(2:20) "..cost-benefit-analysis: Suppose the [GW-deniers] are correct, and you do something about it. Ok, you've spent some money doing things you should have done anyway, like more renewable energy and so on... Suppose, on the other hand, the consensus is right. If you don't do anything, the human species is probably down the drain."
methinks, you don't have to be a [rocket] scientist to understand this argument; most children would grasp it.
haha love it! I'm surprised such a silly question was even put to Chomsky. His time is so valuable ...even thinking children know global warming is a real threat. Only selfish money-minded crooks like palin, fox news, the corpus of the GOP can deny it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Chomsky needs to study the facts, and not just listen to "scientists" who have an agenda. IPCC corruption and screwing around with the data to make it look right.
IPCC reports try to state that 2500 scientists are behind the reports, -but fail to mention that they refuse to take names off the list who just don't agree with it.
And that most of the people stated as being scientists are not - but actually politicians and bureaucrats.
there is not a single respected scientific body on this planet that would disagree with him here.. or disagree with the truly alarming conclusions of climate science
...it´s just amazing how brainwashed the public (you in this case) is by people with really "an agenda" that is clearly not science but confusing the public.
begin with this report to understand what happens here:
There were some ~in the 70´s or so. But even then there were much more on the global warming side. Its -as always- the superficial media´s fault looking for HEADLINES...Media suffers from "attention deficit hyperactivity disorder" (ADHD) ...still people repeat the ice age story 40 years later...Also the most powerful industries disturbing climate facts since decades. :(
@ExtremeBogom To compare the relative small handful of scientists who were taking about a coming ice age in the 60's with literally tens of thousands of scientists world wide who agree that climate change is a serious problem highlights your own lack of common sense more than anything else.
Let me guess, you think evolution is a liberal plot and Obama hid them dinosaur bones to trick you!
I think you took my post the wrong way. I was using that example to defend the young man's right to disagree with climate change. If people want to deny it, then fine that's up to them.
But hey, about them dinosaur bones. Any chance you could let me in on this secret stash? ;)
@syncro16se You know, I don't particularly like CHUMPsky. I think he's a moron most of the time.
But you simply can't deny the scientific facts that clearly show climate change caused by humans.
Your lies and misinformation about the IPCC doesn't help either. The fact is that no credible scientific institution questions the IPCC reports, because these reports accurately portray the scientific consensus.
I used to admire Chomsky. Why is he applying Pascal's wager to a scientific matter?
If we don't do anything about the coming Global Volcano Eruption (GVE) the planet will explode.
No (real) science supporting the GVE? No problem, just produce a model showing some possible magma flows which could lead to it. Fiddle the figures and add new processes till you get a bang to happen.Then ask for money to prevent GVE.
Because the cost of doing nothing is far higher than potential cost of GVE!
@aerobique That is the point. Just because I concoct a useless dream of a scare story doesn't mean everybody should jump to action. There are well established standards for science and climatologists somehow feel that they can stand above them because they have a boogyman story to tell.
It is called Pascal's wager, and it was originally invoked to defend Christian belief. It was rejected by most "mainstream philosophers" then, and should be now.
"...There are well established standards for science and climatologists somehow feel that they can stand above them because they have a boogyman story to tell."
How weird and uninformed are you? Climatologists ARE scientists- with all that goes with it. Not to mention that there is -not one- credible/reliable scientific body on the planet that would (or even could) disagree with the (truly alarming!) consensus of climatology. Only on"fox news" and other corporate spinpumps.
Im sorry to say but you (somehow proudly) believe in fantasy land. A mislead perversion of reality. As many people do.
One small kick-ass example:
"I think we understand the mechanisms of CO2 and climate better than we do of what causes lung cancer... -In fact, it is fair to say that global warming may be the most carefully and fully studied scientific topic in human history."
~ Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences
(for my archives:)
(2:20) "..cost-benefit-analysis: Suppose the [GW-deniers] are correct, and you do something about it. Ok, you've spent some money doing things you should have done anyway, like more renewable energy and so on... Suppose, on the other hand, the consensus is right. If you don't do anything, the human species is probably down the drain."
methinks, you don't have to be a [rocket] scientist to understand this argument; most children would grasp it.
wda013 1 year ago
thanks for this valuable upload.
--
this was recorded (aired?) when? and where? taken from where?
please add to the description !
wda013 1 year ago
haha love it! I'm surprised such a silly question was even put to Chomsky. His time is so valuable ...even thinking children know global warming is a real threat. Only selfish money-minded crooks like palin, fox news, the corpus of the GOP can deny it.
xtrmsprts 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Chomsky needs to study the facts, and not just listen to "scientists" who have an agenda. IPCC corruption and screwing around with the data to make it look right.
IPCC reports try to state that 2500 scientists are behind the reports, -but fail to mention that they refuse to take names off the list who just don't agree with it.
And that most of the people stated as being scientists are not - but actually politicians and bureaucrats.
syncro16se 1 year ago
@syncro16se
"Chomsky needs to study the facts.."
lol thats ridiculous
there is not a single respected scientific body on this planet that would disagree with him here.. or disagree with the truly alarming conclusions of climate science
...it´s just amazing how brainwashed the public (you in this case) is by people with really "an agenda" that is clearly not science but confusing the public.
begin with this report to understand what happens here:
w w w . bit . ly/cclDzH
aerobique 1 year ago 10
@syncro16se
Sure, not all scientists agree. After all, they said there would be a 2nd Ice age...
But did this do any harm? No. Maybe some initial anxiety.
The fact that a majority of scientists agree on climate change does hold weight. It can't be ignored, and it would be silly to play it down.
If it's assumed wrong, it could have far worse effects than the scientists being wrong.
Surely it's better to be safe than sorry?
Why dispute it? What's the gain, other than more money?
ExtremeBogom 1 year ago
@ExtremeBogom
Hi!
"..they said there would be a 2nd Ice age..."
There were some ~in the 70´s or so. But even then there were much more on the global warming side. Its -as always- the superficial media´s fault looking for HEADLINES...Media suffers from "attention deficit hyperactivity disorder" (ADHD) ...still people repeat the ice age story 40 years later...Also the most powerful industries disturbing climate facts since decades. :(
Greenmans view, always great: watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M
aerobique 1 year ago
@ExtremeBogom To compare the relative small handful of scientists who were taking about a coming ice age in the 60's with literally tens of thousands of scientists world wide who agree that climate change is a serious problem highlights your own lack of common sense more than anything else.
Let me guess, you think evolution is a liberal plot and Obama hid them dinosaur bones to trick you!
resteep 1 year ago
@resteep
No dude, I know evolution is a reality.
I think you took my post the wrong way. I was using that example to defend the young man's right to disagree with climate change. If people want to deny it, then fine that's up to them.
But hey, about them dinosaur bones. Any chance you could let me in on this secret stash? ;)
ExtremeBogom 1 year ago
@ExtremeBogom indeed. i should have read past the first line.
whoops!
resteep 1 year ago
@resteep
No worries dude. Happy new year! :D
ExtremeBogom 1 year ago
@syncro16se What a PERFECT example of the science-less double-speak chomsky is referring to!
Thanks!
resteep 1 year ago
@syncro16se You know, I don't particularly like CHUMPsky. I think he's a moron most of the time.
But you simply can't deny the scientific facts that clearly show climate change caused by humans.
Your lies and misinformation about the IPCC doesn't help either. The fact is that no credible scientific institution questions the IPCC reports, because these reports accurately portray the scientific consensus.
bubbah 3 months ago
HAHA
diogeneslaertius666 1 year ago
I used to admire Chomsky. Why is he applying Pascal's wager to a scientific matter?
If we don't do anything about the coming Global Volcano Eruption (GVE) the planet will explode.
No (real) science supporting the GVE? No problem, just produce a model showing some possible magma flows which could lead to it. Fiddle the figures and add new processes till you get a bang to happen.Then ask for money to prevent GVE.
Because the cost of doing nothing is far higher than potential cost of GVE!
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter
any evidence that support your irrational and fictional fear from "GVE"?
useless dreamer...
aerobique 1 year ago
@aerobique That is the point. Just because I concoct a useless dream of a scare story doesn't mean everybody should jump to action. There are well established standards for science and climatologists somehow feel that they can stand above them because they have a boogyman story to tell.
It is called Pascal's wager, and it was originally invoked to defend Christian belief. It was rejected by most "mainstream philosophers" then, and should be now.
It is simply not science.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter
"...There are well established standards for science and climatologists somehow feel that they can stand above them because they have a boogyman story to tell."
How weird and uninformed are you? Climatologists ARE scientists- with all that goes with it. Not to mention that there is -not one- credible/reliable scientific body on the planet that would (or even could) disagree with the (truly alarming!) consensus of climatology. Only on"fox news" and other corporate spinpumps.
aerobique 1 year ago 10
@DarkwingScooter
"It is simply not science..."
Im sorry to say but you (somehow proudly) believe in fantasy land. A mislead perversion of reality. As many people do.
One small kick-ass example:
"I think we understand the mechanisms of CO2 and climate better than we do of what causes lung cancer... -In fact, it is fair to say that global warming may be the most carefully and fully studied scientific topic in human history."
~ Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences
aerobique 1 year ago 7
@DarkwingScooter
how do I obfuscate & negate the issue?
KentAllard 1 year ago
@KentAllard By refusing to acknowledge the inadmissibility of that line of reasoning in this context?
Oh wait, that's your job.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter
oh no you're doing a bang up job so far
KentAllard 1 year ago