The end of the world - and why it doesn't matter

[xsilence]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

A brilliantly well-explained argument, though a tad preachy in the last minute.

[4???2]

Yes, a great argument.

Or rather the delivery was good, i think that you could use that technique to convince most confused/easily led people that your view was right.

I don't agree with his thinking at all....

[DrAlex]

Not really as revolutionary as he built it up to be. Many informed people (e.g. anyone who isn't in the mainstream media) have been arguing that the cost of "column b" far outweighs that of "column a".

Countdown to this becoming a mudslinging over climate change: 2 posts.

[hr]

The Sinner: Where no one ever learned "if you haven't got any thing nice to say, don't say anything at all."

[Frank]

It essentially is my thoughts on the matter too. Thinking of it in terms of possible costs is all fine and well, but I can't help but think that we're thinking about things in a way that'll seem really really stupid as soon as we figure it out...

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."
Also, some years later:
"here we are arguing about a few uppity troublemakers with a bee in their bonnet and a conspiracy theory."

[rob 'f*ck off' wine boy]

OP - where did anyone anywhere say that the end of the world doesn't matter? It doesn't even qualify as a paraphrasing of the dude's video.

Curse you for getting me excited over what I thought would be nihilism.

[QuadrAlien]

Hmm... I think I have a counter-argument.

Global economic depression (from acting on global warming without a cause) leads to opposition of current governments, allowing various extremist parties to take control in countries. Expansionist goals of said extremists cause the Third World War, and, with the help of today's nuclear weaponry, leads to nuclear winter. Hardly a better state of affairs than mass effects of global warming.

However much you may question the likelihood of said sequence of events actually happening, it is a feasible worst case scenario, which is all that's dealt with in the scope of the video creator's argument.

Mind you, I'm sure some pessimist will follow this by filling in apocalypse scenarios for the other two boxes.

[hr]

But still at night, when darkness rules again,
Whispering shadows creeping through the lanes,
Evil creatures of the expelled magician,
Oh, it's a fight you'll never win...

[Icarus]

Quoting QuadrAlien from 14:32, 29th Nov 2007
Hmm... I think I have a counter-argument.

Global economic depression (from acting on global warming without a cause) leads to opposition of current governments, allowing various extremist parties to take control in countries. Expansionist goals of said extremists cause the Third World War, and, with the help of today's nuclear weaponry, leads to nuclear winter. Hardly a better state of affairs than mass effects of global warming.

However much you may question the likelihood of said sequence of events actually happening, it is a feasible worst case scenario, which is all that's dealt with in the scope of the video creator's argument.

Mind you, I'm sure some pessimist will follow this by filling in apocalypse scenarios for the other two boxes.

I'm sorry but your scenario rests on so many assumptions and suppositions that it doesn't stand up, not least your theory on the likelihood of nuclear war. Such a scenario entirely ignores the fundamental logic of nuclear deterrence which has inhibited the use of atomic weapons for over 60 years. What makes you think any state, no matter how extremist or expansionist, would ever use nuclear weapons, especially if they were faced with retaliation in kind? As even the most cursory reading on nuclear deterrence will tell you, the potential costs of nuclear weapons force any potential aggressor to think about the ultimate costs of nuclear retaliation, no matter how 'irrational' or 'crazy' they may seem on the surface. No matter what your aims where, the potential risks make any cost-benefit calculation fundamentally tipped on the side of not using nuclear forces. Your scenario is far too Tom Clancy and not enough Kenneth Waltz.

[Freaker]

Because deterrence really works so well in a world in which the leaders who claim to be rational develop missile defences and encourage a defensive arms race (and the continued development of weapons that could get past a missile defence system), and those who are considered irrational build nuclear weapons but have no prospect of reaching a state in which they can deter at any time soon (eg they do not have enough weapons to some would survive a first strike, hence 'rational leader' would not have to fear retaliation) ...

I see your argument, and I don't think that there will be a nuclear conflict in the near future - but if the world is going to keep from nuclear war in the next 50 years, it won't be because of deterrence theory - irrational leaders and roaming terrorists can hardly be deterred.


As for the global warming video - it is a convincing argument, presentend well, although it does sometimes feel a little patronising (but then again, that often is the nature of youtube videos in which someone talks at you)

[hr]

I try to take one day at a time, but sometimes several days attack me at once.

[Power Metal Dom]

Quoting QuadrAlien from 14:32, 29th Nov 2007
extremists cause the Third World War, and, with the help of today's nuclear weaponry, leads to nuclear winter. Hardly a better state of affairs than mass effects of global warming.

"I'm glad global warming never happened."

"Actually it did. But thank God nuclear winter canceled it out"

[hr]

Like flames on fuel...upon metal I drool

[DrAlex]

"Global waffle?"

[hr]

The Sinner: Where no one ever learned "if you haven't got any thing nice to say, don't say anything at all."

[Gubbins]

The true cause of global warming is not rising CO2 levels: it's all the hot air that's spouted on public forums.

[hr]

...then again, that is only my opinion.

[The Jaspar]

Wasn't a very similar point argued by Stephen Fry in his blog posted on here a few days ago?

[MaverickMenzies]

The problem is that the argument suggested here is not specific to climate change only - i.e. replace global climate change with any other catastrophic event and you will obtain a similar conclusion.

[exnihilo]

There's no sense whatever in which that represents a problem. Simply because the conclusions would be the same in a different scenario does not make them invalid in this one.

[MaverickMenzies]

Quoting exnihilo from 11:48, 30th Nov 2007
There's no sense whatever in which that represents a problem. Simply because the conclusions would be the same in a different scenario does not make them invalid in this one.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the argument is wrong. Its just that the model as it is presented is too simple and too vague - wheres the relative weighting between the possible outcomes? Moreover, what is the probabilities for "GCC=FALSE" and "GCC=TRUE"? Without this information we can't really make an informed decision.

[munchingfoo]

My main issue with it is that his column A worst case scenario is not the theoretical worst case.


Consider the case where climate change is a natural shift in the climate balance of earth. Consider now an artificial modification to that balance. (I have heard people calling for things as extreme as solar shades). Now the false/A cell contains exactly the same as cell true/B, but with added cost.

Using his own argument therefore - added risk of column A is cost and there is no added risk in column B. Therefore we choose B.

This doesn't necessarilly reflect my opinions, I don't agree with his method of argument.

[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[user]

It's really just Pascal's Wager applied to Global Warming... not terribly original.

[roo]

Quoting xsilence from 23:21, 28th Nov 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

A brilliantly well-explained argument, though a tad preachy in the last minute.

Are you kidding?

The guy's an arrogant liberal douche. The substance of that scrawny prat's Eco-Fruitcake invective was totally unoriginal, required the logical abilities of a not especially bright 14-year-old schoolgirl could have been done in forty-five seconds, and prolonged only by the fact that the douche in question, like most liberals, loves to hear his own voice. The rest of it was hackneyed garbage. I've been hearing this nonsense since 1991 and I can't stand it. Therefore, I'm going to:

1) turn on the heat,
2) turn on my halogen lamp while I work,
3) make a burger in the oven,
4) warm up my car before I use it,
5) buy only non-fairtrade products, so I can put the screw that much more on the third world,
6) throw some plastic in the rubbish bin, and
7) laugh.

Just to spite the hippies. And there's nothing you can do about it.

[Icarus]

I love reasoned debate.

[Humphrey]

There are fundamental problems with the global warming movement, as can be seen from the mass apathy that greeted Live-earth concerts and recent traveller’s surveys that show that their carbon footprints are highly unlikely to figure in their thinking in the foreseeable future. The government response so far has been highly contradictionary at best. You only have to look at our approach to transit, currently the government is expanding airports across the country (they are excellent vehicles for regeneration) at the same time as telling us we are evil for flying. There is a so-called eco tax on air travel but none of the money goes to eco-causes like off-setting or green technologies, it goes straight into the usual black holes (NHS, private-public partnerships, public sector funding etc..). Building eco-towns in the middle of nowhere so people have to drive into work is another good one as is the current myth of the carbon neutral Olympic games. Meanwhile motorists are being priced off the roads yet rail travel is more expensive than ever and continues to rise exponentially. The sticks are out in force but the carrots are nowhere to be seen, presumably they clock up too many air miles.

There seems little point in calling upon your representatives to do anything as this chap advocates because the government has only two approaches to problems 1) pass a new law, 2) put a tax on something. My whole problem with the whole movement is that it is so punitive, ‘your behaviour may or may not be destroying the planet therefore we are going to tax the shit out of you’. It goes without saying that this is a really hard sell and unlikely to capture people’s imagination. This could be the new space race, instead it is uncannily similar to Calvinism.


[hr]

http://humphreyclarke.blogspot.com/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/