How It All Ends

[UptonStellington]

Maybe some of you have seen this youtube video, maybe it's even been posted here (although I searched like hell for it to make sure, and couldn't find anything, so please point me to it if it has been).

It's a nine minute long video with some guy "proving" that even if we don't know the science behind global warming, we should take action, since the potential risk of not doing anything is far more costly than the money it would require to take action. (It's an updated version of the first one you might have seen, where the guy uses a grid to prove his point).

I posted this on another topic, but I think that thread is kind of dead. Anyways, I am curious to know people's reactions to this video, and if they disagree with it, where, specifically, do they find errors in this guy's reasoning?

The video:

The immediate question that comes to mind is, what should we do? Perhaps we should take action here -- but that action shouldn't be forced on us. Aside from the moral arguments against government interference, enforcing all sorts of regulations is only going to limit the wealth and ingenuity we will need to deal with a situation like this. But, how does one deal with a situation where enough people believe that we are going to experience catastrophic scenarios within a decade, and the fastest way most people see of taking action is through force -- ie, allowing the government to enforce policies versus letting a free market be free and allowing it to come up with solutions on its own (which might take some time)?

What else.. does anybody see any immediate flaws in his argument?

[Clawg]

The basic flaw of the argument is that it assumes that if we knew for a fact that global warming is caused by humans we would have to implement political measures to prevent it.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Clawg

[fatdogs12]

The basic flaw of the argument is that it assumes that if we knew for a fact that global warming is caused by humans we would have to implement political measures to prevent it.

I think if we knew that humans were causing it the Government would be serving in their proper role to stop it.

Simply because they are causing hard to others by doing it. Same thing as why you cant just dump toxic

wastes into rivers, because you would be harming other people's property.

Edited November 8, 2007 by fatdogs12

[Thales]

He's selling poison with a smile, which makes it pretty sick.

A few points:

1> There are innumerable scientists who disagree with the GW hype. Not a mere "handful", as he asserts, the 19000 scientists who signed the Oregon Petition being a prime example. You won't find a similar number on the other side.

2> The media, as a rule, has been trying to stifle any one who disagrees with the movement. They've been hyping this stuff see NBC's dogmatic programming "Green Is Universal" as if we all believe the dogma. They aren't looking for controversy, they're looking to control our lives.

3> Those "science" publications are left wing, and wholly untrustworthy on this postmodernist issue (it is postmodernism, not science).

4> Far and away the most important thing is the facts. If you are not engage in dealing with the facts, then you don't know what you're talking about. This guy is not addressing the facts at all, and this is very dangerous, and, I believe, dishonest.

5> This issue is so important, because of the way postmodernists are trying to destroy capitalism, that you shouldn't rely on experts blindly. Read and study the issue, you're freedom depends on it. Find experts who make sense.

5> The very best climate scientists don't believe the hype. Lindzen of MIT being a great example.

6> There is NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING if you believe it's real. Our actions will have no effect whatsoever, even going by the discredited theory.

7> Given 6, what conclusions can be draw about that idiots video? He's trying to get us to put out a fire with a thimble full of water, while we completely lose our freedoms.

[UptonStellington]

Here's what bothered me, and it's pretty much in line with what Thales said.

As proof of the science being correct, about 5 minutes into the video,

he states that the trick is not to look at what individual scientists

are saying, but instead to look at what the professional organizations

are saying -- the more presitgious they are, the more weight you can

give their statements, because they've got huge reputations to uphold

and don't want to make a public mistake.

For me, this amounts to him asking people not to look at what the facts might be,

but rather, to put your money on what a group of people SAY the facts

are.

Personally, I find that approach insulting. Still, it raises the question of how will the average layman decide for himself what's true, with no scientific education?

[UptonStellington]

And Fatdogs, you think a blanket government regulation would be the best way, not to mention the morally proper way, to deal with a situation such as this?

I can't agree. In the moral realm, it amounts to punishing some companies for the violations of others. In light of a response in another thread I started similar to this one, I am prompted to ask the question -- if certain companies can be PROVEN to having a negative effect on the population, shouldn't it be up to individual citizens, who are being harmed, to sue those companies?

In the economic realm, for something along the lines of Kyoto to have any effect, it would need to be multiplied by about 30, according to one representative of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. That would come at the price of economic collapse.

[Thales]

Well, I posted a response to the youtube video, but for some reason I can't post any follow ups to responses to me.

Edited November 9, 2007 by Thales

[fatdogs12]

And Fatdogs, you think a blanket government regulation would be the best way, not to mention the morally proper way, to deal with a situation such as this?

I can't agree. In the moral realm, it amounts to punishing some companies for the violations of others. In light of a response in another thread I started similar to this one, I am prompted to ask the question -- if certain companies can be PROVEN to having a negative effect on the population, shouldn't it be up to individual citizens, who are being harmed, to sue those companies?

In the economic realm, for something along the lines of Kyoto to have any effect, it would need to be multiplied by about 30, according to one representative of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. That would come at the price of economic collapse.

I didn't mean a blanket government regulation. Just that there should be a legal remedy (that doesn't take forever) to stop this.

However it's executed that works well is fine

[Matus1976]

He suggests we should take action, since the potential risk of not doing anything is far more costly than the money it would require to take action.

That might seem reasonable to this fella who made this video, who no doubt is unaware of any other threats civilization faces. For starters, even the worst case scenario estimations of global warming's impact (assuming it is occuring, and antropogenic in nature) is not a civilization killer, just something that might make life more difficult for some people in some places.

Additionally, Bjorn Lomborg, as he relays in this TED Video Lecture episode - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/62 convened the 'Copenhagen Conference' economists from around the world argues that spending *any* money on Global Warming is a terrible idea.

Worse, most of the things people suggest to combat the 'threat' of global warming involve undermining anything civilization could do against all of the other threats it faces, like asteroid impacts, global pathogens, etc. by curtailing economic and industrial growth.