model wasn't made for all the possibilities, just a rough look at the worst outcomes...give the guy a break, all he wants to do is educate people on the world around us.
The simple truth is that there isn't a question of "climate change: true or false?" there's a whole range of possbilities of where the world is heading. The end of the world could come in a million different forms, and climate change is no more likely than the others. So, I think the question is: is it even POSSIBLE to choose column A?
His logic is valid, this "silver bullet argument" suffers because it is incomplete. Remember Pascal's wager?. Pascal wagered that even if there isn't a God, you might as well be observant, because hell is far worse than wasting time praying. Well, as it turns out, if you have no proof that there's a god, you're going to be wasting hours a day praying to an INFINITE number of possible Gods.
What if we try to stop a total catastrophy and it does not work? Still have total mahem plus we are broke... What about that box.. there are not enough boxes which cover all the possibilities. A few massive volcanos and we would be in the ice age.
interesting. But you could use the same analysis regarding buying a safe vehicle / guns/weapons to live day to day. If you do run into a murderer and get killed you are in box 4. Yet no one would suggest that we buy a tank and a ak 47 to assure that you won't get killed.
In column A, stand there and get shot at, and in column B, dive for cover. Column A: you don't waste any energy. What if they don't hit you? Column B: if the bullet would have hit you, you're safe. If they didn't even fire a bullet, though, you have wasted energy on your hands.
It's a classic logic argument based on Aristotle's truth table. Even if you tone down the consequences, the basic outcome is the same. And I'll be taking ticket A, please, thank you.
I buy it! Now we have to consider the multiple persons prisoner dilemma game. How can we get every party involved to cooperate to get this happening?!
Up to 5% of the GNP, supposedly, compared to a much, much higher percentage if we take action too late.
But that's somewhat misleading, since you can make money going green. Green technologies are fueling Silicon Valley's current boom, so at least some of the cost--and perhaps a lot of it--will be mitigated by economic growth in green technologies.
The origins of "global warming" alarmism had its roots in the 1970s-era fears of "global cooling" and an impending ice age, resulting from the 1940-1970 global temperature decline. Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin suggested at the time that man-made greenhouse gas emissions might offset the cooling by warming the atmosphere.
Pascal's Wager came to my mind too, and whether you're talking about an eternity in hell or the creation of hell on earth, it's a stupid argument. The argument relies on probability The probability that hell exists or the probability that global warming will lead to the apocalypse as described by this guy. I think most intelligentsia will agree that both have a low probability. You can live your life in fear of the improbable or in blissful ignorance, or somewhere in-between, or kill yourself.
Why isn't an informed & justified life based on transcendent reality God exists an option? If He doesn't exist & hasn't communicated in a verifiable way, what difference is it how we live or die? Algore preserves the environment & I destroy it, who has the objective, justified authority to tell us we're wrong? Since when does the majority rule when it comes to truth & RU implying that since most have drank the KoolAid there is a high PROBABILITY they're right? Either way it's a stupid argument
Because, nitenut, the possibility that God as you know it exists is a vanishingly small possibility. There are approximately 4,000 religions in the world, almost all of which are mutually exclusive. And all have exactly the same amount of hard evidence to verify their truth: none. Just like there's no evidence Santa Claus exists, but millions of children believe in him. So we have to make our important decisions based on scientific evidence, not potentially infinite faith-based beliefs.
Try to use some immaterial Non-evolutionary formed abilities (ie: logic & reason). Hopefully you know the difference between Truth (St. Nicholas lived in the 4th century) and fantasy (Santa). Next, getting back to the topic, even if nature imposes specific limits on the conditions under which we can survive, the question is, how do we get from "This is what nature imposes", to "This is correct"? Does nature give a crap about truth? Only fools think so.
444Jr, there is sufficient historical evidence to support the existence of St. Nicholas. There is NO hard evidence to support that he had flying reindeer. Similarly, there is historical evidence to support the existence of Jesus. There is NO hard evidence to support that he's the son of God (or that God exists). Extraordinary claims require a far greater burden of proof than mundane claims.
Hey--this is the guy in the video (wonderingmind42). Your comment made me laugh pleasantly. Thanks. Sincerely. It's nice to get criticism that can be witty without being mean.
lidarman2 Interesting point about the car and all. But look at it like this. If you wreak your car you yourself may die or even kill five or six people. But would you had a 50/50 chance of killing billions?
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.
Actually, "Action" when its "False" won't lead to a "Global Depression", what it will lead to is better efficiencies in our economy and our environment.
Why? Because when we save money because we're spending less money on energy, we can spend that money on other needs and wants.
Isn't "Inaction" a deliberate choice? I think the best way is to remain scientific about this issue and resist the movements towards politicization and censure.
You said it best, "Science Fiction", C2R2. Your argument is based entirety on the assumption that C1R1 will result in less devistation than C2R2. That is not an agreed upon conclusion. Human Global Warming is a Sham designed to extract public resources not unlike the "Ozone Hole" was.
if you dickwads feel so compelled to act as skeptical critics, make your own damn films. we don't care what you BELIEVE. we, as the world, need someone to SPEAK OUT to open our eyes to the true severity of this problem we face. forget politics. it's our duty as peoples of this world to play our part in protecting the environment. if we fail in our quest, THEN you dipshits can bicker about politics all you damn well want in a catastrophic world.
Selfish reasoning. Of course you KNOW that YOUR way must be the best one. Some people don't have the means to create films such as these, instead we're voicing our opinion as this film ENCOURAGES.
what "opinion" might you be referring to? the opinion that perhaps global warming isn't a reality? that we don't have the means to stop it? those opinions are absolutely worthless. to be frank, no one gives a damn about what you THINK. it's what you DO that matters.
No, the opinions on what's causing it or what to actually do about it. You're saying there's only one solution when that solution has unnecessary detriments. Doing without knowing can have terrible effects that outweigh the original problem.
My problem with this "argumentation" is the following:
Probabilities are infinite, this means that you can create the same (prisoner's dillemma) diagram for a whole host of other possible problems.
How about Hostile Alien Invasion? Bio chemical attacks or super-virusses? We don't know if it'll happen, but better to be prepared then to be left behind, right?
Where do you stop preparing for the worst, and when do you start thinking rationally about the argument you're trying to avoid?
Game over for climate change skeptics.
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (Best) study was set up to test the findings of other studies and was part-funded by US billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch.
The results of BEST match those of prior studies.
So far this week the conservative main stream media has largely ignored the study. Maybe because they're waiting for it to be officially published. That'd be a first. Probably because they're working on the Spin job they'll do.
xdassinx 3 months ago
Why does this guy remind me of "Bill Nye the Science Guy" ...
SobeHall 6 months ago
What about the current satellite readings that show global warming is a hoax??
SobeHall 6 months ago
Oh shit, Pascal's Wager! You got me.
Now I believe in Global warming and God!
Sepero1 8 months ago
@Sepero1 not trying to change your mind. Just getting you to think about it. If you want a closed mind, that is your problem.
mav7469 6 months ago
@mav7469 Sepero's replay was quite clever though you are too dull witted to see why... Your response is an ad hominen. Educate yourself before you make a bigger fool of yourself...
nlpjohn 3 weeks ago
This man must have never taken a logic class. He makes untrue assumptions, assigns conclusion from invalid premises, and disregards entire variables from the truth table.
If you are looking for a solid argument for global warming, this is not it.
Please do your own research into the validity of Anthropogenic GW. The best utilities are University and Public Library scholarly journal databases. There are many studies showing vastly different predictions for our future. Good luck in your research!
plustax12 1 year ago
@plustax12 actually his arguments are all valid, if you can prove him different, post a vid. :)
donschmiddy 6 months ago
I still feel , if it is possible we are a factor in climate change, error on the side of action is still better than inaction due to selfishness based in fear of loss of revenue. Even if we can't stop climate change, we could slow it to buy us time to develop and implement a new energy infrastructure. Some of these comments are still the exact problem this argument is trying to put to rest. Hair splitting finger pointing obstructionist arguments that pulls us away from the issue. .
B1acksh0es 2 years ago
A class of mine had a debate on this video's argument, and I'm sorry to say that this logic is full of holes so spacious that anyone proficient with a double-clutch could drive trucks through them. That said, you did a good job in that the argument here was straight forward and convincing. Few people would be willing to argue with you on this topic, and that skill (namely showmanship) will help you in whatever you choose to pursue in life. I do suggest that you revisit the skeptical argument.
blueberryearmuffinz 2 years ago
I'm waiting for just ONE hole revealed. The odds are in this guy's favor.
vincedeporter 2 years ago
Arguments aside, this was a great video. It made me think. Few videos do that on the web, so good job on wanting to be informed and ask questions.
jamesremus07 2 years ago
other possibilities: coercion was excercised, and it did hardly make a dent. But it costed 3 trillion dollar for which world hunger could eliminated, everybody made literate, malaria and aids eradicated.
This is actually truth: expected temperature change in case of coercion is not even noticeable on a kitchen thermometer.
Downside of coercion is that in the past 100 years governments killed 262 million people, excluding wars. Want to take the bet that this time they can handle the coercion?
modelmark 2 years ago
"global warming " is a croc what happens will not have anything to do with us. there is no proof of it.
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 2 years ago
Some actions we take can save the planet in more ways than just reducing global warming. Switching to renewable energy resources saves a lot of the natural environment that we are destorying at the moment. And is somethine we have to do to secure our future
fistusfanius 3 years ago
This is Pascal's Wager reworked for the environment.
I don't think it's a bad argument. However, Most people want to do SOMETHING about the environment. Even people that don't believe there is a crisis still want cleaner air would love to eventually power there entire house with solar or wind energy.
The question isn't should we act, because most people want to. The question is how much should we spend and how many freedoms are we willing to give up?
permanentlydeleted 3 years ago
I sadly beg to differ. Most people don't control the media, coal, or oil. THESE are the ones that DON"T want to rock the boat.
vincedeporter 2 years ago
Nice and convincing, but misleading. You state right out that we can't know for certain if GCC is true or false. Fine. But you must also admit then that we can't know for certain that whatever we do to try to fix it won't make the problem worse. You need to add all the problems from the "true/no" box into the "false/yes" box.
tychicus 3 years ago
How would anticlimate change action create environmental and public heath disasters?
sdmitch16 2 years ago
"We can't know for certain that whatever we do to try to fix it won't make the problem worse?" So true -- so let's do nothing. Let's not even try to find better solutions. Let's just 'see' what happens. Your comment is misleading to a burn.
vincedeporter 2 years ago
good arguement, i give give you a gold star.
BUT,
your entire arguement is unrealistic.
why?
its too late.
the goal of the united states future presidents(obama/mccain) is to reduce emissions by 60% by the year 2050. that means that we are going to still be effecting our enviornment for lots and lots of decades, if not a century.
sure if we shut down all power plants and stopped driving today. we would be in good a shape. but that senario is almost equal to no/true. if not worse
ps3master33 3 years ago
what do you think?
ps3master33 3 years ago
You are forgetting that there can be environmental catastrophes on the yes/false side as well such as global cooling and slipping into another ice age. The trick is what exactly to do and in what amount. Please stop drinking the kool aid and do some actual critical thinking.
asbecka 3 years ago 2
I agree that there can be catastrophes and things that were not expected. But keep in mind that the scientific community has stated that "Humans are the main cause of Global Climate Change". If humans caused the problem, shouldn't humans fix the problem? Let me put it another way. We knew about the Sub Prime Mortgage problem at least 2 years ago. If we had done something about it then, would be in as bad a mess as we are now?
mav7469 3 years ago
Why do plastic bottles say: "Please recycle. Do not reuse." ???
777tgif777 3 years ago
On the plastic bottle thing: I'm assuming your serious about this question- you could probably look it up. But i'd think it would have to do with how people have been getting sick by using old water bottles. like, bacteria builds in them and then people re-use them. But i could be wrong
rvel 3 years ago
haha NOT serious at all. Thanks for replying though.
777tgif777 3 years ago
Yeah but i will be dead by the time all the really bad stuff happens so i couldnt give a flying shit about global warming.
crag73 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
yeah!! i dont give a shit!!! global warming is bs . prove it. you cant. damn stupid idiot liberals!! mike savage hero
WorldWarIICOLLECTOR 3 years ago
so you dont give a shit about your children, nephews, or anyone else that will be faced with this problem?
ps3master33 3 years ago
You take for granted that we can stop climate change. In reality, i don't think we can. No matter how much money we spend, we cannot alter our climate. It is a natural process which has been going on for ages and ages since the beginning of all times. What we can do, however, is prepare ourselves for a warmer world.
starjinx 3 years ago
Well, if we applied that logic to every idea that surfaced, without concern for validity... wouldn't that just be a recipe for tasty ruination? Say, for example, giving into the global cooling fears of the 70's. Your brilliant theory seemingly hinges on giving into fear at every juncture instead of relying on reason. I'd say that would be one of many holes.
lurdt 3 years ago
Well everybody, even if human pollution isn't contributing to a climate change, what's the harm in trying to make it cleaner? Eventually we will need to preserve the Earth to maximize the time the human race is in existence, so why not start now and be prepared? We shouldn't have to make this decision. It would be 10 times easier if everyone did what they could just to help the Earth.
asianpiglet 3 years ago
Man has this guy been drinking the "AL GORE" Kool Aid or what?!
crawdaddy357 3 years ago
If you listen to the worst predictions about an alien invasion, there will be a lot of bad things that will happen. The complete destruction of the planet, the complete erasing of humanity's existence on Earth, the enslaving of all children. If we followed this argument, we need to start preparing for an alien invasion. All reasonable people would agree with this.
krf7 3 years ago
Except for the fact that 98% of all astronomers and physicists DO NOT believe in a nearby alien invasion, whereas 98% of all climatologists, geologists etc. believe in global warming.
Hence I would still buy "lottery ticket A" any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
thomasbrigsted 3 years ago
Yes, understood, but your case for the alien predicament is completely based around history and science etc... - showing the unlikly-hood. Which you accept. But that same method and reasoning is how we see global warming, which (hipocritcally speaking) you do not accept! Have aliens been attacking? no. has it been getting warmer? yes. So your answer should be to take action - but how much is the tricky part :)...... in a way we
ARE prepared for alien invasion :).
rvel 3 years ago
Well mav7469, are you still reading comments? I think I can poke a hole in the idea that this argument makes False vs True "moot"; there are other risks to taking action when unnecessary than just the financial cost; there's also a cost to credibility. If what we do causes a depression and we later find out it was unnecessary, how inclined are future generations going to be to listen to future warnings that sound similar to ours? Of course society needs to be careful; careful about crying "wolf"
HiddenFacedMatt 3 years ago
As stated on the video, the statement is simplified. The largest two arguments against doing anything about most environmental issues including global warming are that it is not really happening and the cost to do something about it. That is why those were chosen in this experiment.
mav7469 3 years ago
"The largest two arguments against doing anything about most environmental issues including global warming are that it is not really happening and the cost to do something about it." - mav7469
Well, those are the most common, but that doesn't make them the most significant; if we are to "assume global warming is real" for the sake of the results of that assumption, it could have counterproductive effects, such as future generations not taking more legitimate environmental concerns seriously.
HiddenFacedMatt 3 years ago
Now I am no "tree hugger". I do not drive a hybrid car, I take public transportation due to time constraints but I would much rather drive into the city each day. However, I do believe in leaving this planet in a good condition for my children and grand children (if I have any grand kids).
mav7469 3 years ago
"Now I am no "tree hugger"." - mav7469
I never called you one.
"I do not drive a hybrid car" - mav7469
I don't even drive. Last semester at MUN, I walked about a mile to my first class from my apartment behind Churchill Square (and about a mile back from my last) most of the time, and when I didn't feel like walking I took the Metrobus. Gander doesn't have public transit, but I bike to my summer job in it on sunny days, and only take a ride from my parents when they want to give me one.
HiddenFacedMatt 3 years ago
"I do believe in leaving this planet in a good condition for my children" - mav7469
I believe in leaving this planet in a good condition for future generations of human beings. I don't even plan on having children.
However, it's important to remember that leaving it in good condition doesn't mean basing decisions on worst-case scenarios, and if doing so results in false alarms people might be less inclined to listen to other environmental concerns and cause harm to the planet indirectly.
HiddenFacedMatt 3 years ago
As far as credibility, I will not even mention how our current administrations is viewed in most of the world for everything else they have done, most of the rest of the world has already acknowledged that global warming is a problem and that it needs to be resolved. The problem is that the three biggest makers of CO2 gas do not think there is a problem. They are the USA, Russia and China.
mav7469 3 years ago
"As far as credibility, I will not even mention how our current administrations is viewed in most of the world for everything else they have done" - mav7469
You just did. o.o I presume you're referring to US government crediblity? In which case, I think that's all the more reason to see a lesson to learn.
That said, I wasn't referring to the credibility of 1 nation, but the credibility of environmentalism; we have to be careful about what causes we take on, if we want to keep our momentum.
HiddenFacedMatt 3 years ago
@HiddenFacedMatt you mean like the first hurricane that almost hit New Orleans, and then Katrina?
tdiandtdafan 1 year ago
wai2 Pascal's Wager.
fail.
User5127 3 years ago
if i change my lightbulbs and buy an electric car the ice caps wont melt right
kooldog98 3 years ago
Oh my god please, stop fukken trying to score already!!!
ErileMatan 3 years ago
This is like statistics type I error and type II error, type I error being row two and type II error being row one. Lol...did anyone else get reminded of this?
meehahn 3 years ago
I like column B, it sounds like an adventure...
ChromeLocust 3 years ago
ok so i have 1 problem and its not with the thinking in this vid. the global depression in column A could cuase WW 3 and that would be bad ... real bad as the US alone has enough Nukes to destroy the world i think 20+ times over that is my only criticism of the thoery at this time ... it potentially trades 1 apocolypse for another and weather is something we can adapt to but radiation we cant
dasmonkeyman 3 years ago
cool video, but i would say there is a middle way too, u only show the extreme decisions (sry for my english)
juschtn 3 years ago
general motors have produced a car that runs on batteries and water but the governments wont allow mass production as water cannot be taxed ! but i thought they wanted to save the world ? we contribute less than 3% of the co2 in the atmosphere and water vapour is the biggest contributor. do you really think that you as "man" really have the power to destroy a 4 and a half BILLION year old planet in 200 years of the industrialised world ? dont listen to this twat, he just wants fame like Al Gore.
orriblefuck 3 years ago
Man, you are a horrible fuck (up) indeed.
BeachofDreams 3 years ago
Water is removed from the after 10 days, no matter how much we put in. If more water goes into the atmosphere, it will just rain more. CO2 however lasts for 100 years in the atmosphere.
pochoandfriends 3 years ago
if the ''twat'' ur talkin bout is this guy in the vid then im sorry u missed the point of this vid. he even says that humans would probably survive and that the planet would it just wouldnt be hospitable ... watch listn and learn before u comment plz
dasmonkeyman 3 years ago
Global warming made by human is one of the biggest lies in history. If it's not how could you explain that people in North Europe in middle ages could grow oranges and more exotic fruits, while now they can do it only by using greenhouses. There is global warming and global colding, but it all happens naturally and periodically. Why only institutes sponsored by governments, which get money from "ecotaxes", say about that people are the only cause of global warming? Find the answer by yourself...
magicjakub 3 years ago
Haha, let's all point and laugh at magicjakub. His argument (or challenge) basically amounts to this: "if X really is caused by Y, then explain why X happened in the past". This is no different than asking us to explain our childhood flu because we said that our current flu is caused by a virus.
If anyone wants to know why magicjakub is an idiot, watch my video, "An Even Simpler Proof of Global Warming By Greenhouse Gases"
BeachofDreams 3 years ago
The law which tells that you can say what you think is not a law too offend people you don't agree with. If you believe in this lie so strong that you can't accept any other opinion, then you are an idiot and let's laugh at you. Best wishes for all and Happy Easter;)
magicjakub 3 years ago
who cares we all gonna die one day
strombolique 4 years ago
What about your children?
mav7469 3 years ago
Naive!
The most likely and attractive scenario is that good science will discredit the IPCC and it's political affiliates.The global warming panic will become rationalised and retrospectively recognised as an information catastrophe/fraud.His chart and commentary were psuedo logical and hubristic.
whest 4 years ago
Anthropogenic Global Warming is not real. The real cause is solar radiation. When there is a rise in temperature there is rise in CO2(800 year lag). If this guy did his homework he would alread know that the worst option wont happen, at least not for thousands of years. Politicians like to use scare tactics to get your money. He would love to give another chunk of his paycheck to the government for nothing, except making the "corrupt" UN even more powerful, while 3rd world nations suffer.
usmcphrog46 4 years ago
Take a look at my video, "skeptic's fallacies", for why the "lag problem" is no problem at all, and is actually based upon faulty logic.
BeachofDreams 3 years ago
This is not even interesting, too clever by half. Nothing more than Pascal's argument for believing in God... penalty is too great to not believe. Fallacious precautionary principle ... Delaney Clause ... give enough water or air to a human being and the person will die. Let's walk around in sterile white suits. Climate change is not an epistemological problem about perception or nature it is first of all about science. The climate has warmed, GHGs force warming.
dipakgupta525 4 years ago
The major conclusions being used to alarm the uneducated public and feed the media are projections of models of highly non linear systems based on business as usual assumptions.
dipakgupta525 4 years ago
IPCC itself says models cannot be used for forecasting but politicians writing the Policy Summary use a very tricky way of getting around by attaching a qualitative probability measures ("highly likely" > 90% ...) which is meaningless. Rubbish. Unquantified risk is uncertainty is unknown.
dipakgupta525 4 years ago
Not cutesy pictures of polar bears and penguins. So we can all become movie stars or like Gore take financial positions in companies that could reap huge financial returns. Real climate science is more complex than particle physics and is incapable of being modeled.
dipakgupta525 4 years ago
Science is not consensus that is an oxymoron. Science is not done by politicians. Real science is done by individuals. Galileo, Newton, Einstein, superconductivity ... knowledge comes from evidencial discovery not politicians dictating science.
dipakgupta525 4 years ago
The only problem with this idea is that we can make a difference. We already have.... And that alone has brought us to where we are. We decided to bring more and more people into the world and advance or ways from no technology to where it is today. We cannot turn that around. We have made such a bad influence on the planet that we cannot stop or even barely slow the result.
rschace 4 years ago
Good point! Pretty obvious, lol.TY for the black and white message. I'm pretty sure that CO2 actually absorbs heat. anyways money is jst a alot of numbers which can easily be displaced and manipulated sooo it would make sense to spend the green on the green, yeah know what im saying.
munchinmush 4 years ago
Fair enough argument, even if the main point is the sensible 'safe route'. What i would like to see, and what is really missing from youtube, is a video that actually explains how the concentration of CO2 is linked to rising temperatures in the Earth's atmosphere with scientific evidence and not just "it causes energy from the sun to reflect back" as they teach in most schools. Untill then i'm never going to be completely convinced that this is true.
Devans9000 4 years ago
Brilliant
Jameswynne1 4 years ago
The problem with the argument is that it does incorporate time.. The yes row will be within a decade the no row will maybe be within 50-100 years. The depreciation of the cost will probably make the two choices about equal at the moment.
RiskyPack 4 years ago
Alright, what if we don't do anything and global climate change DO happen, BUT it turns to be a good thing. Imagine the same world but better. I'm just giving another possibility to the matrix.
nas191 4 years ago
Good point.
dildoshitface 4 years ago
Wow, amazing video. Realy makes you think. I hope that you are a professor somewhere spreading your knowledge to students.
moos209 4 years ago
My professor actually showed us this video today in class, so it's definitely getting out there. :)
wezface 4 years ago
Would it not be better to actual understand what is warming the earth if it is warming? If we are not warming it then going with "A" will not solve anything and we would still end up in the worse case. I think it would be better to invest our time and resouces to finding out what is causing warming if any.
systematic101 4 years ago
Catholics tell us if we don't live as active, baptized Catholics we will burn forever in hell when we die.
Jews and Buddhists tell us there is probably no hell.
I'm less afraid of the results of failing to believe and follow Jews and Buddhists; if I ignore them and it turns out they were right, the results won't be so bad.
Catholics have the worst punishment for not believing and following them, so I'll ignore the facts entirely and follow the Catholics. That's the lotto ticket I'm gonna buy.
seanmaher1000 4 years ago
You can make the same argument to invade Iran, but why is it I don't think you would?
JCRAIT 4 years ago
Your a great teacher. 5 stars
Squichie 4 years ago
Seems that you have it all figured out. But I would say that you are WRONG. The effects of a Global Depression as you put it could be just as bad or worse than your worst senerio. And until you can give some facts that the Earth is warming more than .01 of a degree over the last 50 years I think the risk in action outweighs the inaction.
ggcabass 4 years ago
I dont think that actually fits into the logic of the arguement.
Economic depression caused of mispending is differant than
Economic depression cause of enviromental effects.
Also realise that facts are relevant, doesnt represent truth. Just the other day, I heard the world was flat as a matter of fact.
Squichie 4 years ago
yeah. Gobal depression lasting a while, or the end of the world.... kill yourself
angelshinu 4 years ago
that's for qqcabas... this video is brilliant
angelshinu 4 years ago
strongly agree with you. some ppl just dont get it. such as ggcabass for example.
mobdarkomen 4 years ago
You get a 5, you think :)
Tho im not sure about what i choose...
What if column A worst case scenario is nuclear disaster in some weird way and ticket B worst case is losing coastal citys and polar bears.
smilodon100 4 years ago
Thanks for this!!!
chiefeditor 4 years ago
one very important thing u dint show in ur arguement is the fact that different people will be affected to a different extent and contribute to a different extant too.. and this would mean that the developing econmies like central asia and africa will be hit most severly for no fault of theirs..heck without even their knoledge...
avanees 4 years ago
Very good argument indeed. Good to see a fellow oregonian taking action. Saw an article in my local paper about this video, and had to check it out. Too bad the government will probably be the death of us all due to their foolish and greedy inaction.
nomadnestor57 4 years ago
Here is relevant question to ponder: Is it feasible that human culture can do whatever it likes within the biosphere with no lethal consequences, or are there natural rules of some kind that govern the way the biosphere functions? If the latter is true, then culture must perforce integrate itself into the larger whole in order to maximise biospherical health.
psybinetic 4 years ago
Oh wait, he did talk about the probabilities. The illustrious, "if you check em they'll come up like my graph." Leave the key issue out. As a Christian, I don't like to give this type of response. Yet we Christians do it all the time. grr
benwantstosk8 4 years ago
Absurd. This brand of reasoning is behind so many terrible decisions mankind has made its not funny. Basically its fear-mongering. "Column" logic doesn't supersede "row" logic in most cases or in this case.
gwholmes 4 years ago
I like the vid..
Lets take this idea and apply it to invading Iraq over the possibility of WMDsI think you will find that (using this type of analysis) going into Iraq was the "best" ticket to go for... as doing nothing... well least we wouldn't have climate change to worry about.
Truth is we don't know enough about the way the world heats up/cools down... but if global warming or the thought of it stops us being wasteful and makes us become more efficient then that's a good thing.
jdonice 4 years ago
I like the vid..
Lets take this idea and apply it to invading Iraq over the possibility of WMDsI think you will find that (using this type of analysis) going into Iraq was the "best" ticket to go for... as doing nothing... well least we wouldn't have climate change to worry about.
Truth is we don't know enough about the way the world heats up/cools down... but if global warming or the thought of it stops us being wasteful and makes us become more efficient then that's a good thing.
jdonice 4 years ago
....
xaideelf 4 years ago
So, basically, Global Warming doesn't exist, and it's just another controversy (like the global cooling controversy up until the late sixtees) And even during the "global cooling crisis" they said it was caused by humans. So I get it...humans caused both global heating and cooling. Makes sense...
Bottom Line: Global Warming is a natural occurance. They just want gov. funding.
babyblueangel2010 4 years ago
It is the most absurd "logic" I have ever seen. Same "logic" can be applied to reach conclusions like :
"do not go for a swim on a warm summer day". The worst outcome of swimming is you drown. The worst outcome of not swimming is just feeling less comfortable or not being able to do something pleasant.
According to "logic" it is useless to debate the probability of drowning since it cannot be known for certain.
espenf 4 years ago
WHich is exactly why you need to look at the probabilities.
This video is from Wonderingmind42, and he acknowledges he made a mistake or two in this video. That's one of them.
The revised argument -- the one you should be attacking, because this one's obviously flawed -- is How It All Ends. (v=mF_anaVcCXg) Check that one out and see if your logic still holds.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
"According to "logic" it is useless to debate the probability of drowning since it cannot be known for certain. "
no, the conclusion that that person would come to, based on the logic in the video, is that they will avoid swimming, as drowning is a possible result of swimming, and drowning is the worst case scenario. Not taking part in the actual action of swimming would mean no chance of drowning
TheFodman 4 years ago
Global WArming was a BIT OF FICTION THOUGHT UP BY THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY! Hello nuclear stoge.
JonThm 4 years ago
This video would look like a better solution if I wasn't so positive that humans are not the cause of global warming. I can confindently say that I feel comfortable with no action being taken, because valid scientific evidence says that the earth has consistantly gone through periods of natural heating and cooling. In the sixtees it was global cooling (also "caused by humans").
My point is this: Humans are not causing global warming and therefore no action needs to be taken. Arguements?
babyblueangel2010 4 years ago
Yes, there have been natural heating and cooling periods, but the amount of heating we're currently going through is far greater than anything else history has every seen.
DukeNaxen 4 years ago
Would a lack of action against GCC cause global catastrophe?The midievel warm period led to increased economic wealth due to better crops.A switch to alternative energy sources will have a negative impact on developing countries who simply cannot afford it. Also, there is a possibility that global warming is out of human control. Taking actions against GCC then, would lead to an even worse case scenario: global economical depression on top of the problems caused by global warming.
caspert79 4 years ago
1 flaw is the assumption that a GW solution must only come from proactive governmental measures. Most innovation has not arisen in this way. A solution can arise "accidentally" in the absence governmental measures, which measures may deter a solution. For example, a growing economy may produce investment dollars that lead to a technological solution. If the economy suffers from governmental action, it may take away the critical investment dollar that would otherwise solve the problem.
DanielCritter 4 years ago
Daniel, well, economy and money don't always lead to technical solutions, sometimes it's the oposite. Watch the "Who killed the electric car?" movie
cokoprinc 4 years ago
That is true, the point is that the analysis (based on Pascal's wager) is oversimplified. To be fair, another outcome (in my view, less likely) would be that the regulatory measures have a benign economic effect.
DanielCritter 4 years ago
Battery technology has improved, and GM will build an electric care. The free market worked. The government should butt out.
gwholmes 4 years ago
Sounds like Pascal's wager. Hahaha I hope this guy is an atheist too. It would be too funny. Let me create some imaginary horribly bad problem that we all need to prepare for. Haha. Who hasn't dealt with this logic before anyway? Should I prepare for the worst or not waste my time?????????? IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE PROBABILITY!!!!!!!!!! Something completely left out of this arguement, making this arguement MOOT.
benwantstosk8 4 years ago
Yea like, Arguing = action...???
Youtube comments are so funny tho.
ErileMatan 3 years ago
But without the governments help in the situation, things can not happen quick enough. Do you want to take the chance that you are screwing up the planet for your kids? I don't
mav7469 4 years ago
The issue is "what is the chance?" What if I told you that you have to eat 10 snicker bars today at 3-3:30 or else the moon will crash into your face at superman speeds? You would ignore me, based on the probability, not the severity of the outcome. My point is that you shouldn't leave the scientists out of this debate and simply say that the worst possibility is too bad. This is Pascal with<inf. gains and <inf.costs. Making it a less strong version of pascals wager.
benwantstosk8 3 years ago
Stupid. You simplified 2 choices into allways single one. This is not an argument. What if we fuck up climate by trying to change it, since uptill now we changed it without will, imagine that we change it in bad direction. What you are saying, is "GIVE MONEY, IF YOU GIVE MONEY WHAT'S THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN"
bezvezeceda 4 years ago
Nice. But full of errors. You added a grid for 2*2 choice. What i would like you to do is add time cause in this form you could try convinceing people 5K years ago. Also you didn't say that lott-ticket B is for free, and lott-ticket A must be bought over and over again. But hay, glad to see young persons are thinking.
bezvezeceda 4 years ago
Awesome clip! Thanks for this!
freakfire74 4 years ago
I have an interesting question. When did God tell Conservatives (*cough* Republicans) to abuse the environment?
tommio65 4 years ago
1 extra point left out, Column A should have economic depression in both rows. With Less GW (?) how much less.
row 2 colum b is correct
HOW much co2 has to be reduced to make it worth while. I've heard number from 1985 level (what ever that is)
to 1895 levels(which would be trains and fireplaces).
You postulate as if there is a SURE solution (throw money at it) when I've yet to hear a difnitive 1.
revelarts77 4 years ago
Right now, it seems that science can say that yes, human industrial activity is producing more CO2 emissions than nature itself (arguably though, WE ARE a manifestation of nature).
I don't believe that reasonable climatologists are willing to make any concrete predictions as to what the effect of that increased CO2 content in the atmosphere might have on the global climate.
Jcolinsol 4 years ago 2
stuntbaby63: Are you saying there's something wrong with vaccinations?
flyingricepaddy 4 years ago
Great video, only one litle mistake: if the GCC is false and we take no actions, we won't be completly happy, we would still have looses, like many spieces who would disapers when cutting down forests... so it's even better to take action :)
Mothman2000 4 years ago
loaded on caffine look at all the cans!
slickcee8 4 years ago
u fucking talk smart, im goin 2 bed
swimfastpro 4 years ago
dear fucking christ i hope that was a joke.
averyv 4 years ago
wow your a jerk!
swimfastpro 3 years ago
Patient: Hey, Doc. Am I sick?
Doctor: Hell if I know, son. Maybe you are and maybe you aren't.
Patient: Then why are you giving me an injection?
Doctor: It's better to do something than nothing at all, right?
Patient: What's in that shot, anyway?
Doctor: Beats me. I'm just going to assume this medicine will cure you of whatever you may or may not have. The consequences of doing nothing are too great. Here. This chart will explain everything.
stuntbaby63 4 years ago
you forgot 1 important line,this is the new line 3.
doctor: lets have a looks.....it seems you are, you're showing definite symptoms.
we aren't worried about global warming for no reason, you can see the effects its having already.
trigunner87 4 years ago 2
you forgot another line:
well, it looks like you came down with this a long time ago. but then you got better without doing anything. then seems like you "got sick" again without anything causing it and got better. looks like your body knows how to take care of itself.
andymccraw 4 years ago
haha we could go on with this forever.
trigunner87 4 years ago 2
Interesting use of Pascal's Gambit/Wager. Nice work.
jffryfnt 4 years ago
wow this guy is so smart...i bet he graduated from harvard or something
shergill1989 4 years ago
Wow, it's like Pascal's Wager except for global warming. Pretty damn good! At least you are applying P's Wager to something that actually matters, unlike whether or not you actually die when you ... die.
howaaj03 4 years ago
thats cool
sti1o 4 years ago
That's not the only problem with this type of argument: death isn't the only outcome of being struck by lightning. Similarly, global catastrophe on that scale isn't the only outcome of global warming. Sure, it's the worst, but how likely is it? That's an answer reserved for psychics and super computers able to model the incredibly complex human socio-economic system, and nobody has done that accurately yet.
Feel free to send this response to the original video author. - Maddox
kcaz64 4 years ago
Hey there. This is the guy in the video (wonderingmind42). I've read through the comments on this page, and thought people might be interested in my three follow-up videos, where I address (or so I think) most all of the concerns expressed here. You can find them on my YouTube or Break accounts, title "Patching Holes" #1-3. Thanks for the time and thought!
wonderingmind42 4 years ago
Is lightning going to strike me if I leave the house today? Yes (stay home) | No (go out)
---------------------------------------
True | I live. | I die.
False | Waste my time. | I'm happy.
I can't predict the row (I don't know if I'll get struck by lightning or not), but I can choose the column, and the only column I can choose to minimize the risk of dying from a lightning strike is to choose the "yes" column and to stay home for the rest of my life.
kcaz64 4 years ago
Good argument and true!
What are scientists really saying about global warming? Type "Global Warming - Sun" in the search box to see my latest video and find out.
iloveemo1984 4 years ago
I emailed Maddox about this, here's his response in a bunch of posts.
I'm not sure I entirely buy the argument because the outcome of column B might be inaccurate. Breadbaskets turning into dust bowls, causing global famine? Maybe. This model doesn't allow for probabilities of each outcome.
I could make a similar argument for never leaving the house:
kcaz64 4 years ago
the model wasn't made for all the possibilities, just a rough look at the worst outcomes...give the guy a break, all he wants to do is educate people on the world around us.
s2587058 4 years ago
The simple truth is that there isn't a question of "climate change: true or false?" there's a whole range of possbilities of where the world is heading. The end of the world could come in a million different forms, and climate change is no more likely than the others. So, I think the question is: is it even POSSIBLE to choose column A?
abutton1 4 years ago
His logic is valid, this "silver bullet argument" suffers because it is incomplete. Remember Pascal's wager?. Pascal wagered that even if there isn't a God, you might as well be observant, because hell is far worse than wasting time praying. Well, as it turns out, if you have no proof that there's a god, you're going to be wasting hours a day praying to an INFINITE number of possible Gods.
abutton1 4 years ago
What if we try to stop a total catastrophy and it does not work? Still have total mahem plus we are broke... What about that box.. there are not enough boxes which cover all the possibilities. A few massive volcanos and we would be in the ice age.
josephdupont 4 years ago
interesting. But you could use the same analysis regarding buying a safe vehicle / guns/weapons to live day to day. If you do run into a murderer and get killed you are in box 4. Yet no one would suggest that we buy a tank and a ak 47 to assure that you won't get killed.
josephdupont 4 years ago
I would like to make a comparison like yours:
In column A, stand there and get shot at, and in column B, dive for cover. Column A: you don't waste any energy. What if they don't hit you? Column B: if the bullet would have hit you, you're safe. If they didn't even fire a bullet, though, you have wasted energy on your hands.
o0KikumaruBeam0o 4 years ago
Good point well made.
mrdwesty 4 years ago
It's a classic logic argument based on Aristotle's truth table. Even if you tone down the consequences, the basic outcome is the same. And I'll be taking ticket A, please, thank you.
msheehychase 4 years ago
I buy it! Now we have to consider the multiple persons prisoner dilemma game. How can we get every party involved to cooperate to get this happening?!
Zenpaper 4 years ago
How much for Lottery ticket A?
OtakuGaijin85 4 years ago
Does it matter???
mav7469 4 years ago
How Much For Lottery Ticket A?
OtakuGaijin85 4 years ago
Up to 5% of the GNP, supposedly, compared to a much, much higher percentage if we take action too late.
But that's somewhat misleading, since you can make money going green. Green technologies are fueling Silicon Valley's current boom, so at least some of the cost--and perhaps a lot of it--will be mitigated by economic growth in green technologies.
Underlings 4 years ago
The origins of "global warming" alarmism had its roots in the 1970s-era fears of "global cooling" and an impending ice age, resulting from the 1940-1970 global temperature decline. Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin suggested at the time that man-made greenhouse gas emissions might offset the cooling by warming the atmosphere.
1knightrider 4 years ago
ok, you buy the lottery ticket (aka: Stupid tax) and call me when you win (... I won't be holding my breath...).
I think we'd both agree that this world will end, one way or the other (I just don't bet on "global warming").
I think a better use of your time would be to safeguard your eternity, after this life on earth ends.
That gamble trumps any other (ie: +/- 75 years verses all of eternity.... hmmmm, is that a risk worth taking??)
nitenut 4 years ago
Pascal's Wager came to my mind too, and whether you're talking about an eternity in hell or the creation of hell on earth, it's a stupid argument. The argument relies on probability The probability that hell exists or the probability that global warming will lead to the apocalypse as described by this guy. I think most intelligentsia will agree that both have a low probability. You can live your life in fear of the improbable or in blissful ignorance, or somewhere in-between, or kill yourself.
KirtaPMcG 4 years ago
Why isn't an informed & justified life based on transcendent reality God exists an option? If He doesn't exist & hasn't communicated in a verifiable way, what difference is it how we live or die? Algore preserves the environment & I destroy it, who has the objective, justified authority to tell us we're wrong? Since when does the majority rule when it comes to truth & RU implying that since most have drank the KoolAid there is a high PROBABILITY they're right? Either way it's a stupid argument
nitenut 4 years ago
Because, nitenut, the possibility that God as you know it exists is a vanishingly small possibility. There are approximately 4,000 religions in the world, almost all of which are mutually exclusive. And all have exactly the same amount of hard evidence to verify their truth: none. Just like there's no evidence Santa Claus exists, but millions of children believe in him. So we have to make our important decisions based on scientific evidence, not potentially infinite faith-based beliefs.
Underlings 4 years ago
Try to use some immaterial Non-evolutionary formed abilities (ie: logic & reason). Hopefully you know the difference between Truth (St. Nicholas lived in the 4th century) and fantasy (Santa). Next, getting back to the topic, even if nature imposes specific limits on the conditions under which we can survive, the question is, how do we get from "This is what nature imposes", to "This is correct"? Does nature give a crap about truth? Only fools think so.
444Jr 4 years ago
444Jr, there is sufficient historical evidence to support the existence of St. Nicholas. There is NO hard evidence to support that he had flying reindeer. Similarly, there is historical evidence to support the existence of Jesus. There is NO hard evidence to support that he's the son of God (or that God exists). Extraordinary claims require a far greater burden of proof than mundane claims.
Underlings 4 years ago
Hey Howard Fincklestein, No one was able to poke holes in your argument cause your MOM and DAD were being nice!!!!!!!
AbeM79 4 years ago
Hey--this is the guy in the video (wonderingmind42). Your comment made me laugh pleasantly. Thanks. Sincerely. It's nice to get criticism that can be witty without being mean.
wonderingmind42 4 years ago 2
If there ever was a case where it's better to be safe then sorry, this is it. Regardless of it being man-made or not.
rspawn 4 years ago
The basic Ideology is right on.
However,
lidarman2 Interesting point about the car and all. But look at it like this. If you wreak your car you yourself may die or even kill five or six people. But would you had a 50/50 chance of killing billions?
TheHeriticYuri 4 years ago
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.
Nice try though.
fazoolius 4 years ago
Actually, "Action" when its "False" won't lead to a "Global Depression", what it will lead to is better efficiencies in our economy and our environment.
Why? Because when we save money because we're spending less money on energy, we can spend that money on other needs and wants.
thereallurker 4 years ago
Isn't "Inaction" a deliberate choice? I think the best way is to remain scientific about this issue and resist the movements towards politicization and censure.
g699a 4 years ago
Perhaps you could use your Logic box to explain the shrinking Ice Caps of Mars. You could be the first to explain our effect there, as well.
g699a 4 years ago
You said it best, "Science Fiction", C2R2. Your argument is based entirety on the assumption that C1R1 will result in less devistation than C2R2. That is not an agreed upon conclusion. Human Global Warming is a Sham designed to extract public resources not unlike the "Ozone Hole" was.
g699a 4 years ago
if you dickwads feel so compelled to act as skeptical critics, make your own damn films. we don't care what you BELIEVE. we, as the world, need someone to SPEAK OUT to open our eyes to the true severity of this problem we face. forget politics. it's our duty as peoples of this world to play our part in protecting the environment. if we fail in our quest, THEN you dipshits can bicker about politics all you damn well want in a catastrophic world.
zeconquistador 4 years ago
Selfish reasoning. Of course you KNOW that YOUR way must be the best one. Some people don't have the means to create films such as these, instead we're voicing our opinion as this film ENCOURAGES.
Cecilff2 4 years ago
what "opinion" might you be referring to? the opinion that perhaps global warming isn't a reality? that we don't have the means to stop it? those opinions are absolutely worthless. to be frank, no one gives a damn about what you THINK. it's what you DO that matters.
zeconquistador 4 years ago
No, the opinions on what's causing it or what to actually do about it. You're saying there's only one solution when that solution has unnecessary detriments. Doing without knowing can have terrible effects that outweigh the original problem.
Cecilff2 4 years ago
My problem with this "argumentation" is the following:
Probabilities are infinite, this means that you can create the same (prisoner's dillemma) diagram for a whole host of other possible problems.
How about Hostile Alien Invasion? Bio chemical attacks or super-virusses? We don't know if it'll happen, but better to be prepared then to be left behind, right?
Where do you stop preparing for the worst, and when do you start thinking rationally about the argument you're trying to avoid?
roberusfranciscus 4 years ago
Right, we have finite reasources. At some point we have a stone or two unturned.
OrdinaryGuy571 4 years ago