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

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

Tam,

First, I’m assuming that you are speaking figuratively to the person who created that video when you say “your simplistic analysis”. :-) I merely pointed out that the argument is an excellent one – a fact which i believe is bolstered by the fact that the video has been watched 750,000 times over on Break.com.

Having said that, I will take a look at the video you pointed out. Thanks for the link. It being an 80 minute long video however, is going to take me a little while to get back with a reply. ;-)

Take care,

John

The problem with using the precautionary principle in this argument is that both action and inaction may potentially cause harm. The PP is normally used in situations where there is a lack of clear scientific agreement (95% certainty) in order to help determine policy regarding severe and irreversible events such as environmental concerns when introducing products, policy etc. In these cases, the burden of proof falls on the advocates of introducing the product/policy.

In our videographer’s case, his argument reads: We must take action regarding global warming in advance of certain scientific proof and/or evidence suggesting it is needed BECAUSE future delay will prove ultimately more costly to society and nature, and will be selfish or unfair to future generations. The alternative argument reads: We must not take action regarding global warming in advance of certain scientific proof and/or evidence suggesting it is needed BECAUSE taking action will prove ultimately more costly to society and nature, and will be selfish or unfair to future generations. Both arguments are quite plausible, as is admitted in the video.

So, since the burden of proof falls on the advocate of either action or inaction in our two arguments:

Argument A: Do not take action. The burden of proof falls on the advocates. Since inaction may impose a great cost on society, life, economies, etc. and we are nowhere near scientific agreement on the benefits of this choice–> Conclusion A: Take action.

Argument B: Take action. The burden of proof falls on the advocates. Since taking action may impose a great cost on society, life, economies, etc. and we are nowhere near scientific agreement on the benefits of this choice–> Conclusion B: Do not take action.

Since conclusion A and B contradict each other, the principle we have developed is useless. Again, this all boils down to the fact that both action and inaction may cause SUBSTANTIAL harm. It seems to me that his argument boils down to “better safe than sorry,” but we don’t know which decision is “safe”

Between Greg, Terry, Pali Gap and now Kevin I believe the point is clearly established that there is as much of a risk from taking unnecessary or unwarranted action as there is from taking no action at all. So I’ll concede that the argument is valid.

The problem is, it seems to me much simpler to argue the side that our presenter had than it is to argue the opposite. I’ll have to give it a little thought as to how to best summarize the points raised and put them into an actual video presentation…

John

Could you spell out exactly what you mean by “simpler” when you say “it seems to me much simpler to argue the side that our presenter had“?

It is extremely “simple” to argue for the proposition “everything is up” (and very difficult to argue against it as it excludes very little). But is that a virtue?

we are all scared about the effects of global warming and have taken to blaming modern day carbon dioxide emissions but we seem to have failed to take into account the fact that the earth in the past has gone through extreme temperature changes such as ice ages. what caused the earth to come out of an ice age? there where no car fumes around back then there have also been studies that prove carbon dioxide emissions follow the trend of global warming with a lag of a century or so. does this not show that even if we attempt to battle global warming by cutting down on human changes to the atmosphere that global warming will still occur as it is a cycle of the earths climate? meaning that all we achieve is potential damage to ourselves and our economy by implementing untested fuel alternatives and other proposed solutions?

[a highschooler's view on this subject]

Have any of you read “The Skeptical Environmentalist”? This is a must read for anyone who is serious about studying the environmental debate. It is really fascinating as it looks at the statistics used by both sides of the argument to find the actual basis for the numbers. It is amazing how many statistics are used without someone seeking the true source for these numbers. The book is written by a statistician and he provides references throughout the book to every statement he makes. This is a very important book!

There is no question that global warming was happening from 1975 to somewhere between 1998 and 2002. There is no doubt that when CO2 emissions increased substantially in 2001 that global warming stopped and the satellite data for the lower troposphere (the zone that actually defines global warming) shows that the global temprerature is now dropping (average rate 0.011°C/year for the last four years. From about 1942 to 1975 when CO2 emissions were increasing from post war industrialization the world was worried about global cooling because the global temperature was dropping. If you consider that since 1942 CO2 has been steadily increasing but the global temperature was increasing only from 1975 to 2002 and was dropping the rest of the time how do you prove a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global warming?
The actual numerical correlation of the 150 years of recorded global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration is so low that it proves that a direct causal relationship is not even possible!
Aside from that your arguement is unbeatable.

Under column A BOTH boxes should say cost $ and global depression. If Al Gore and co. are correct, we will still have destroyed our economy. The fact that it’s warmer will do little to change the fact that there is a depression and no economic output. The outcome beside true and false on the cost side is the same in that respect in column A.

So a big smiley face may not be the best summary for ‘global depression’. At least we never used that shorthand at economics school.

He also limits his global depression impacts at economic. This is pretty short-sighted. A global depression will lead to war, social upheaval, political long term consequences, the collapse of health care systems and doom, doom I say! You could almost consider something like that to be catastrophic. But it’s really speculation. If you want to assume a worst case scenario, catastrophe would be a good shorthand.

I believe he puts the smiley face there because if we are right and we act, we will destroy the economy but ‘save the day’ otherwise. But there are no plans in existence that can save the day. Kyoto has the power to cripple economies, and the benefit will allegedly be between 0.02 and 0.06 degrees over 50 years. So the world’s economy collapses and the temperature only increases by 0.94 or 0.98 instead of 1 degree. Woo.

If there are other comprehensive action plans to deal with global warming, please let me know. Stephane Dion will have to re-name his dog, but progress in this world is relentless.

He is correct in the NE corner, if we do nothing and nothing happens, big smiley face.

If you assume a worst case scenario, or a catastrophe if we do nothing and things go bad, then he is correct. But again, it’s speculation in his explanation.

The man with the 4 boxes then has lead to the conclusion that if we act, we lose whether it’s true or false. If we don’t act, we have a chance to win. By his logic, the reasonable, inescapable conclusion is to do nothing, because we have a chance at hitting the big smiley face.

Hey all. I’m the guy in the video. Just passing through, and thought I’d mention that many of your critiques of the argument I presented in “The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See” are totally valid. Which is why I spent several hundreds of hours producing over 6 hours of videos re-asserting the argument (with holes patched) and answering every single objection raised in the 5000+ critical comments I read.

So, you might be interested. The whole project is anchored by the video titled “How It All Ends,” which has instructions at the end on how to access the “expansion pack” of follow-up vids: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

Unfortunately, this greatly-superior argument is languishing at 60,000 views, while the former fatally-flawed “Most Terrifying Video” currently has over 4 million views on various websites. Perhaps if you watch the new version and are motivated, you can help rectify that gap.

Cheers!
wonderingmind42

P.S. I must say, the tone of the discussion here is a VERY refreshing change from the rancor I’ve become accustomed (though disturbed) to seeing on the internet. Kudos to all.

not that anyone will read this, but all arguments are based on assumptions. good salesmen and politicians are great for assuming those assumptions are correct, accurate and real.

the main assumption here is that any corrective action by humans will lead to a the end of gcc.

the other assumption is that humans are capable of stopping gcc and all of the catastrophes that are delimited in column 2.

greg’s post is the refutal and i am waiting for your video.

your argument regarding ” “…principle has less relevance to contained fields … where the few people undergoing risk have given informed consent…” is flawed. ‘few people’ and ‘informed consent’ are being misrepresented. I could apply the same faulty logic and say that we are all informed about global warming and that in the end it is an individual who suffers if the world ends, thus the risk is “contained” to individuals.

the problem is, simply, the assumptions here are held as truisms and guilt is used in an attempt to convince people to repair some “damage”.

do you really trust the government to do the right thing with our money, to save the world and lead the fight against gcc…heck, we can’t even find osama or end the war in the middle east but you are confident we can fight against an invisible enemy?

We DO know that climate change happens.
We Do know that we did not the total cause but mearly a fraction.
We Do know that we can not affect climate change reagardless of how much money we throw at it.
It is arrogance to think we can change it. So his model fails since we can not change what is happening. We are not significant enough. Of course we can do something like blowing up a thousand nuclear bombs. That would do it but let’s be real.

I saw your other video on youtube, the “Which is the greater risk?” one. Let’s use your logic and expand.
Which is the greater risk, investing trillions of dollars to prevent a massive caldera volcano from irrupting or doing nothing and allowing the world to possibly be destroyed by it?
Which is the greater risk, investing trillions of dollars in a manned spacecraft to explore for meteorites that ‘may’ hit us or do nothing and run the risk of being destroyed by them.
Hm, seem like loaded questions? Are you infalible. If you can’t figure out the problem with your logic then you need to go back to school.