Global Warming Debate Simplified

[pasithea]

Got this link from ironraptor and thought it was worth sharing.

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

It's fairly succinct and a good summary of my own opinions on the issue.

Of course, I can see pretty immediately where right-wingers will focus on trying to break his argument. They'll attempt it using their own fundamental lack of understanding of the problem. Indeed, a couple of the commentors were quick to jump to this argument. It goes like this:

There's another row you forgot! What if we take an action and it turns out to be the wrong one and makes things worse!

For the ignorant simpleton that asks this question, not because they are really concerned with the problem but because they need to be 'smarter' than the dirty liberal, here's the answer:

You're a stupid fucking idiot.

The rows are this: Human action is causing global warming. TRUE or FALSE.

IF human action is NOT causing global warming, then the actions we take to not cause global warming will also not affect global warming.

IF human action IS affecting global warming and we take the wrong actions, we are NO WORSE OFF than we'd be by taking NO action. (However, the vast majority of scientists agree on what human factors may be contributing to global warming. They disagree only on the amount of an affect they have. No one is going to suggest that we need to eradicate the ozone layer.) This argument is utterly stupid in every possible way.

--

I'd also like to make a note about the scale of the disaster scenerios on both sides of the fence. On the do-nothing side, as he points out, the disaster is economic. On the other side, economic is one of several disasters that result.

Now... It's fair to say that as a citizen of the US, I'd be fairly inconvenienced by total economic collapse. So would most of you... But we're a small portion of the world population, you and I. Many people in the world ALREADY live in abject poverty. So what you're really talking about on the right-wing side is disaster for the people in power. On the liberal side, what you're talking about is disaster for nearly every man, woman, child, plant, and animal on the face of the planet. When you talk about it in those terms: Only affects the people in power VS Affects nearly everyone and everything on the whole planet, it's pretty apparent which side is more important.

So yeah. Go ahead and try to knock down his argument. I don't think you can. If that bothers you, maybe it's time for you to reconsider your position. If you think you can knock it down, hit me with it. I'm always up for a good intelligent debate.

Comments

[ff00ff.livejournal.com]

Oh me oh me! I can knock down his argument!

Granted I'm a pointy headed liberal and I think that global warming is happening just because of the trivial matter of the scientific consensus on the matter, but his argument was horribly unconvincing.

Lets use that same grid method for something we can be fairly sure isn't going to happen: Emperor Xenu of the Scientologist's invading.

Xenu|YES|NO|
YES |:) |:(|
NO |:/ |:)|

Okay, so what we've got here is a chart representing the possible outcomes of the Scientology doomsday.

Upper Left Box: Is Xenu coming YES, are we prepaired the way scientology tells us to YES: Happy outcome.

Upper Right box: Is Xenu coming YES are we prepared the way Scientology wants us to be NO, outcome, frowny face (probably involving volcanoes and hydrogen bombs)

Lower Left Box: Is Xenu coming? No. Have we prepired for his coming by being good Scientologists? Yes. Well, thats sort of a who knows face. We were wrong and we waisted a lot of time in stupid money draining cult. Not the worst outcome on this grid, but not a good one.

Lower Right Box: Is Xenu Coming? No Have we prepared for it? No! This is the happiest of all endings, since we got to keep our money, make fun of scientologists, and nothing bad came of it!

Now by the cute video guy's logic we all aught to be really afraid of Emperor Xenu and all convert to Scientology right away, but we aren't going to, are we? Thats because it isn't logically sound to weigh all of these scenarios as having an equal likelihood. This simple logical construct can only tell us that in general it will probably work out better if we prepare for every scenario. Indeed, you could use this logic to convince someone to err on the side of caution in every instance no matter how absurd, so this isn't actually a useful tool at all, and we require more investigation into the probabilities of the different outcomes to arrive at a choice.

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

Pfft. I already handled that here: http://dv-girl.livejournal.com/648312.html

It's the same argument Christians use to claim atheists are fools. The failing is in a false dichotomy.

Humans are causing the planet to heat up is not purely YES/NO We could be one of a number of factors contributing to warming or not warming but the argument for doing something about global warming hinges on a single variable; the average temperature of the planet.

In Scientology, Xenu may/may not exist but in order for Xenu to exist or not, you must first prove that BrandX is the true religion and all those other religions are nonsense. In the meanwhile, the impending return of Xenu, Jesus, Buddha, and Elvis are all equally likely and unlikely and preparing for any one would be silly.

I agree that his model is a simplification but you can add more variables to it and reduce it to the same set of results. If global warming is happening but man isn't responsible, then either you waste money and the planet is wrecked, or you don't waste money and the planet is wrecked. Neither of these results are different so you can just factor out this line.

My position on religion vs just being a decent person is the same sort of reduction. No religion can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's the right one so it's impossible to chose a religion and that means either God is going to be reasonably cool (non-existant fits here) or he's going to be a prick. On the side of being a decent person, if god is cool or non-existent, nothing particularly bad happens to you. OTOH, if Huitzilopochtli is the one true god, everyone who hasn't been making their regular human sacrifices is pretty-much screwed and even if he's the one true god, do you really want to align with him? Same for a god that would punish you for not calling out his name or for eating steamed pork buns. If he's going to torture people just because they don't know they're not supposed to eat pork buns, he's not really worth my time.


Um. So anyhow. I've gotten off-topic. that's the fault I see in your argument. False dichotomy. Is there a similar glitch in the global warming question that you can see?

[ff00ff.livejournal.com]

Er, you're right it is exactly the same argument that Christians use to clalim atheists are fools, and thats why it's entirly bankrupt. It works equally well for any potential hazard. Rather than using a religious term I could argue that the only logical course of action for any of us is to buy elephant repellent to avoid being trampled when we go outside. It's an argument completely apart and separate from the probabilities of events.

All it says, essentially, is that it's best to be prepared for something. But we don't have infinite energy or resources to devote to being prepared for every conceivable threat, so we pick and choose the ones that are likely, that's how we pick to prepare for things. Right wingers live in a fantacy world where scientists are trying to pull one over on them, hence they think that Global Warming is one of the non-threats that they don't need to spend resources on preparing for. This is a wholly inadequate way to argue the case. What is needed is evidence that will convince right-wingers that the scientists are not in some sort of hippy conspiracy against the coal industry, although they have proven quite evidence resistant, so maybe we aught to just cut them loose, nudge nudge, wink wink.

[iron-raptor.livejournal.com]

I think the whole global warming question can be expanded as far as to say that it is a question of personal accountability and responsibility. The stuff we throw out, the things we take for granted, the things we don't think about because we're concerned over job security, economy, family, kids, etc. Accountability and responsibility, are those concepts so alien?

Regardless on the yes/no question... there is a fundamental thing we must all understand. This planet, is home. It is very much a part of us, as we are a part of it. We have great potential to do great good, and to help not just each other, but other living beings that co-exist with us. Many fundamentalists believe that life only exists on Earth, and nowhere else, by that definition, it should be even MORE important that we protect life here, not just human lives, but the lives of those that co-exist with us.

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

It's an argument completely apart and separate from the probabilities of events.

Okay. I agree with that and I concede your point as I was looking at it from inside the frame of reference (the same problem as noted for religions)

Religious people live inside the frame of the world as defined by their religion.

I was defining the frame of the world in terms of the environment we all live inside of. This seemed fair to me as (save for a half dozen astronauts) we all live inside within the Earth's environment and it's real and tangible which gives it more credibility as being something worth preparing for than a religion.

While this is true, it doesn't give an idea of the potential threat the situation poses.

A good analogy would be Bush's Missile Defense System (which cost a lot of money and could only hit a rigged demo 25% of the time) Framed in the context of the paranoid militaristic xenophobic mind of the right wing, it's only a matter of time until someone gets ahold of an old Soviet nuclear missile and fires it at us.

I think, given the complexity and age of the equipment and the materials needed to fuel and launch such a device that the odds of it ever even getting off the ground, let alone getting headed towards its mark are pretty low and that the odds of shooting it down given the record of the missile defense system is significantly lower. However, I must concede there is a non-zero probability it could happen.

So... You're right, of course, but that leaves us with a small problem.

The corollary to your argument is that in lack of definitive evidence that yields a favorable probability, it's better to simply do nothing.

However, research is not "doing nothing". It's an investment of time and resources and often money. Checking to see if there IS a risk IS taking a step towards prevention/correction.

We're already well down the path towards doing something about global warming so not doing anything else at this point is kind of foolish. Likewise, both sides could go back and forth forever debating every minor point. Trying what we propose to fix a problem is the only way to really empirically test it. Research and statistics can only get you so far. Something like God or the environment is far too complex for us to accurately model. There are too many variables. Empirical testing is really the only option at a certain point.

At what point do you start empirical tests? There will always be someone who says more research is required, effectively filibustering the process. At some point, you have to take your hang glider and step off a cliff. Many people would chose to NEVER test their glider because they don't see it as acceptable risk. The problem is that the environment is a set that encompasses all of everything mankind is except for a few chunks of lonely metal in deep space. If we wait for complete consensus of acceptable risk, we'll not act until it's too late.

As far as global warming is concerned, the mass majority of people who are actually really qualified to have a position on global warming are in vast agreement that it does exist. Most of the debate seems to be on whether or not human activities are contributing to the problem. It's a view that crosses fields of study and cultures. I would wild-guess that the number of qualified people who disagree on human factors in warming are at most 20% but let's be generous and say it's 40%. Are 40% odds a good bet to gamble 7 billion lives on? In hospitals, a 10% chance of death is termed as 'extremely risky'.

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

I just performed a little experiment on myself. Decided to test what I consider acceptable risk.

The idea was simple. Grab a D10, a paperclip, and a lighter. Heat up one end of the paperclip with the lighter and say, "If I fail my 'acceptable risk' I will touch this paperclip to my arm."

I'm a bit of a masochist. Without getting out the paperclip and lighter, I rolled on the 40% odds. I rolled 3 for my first die and 9 for my second. (I swear that this was an honest roll! I would not make up such an implausible 'close but no cigar' situation!)

... I did not burn myself. I'm a wuss, and thinking about how much that would hurt put it in perspective for me. 40% was not my acceptable risk for a nasty stingy burn.

With that role fresh in my head my acceptable risk dropped immediately to 0. Of course, I taunted myself. I said I'd really accept 10% or 20% on my next roll, but when I got out the lighter and flicked it, I started thinking. "5% isn't so bad if I'm really going to do this." But like I said. I'm a wuss. It wounds my ego but I must admit that I'm just not in the right frame of mind to burn myself. My real acceptable risk at this moment is 0... And that's for a little burn. A few seconds of pain and a little scar. I wouldn't gamble my life on odds like that.

So... I reiterate that you are correct. There is a flaw in his reasoning that renders it invalid in a hypercomplex system. The opposite position (do nothing) IS valid for the null set but doing nothing about nothing accomplishes nothing. So for any complex system it is also invalid. However, if we factor out the question of whether or not global warming exists (since the real debate is focused mostly on whether or not humans are a part of it, not it's existence) then his system checks but his terms are so vague that the result is useless, so it still fails (again proving you more or less completely right)

Since both systems fail for all but the null set in a system of any complexity, the only winners here are the atheists in my religious model. ;) I think a missile defense system put it best: "The only way to win is not to play." (Isn't it neat how I tie up all these threads?)

I must say I'm happy and sad you're correct. On the one hand, I'm really sad that this isn't the all-purpose billy club for whacking conservatives that I'd have liked it to be. On the other hand, I'm pleased that my argument against religious dogma still checks and quietly overjoyed that the same over-simplification was the key to destroying a really depressing thought that'd been in my head for the past week.

[ff00ff.livejournal.com]

Could you say I'm more or less completely right a few more times? Purr.


But... yes, my only point was that this chart is useless for real life decision making, because we only have limited resources to prepare for things, and for every possible threat that you feed into this thing it always tells you that it's smarter to be prepared for it. Lack of convincing evidence that being trampled by an Elephant is a significant threat in North America we, by default, take no efforts to prepare ourselves against elephant attack. So despite the logic of being prepared for things, we must work within a probabilistic framework to allocate our limited resources to the most likely threats.

The argument for global warming has me fairly well convinced that it's happening and we're responsible. Deniers seem to be arguing that it's not happening or that we are not responsible, and that more research needs to be done. That does seem to me like a delaying tactic as they can always claim "the science isn't it" until our knowledge of the climate reaches some sort of platonic ideal of perfection, which isn't likely to happen in time for us to do anything about warming.

[sci.livejournal.com]

Within the parameters of the argument it seems sound. It does seem to leave out extra positives on the side of acting, possibly for fear of over-egging the argument. And it doesn't take into account individual human motivations.

Wrote some about it in my own LJ.