Although we should try and stop global warming question, are our techniques and technology advamce enough?

1 – uncertain knowledge of the future creates an opportunity for imagining two poles of outcomes – best case and worst case. These poles are not measured in terms of probable occurance, they are weighted equally as mere “possibilities”.

2 – the possibility of choice creates two possible outcomes. Merging the two “twos” yields the four imaged future scenarios. Each of the four holds equal weight in the decision matrix.

ok, obvious enough, but I always have to think this way with a step back and a careful entrance into any question….

My gripe with making decisions this way, is that uncertainty ALWAYS leads to an ACTION decision. However, ALL aspects of the future contain uncertainty, within which a “worst case” can be imagined. To be consistent with this logic, we are duty bound to be taking action against EVERY IMAGINABLE WORST CASE SCENARIO at all times!

To tease out the absurdity of doing so doesn’t take much imagination……

But even worse than the above conclusion is that the decision matrix as presented leaves us with an infinite degression of situations involving uncertainty for which a worst case can be imagined. For example: we vote in the decision matrix as say, mandatory. The government, by law, must follow the decision matrix. So we must “take action” on global warming. So that decision is followed by, “well, which action?” And for each proposed action there is UNCERTAINTY as to the outcome. Which puts us RIGHT BACK IN THE BOX of formulating “action” to deal with the imagined worst case scenario of THAT decision moment. Which leads to the next, and the next, and the next. In fact, if we try to lay out our course of action at the beginning, we can never even start, as we never reach a point of certainty.

Of course, at some point we rebel, scream STOP!!! And decide that we can’t use this logic as a rule – we have to weigh the possibilities of future outcomes as the only way to make a decision that takes us out of the unending loop.

I agree with the common sense view that a HUGE risk should be acted on at a lower probability point than a small risk. But we have to make decisions and own the responsibility of living in a permanent state of uncertainty to some degree. We can’t make uncertainty push us forever into the “we’ve got to DO something!!” mindset.

Milton

What if we take action, lots of it, and it isn’t enough, it doesn’t change. Maybe the cliimate change that has been triggered is irreversible. Maybe the positive feedback will continue. There is a risk there, that it is real, dramatic, and impossible for us to reverse.

Mwuahaha! (Just trying to play devil’s advocate here, nothing personal.

Keep in mind that a large majority of the people arguing that we should have never gone to war in Iraq without more information and proof of WMDs will most likely support the theory suggested to act now before knowing what the impact of our actions will be when applied to the environment. I am not against the movement to address the issue of climate change, just opposed to the mass communication of flawed, simplistic logic such as this. I’m honestly surprised that of all of the potentially strong arguments for and against taking action to address humans as a driving force behind global warming that this was labeled as one of the best.

Iraq scenario as outlined in the simplistic “4 Box” approach

- Yes/False -Cost, Casualties, Economic Decline, Unstable Middle East, Refugee situations (Option selected/results below)
- No/False – Smiley Face
- Yes/True – Cost $/Smiley Face
- No/True – Encouragement for state sponsors of terrorism without penalty, terrorist camps with WMDs, Weaponized Ebola or Smallpox spreads throughout the world, US/World economic repercussions

Now, here is the reality of the decision to move forward without full knowledge of the situation and these are just a few of many…

1.Current spending levels – Approx $600 billion of US taxpayers’ funds. President Bush has requested about $200 billion more for 2008, which would bring the cumulative total to close to $800 billion.
2.Lost & Unaccounted for in Iraq – $9 billion of US taxpayers’ money and $549.7 milion in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors.
3.U.S. Troop Casualties – 4,091 US troops
4.Iraqis Displaced Inside Iraq, by Iraq War – Over 2.25 million

Regardless of the topic (environment, war, etc) this approach should not be the preferred nor publicized as the answer to our current situation.

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?

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.

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.

That is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone claim that global temperature has dropped in the last four years. In fact I have heard repeatedly that we continue to have the hottest years on record. So, can you cite sources to validate this claim?

John

[a highschooler's view on this subject]

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?

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

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”

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