Global Warming: Pick a Column

By Anthony | July 16th, 2007 | 12:34 am

A bit oversimplified, as he admits, but it’s an interesting argument. He addresses some criticisms here, here, and here.

(Via The Talent Show)

3 Responses to “Global Warming: Pick a Column”

  1. Ged Says:

    His third video is actually the best I think, and not because of all the explosions. He’s not reading at the speed of light and he makes the case for the scientific community very well.

    The fact of the matter is that for those that do not believe in climate change, no one is going to change their minds for them. Even if the risk of inaction is pushing man back in history about 100 years or so, to them it is not worth it. I personally can’t imagine why some people wouldn’t want to develop new technologies to reduce pollution, reduce energy use and the like, but that is their position. The scary part is that we’re rapidly approaching the point of no return.

  2. Ken Says:

    While I am a firm believer in the science behind global warming and the need to do something about it (and soon), I have to say that I find this argument less than compelling. I actually think that this argument is basically Pascal’s wager in a slightly different form, despite his denials. If he is assuming finite payoffs in each of the four boxes (as he claims) and also relying on expected value calculations to determine the best course of action (which he also claims), then there has to be some probability of global warming being false that would make inaction the best course. That’s just simple algebra.

    The only other alternative is to argue, much like the philosopher John Rawls, that the best choice is the option whose worst alternative is the least bad outcome. That’s a bit too risk averse for my tastes.

    The logic behind action to prevent or reduce global warming is a lot stronger than that laid out here, in my opinion.

  3. “24″ Goes Green « gedblog Says:

    [...] Perhaps the most positive thing to come out of this development isn’t that 24 will be using less fossil fuels or even that it will spread the word about the genuine danger of climate change. No, the real news here is that a show with such deep conservative roots, on a partisan network like Fox, is taking a position on an issue that is in direct opposition to main stream right-thinking. The show’s co-creator and executive producer, Joel Surnow is an unabashed “right-wing nutjob“. Recently he helped to create Fox’s answer to The Daily Show, the 1/2 Hour Comedy Hour and has taken flack for 24’s casual treatment of torture and abuse of civil liberties. Indeed, 24 has even been used by some GOP candidates as a talking point to illustrate how America should deal with terrorists. [...]