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)