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

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

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.

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-4123082535546754758

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?

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

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.