I think by now everyone knows what side of the environmental debate I’m on. And I’m aware that I have friends and relatives that still have differing opinions on the matter. When we discuss it I normally argue that the consequences of being wrong about global warming are potentially far, far worse than the cost of taking some unnecessary action.
Well, along comes this video that some guy made (I don’t even know who, so if anyone finds out please let me know) which demonstrates the best rational argument I’ve seen to date. I honestly defy you to watch this and then come up with a VALID response.
Now, here is the deal. If anyone can refute this line of reasoning with a similarly strong, yet opposing, argument then I will personally make a video response of that argument and post it myself. But be warned… if you post a weak argument in response I will break it down personally! :-)
So, that’s the challenge. Watch this video, try to be a skeptic, and if you can come up with the counter argument let’s hear it. Otherwise, admit this is a valid argument and let’s move on! ;-)
Just fantastic! There was never any doubt in my mind when it came to the environmental debate, but this was still a fantastic video to watch. Heres to hoping it helps wake up the fat cats of the world!
I like the argument, but this guy is a hack. Check out the Precautionary Principal (PP):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
People have been making this exact argument for centuries, Blaise Pascal of Pascal’s Wager fame died in 1662 and he used it to prove that you should believe in God, and a Christian God at that…what a nut!
So, here is my argument:
The flaws of the PP are well documented, so please do your own research so that you sound eloquent prior to your video response : )
This guy is not taking into account the negative influence decisions can have without scientific reasoning. Essentially, we could over react and make things worse…like forcing the use of alternative energy only to find out later that it was bad idea with horrible consequences. Or force everyone to eat food that is supposedly safer, only to find out later that it was really worse for you. (I’m not big on the anti-organic food argument, but it seemed to apply here)
Its real weakness is that it is at a high level, and a more granular view is needed to make real decisions that will reverse / avoid the effects of global warming…and that granular view will apply science to a specific issue, not generalizations as obvious as we are making the Earth a worse place by our greed and laziness.
I also like this point while you have the camera on…
If this most basic of arguments influences your opinion, you must also apply it to several other things and be influenced by the results as well. Try using the exact same 4 Box methodology on the existence of these things and what course you should take:
1) God (Pascal’s Wager)
2) The Boogy Man
3) Whether or not to eat vegetables
…get out your whiteboard and try immitating our friend while you walk through these.
Here are the answers:
1) Start believing…the alternative is very hot…like Texas.
2) He could be under your bed…so buy a futon to be safe.
3) You are not increasing your lifespan by being a strict carnivore.
Dammit Greg! You take pleasure in seeing me have to do work!
First of all, the precautionary principle is specifically designed to apply where “changes cannot be easily contained and have the potential of being global.”
The case of proving God or the Boogy Man would not apply because the “…principle has less relevance to contained fields … where the few people undergoing risk have given informed consent…”
We all know you are going to hell, and you know you are going to hell, if there is a God. But since that is an informed individual consequence the precautionary principle does not apply.
Same with the Boogy Man eating your children. If you choose to put a child in a bed at night as opposed to sleeping on the floor, you may rationally assume that the BM is going to exit the underside of said bed and devour your child. Informed and individual…
Although your argument did cause me to give the matter considerable thought, you have failed to meet my challenge of “a similarly strong, yet opposing, argument”. In the case of the current video the author has chosen a topic appropriate to the given theory, and even the link you have provided demonstrates many instances where governments such as the US and EU have adopted the principle.
I cannot argue, well actually… I CAN make the same argument with your examples above, but it just won’t be a strong or believable argument.
Try again. :-)
John
Well, I gave it a shot. Maybe I’ll try again later.
I think its a lame to tease us with this challenge. Since the argument is obviously correct and so simplistic that it probably can’t be invalidated…and this guy is not original except that he made a video that appeals to your fastfood mentality.
See you in Hell…I’ll bring the marshmellows, you bring the cigars.
I am going to say something I never thought I would say and that is I agree with Greg… the arguement is a slightly modified form of Pascal’s Wager. I do think we need to live in an environmentally responsible way but his worst case scenarios aren’t correct.
If we assume Human Caused Global Warming is true and inaction will have cataclysmic effect, we must all reasonable efforts to stop it and possibly even extreme efforts. While he is correct that these efforts may well have dramatic impact ecomonically and socially he fails to mention the unproven environmental impact they may have. For example, solar reflectors http://www.livescience.com/technology/050627_warming_solution.html and the Iron Hypothesis http://www.livescience.com/environment/070627_wwf_planktos.html. If we are wrong and global warming is not man cause and we impact the environment in such a way to cause cooling then the impact is far worse than just economic depression. In fact, a prolonged global cooling trend could have an even worse impact than a similar global warming trend.
It also assumes that any solution used to fight warming is of course the correct one and has no additional impact on our environment, mankind, etc. other than stop the rising temperatures. If we remove all risks associated with these solutions and limit the scope of impact to only money while leaving all possiblities open on the otherside then of course it makes a great emotional appeal while sounding entirely logical.
Again, I think we should strive to reduce our environmental footprint as much as possible. I think in many areas our society tends to be wasteful of our resources and we should try to reduce our impact on the environment as a whole. I feel enviro-fads get us focused on a small sliver of environment at the cost of losing focus on the rest.
Terry,
You are disqualified from any global warming conversation until such time as you actually watch An Inconvenient Truth like you told me you were going to!
Enviro-fads?!?
You know what I’m going to do? I’m going to educate all the girls in your household on global warming and turn them against you! That way I can sit back and let them do all the work. :-)
John
Im 14 and doing a essay on this so I just have to say LOL!
LOL… I noticed you didn’t actually reply about my points. Perhaps you are right after watching that movie I will be better equipped to ignore gaps in logic. :) His argument was based on extremes and asking which one was worse. I just pointed out that there are a couple of examples of solutions being discussed that could make things worse if assumptions are wrong.
Seriously, Enviro-fads was directed at things like carbon-offsets and not the whole warming debate. I think my position is probably more enviromentally conservative than yours and think some of the global warming actions should be taken regardless if they result in a change in temperature. How can it be a bad thing to consume less energy and produce less waste?
After watching your simplistic analysis of the global warming issue and the following praise for an inconvenient truth the council decided to take some time out of their busy lives to educate you right here quick. Your argument becomes “moot” because the very basis of it questions the source of global warming. This video purports to show that global warming isn’t man made and it does so brilliantly and in flawless execution we might add. So take some time to watch this video, we await your response or rebuttle.
http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-4123082535546754758
The seductive power of the video lies in the moment where he claims that he has an argument that does not depend on knowing whether the claims of AGW are true or not: “…an argument where we don’t have to know whether it’s true or not in order to decide what to do” and with which the most “hardened sceptic” can agree.
Yet the argument DOES depend entirely on claims to factual knowledge for its force viz. that the outcome of the north west box is not as bad as that of the south west box. And exactly how are we supposed to know that? Because he says so? When he says “let’s take a look at how those outcomes might look like”, where does he buy his crystal ball?
He seems to think that the risk of an economic downturn is limited. Yet it is generally thought that the depression of the Thirties led to the Second World war and the holocaust. The same thing now could mean nuclear conflagration. My point is not that it WILL. But how do we know? And if so, why is that less disastrous than the conjectured consequences of worst-case global warming? By the same token why is the vision of global warming so necessarily apocalyptic if true? There would be losers, but there would be winners too.
So without some privileged insight into future consequences you cannot assert a preference for one “box” over another. And as no one has that insight, the argument has no power. It is sophistry.
Pali,
That was a fantastic response. I believe you are making the same point as Terry – that we could indeed cause things to get much worse by actually taking action as opposed to doing nothing.
Of course, I think you said it a little better than Terry. ;-) Also, I especially loved the reference to the Sophists. I wonder how many people will catch that?
The problem I have at the moment is that at best this argument merely renders the video above neutral. I’m trying to decide how exactly one would take the opposite stance and turn this into a 4 square box argument that “proves” we should actually do nothing.
It may be possible… I need to give it a little thoughts.
John