What do you think of this compelling argument about global warming?

Question

http://i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=23875

This guy really seems to have a point, but I want to hear other's opinions on it.

But I think this guy is arguing that even if it IS propaganda, isn't it better to take action than just sit around waiting to see if it happens or not?

Answer 1

Nice try, but no cigar. Although I applaud the presenter for his sincerity, there are some pretty basic problems in his logic. Setting aside any concern about whether or not we agree with the presenter’s assertions, the analysis used is flawed and can not support his conclusions - or any conclusions, for that matter. Don’t get me wrong, the presenter presents a ‘logical sounding’ argument and makes a good first attempt at risk analysis for a novice. But experienced practitioners of this kind of analysis will be quick to point out several very elementary errors with his approach. The reasons are probably a little too technical for this forum, but you sound sincerely interested, so will do my best to be brief & clear.

The basic thing this presenter is trying to do is called 'model-based risk analysis'. This is a discipline which has been widely studied for many decades and hundreds of text books have been written on the topic. The table used by the presenter is intended to be a very simple 'risk model'. Such models are used to help make better decisions in situations where multiple risk factors must be carefully balanced to achieve an acceptable outcome. For example, the manned spaceflight program uses this discipline extensively.

But there are several problems with the ‘model’ offered by this presenter. I’ll go in a few specifics below, but the bottom line is this. Models are only useful if they provide a result which is directly related to the input provided. In other words, they must provide a response that actually answers the specific question that you are asking. Obviously, if you change the question, the set of possible answer should also change. But that is not the case here. The model presented will provide the same results for ANY set of inputs. It’s like one of those 8-ball answering toys. It doesn’t matter what you ask it, the set of answers will be the same. And the conclusion reach by this model will also always be the say.

Doubt it? Try this: Replace ‘global warming’ in the presenter’s model with any other threat, real or imagined, and the model produces the same results. For example, take the following assertion: “There is a flock of giant intergalactic space dragons headed toward earth. We must stop them soon or their fiery breath will burn our planet to cinders. It will be expensive, but we must do it, because if we don’t the world will end.” Of course, the assertion is silly. But feed this assertion and its purported consequences into the presenter’s model and ‘bingo!’ we get the same ‘in escapable conclusion’. Try it with anything. With all due respect to the presenter, this kind of model can’t discern reality from pure fiction anymore than the 8-ball knows what you are asking. It does nothing but lull an experienced person into a false ‘feeling’ of having completed a meaningful analysis. (By the way, flawed models of this kind are also widely known and studied. They are often used in advertising to promote products in certain types of markets. Learn how to recognize these models and you will stand a better chance of hanging on to more of your hard earned pay.)

Now, why is this all this true? Before I get started, let me say that if you are truly interested in the details of risk modeling, I will be glad to have an off-line discussion with you on this topic. I love this discipline and would be more than happy to entertain penetrating questions. Meanwhile, here are a few basics.

Risk models relate initial conditions (both known & unknown) to possible outcomes. When correctly constructed, they are a useful aid to making sound decisions. But to be properly constructed, they should possess the following three properties.
1. Accurately depict cause & effect relationships. (If we are very generous, the model presented might just barely meet this criterion. Cause and effect is sort of addressed in the True/False matrix, but only in the most simpleminded way possible. The accuracy of the assertions is completely open to debate. )
2. Address likelihood and consequence. (The model presented does not address likelihood. Again, consequences are addressed, but only in a simple minded way.)
3. Must be quantitative. (No attempt was even made in this department. Likelihood was not even mentioned, let alone quantified. Consequences were treated as fully qualitative. The presenter simply ‘granted’ worst and best case assertions and proceeded as if it made no difference.)

Okay, now before anyone flames me, let me just say that I don’t mean anything disrespectful by any thing I have said. In fact, I have the utmost respect for the presenter. He is articulate and bright. He stated his case well. But he is also appears to be completely ignorant (meaning unaware – not stupid) of most fundamental principles of risk modeling techniques. The approach he presented is misguided and should not be relied upon to make an important decision of any kind under any circumstances.

Answer 2

I think several of the previous answerers are missing the point - they're convinced that either global warming isn't happening or if it is happening then there's nothing we can do about it.

Regardless as to what might be the cause, we know for certain that the world is warming up and we know it's warming up at an incredible rate compared to historic changes. Even if the current warming were 100% natural it is still going to lead to global catastrophes.

Natural, manmade or both, there are measures we can take to reduce or even reverse global warming. By doing nothing we're taking an incredible risk with our planet and the only way to stave off catastrophe would be by a rapid switch to natural global cooling*... nature doesn't do rapid switches.

I think the video is well balanced and makes a very valid point, but a point that will be lost on some skeptics who are unable to conceive of the possibility that they might be wrong.

We only have one planet and we can't afford to gamble with it. Act now.

----------------

* Because of the mechanics of global warming we could reduce all sources of greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants to zero and the world will keep warming for many decades to come. The only natural event that could offset this rise is for global cooling to commence, given our current position within the natural cycles of the Sun and Earth this is nigh on impossible.

Answer 3

That has little to no effect on the ongoing problem of climate change. You say that the reason that the oceans are releasing so much CO2 ,is because they are getting warmer. What do you think is causing the oceans to warm up? When the oceans give off excess CO2, that's called a "negative feedback loop". Global warming is really caused by humans burning fossil fuels! All the so called arguments denying the facts,are just grasping at straws,and even making up their own hypothesis to try to disprove the theory of climate change. They don't care what they say,as long as they can claim that oil use is not the cause. As long as people can be confused or fooled by junk science,they can keep the truth from being understood. What needs to happen now is for all of us to find creative ways to save our butts!

Answer 4

Flawed logic. Determining a worst-case scenario only depends on imagination, and he failed to address TRUE worst-case scenarios in the "Yes - action" column. The true "worst-case" by taking action is that our actions to manipulate global climate cycles effectively make this planet uninhabitable. In the Yes-GCC/action box, he is actually looking at a BEST-case scenario, assuming that our actions will lead to a positive climate outcome.

If none of his friends could poke holes in his argument - makes me wonder if his friends are imaginary.


And Trevor:
"Natural, manmade or both, there are measures we can take to reduce or even reverse global warming. By doing nothing we're taking an incredible risk with our planet and the only way to stave off catastrophe would be by a rapid switch to natural global cooling*... nature doesn't do rapid switches."

WHOAAAA!! By NOT reversing a natural cycle we're "taking an incredible risk with our planet"? That's the polar opposite of risk. If it's a natural cycle, then ANYTHING we do to alter that cycle is a risk. Think about it. The crux of the AGW argument is that we HAVE taken risks by disturbing natural cycles (with which I agree) and that those risks have played out with significant negative consequences (the major point of contention, for me.) The catastrophe you talk about is a human catastrophe - the planet is doing what the planet does. If a dog scratches an itch and kills a couple of fleas, it's not a catastrophe for the dog...

But a human catastrophe is NOT good either in my book. I just can't agree with the notion that the ONLY thing to prevent it would be global cooling, or that it cannot happen in a relatively short timeframe.

Answer 5

He tries to make a point that if we do anything to try to prevent global warming from getting worse, it will break everybodys pocketbooks and cause a recession that will make the great depression of the 30's seem like a cakewalk by comparison. He also implies that global warming is just a phony scare tactic and false alarm used by Democratic politians to raise taxes. He's definitely no expert at climatology, political science or global economics.

In my opinion he's nothing more than a politically biased conspiracy theorist who uses partisan hackery and rhetoric to try to scare people away from being concerned about environmental issues.

Answer 6

According to environmentalists since developing countries like China and India do not have to cut their emissions, developing counties must cut co2 by 60-80%. That means drastic measures have to be taken. Changing a light bulb is not enough. So the Kyoto accord will not do anything. That is according to environmentalists, not me. Well, Industry can not operate on solar panels and wind mills. It is going to means a lot of unemployment.

If you go to your doctor and he tells you there is a 10% chance that you leg has cancer and it must be amputated, will you say yes. Better safe than sorry? Or would you demand proof?

Do you like paying extra money in taxes? Do you like being lied and manipulated? I do not. If you do, go ahead and support it.

Answer 7

I've seen this moron before. Replace "fixing global climate change" with "burning witches at the stake", and you'll see where the logic fails at its simplest. "What's the worst that could happen?"

Though obviously there are a whole lot of other points which could be used to oppose him. For example, what happens if by attempting to alter our climate for the better, we actually make it worse? What if the climate DOES change, we do nothing about it, but it actually helps promote life on Earth? Hmm, suddenly it seems there's a lot more to this "simple logic" than Professor Putz would like to have you believe...

Answer 8

Extremely weak argument, completely unscientific. Should we also spend millions protecting ourselves against an invasion from evil aliens from another galaxy? This guy is nothing but a spammer who wants exposure by having uneducated Utopians spread his message of fear...

Answer 9

By his argument we should also say that a big meteor will hit earth so we need to spend all the wealth in the world to fight meteors.

You could put the worst case of any thing in the GW place and make the same point.

Answer 10

Lottery B has a greater risk.
Like he said: Do you feel that lucky? We get to play this game ONCE.

Should we RISK facing the end of the world in order to save money?

And if we choose not to spend money, does any of us think that this money will benefit the world's citizens? NO, it will stay in huge corporation pockets as it does right now.