Re: The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See

[bm118118]

Hmmm. Why does everyone give extreme scenarios when it comes to this debate? Surely a balanced set of examples in one's repertoire makes the best standing. No-one seems to give balanced argument, it's either "Oh my god, apocalypse is upon us. Run for your lives and give us all your money," OR "I have no care for the future, disreguard scientific opinion, don't trust the government or industry." People should never oversimplify such complicated issues.

[PaulSiraisi]

Glad you're against oversimplification.

Hope you saw the video this is a response to.

In that video, we are instructed to ignore the question of what is true.

[bm118118]

@PaulSiraisi Yeah man, I followed your vid from that one. Yours was good response. It is lazy to never question. If people didn't question what they had been told was fact, they would get pissed all over (metaphorically, one would hope). People should remember that to be quoted as facts must be tested and then observed as true beyond reasonable doubt, which is not always the case with 'facts' that are beamed into our television sets or newspapers. If only more were thinking for themselves.

[bm118118]

@PaulSiraisi Also, 'lolz' at your conversation with juju ~2years ago.

[GzsGuitar]

your a dum bastard lol

people that don't care are selfish and retarded

Plus if you don't care that means your are in the no action column :l

[PaulSiraisi]

Thank you for your contribution to the low IQ gallery.

[bigthumbsdan]

very nice video. i was gonna do the same thing except rather than pay you a million dollars i was gonna insert an alien atack which destroys the planet that we should all plan for because hey if science and facts don't matter than it's as likely global warming destroying us. Not that I don't think global warming is a serious issue i just think his argument is not logical. Any good philosophy student would be able to pick it apart.

[eviltiki13]

juji is making sense. The fact is the climate was at an equilibrium, but we screwed that up by taking all of the CO2 (oil) that has been storing up for over 3,000,000 years and releasing it all in under 200. this intense fluctuation of CO2 in the current atmosphere is setting off the climate cycle.

[PaulSiraisi]

As well intentioned as I'm sure you are, I think I'll start blocking anyone who appears to have formed their opinion from an episode of Smallville.

[aboabdalla12]

maybe if i fuck you in the ass global warming will not happen or maybe it will ,,,, so open wide mother fucker just in case .stupid mother fucker like you will kill our children

[PaulSiraisi]

aboabdalla12: Poor little animal. Humping trouble?  Just don't do it on your kids, ok?

[duque5000]

Maybe you think global warming doesn´t affect you

[PaulSiraisi]

Or maybe I do. What's your point?

[duque5000]

My point is you are mocking the guy, as if he were doing something stupid

[PaulSiraisi]

I have no desire to insult him personally.

But he presented Pascal's wager as a decision-making tool about global warming.

You be the judge.

[Jujufucka]

"i have no desire to insult him personally"

"yeah, who care's what's true and what's false"

Look at those two sentences together. Something not fitting?

[PaulSiraisi]

An important part of his argument is the explicit instruction to ignore the question of what is true.  Watch the video.

Do you mind if I insult YOU personally, Juju Fucker?

[Jujufucka]

Well, you could try. But insults from an idiot don't seem to have the same zing. Look at how many people have completely dissed you. Why don't you save yourself further embarassment and pull your asinine video. Douche

[PaulSiraisi]

I'm keeping it here just for you.

I'll keep your eager flailing here, too, for a little while longer.

For fun.

Tell me when you've had enough, and I'll delete all your comments and block you--you know, wipe up after your wank fest.

Ok? Just for you!

[Jujufucka]

Here's the thing. You say show me your evidence. Where's yours? I choose to believe actual scientists who say global warming is an phenomenon and we have to act. I rely upon those people who are trained. Not on crackpot conspiracy theorists like you who are far too enamored with their own sophistry.

[PaulSiraisi]

My evidence is 400,000 years of ice cores showing quite clearly that CO2 has never driven global warming. Yes it's a greenhouse gas, but it forms such a miniscule component of the earth's greenhouse that its contribution to any greenhouse effect is negligible. (cont)

[PaulSiraisi]

(cont) The earth's greenhouse is 95% water. The combined heat absorbtion/transfer of the atmosphere's NON-greenhouse gases is greater than that of CO2, due purely to the quantities involved. Research this if you don't believe me.

[PaulSiraisi]

And look, once again, at how people (like you) confuse the fact of global warming, which no one denies, with its CAUSES.

Yes, duh, global warming is a phenomenon. Did we do it? Most likely not.

[Jujufucka]

There is no confusion here buddy. I realise that scientists are not unanimous about the cause of global warming, but the consensus is that it is man made and that we need to take steps to ameliorate it. You want to be part of the vocal minority good for you. I prefer to side with the academies of science of the developed countries and not some crackpot theorist and their hangers on (like you)

[PaulSiraisi]

"The consensus is that [global warming is] man made." Lol. Please confirm that statement with someone who finished college before we go any further.

And unlike you, I didn't arrive at my current opinion based on a desperate, ignorant embrace of whatever authority I could get my hands on. Seeing that ice core data was what did it for me.

[Jujufucka]

I have a masters degree noob. I don't work in a bank after drifting in the peace corps.

You see one piece of "evidence" and that does it for you. That's called conjecture. I can't say it often enough. Glad people like you don't make decisions that effect humanity.

[PaulSiraisi]

I dug wells in the Peace Corps. I've also fed 200,000 Rwandans, trained 650 Malagasy health workers, and who knows what else.

And I have not one but two Master's degrees.

And that's ancient history.

Back to you, tot.

[Jujufucka]

Ha! Wrong! It accounts for between 33-66 percent. Co2 remains in the atmosphere for much longer than water vapour and that is the difference. And I don't need to research that.

[PaulSiraisi]

Sorry, not wrong and yes you do need to research.

Water comes and goes, but it's always there at a known average level.

Average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere = 3% by volume.

All other greenhouse gases combined = say about 380 parts per million.

That's 30,000 ppm / 30,380 total = 98.7 % of total volume of greenhouse gases.

Now go off and do whatever other manipulations you like, but that's the starting position.

[Jujufucka]

You are an idiot. Trouble is you read the science, but you don't understand it. Your use of volume is a red herring. C02 takes up less atomic space than methane, yet methane is 8 times more effective as a greenhouse gas. And so it is with water vapour.

[Jujufucka]

That should read methane takes up less atomic space than c02

[Jujufucka]

I used the example of methane to show you that the quantity/ volume of a gas has no correlation with its effect on greenhouse.

[PaulSiraisi]

Excellent argument. The real threat is methane. You should get right on that. If you stop farting, earth will stay in its orbit.

[Jujufucka]

No, methane is one of the gases, not all of them. And the methane level that we are concerned about is that produced by cattle and sheep, who release it constantly.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Take another five days, and talk to a scientist who understands these things. Then when you realise that you are wrong and a worthless conspiracy theorist, we'll talk further.

[PaulSiraisi]

Getting tired?

You've utterly failed to show any thinking person that humans have had or will have a significant effect on global warming.

Work much harder at that, please.

[Jujufucka]

I've shown plenty of thinking persons. Unfortunately you are not one of them. Hold on to your vapid ideas. Global warming is driven by politics. Yes there is so much money to be made out of restricting the use of fossil fuels. No wonder the oil companies are lining up to sign Kyoto.

[PaulSiraisi]

I'll let that one stand in all its glory.

[Jujufucka]

The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes 3-7%. There's the starting position. Tool.

[PaulSiraisi]

No, that's after doing a lot of figuring. Note that your margin of error for CO2 isn't +-4% (like, say, in a survey), but A FACTOR OF 3. Your water vapor range is vague to a FACTOR OF 2. This means great uncertainty.

[Jujufucka]

It isn't a margin of error. Levels of water vapour fluctate depending on atmospheric conditions such as temperature. Fact is you made an illogical assumption that because water vapour makes up 99 percent of greenhouse gases that they amount for 99 percent of the cause. If you can't be trusted with something simple like that, how can anyone believe your interpretations of anything more complex.

[PaulSiraisi]

Fact is, you are simply unable to provide convincing evidence that CO2 drives global warming. Face facts, juji.

[Jujufucka]

That's interesting. Funny how that piece of "evidence" is being ignored by the international community and the IPCC. The premise of the original video, which seems lost on you is that there is a price for doing nothing. Back in your box.

[PaulSiraisi]

Whatever it is you think you're saying.

[Jujufucka]

Well, you obviously haven't heard about the one they did in East Antarctica which goes back 800,000 years.

"there's nothing in the ice core that gives us any cause for comfort," said Dr Eric Wolff from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS).

"There's nothing that suggests that the Earth will take care of the increase in carbon dioxide. The ice core suggests that the increase in carbon dioxide will definitely give us a climate change that will be dangerous"

[Jujufucka]

I tend to believe someone like him, over someone like you. 97% water vapour in atmosphere causes 97% of greenhouse effect. What a joke!! You have no credibility left.

[PaulSiraisi]

You wouldn't know what credibility was if it kicked you in your tiny nuts.

[Jujufucka]

maybe I missed something here, but how would paying you a million dollars be able to stop global warming. What would you as an individual be able to do? NADA. So your logic is entirely faulty.

I'm really glad people like you don't make decisions that concern humanity as a whole.

[PaulSiraisi]

That is hilarious.

What exactly do you believe we are going to do to stop global warming?

Let's say we wipe the US and China right off the map. Would you say global warming will stop? Do you think it will noticeably slow down?

Go read some science please.

[Jujufucka]

Say a car has a braking distance of 40m when travelling at 100km/h, and a truck suddenly blocks the road ahead of the driver of the car 30m ahead. There is no way to avoid the collision. Does that mean you don't put on the brakes?

It doesn't matter if we can't stop global warming, its all about limiting the damage that it could possibly do.

[Jujufucka]

Read some science you say? I'd ask you to do the same but its pretty hard with your head stuck in the sand.

Again, really glad people like you don't make decisions concerning humanity.

[PaulSiraisi]

I suspect I out-read and out-think you most days, JF. Tell you what: Why not explain to us all the known role of carbon dioxide in global warming? Amass your mountainous evidence and regale us.

[Jujufucka]

Only if you are talking about comics and jerking off to them. I don't need to explain to YOU the role of carbon dioxide. No-one else needs the explanation its clear to them. You are an embarrassment to humanity.

[PaulSiraisi]

Ooh juji, kinky! Yes, better not explain your use of CO2 in mixed company.

Very good fun!

[PaulSiraisi]

Explain to me the damage we've been doing, please. I insist on logic, by the way.

[Jujufucka]

Logic? That would make a cat laugh!!! Give you a million dollars?? Where is the logic there? I don't need to explain the damage that we are doing, its all over the news. Kyoto protocol anyone?

[PaulSiraisi]

juji, the logic is I give another example of throwing big money at iffy propositions. Get it yet? No? Oh well.

So 'being-all-over-the-news' is your logic. Sounds about right. Congratulations on your depth.

[Jujufucka]

AS you will now there is a limit of 250 characters on these comments. I can't be arsed condescending to you by explaining how much I know about the issue. You are a tool. Get a life.

[PaulSiraisi]

English not your best subject, juji?

The limit is 500 per comment.

Math not your best subject either?

Why not give it a shot? We have lots of comment room.  Let's see your basic argument for the reality of human-induced global warming, please.

[Jujufucka]

I speak four languages noob and English is my native tongue. As far as maths is concerned, I got straight A's. You don't even rate. My basic argument simply adopts that of the IPCC. I don't need to repeat what they have said.

[PaulSiraisi]

Then we're all set for a nice long, coherent conversation, at the end of which you will be seen to be mouthing a political position that was handed to you, even as you disappear into a gaping hole in the logic of that position.

[Jujufucka]

When a person needs surgery they go to a doctor, they don't look up how to do an operation to do remove a subdural haematoma themselves. If you are happy not to rely upon the academies of science and prefer your own askew interpretations of what you have read good for you. Its not a political position its the position of scientists. Keep watching the skies, maybe you'll see a UFO one day.

[PaulSiraisi]

Yes, juji, you love your authorities. After all, they're scientists, and scientists are never mistaken. It's a proven fact, right juji?

Human-powered global warming is one scientific theory among others that has taken on a political life, due to dimwits such as yourself. Get that yet? No? Oh well.

And what makes you think UFOs don't exist? Lack of evidence?

[Jujufucka]

No-one ever said scientists were always right. Any you tend to love your (outdated) authorities . Ice core from 400,000 years ago???

[PaulSiraisi]

Another one to let stand as a testament to the quality of your mind, jujism.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Ok folks, let's move it along. Nothing to see here. Just another wretched teenager driving faster than he knew how to.

[Jujufucka]

As opposed to the end of your argument, which will see you relying upon false assumptions (water vapour) and old data from Vostok 1999 (400,000) rather than the 2006 ice core. The siren's already sounded the end of the match. You've lost. Give it up.

[PaulSiraisi]

Ah, so the 2006 core has shown CO2 driving global temperature? I must have missed that! Gee. You would have thought the Gore cretins would be screaming that to the heavens. But no.... Haven't heard a peep. I must be deaf! And water vapour doesn't exist either! Amazing, these scientific advances!

[Jujufucka]

Considering you didn't even know that it had taken place I'd say yes. Seems like your argument has run out of steam, or should that be water vapour!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[PaulSiraisi]

Again, zero content.

[Jujufucka]

That's your logic huh? Give you a million dollars, with which you will shoot junk up your arm and screw hookers. The difference is the money that would be spent trying to limit the effects of global warming might actually have some benefit.

[PaulSiraisi]

And, for about the third time, what will happen to global warming when we spend the money? Give me a chain of cause and effect: Here's a billion dollars. We use that to ... what, exactly? Show me it's better than a billion dollars worth of hookers.

[Jujufucka]

We use the money to research methods of production that don't cause greenhouse. However, its not about spending money, per se, its about moderating human activity to stop greenhouse emissions.

[PaulSiraisi]

And what is your best estimate of the maximum impact of 'methods that don't cause greenhouse' on global warming? Let's say over 200 years, starting today (or pick your time scale, and other units of measure). Be sure to include a margin of error for your estimate.

[Jujufucka]

You are a total idiot. You seriously think that I am going to take the time to do something like that, for the edification of your dumb ass? You've proved with your volume of water vapour argument that you have no understanding of science at all. It would be wasted effort.

[PaulSiraisi]

You're right, what was I thinking. Quite beyond you, I'm sure. Tell you what, go fill a jug 98% with water and see if you can figure out how to get your finger wet.

[Jujufucka]

No, not beyond me. Beyond you, water vapour boy.

Why don't you go back to your dank poorly lit work station and lack of human interaction and dream up some more conspiracy theories. Or better yet consult a psychiatrist.

[PaulSiraisi]

Once again poor juji comes up empty.

Time to put you out of your misery.

You're blocked.

I'll keep all your excited gurgling around around as training for other experts of your caliber. Maybe I'll clean it out later. It's a bit slimy.

Back to you jujifruit. Not.

[Capnwabbit]

You also have to consider the podssibility that you pay through the nose and the world falls apart anyway - in which case the suffering is much, much, worse.

[phsyxx]

Absolutely fabulous satirical rebuttal of the argument presented in the original video!

Loved it - your voice also has the kind of cheeky enthusiasm that gets me laughing.

Not sure as to why people have rated it so badly though.

[PaulSiraisi]

Politics, I figure.

[phsyxx]

Yeah. Sheep bleat loudly when stressed.

[ironcladdad]

This vid would only have merit if there was no probability that global warming was dangerous. Plus, using more renewable energy sources would be beneficial even if global warming were no danger. This could actually SAVE us from global depression when oil eventually does run low or keep getting more expensive.

[PaulSiraisi]

1) It has merit as a criticism of the fact that probabilities weren't discussed--indeed were blatantly ignored--in the original video.

2) Yes, oil and coal are stupid energy sources. Different topic.

[bistro39]

The maker if the original video admitted himself that probabilities were important and addressed them in his followup videos.

[PaulSiraisi]

Got it.

[UpJumpUp]

The big difference between the two videos is that in the original, he was looking out for all of us, whereas in this video, he's only looking out for himself (in theory).

Nice try buck-o ...

[PaulSiraisi]

So if I screw you over in a well meaning way, that's better, buck-o?

[bistro39]

Actually, the big difference between the two videos is that global warming arguably has significant probability, whereas the "end of the world if you don't give me a million dollars" has no arguable probability. Bad example, dude.

[PaulSiraisi]

Show me the calculation that produces your "significant probability."

Let's see how arguable that is.

[bistro39]

According to the leading scientific communities, like AAAS and NAS, "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now and it is a growing threat to society." (AAAS Dec 9th 2006) If you don't take the research by our leading scientific communities seriously, I don't know what you will take seriously. The big oil companies are the ones with the agenda.

[PaulSiraisi]

Athlete's foot is a growing threat to societey, too. I think we need a little more precision.

I take explicit demonstrations of unambiguous evidence seriously. I don't care who brings one. But bring it.

And, FYI, funds for research into global warming is a gigantic honey pot for researchers. Consider that, please.

[Jujufucka]

So is cancer research. Are you saying that cancer is a conspiracy as well??

[PaulSiraisi]

I didn't say anything was a conspiracy.

But yes, we can expect what people say and do to be distorted by large amounts of money.

[93ortsib]

So what WOULD you consider a significant probability? That the majority of people are concerned about global warming? That most scientists believe in the dangers of human-caused global warming? That the leading scientific organizations say the evidence clearly warrents an effort to reduce human-caused global warming?

No, I guess that couldn't possibly constitude a significant probability.

[PaulSiraisi]

One way to begin to perceive a probability of a thing happening is to observe events occurring in the present that logically relate to future events, according to our experience of cause and effect. So, for example, if we had seen rising CO2 raise the earth's temperature in the past, then we might give a high probability to it doing so now. Except that we haven't ever seen CO2 raise the earth's temperature in the past, despite what Al Gore has erroneously implied.

[ironcladdad]

Yeah, your own personal opinion is clearly so important that it totally overshadows the scientific concensus and renders it an insignificant probability. I'm not saying you can't have a contrary opinion. But don't pretend that your opinion reduces the probability of the alternative to nil. "Only a Sith deals in absolutes"

[PaulSiraisi]

Show me where I pretended that.

[TylerTrj]

Ahahaha. Paypal or cashier's check?

[phishin648]

you are retarded... but this was slightly amusing

[PaulSiraisi]

You are a cretin, but I'm happy about you.

[jrichardson01367]

This was kinda funny.

[ivolol]

But spending will also advance science and technology, as well as advancing toward a solution to our fossil fuel crisis. How bad can that be? And million is a piddling sum to put toward a global issue in this day and age. Make the money matter and suggest a few 100 billion.

[PaulSiraisi]

This video is about truth in advertizing. I haven't made any particular statement about how we should spend our money in real life. I think we should be pouring funds into research on energy resources. Have you heard of Bussard's fusion reactor? There's a Google video on it--a frustrating story.

[brianimator]

In other words, you are trying to undermine it by attempting to make it appear ridiculous, but if that were so easy then NO analysis of risk mangement would ever be reasonable. Clearly, this is not true.

[PaulSiraisi]

Analyzing risk management would include a look at risk analysis itself, which I saw blithely jettisoned in that video. How likely is it that spending to prevent global warming will actually prevent global warming? How likely is it, looking at 400,000 years of cyclical global warming, that the earth is on the verge of COOLING? These are the questions that should inform our decisions, not the 2x2 made famous in Pascal's Wager!

[brianimator]

...You just have to believe that there is the POTENTIAL for such a catastrophe. In a world where consensus seems a hard thing to define or agree upon, I think he made a reasonable point.

BTW, I appreciate your thoughtful response - it's very hard to find any calm discourse when it come to GW!

[PaulSiraisi]

There is potential for the sun to explode next year, which is about how likely I think it is that human CO2 is going to produce a global catastrophe. All the 2x2 does is make the baseless implication that this likelihood is 50%. I'd prefer to look at the evidence. Consensus is nice, but not at any cost. And yes, calm discourse is hard to come by.

[brianimator]

...completely refutes the findings of the IPCC, AAAS, and other academies. Don't drown me in details, that's the last bastion of the psuedoscientists and the wingnuts. Just the top three or so. I really want to know what you skeptics find so convincing.

[PaulSiraisi]

A) I can't speak for others, but see this video of mine: aiQPg0jnv38. See busy conversation in the comments, too. (cont)

[PaulSiraisi]

B) To make the 2 main, interrelated points directly: 1 - In all Earth's recorded history, we've never seen CO2 drive temperature (we don't know what does). The causal relationship recorded in all ice cores is in the opposite direction. 2 - The above is consistent with the small part CO2 plays in Earth's greenhouse, which is mostly water (95% is not an unreasonable estimate). Earth's greenhouse itself has never been seen to drive climate change, and we can't even touch 95% of it!

[PaulSiraisi]

I think what's driving scientists and shrillers these days is precisely the 'it can't hurt to be careful' argument. CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, and we are indeed increasing it.... But that's a thin stick on which to hang millions of guaranteed infant deaths. We need better EVIDENCE there's a problem. We also need better energy sources anyway, and I'm a nature freak, so this is all moot. I just don't like to see what should be science being turned into emotion and fuzzy thinking.

[brianimator]

I couldn't agree more about fuzzy thinking, and trust me when I say I get nervous when the sheeple start herding. Unfortunately, most issues seem to demand some "emotional" appeals before lazy-ass Americans will even notice. You could certainly call Gore - or Wonderingmind42 - propagandists, but I don't think they're being disingenuous in their concerns. I wish we based policy 100% on evidence and reason. We just don't. Do I need to mention Iraq?

[brianimator]

And one last thought. You seem to decry the AGW movement as sensationalist and dangerous, but then you throw out a COMPLETELY sensationalist claim that doing something about it will result in "millions of guaranteed infant deaths!" Come on, be fair. That's hardly a "balanced" position, is it? And where's all the hard science offering such a guarantee?

Just something to think about.

[PaulSiraisi]

Not sensationalist at all. Compare child mortality in developed and in developed countries, and between past and present in developed countries. Economic development is quite well known to improve life expectancy, mainly by reducing the number of children killed by easily preventable diseases. The scientific basis for my statement--quite unlike that for human-co2 driven global warming--is absolutely rock solid.

[PaulSiraisi]

I mean: child mortality in UNdeveloped and in....

[brianimator]

Well, of course, both criticisms are addressed/refuted in terms of "feedback" phenomena. Realclimate(dot)org has good articles titled "Co2 in Ice Cores" and "Water Vapor:Feedback or Forcing?" So I'd have to say there seems no totally convincing AGW debunking here. We can argue the details, but I doubt either of us would win the debate hands down.

[PaulSiraisi]

CO2 follows behind temperature by 800 years. That's a fact. A theory that contradicts the clear implications of that fact has to show contradictory FACTS. Show the feedback effect. It must be right there in the data. Why hasn't it been shown????

[bistro39]

That Co2 lag "proof" against global warming is a myth long debunked. Do a google search for "Climate myths ice cores show co2" and read first result.

[PaulSiraisi]

I missed this before. Did you even read what you referred me to? Nothing has been in the least debunked there. There's just more speculation about feedback effects.

[brianimator]

Thanks, I'll check it out.

[brianimator]

....you have to make the negative outcome in that part of your grid more balanced if it is to compare with the GW grid. Making it sound as though we "just pay you a million $" is unfair. stated that way, of course your grid represents a ridiculous "fool's choice", but the GW grid does not make that mistake. It gives fair balance to BOTH negative outcomes, and in doing so represents a reasonable risk management anlysis.

[PaulSiraisi]

The 'pay a million dollars' corresponds to spending to fight global warming. Are you saying the original video presented that spending as a great burden? The original video argues that global catastrophe is a much worse outcome than any expenditure we might make to prevent it. That was the whole point--undermined by the fact that one must believe in global catastrophe in order to consider it worse than spending to avoid it. So again, I don't think you got what I was saying.

[brianimator]

...the cost of action even if you assume the WORST in both categories. If you want to question the premise that GW can lead to apocalypse both environmental and economic that's fair, but I don't think you should dismiss the GW grid as an eco-Pascal's Wager. Moreover, I disagree that you have to "believe in global catastrophe" to find his argument worthwhile...

[PaulSiraisi]

If I don't believe in (human CO2-powered) global catastrophe, then the correct and logical choice for me is the box on the upper right--there can be no other. Somehow, I don't think that's the one I was supposed to pick, since it doesn't involve me being terrified--(see video's title).

[brianimator]

...you clearly diagree with its stated premise of a GW threat. Given that, you would certainly pick as you did. Anyone would.

So, I have a question for you, serious not snarky. You say you are so very certain that AGW is not a concern. What are your top three reasons for believing so? And please don't say one is the grand global conspiracy on behalf of the Trilateral commision to enslave the world! I seriously want to know what data is so compelling that it...

[PaulSiraisi]

Also, the 2x2 provides no rational basis for those who are undecided to decide, just a scare tactic--that's my real point here. Rest of my reply is below....

[brianimator]

You've made a kind of reductio ad absurdum argument here, but your grid doesn't falsify the GW grid because they simply aren't the same. In your's you have to blatantly underrepresent a category of risk in order to make the original argument appear ridiculous. That is, you haven't taken into account the possibility that paying you the million dollars would be SO difficult that we would all starve in order to do it (end of the world.)

[PaulSiraisi]

You don't seem to have understood what I was saying. The trade-off is expenditure to prevent the end of the world (lower left) versus the end of the world (lower right). It's a good match to the original grid (whose maker accepts my point above). The point is that choosing the left side depends on you believing me--i.e., staying on the bottom row.

[brianimator]

The think the problem lies in the comparison to Pascal's Wager, which is notoriously flawed because it failed to take into account an entire category of risk. Namely that belief in God could have a negative outcome (like say religious wars, crusades, inquistions, racism...all that fun stuff.) I felt the GW grid was balanced in that its premises included the potential negative impact of acting to prevent GW. He was trying to argue that the cost of inaction outweighs...

[brianimator]

"I think the problem lies..." That's what typing too fast gets you.

[PaulSiraisi]

The flaw in P's W I've heard mentioned is that it can just as easily be applied to someone else's God/Hell. Same with this case: Make up any terrifying scenario and tell people it's safer to believe in it so that it can be avoided. It's circular logic that works for any scenario. Pink elephant repellant!

[brianimator]

That's definitely a criticism, but if you look closer there is a deeper flaw in Pascal's risk assessment, one that clearly betrays his religious assumptions. He included no risks for belief - a premise any reasonable thinker has to reject. Again the GW grid did not commit this mistake, so it avoids the circularity. I'm just being fair to it in context. However...

[PaulSiraisi]

Pretending to be balanced helps nothing if you're not really.

[Algoth88]

Only stupid conservative republicans and other unintelligent americans still beleive in this crap.

The world is heating up and it's our fault, just accept it!

[PaulSiraisi]

Death to unbelievers, huh?

Hooray for science.

[tunderbar]

Very well illustrated. And it is more valid given that the IPCC projections are completely and utterly scientifically fraudulent. More than 17,000 scientists agree that co2 cannot cause global warming. It is a physical impossibility.

[superp25]

It's quite pathetic that you are more focused on wonderingmind42's method as opposed to the greater point, which any idiot can tell has validity. Your time would be better spent trying to help with the problem rather than making insipid videos that trivialize it and try to devalue the valiant efforts of people like woneringmind42. I'm ashamed for you that you did this. It's people like you who make the world a difficult place, and a difficult place to make better.

[PaulSiraisi]

If we all understand the greater point, then why repeat it--so we can say 'amen brother'? That the method in question is the same others have used to scare us into believing in Heaven and Hell should be a red flag about that greater point. There is plenty to question about that greater point, but this method is about avoiding questions.

[lango4]

perfect! although, perhaps, a little cryptic for some.

[PaulSiraisi]

Fair enough. It also smells of being politically incorrect, which of course is a death sentence in the emoti-morality crowd.

[szumwalt]

That was funny, but your an idiot for completly disregarding the fact that there is no evidence that the world will end by your hand or not. Show me some kind of weapon. Global Warming is real it is a fact with evidence to support. Thanks for the laugh really funny.

[PaulSiraisi]

The point of this video, for anyone who missed it, is that if you want to agree or disagree with the theory of human-controlled global warming on the evidence, that's fine. Just don't use this supposedly irrefutable 2 x 2 argument to do it with. And I'd prefer you not call me an idiot. Ok, jerk?

[scotchscotch]

I am not well trained to evaluate logic or even think well critically. Nevertheless, when I saw the first guy's vid and I knew the logic was faulty. Thank you for sharing, by example, how to effectively refute that "terrifying", "irrefutable" arguement!

[wahkean]

if there really was a 50/50 chance of the world ending. I'd give you a million dollars.

[PaulSiraisi]

It's probably closer to 100% likely. I have a bridge you might like. Now how about we go back to figuring out what actually causes global warming (which, by Vostok's 400,000-year record, CO2 has been shown NOT to), and whether we have control over that unknown cause? It's a matter of knowing what we're paying for.

[wahkean]

YOU DON'T know that. No one knows for sure.

[PaulSiraisi]

Yes, no one knows what we'd be paying for.

We might be paying for lower CO2, 150 degrees F in the shade, and +5/1000 on China's infant mortality rate due to lack of electricity. How about putting THAT in the lower left box?

[wahkean]

You don't know that it's 100%. You don't know what the odds are. You don't know anything. Apparently, no one knows for sure. Are you a global warming expert? Didn't think so. You're just repeating what you read off some web stie.

[PaulSiraisi]

Wahkean, I have breaking news for you: The world will end.

Now stop making a fool of yourself.

[wahkean]

You're right. It will. Eventually. You're so smart. I'm glad you know everything. Have fun posting.

[wahkean]

I have breaking news for you: Nice comeback.

Why does it always come down to name calling? Not very nice. Thanks!

[PaulSiraisi]

Wahkean, behold your own rudeness, which begets mine: "You don't know anything....Are you a global warming expert? Didn't think so. You're just repeating what you read off some website." If you want respect, then give it.

[PaulSiraisi]

And by the way, what makes you think human CO2-driven global catastrophe is 50% likely?

[brianimator]

Catastrophe is a pejorative anymore in the GW context and just sets up a straw man. Instead, I'd call it global climate change with significant negative impact - a temperature transition that will occur too quickly for the ecology or economy to adjust to without some severe effects.

[PaulSiraisi]

"Severe effects". The question stands.

[brianimator]

In answer to your question: I refer you to the aforementioned science academies, who I have no reason to distrust. While I have done plenty of my own research (plenty!) I'm not a climate scientist. So, I find it reasonable to accept both the idea and findings of the consensus. Call it a cop out if you'd like, but it's a completely rational choice. I also believe in gravity and evolution.

[PaulSiraisi]

I hope you don't believe in gravity and evolution blindly. And what precisely have these groups said? Maybe you could dig up a quote for us.

[bistro39]

For quotes from the leading science orgs, watch this vid: "Patching Holes #3: The Manpollo Project (With Explosions)"

At a meeting organized by AAAS and its journal, Science, the climate researchers argued that while some policy experts and sectors of the public dispute the risk, there is in fact no cause for doubt: The world is significantly warmer today than it was a century ago--and it's getting warmer. Without action now, they warned, the impact could be devastating.

[hashisher]

There is a significant amount of evidence saying that global climate change is happening. There is *none* saying that the world will come to an end if I don't pay you. You didn't bother to watch the 'patching holes videos', or even really think about it a little.

Also, bad quality makes a lot of people say "I'm outta here," like I almost did.

[PaulSiraisi]

1) Are you able to distinguish between human-caused climate change and other climate change? Talk about thinking...! 2) We were instructed NOT to evaluate the truthfulness of man-made climate change claims. That's the only way a presentation like this works. 3) As for video quality, you're right, I do underestimate people's inability to focus on mere arguments.

[ironcladdad]

"We were instructed NOT to evaluate the truthfulness of man-made climate change claims"... yes, but only in the first video for the sake of argument - while ASSUMING that there was some probability for each outcome described. In his later vids he clearly said "we need to assign probabilities for each outcome..."

[PaulSiraisi]

Yes I didn't look at those. If he corrected things then that's good.

On the other hand, introducing the question of probability blows the 2x2 concept out of the water for this exercise, since we're back to figuring out what those probabilities are.

[Senshi2k6]

the whole point of the other guys videos is that it shouldn't matter what the probabilities are you should come to the same conclusion.  This video is perfect.

[ironcladdad]

No, the guy who did the original video said that probablilities are important and addressed them in his followup videos. You obviously need to watch those. Give the guy a break... he's human... he couldn't address everything in the first vid.

[PaulSiraisi]

Deciding the likely outcome of our actions is inappropriate to a 2x2 presentation.

But I have nothing against the guy, or any video I haven't seen.

[Senshi2k6]

in the original video he specifically said he probabilities didn't matter, and probably only changed it later as a result of criticism. Which only furthur proof that his entire premise (the uncontestable one size fits all argument) was ballogney.

[olivekay]

This seemed just like "wonderingmind42's" video... but less funny. :-/

[PaulSiraisi]

I weep at my failure

[wonderingmind42]

Sure thing. What's your paypal account? Waaaaait. . .

I've tried to address your very valid point in my follow-up videos, "Patching Holes" #1 and #2. I'm working on #3 right now. Please check them out and tell me what you think.

BTW, I like the "a guy at a post-it."

[iviewthetube]

Ha, ha, the checks in the mail. It makes me wonder if that is how the concept of hell came about.

[iviewthetube]

Or heaven?