Burden of Proof | David Mitchell's Soapbox

David Mitchell's Soapbox Series 1 & 2 DVD available now @ http://amzn.to/soapboxdvd

David Mitchell's Soapbox and more @ http://www.youtube.com/ChannelFlip

David Mitchell follows his sustainability rant with one on saving the environment. There is always heated debate about global warming, but until there is proof it doesn't exist, shouldn't we be looking for solutions?

Category:

Comedy

Tags:

• Burden of Proof
• David Mitchell's Soapbox
• David Mitchell
• Soapbox
• DavidMitchellSoapBox
• comedy
• funny sketch
• channelflip
• david mitchell rant
• 10 o'clock live
• mitchell and webb
• peep show
• realdmitchell
• twitter
• guardian
• bbc
• channel 4
• qi
• would i lie to you
• standup
• interview
• Burden
• Proof
• Environment
• Saving the world
• Climate Change
• Global Warming
• Real
• problem
• solution
• Green house gases
• Scientists
• Experts
• Manmade
• Risk
• Danger

[the1nonlyevilelmo]

.1 % is not 1 in 10,000 it's 1 in 1000.

I am disappoint.

[ELuhn]

@mygoodness717 That is far and away the stupidest, most fucked-up reasoning I have ever encountered. And considering the usual standard of YouTube commentary, that's really saying something.

[pkConda]

if you drive while drunk, there's a % chance you'll run someone over. But there's also a % chance you WON'T run someone over.

Does that mean you shouldn't prevent yourself from driving while drunk?

Laziness isn't a reason to avoid being safe. Safety first, and to those who disagree, get yourself your own planet before you play poker with ours. ;)

[pkConda]

@flutterandwow exactly, that's David's point. If we are wrong about climate change, and we ended up 'trying to do something to stop it', nobody gets hurt in the process. We just spent some money and discovered 'hey, climate change aint a thang' and we start using fossil fuels again.

But if climate change turns out to be a big deal, we'll be happy we did something about it even if we weren't 100% sure it was man-made at the time.

[pkConda]

@rawoofi he's saying there's bigger consequences to being wrong than being right about climate change. Did you ignore everything he said, or what?

[pkConda]

@Nerfi he was saying its better to be safe than sorry. You're also doubly not hearing his argument, when he states scientists have acknowledged climate change. Nobody is ASSUMING anything, and to state 'assumptions' is what scientists do, then you're arguing within a fantastical sphere

[Zonkin]

I agree that this is a form of Pascal's wager. Though there is more scientific facts of Climate Change than the Existence of God. And therefore the wager becomes more pressing. If you are a compassionate being, you should strive to save all coming generations of humans, instead of your selfish need for a maybe, possibly, not really, eternal salvation.

[RoasterMcdougalify]

@rawoofi I see what you are saying, but I think it is only a pascals wager for those ignoring the consensus or neutrality of all reputable scientific bodies on as to the existence of man made climate change. It isn't a true pascals wager, as there is a large body of proof and evidence to indicate that it is happening.

[HoratioMoonraker]

I didn't break the world, it was like this when I found it. Honest.

[ErikJakob1988]

@Nerfi All he's saying is that he chooses to trust the people who research these phenomenon for a living rather than people with a political agenda. He isn't actually debating the science.

[AirBoyPlummets]

@Nerfi Hush. You know not of what you speak. No sorry, you are entitled to your incorrect opinion. Yes the Earth would naturally be heating up but not at this rate. And by the way, Pascal's wager is reasonable in this circumstance due to where the evidence points. It is not reasonable with regard to believing in 'god' as there is literally NO evidence in favour of one of those being in existence.

[Senkon]

I'll be dead before serious damage c: