Global Warming Debate Simplified
Oct. 31st, 2007 03:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pasitheaGot this link from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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:
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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-01 11:27 am (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-01 06:19 pm (UTC)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.