From The Head Of Zeus Jones

I'm firmly agree with the guy's conclusion, and am 100% in favor of action. But the argument he's using, as presented, is as a matter of fact flawed. It's identical to the reasoning used by Pascal for the conclusion that it's rational to believe in god and behave piously...even though we can't be sure whether or not he exists. Pascal uses an almost identical 4-square decision grid, only the rows are "god exists" True or False, and the columns are "believe in god" or "don't believe in god."


The flaws with both arguments were brought to the attention of the author of this video who accepted the criticism and responded with an updated, stronger, (if whackier) version:



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



As for this original video, it's auther says:



"DON'T WATCH THIS VIDEO. I'm serious. This message isn't a ploy to get you to actually watch it.



It's just that there's a hole in this argument big enough to drive a Hummer through because of an assumption I didn't realize I had, and the argument has been UPDATED to address that hole.



So instead of watching this old, obsolete, hole-y video, go watch the NEW, IMPROVED version called "How It All Ends."

I agree, we should do more personally. This film is effective in that it produces an emotional response. Fear. He wants people to become evangelists. I have no problem with that, it's that so far, the direction of this passion seems to be highly reactionary and not terribly productive. This is a topic that requires reasoned debate. Mis-directed passion can be a dangerous thing (say, our reaction to 9/11 perhaps).


I also did not use the words liberal or liberal policy. If any subject deserves to be non-partisan, it is this one.



My political opportunism reference was specifically directed at policy makers, i.e. politicians, not this guy. It is unarguable that climate debate has not become highly politicized, here and abroad, which is unfortunate.

In addition to being logical, humans are emotional, selfish and illogical.

Hi Mark,


Like you, I take this personally. This makes me feel like an ass for not doing more - as an individual.



My reaction is to vow to do more - personally - rather than lash out at liberals and "liberal policy."



I don't see where, in this film, it was turned into a political issue.

Nothing wrong with the logic. It's just that this is a classic straw-man argument. Who is actively arguing that we should do nothing to mitigate the potential risks of warming?


The question is: What, exactly, represents "significant" action?



This fellow equates risks other than the doomsday scenario as merely economic risks. This calculus is either naive or deceptive. Economic decisions of this order have very real human costs. Kyoto, as proposed, would arguably result in the untimely deaths of millions who would be otherwise spared thanks to current rates of increases in living standards. Further, even supporters agreed that the accord would have little or no effect on current warming trends. Kyoto was not morally defensible.



Again, the question is what does significant action entail? Alarmists all but advocate the destruction of the world's economy. I would argue that damaging economic development would be exactly the wrong approach. If we are indeed heading for some sort of cataclysmic future, our only savior will be breakthroughs in energy and emmissions technology, which require incentivized capital (i.e. a profit motive). I somehow think another UN commission would not be the most effective means of allocating capital.



Those who make policy should be looking for innovative ways to create incentives rather than using this issue for political opportunism.