Check this video out. This gentleman breaks down the global warming debate into a simple 4×4 grid, with cause on the vert and response on the horiz. Interesting, but I’d like to hear what y’all think.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI]
Also, check out his other videos, Patching Holes, where he answers to some critique.
PS: Sorry about that “y’all” up there. I had a dream I was in Louisiana last night.
Tags: Global Warming
Entries (RSS)
October 18th, 2007 at 8:01 am
It’s a sound argument, and I think his reasoning is essentially correct.
October 18th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
This is no more than a rehash of Pascal’s Wager and a simplistic one to boot. Pascal used this same logic to argue in favor of belief in God. That this guy is using it for Global Warming is further evidence that belief in same requires a huge leap of faith.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
I think Pascal’s Wager can be useful in real-world discussions. Think of it like this: you are going to be late for a party and have the option of going through North Philly, thereby avoiding the wrath of your sister-in-law, but chancing getting shot. Or, you can take the safe route; you’ll definitely be late, but you are less likely to get shot.
Well, in the case of making a real-world decision, Pascal’s Wager is a wise bet, unlike when it is applied to a philosophical question, i.e. “should I believe in god”.
See, there are few scientists out ther that deny that the climate is warming, and if it continues unabated, there could be some negative consequences. The debate is now on whether or not it’s mankind’s fault, and the severity of the problem.
In the presenters opinion, assuming the worst, droughts/famine/etc (like getting shot) is the safer bet.
Even if it is Pascal’s Wager, the real-world application is, I think, valid.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:50 am
[...] in my last episode by not publishing his full take on Global Warming. MBA in the video “Silver Bullet” gives a sobering look to prove it really doesn’t matter if man “is or [...]
October 25th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
The problem is that he’s being overly absolutist without considering the tradeoffs.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
The whole point of the exercise was to treat it as a best or worst case scenario.