Global Warming

[PatrickTheScienceGuy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=related
No matter what your standpoint on global warming is you will most probably agree with this guy.

I think that we should all be campaigning for column A.

What are your thoughts on this issue league?

 

[Unwardil]

Well, this view isn't typical but here's my trouble with his interpretation.

While he's got a lot of good points in that video, he misses out an awful lot of ramifications on his action with no just cause side of the equation.

Two things that adequatly dealing with CO2 are almost certainly going to cause are a total collapse of the middle eastern oil based ecconomies and the developing industrial world ecconomies who relly of carbon based fuels, leading to massive global instability, bloody wars, etc and mass starvation in poorer countries as food prices go through the room, both as a result of increased shipping costs and beause so much of the food production will be going to making bio fuels which are carbon neutral.

So it's not halfway so clear cut as he makes it seem, because there are a whole lot of really terrible ramifications to taking the extreem measures to reduce carbon emissions that would be needed to stop the level of carbon in the atmosphere from rising and if it true, then taking half measures is equally useless to the overall problem.

Unfortunatly, it still remains a conundrum unless you're absolutely convinced that carbon emmisions nessecarilly represent a major threat to the survival of all humanity.

 

[Niocan]

'Climate change' is a scam for a new taxation system and a move to the centralization of power; If there's more CO2 in the atmosphere, the only thing you should worry about are the stronger poppies :s (And all the other plants that are limited by CO2 in any way, but this is a good thing).

 

[scalyblue]

'Climate change' is a scam for a new taxation system and a move to the centralization of power; If there's more CO2 in the atmosphere, the only thing you should worry about are the stronger poppies :s (And all the other plants that are limited by CO2 in any way, but this is a good thing).

Furnish the evidence for this conspiracy theory. Conjecture is not evidence.

Furnish peer reviewed studies that refute the scientific consensus on AGW.

 

[dr_esteban]

'Climate change' is a scam for a new taxation system and a move to the centralization of power; If there's more CO2 in the atmosphere, the only thing you should worry about are the stronger poppies :s (And all the other plants that are limited by CO2 in any way, but this is a good thing).

You appear to be wrong on every single issue you comment on. Why do you persist when you clear have no idea about science in anyway shape or form. You never back up any of your views with anything credible, I am at a loss to know how you cannot see this

 

[Niocan]

Furnish the evidence for this conspiracy theory. Conjecture is not evidence.
Furnish peer reviewed studies that refute the scientific consensus on AGW.

There's never a scientific consensus.

 

[dr_esteban]

Furnish the evidence for this conspiracy theory. Conjecture is not evidence.
Furnish peer reviewed studies that refute the scientific consensus on AGW.

There's never a scientific consensus.

Ok then explain to us about the lack of scientific consensus on the world being round.

 

[CranesNotSkyHooks]

As much as the guy in the video annoys me and oversimplifies complex issues, I agree with him.

I think the consequences of not taking action and being wrong are way worse than taking action and being wrong. His video and I would also assume his book are political strategies designed to get people acting on a very critical issue.

The reality is global human induced climate change is a very real phenomenon and needs to addressed right now.

 

[obsidianavenger]

are you guys serious!?

this is... pascal's wager. except dealing with global warming instead of god. talk about bias... had the original form of this argument been proffered this thread would have been littered with accusations of fallacious reasoning....

edit: maybe not. i see other people have posted this guy's argument before and made that same connection. still smacks of a threat more than anything to me though... :/

 

[CranesNotSkyHooks]

are you guys serious!?

this is... pascal's wager. except dealing with global warming instead of god. talk about bias... had the original form of this argument been proffered this thread would have been littered with accusations of fallacious reasoning....

edit: maybe not. i see other people have posted this guy's argument before and made that same connection. still smacks of a threat more than anything to me though... :/

FINALLY! I knew there was something that I didn't like about the argument and you just put your finger on it!!!!!!!!

Yes, we should address global warming, but this guys argument is just another form of pascal's wager. There are better ways of making a case for climate change activism.

 

[Aught3]

are you guys serious!?

this is... pascal's wager. except dealing with global warming instead of god. talk about bias... had the original form of this argument been proffered this thread would have been littered with accusations of fallacious reasoning....

edit: maybe not. i see other people have posted this guy's argument before and made that same connection. still smacks of a threat more than anything to me though... :/

Well Pascal's wager isn't necessarily a bad argument right off the bat, but it does assume a few things that make it problematic. For example, it assumes that you can just choose to believe because you like the outcome, it assumes Christianity is the only possible answer, and it doesn't take into account the possibilities associated with Gods existence.

The argument in the video is not a scientific one, it is about risk management. The majority of scientists are telling us that global warming is likely to be a problem and that gives us the extra information we need to make a sensible judgment. It's kind of how you would buy health insurance and yet still hope you will never get sick. It's possible you will never need to make a claim but it's probably a good bet, especially considering the dire outcomes if you get caught without it.

 

[scalyblue]

Pascal's wager also implies that there is no real benefit for the action, iirc? This isn't the case with AGW prevention, as there are other benefits even if AGW were disproven.

 

[Niocan]

The current solution is to drive market changes by introducing global taxation with accompanying regulations; How is this helpful.. at all? To anyone? At a time of world economic collapse as well, wonderful call people..

AGW a false threat, and uses one of the worst methods to drive markets as well (Government involvement). Finding more efficient means of anything is never a bad thing, and cleaning up the pollutants is fantastic but implementing it like this isn't needed, nor helpful, to anyone.

 

[obsidianavenger]

Well Pascal's wager isn't necessarily a bad argument right off the bat, but it does assume a few things that make it problematic. For example, it assumes that you can just choose to believe because you like the outcome, it assumes Christianity is the only possible answer, and it doesn't take into account the possibilities associated with Gods existence.

The argument in the video is not a scientific one, it is about risk management. The majority of scientists are telling us that global warming is likely to be a problem and that gives us the extra information we need to make a sensible judgment. It's kind of how you would by health insurance and yet still hope you will never get sick. It's possible you will never need to make a claim but it's probably a good bet, especially considering the dire outcomes if you get caught without it.

both are arguments for how you should act, not how things actually are.... which is why i find them problematic. accepting this argument implies a disregard for the truth, on top of a succeptability to scare tactics :/

quite aside from this argument its fairly certain that global warming is occurring and that it will have undesirable consequences; grossly exaggerating the extent of those possible consequences and trying to scare people into taking action one desires strikes me as poor form. fear is used so often to manipulate people (just look at american media :roll: ) that i see no benefit in arguing from that perspective. consider the consequences, yes; the most *likely* ones, not the *worst possible* ones. for example (at least when they have a choice about it) people will buy cheaper insurance that doesn't cover as much, because while its possible they may contract something that isn't covered its extremely unlikely... this guy would say to everyone that they should buy the most expensive and expansive insurance plans they could afford without starving if theres even a slight chance of getting something that might not otherwise be covered.

Pascal's wager also implies that there is no real benefit for the action, iirc? This isn't the case with AGW prevention, as there are other benefits even if AGW were disproven.

i think he throws in the "nice people are happier" or something... but the main idea is theres no real harm in being a christian if there is no god. which is arguable. and while there are some benefits to taking action on AWG even if its not real, there are also downsides, not least the economic upheaval strict regulations would cause.

 

[scalyblue]

i think he throws in the "nice people are happier" or something... but the main idea is theres no real harm in being a christian if there is no god. which is arguable. and while there are some benefits to taking action on AWG even if its not real, there are also downsides, not least the economic upheaval strict regulations would cause.

but can't it be argued that the downsides to AGW prevention are relatively short-term? Things like a smart grid (once they agree what that actually means) and cleaner energy will save money in the longrun.

Hell, developing tech like the vanadium battery alone would be wonderful for our energy problems.

 

[obsidianavenger]

absolutely, i don't doubt that there will be benefits; i am more worried about the costs and the suggested method of action than the spirt of it... i support technological rather than regulatory solutions.

i can't really argue that cool new technologies to revolutionize energy use will be harmful... at least not given current knowledge. i am sure thats what they said when they discovered fossil fuels

 

[scalyblue]

absolutely, i don't doubt that there will be benefits; i am more worried about the costs and the suggested method of action than the spirt of it... i support technological rather than regulatory solutions.

i can't really argue that cool new technologies to revolutionize energy use will be harmful... at least not given current knowledge. i am sure thats what they said when they discovered fossil fuels

It can be argued that heavy regulation begets technological advances...because the cost of the regulation makes it financially viable to find alternatives. I also seem to recall that there is historical evidence to back this, but I'm too lazy to seek it out at the moment.

 

[obsidianavenger]

It can be argued that heavy regulation begets technological advances...because the cost of the regulation makes it financially viable to find alternatives. I also seem to recall that there is historical evidence to back this, but I'm too lazy to seek it out at the moment.

perhaps true, but in my eyes that doesn't really justify it because i don't accept a consequentialist ethics....

 

[e2iPi]

Finding more efficient means of anything is never a bad thing, and cleaning up the pollutants is fantastic but implementing it like this isn't needed, nor helpful, to anyone.

I can mostly agree with this statement. Governments have shown themselves to be the black holes of efficiency, however in order for private industry to invest the time and money into cleaning up pollutants or making their manufacturing/operational processes more environmentally friendly, there must be a clear financial incentive to do so. One thing governments CAN do well is exercise their power of taxation/regulation in order to provide that clear financial incentive. Yes, it can be painful, yes it can cause job loss and higher prices - in the short term - but in the long term, we end up with a cleaner world through new technology and innovation.

In short, governments need to act as a catalyst for change, not instruments of change themselves.

-1