Isn't this a bit hypocritical of you? You rant about religion but under this video's logic, aren't there no negative consequences in being agnostic instead of atheistic?
Eh... Pascal's wager doesn't really apply to Global Warming - besides, it's ripe with logical fallacies anyway.
Honestly, thousands of leading scientists are already screaming down every microphone that the current warming is man-made and must be stopped or we'll all cook - that's a way better argument. Evidence.
Screaming scientists isn't evidence in and of itself. I am an atheist, I believe in the scientific process, but not every conclusion science has ever reached has been true.
Well, in that case you have a problem with politicians, not scientists, right?
I don't think there's any scientific consensus about consequences at all yet, besides very conservative predictions about sea rise/climate aggravation. Nevermind what should we do about it besides, you know, try to stop polluting our air.
I completely disagree.While YES, I am an atheist and YES I believe humans contribute to CO2 and global warming.But to say "let's just treat him as truth in case he's right" is equally laughable.
Not that it hurts to cut back,but if it's useless,it'll only make you buy opportunist products that give the illusion of changing things.If man is truly cause of GW,we should think about depopulation and eugenics(and I DO) Why go halfway when 3rd world countries are already doing it for you?
There is a difference between caution and ridiculous.
Energy efficient appliances generally take up more energy and resources to create. This can mean buying energy efficient devices is actually "harming" the environment.
Recycling things like plastic and paper is far worse for the environment then just throwing it away. This is because of energy, and chemicals which are required to recycle these products is far more then what is required to make a new one.
If we are responsible for global warming, we are far to stupid to fix it, and we are all going to die. So, that's why I'm betting that it's all a scare tactic to steal peoples money.
I agree, there's a difference between being cautious and ridiculous. Furthermore it's hypocritical to say that C02 is a problem but we shouldn't stop driving altogether, stop breeding altogether and kill off undeveloped countries(I'm not sarcastic, I actually think that's an option)
Good video. Also since libertarians, conservatives and anarchists usually object to AGW because they don't like the idea of increased government control, they should acknowledge that that is what they'll get (only worse) if AGW is true and we don't do anything about it.
In times of crisis and limited resources noone thinks about personal freedoms; whether you like it or not, when the worst happens, draconian government control always kicks in. It may be that our current free and careless lifestyles will be seen by future generations as a marker of a golden age of humanity.
Yes, and if we find that global warming was untrue what do you say to all the billions of dollars spent to combat something that wasn't there? Could have cured cancer with that. Sure, *some* of that would net positive gains, but not all.
Even if somehow its true that we arent contributing, were going to run out of fossil fuels eventually and will have a need for alternative sources of energy.
No, what you are suggesting is Risk analysis where you only consult the consequences, and not the likelyhood. Risk = Consequences x Likelyhood. The billion dollar cost to society warrants considering likelyhood, and therefore how real the threat of global warming is. You just want to commit to combatting climate change without consulting anything, simply because of possible consequences.
if the planet continues cooling at the current rate we will be in an ice age by 2055. you suck, bye.
MrPubua 1 year ago
If it saves me money or is in my self- interest I'll fucking do it. You don't need to tell me to believe in global warming for me to do that.
Scoforever 2 years ago
Isn't this a bit hypocritical of you? You rant about religion but under this video's logic, aren't there no negative consequences in being agnostic instead of atheistic?
Gormanmod 3 years ago
Eh... Pascal's wager doesn't really apply to Global Warming - besides, it's ripe with logical fallacies anyway.
Honestly, thousands of leading scientists are already screaming down every microphone that the current warming is man-made and must be stopped or we'll all cook - that's a way better argument. Evidence.
SexyMelon 3 years ago
Screaming scientists isn't evidence in and of itself. I am an atheist, I believe in the scientific process, but not every conclusion science has ever reached has been true.
mythrail 2 years ago
Which still isn't grounds to outright dismiss it.
Well, no, it's not evidence, albeit it should at least catch our attention. Scientists screaming about said evidence would be more like it.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
I don't outright dismiss global climate change, I just don't agree on what should be done about it.
Compulsory, collective action is not the best solution, especially if it has anything to do with the political process.
mythrail 2 years ago
Well, in that case you have a problem with politicians, not scientists, right?
I don't think there's any scientific consensus about consequences at all yet, besides very conservative predictions about sea rise/climate aggravation. Nevermind what should we do about it besides, you know, try to stop polluting our air.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
I completely disagree.While YES, I am an atheist and YES I believe humans contribute to CO2 and global warming.But to say "let's just treat him as truth in case he's right" is equally laughable.
Not that it hurts to cut back,but if it's useless,it'll only make you buy opportunist products that give the illusion of changing things.If man is truly cause of GW,we should think about depopulation and eugenics(and I DO) Why go halfway when 3rd world countries are already doing it for you?
funwjoshnjenn 3 years ago
There is a difference between caution and ridiculous.
Energy efficient appliances generally take up more energy and resources to create. This can mean buying energy efficient devices is actually "harming" the environment.
Recycling things like plastic and paper is far worse for the environment then just throwing it away. This is because of energy, and chemicals which are required to recycle these products is far more then what is required to make a new one.
amcnea 3 years ago
If we are responsible for global warming, we are far to stupid to fix it, and we are all going to die. So, that's why I'm betting that it's all a scare tactic to steal peoples money.
amcnea 3 years ago
I agree, there's a difference between being cautious and ridiculous. Furthermore it's hypocritical to say that C02 is a problem but we shouldn't stop driving altogether, stop breeding altogether and kill off undeveloped countries(I'm not sarcastic, I actually think that's an option)
funwjoshnjenn 3 years ago
Good video. Also since libertarians, conservatives and anarchists usually object to AGW because they don't like the idea of increased government control, they should acknowledge that that is what they'll get (only worse) if AGW is true and we don't do anything about it.
Jacnas 3 years ago
In times of crisis and limited resources noone thinks about personal freedoms; whether you like it or not, when the worst happens, draconian government control always kicks in. It may be that our current free and careless lifestyles will be seen by future generations as a marker of a golden age of humanity.
Jacnas 3 years ago
Yes, and if we find that global warming was untrue what do you say to all the billions of dollars spent to combat something that wasn't there? Could have cured cancer with that. Sure, *some* of that would net positive gains, but not all.
iamtinmanyesiam 3 years ago
Even if somehow its true that we arent contributing, were going to run out of fossil fuels eventually and will have a need for alternative sources of energy.
ReligiouslyAtheist 3 years ago
No, what you are suggesting is Risk analysis where you only consult the consequences, and not the likelyhood. Risk = Consequences x Likelyhood. The billion dollar cost to society warrants considering likelyhood, and therefore how real the threat of global warming is. You just want to commit to combatting climate change without consulting anything, simply because of possible consequences.
iamtinmanyesiam 3 years ago
by this logic, why pay alternative energy today when they'll be the sole monopoly later?
funwjoshnjenn 3 years ago
Absolutely outstanding! Excellent.
StopEvangelismNow 3 years ago
Finally! A good use for Pascals Wager.
EziekielNightwind 3 years ago 4
agreed
CptCool2 3 years ago