Fully agree with the gist of his conclusion.
However, he's a slimy prick and no mistake. Plus I detest his logically and philosophically flawed method, and his horrifically condescending delivery. The Pascal's Wager model he uses is predetermined, over-simplified and factually assumptive.
Moreover, this video depressingly implies that a meaningless gambling diagram will be more effective at persuading us to act than the horrible, plainly visible reality of WHAT WE'RE ALREADY ACTUALLY DOING. If that's the case, then I think it's safe to say the environment's fate is sealed.
(I also hate the fact that he does the irritating Dana Scully thing of supergluing his top and bottom front teeth together in the morning, then attempting to talk normally for the rest of the day hoping nobody notices. But i suppose that's slightly off-topic.)
As a final gripe, he should be using a chalkboard (as opposed to a big slab of plastic and a toxic, non-degradeable marker) if he wants to appear more convincing. Steampunk FTW! ;D
(
grey kid is breakdancing to save a community centre, Fri 16 Nov 2007, 12:58,
Reply)
Feel free
to email him and tell him all that. You might want ot include a little more detail on HOW and WHY he's wrong, too.
(
Kerrisis There's someone in my head, but it's not me., Fri 16 Nov 2007, 16:15,
Reply)
True
All he has actually done is demonstrate the precautionary principle. If you ignore the rational factual components of any dilemma, as this whiney twat has, you are left with no other rational choice other than to be blindly cautious. To this effect his argument has no greater validity than eclectically adopting the practices of all religions to cover your bets. Despite this obvious point, most people who view it will unquestioningly accept his assumptions, subsequently berating me to change my behavior in spite of their stupidity.
Cunts
(
RANCID TESTICLE I AM GALACTUS, Fri 16 Nov 2007, 17:46,
Reply)
He kind of addresses your point in the second video
in that he looks at the likelihood of global climate catastrophy. He actually argues that it seems more likely than not, but I wouldn't agree with him.
There's plenty of politics and agendas throughout the scientific world. Even if we could agree that there was a scientific consensus that climate change was very likely to happen, I'm not sure if I would put entirely that much stock in it.
The reason for this is that, even if the best climate models give high probabilities of disaster, by definition, they are predicting things outside of their normal range of use.
That said, even if you think the likelihood is as low as 10%, it'd still be well worth spending a few billion on sorting it out.
(, Sun 18 Nov 2007, 16:54, Reply)