What’s The Worst That Could Happen?
Global warming has been on my mind lately. Australia recently elected a new government, who in turn ratified the Kyoto Protocol as their first official act of Parliament. Now, I know Kyoto has its flaws, but I think this is a huge step forwards. Of course, it also means that the United States is the only industrialized country to not yet ratify Kyoto…..
The following is a great video I came across recently. The guy claims to have an argument that even the most hardened skeptic and scared activist can agree on. What do you think? Is this argument infallible, or is it missing something?
Personally I find the argument he presents to be very compelling. It is reasoned, it is rational, and I find it hard to see where someone could poke a hole in it. That may just be the economics student in me showing though 
Learn how I found happiness and meaning and how you can too. Get your FREE copy of my e-book by signing up.
20 Comments
December 20th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
I’m not disagreeing with us taking actions to clean up our acts: less pollution, more recycling, less trash, and conserve energy. I’m against politicizing the “Global Warming” theory. So this guy is right: we have to take action. It is going to cost money, but I rather want that money spent on doing the action, rather than talking about action. If the Kyoto Protocol is enabling countries to do something, instead of just debating about it, then I’m all for it.
[Reply]
December 20th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
There is still a gaping hole in this guy’s argument.
You can’t just fathom up catastrophe’s and then label them in boxes. The science already shows that even if global warming is real, those catastrophes are not going to happen.
The COLDER the Earth gets, the more catastrophe we will face; not the other way around. The Earth has been much warmer in the past without catastrophe–it simply isn’t true.
Besides. I have not found ONE global warming supporter who can answer this question:
“What ended the last two ice ages?”
As soon as a global warming supporter can answer that for me–I’m ready to talk.
[Reply]
December 20th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Yeah… what Kevin wrote….
[Reply]
December 21st, 2007 at 2:49 am
Cathy,
You are right, the Earth is getting warmer. But it isn’t because of humans, it’s because the Earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling.
That’s why I asked what ended the last three ice ages. Man wasn’t around when any of the last three ice ages ended. So what warmed th Earth?
And I don’t appreciate the fact that global warming activists act like CO2 is a pollutant–it’s simply not the case. Not to mention CO2 has very little affect on temperature change. The main component of the atmosphere that has an effect on temperature change is water vapor.
And the ice core records that Al Gore unethically placed in his movie actually show the reverse of what he claims they say–they show that CO2 change actually lags 800 years behind temperature change. Temperature changes first and CO2 responds 800 years later on average.
The politics of global warming is simply an anti-capitalist agenda that is based completely on pseudoscience.
Why do scientists who tell the truth about the global warming swindle receive death treats from scientists paid to blame humans for global warming?
Why did the President of the Weather Channel come out and say that global warming is the greatest fallacy of our time?
Why are all the scientists who support global warming on a political payroll or from an anti-capitalist/anti-US body?
[Reply]
December 21st, 2007 at 5:19 am
Thanks for your impassioned comments everyone.
Kevin: from what I can tell, for every scientist who rejects global warming there is at least one who supports the theory. The reason why I like this guys argument is that he builds a bridge between both sides by saying, “hey, it’s impossible to tell exactly what is going to happen. But lets err on the side of caution and take some positive action to avoid the worst case scenario.”
[Reply]
December 21st, 2007 at 6:02 am
The problem with his argument is he severely overstates global warming and understates the cost.
First the cost. Yes there would be a global economic collapse. With that collapse comes chaos. With chaos comes the rise of tyrants. With the rise of tyrants comes the death of millions of people.
Second the rise in temperature. Even the most extreme global warming models have us raising 1-3 degrees in the next 100 years. This rise will not cause anywhere near the destruction that this fellow claims. Yes we will loose some coast line, but that is about it. Plus that is going to happen over decades, plenty of time to move the people who live in those areas. Second, some very prominent climatologist say that the prime spot for global climate temperature is about 3 degrees warmer that where we are now. Why because it opens up a lot of land for farming without the spreading of deserts. Also if the climate does warm like the models predict [the same models that cannot even predict the right number of hurricanes] millions of people will not die.
So, this guys argument is total bunk, because he undersells one and oversells the other.
[Reply]
December 21st, 2007 at 8:38 am
Thanks Peter I appreciate your comment. The problem does lie with his overselling one and underselling the other. To be intellectually honest he needs to either oversell both or undersell both. He does a nice draw play by pretending to oversell the cost when in fact he pays it only lip service. He completely oversells the effects of warming far beyond what anyone in the scientific community even suggest. There lies his problem. If he truly oversold both we would be right back where we started.
Let me give a reverse example. On the cost, there is a real chance that the cost would cripple all the industrialized nations. Thereby giving rise to rouge nations who would not abide by the standards set. The rogue nations would then take full advantage of their new found power and the chaos I outlined above would happen. With the warming trend…even the most ardent global warming advocates in the scientific community say that the rise in temperature will occur over our lifetime. Yes we will loose some coastline, yes some people will be displaced, and yes some animals will go extinct. But this will all take place over a 100 year period.
So what should we choose. The rise of rogue nations or the slow loss of New York City?
Seems clear to me. And it is given that I oversell one and undersell the other. That is the dance this fellow is doing.
To be taken serious he A] needs to reveal his bias and B] be intellectually honest.
[Reply]
December 21st, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Wow…when I decided to comment on this, I thought I was going to be in the minority, but it looks like some of my predecessors have already hit some of my key points.
I must give kudos to this gentleman for a very well presented argument, much more engaging than anything I would videotape myself presenting. He made the argument easy to follow, and his reasoning is accurate — when arguing for human-caused global climate change, as he presented it.
The problem with the argument is its assumptions. That the globe’s temperature is increasing is fact. As Kevin alluded to previously, there used to be glaciers covering the Northern half of the United State of America…now there aren’t. That’s global warming, and it’s been happening for ages — literally!
What isn’t fact is the human-caused part of global warming. If global warming is not caused by humans, than preventive action is irrelevant. If we have little power to effect climate change (as the millennia-old global warming trend would suggest), then the results in the action columns change as such:
Column A means we waste a bunch of money if the globe is really perpetually warming — but if it’s true, no amount of action can prevent global destruction!
Column B means that if the globe isn’t warming perpetually after all, then we’re far richer by ignoring it, and if it’s true than we all die just like in column A.
Using the logic from the video, it now appears that the most reasonable plan is column B: spend time with the ones you love, do your best to be kind to others and try not to worry too much about global warming.
[Reply]
December 21st, 2007 at 3:16 pm
I recommend that everyone google “the great global warming swindle” and watch the documentary.
And to the person who said, “for every scientist that doesn’t support it, there is one who does” - yes, but follow the money trail. The ones supporting it are receiving big time funding for their opinion. The ones who don’t support it are not.
The biggest lie is when the activists say there is a “consensus” on man-made global warming. This is a bold faced lie and they know it.
Gore tried to say that people who don’t believe in man made global warming are the equivalent of people who used to believe the Earth was flat. This kind of rhetoric proves that he cannot rely on the pseudoscience and instead has to attack and repeat the same false statements ad nauseam until people believe it simply for the fact that they hear it so much and hear supporters claim that all scientists concur.
And I still have not gotten an answer. What ended the last three ice ages?
[Reply]
December 21st, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Kevin,
What ended the last three ice ages? Gradual warming. What’s occurring now? Rapid warming. Hopefully, this link is allowed/and works: David Attenborough on distinguishing between natural global warming and human induced global warming
But, let’s step back from global warming for a minute, and I want to answer your reply to my comment about CO2 pollution. Global warming is one symptom of a bigger problem. There are two problems here: one - global warming is treated as a stand alone problem, and two - the “fixes” aren’t seen in a bigger context.
As I mentioned above, I’ve been looking into the issues facing the Chesapeake Bay specifically. Huge amounts of nutrient pollution entering the water is the biggest problem. The three big contributors of that pollution? Agriculture, sewage treatment plants, and runoff from populated areas. This is clearly a human caused problem.
Stay with me! The top fixes? Planting buffer zones (and other agricultural innovations), better sewage treatment, curtailing suburban sprawl, and making a push for reduced emissions. Funny how planting trees, curtailing suburban sprawl, and making a push for reduced emissions are things that the global warming folks are asking for as well.
I know for a fact this will help the water quality of the biggest body of water in the United States. IF global warming is a farce, at least I’ve saved the Bay. However, if global warming is real, then I’ve “killed two birds with one stone” as the cliche goes.
In the end, I doubt my argument will sway you. Which makes me sad because doing the things that will help reverse global warming (if it’s real - which I believe it is), will also do so much good for other causes. Which are documented to be caused by humans, no argument involved.
[Reply]
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:43 am
What rapid warming?
1.5 degrees in the last 100 years? And today’s temperature isn’t even the top two or three recorded this century–it’s actually dropped over the last 10 years.
And how are humans causing this? CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 has VERY LITTLE affect on temperature change. How are we causing this?
And if gradual warming ended the last three ice ages, what CAUSED the ice ages??
Is it possible that the Earth goes through NATURAL CYCLES of warming and cooling? That’s what the records indicate–but nobody on a GW payroll can seem to confirm it.
[Reply]
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:32 am
Kevin,
As I feared, my argument has not changed your mind. And, no matter what evidence I find to support my argument, you will still feel that it’s not enough to prove the existence of global warming. I accept that.
That’s why in my previous comment I was doing my best to point out that if global warming isn’t real, then the fixes are still a good idea because they are also fixes for problems which are real.
In other words, living our lives in ways that not only help other people (I always find it easier to breathe in the country, away from traffic and smog), but also help the environment (whether that’s water quality, or global warming), is just a good idea. Which is something I thought you would agree with.
[Reply]
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:05 am
Kevin: I have to strongly disagree with your “money trail” argument. Big business stands to lose the most from stricter controls, and it therefore makes sense that they would spend A LOT to make sure their interests are looked after. If scientists are receiving money to support theories of global warming, it would pale in comparison to what those who deny a problem are receiving.
[Reply]
December 24th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
The video and relative comments devolve the issue of global warming into little more than political rhetoric and Chicken Little aggrandizement. The video is flawed primarily by broad and unsubstantiated consequences in all quadrants of the individual’s chart. Personally, I came away with the feeling that the issue is just another cause meant to impassion the moderately informed.
[Reply]
December 25th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
I thougth the video was nice and interesting, if meanningless. You just can’t dumb down and simplify such a complicated debate like that. Also, wouldnt we have global depression if we took action and GW was real as well. So Global depression is a guarantee in his video if we take action, correct?
[Reply]
Share your thoughts, leave a comment!