Guest Posting by Ira Glickstein
My granddaughter just sent me a link to a video that claims: “One Guy With A Marker Just Made The Global Warming Debate Completely Obsolete.”
I watched the video with interest. He starts off saying he has: “… An argument that leads to a conclusion even the most ardent skeptic and most panicked activist can agree on. No one I’ve shown it to so far has been able to poke a hole in it. …”
As the image from the video indicates, he divides the Global Warming debate into two dichotomies:
- Global Climate Change (GCC) is “False” (Top Row) or “True” (Bottom Row), and
- We take Action “Yes” (Column A) or “No” (Column B)
Here are the results he gives for his four boxes:
- GCC is False but we unnecessarily take Action. The result is a high “Cost” that results in a “Global Depression”.
- GCC is False and we take No Action. The result is a happy face.
- GCC is True and we take Action that stops GCC dead in its tracks. The result is a happy face.
- GCC is True and we take No Action. The result is “CATASTROPHES [in the] ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, SOCIETAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, [and] and HEALTH” areas.
He ends with the inevitable: “The only choice is Column A” – we must take Action!
“All or nothing”, “Camelot or Catastrophe” arguments have great emotional power in political discourse, where the (usually hidden) assumption is that some things are perfectly TRUE and others are perfectly FALSE. But the real world is mostly in shades of grey. He studiously avoids that complication, because, when shades of grey are considered, his argument, IMHO, falls apart.
Let us take a closer, more realistic look at his four boxes:
- GLOBAL DEPRESSION: This box is included to make it appear he is being “fair” to Skeptics. He assumes that taking Action to stop GCC will be so costly that, if it turns out to have been unnecessary, the result will be a “Global Depression”. Certainly, maximum environmental spending will damage the world-wide economy, but I doubt that type of spending, alone, will trigger a “Global Depression”. When we get to box #3 we will see that he doesn’t really think so either!
- HAPPY FACE: GCC is “False”, we take No Action, so all is well! But, is it? Does his “GCC” include NATURAL PROCESSES and CYCLES that have caused Global Warming (and Cooling), Floods (and Droughts), and Violent Storms (and Blessed Rain) prior to the advent of Humans on Earth, and before we Humans had the capability to affect the climate? Apparently not, else “GCC” could not be totally “False”. Therefore, by “GCC” he is referring ONLY to the HUMAN-CAUSED variety, totally ignoring the evidence from the geological, ice-core, and historical records of NATURAL Global Climate Change and some Catastrophes.
- HAPPY FACE: This box is totally inconsistent with box #1! If Action to stop Human-Caused Global Warming is so costly as to cause a Global Depression in the first box, would it not also cause such a Global Depression in this box? So, why the Happy Face? Realistically, even if we in the US and other nations in the Developed World take maximum Action to reduce our CO2 emissions, it is totally unrealistic to expect those in the Developing World to do the same. Indeed, China, India, and other countries will continue to build power plants, nearly all of them coal-fired. CO2 levels are bound to continue their rapid increase for at least the coming several decades, no matter what we do.
- TOTAL CATASTROPHE: This box is filled with terrible consequences and is intended to scare us into taking maximum Action. He assumes the worst-case Global Warming of several degrees predicted by Climate Models despite the failure of those Climate Models to predict the past 17 years of absolutely no net Global Warming. (The most realistic prediction is continued moderate change in Global Temperatures, mostly NATURAL but some small part HUMAN-CAUSED. As standards of living continue to improve world-wide, populations will stabilize which will allow reasonable action to be taken to moderate CO2 emissions, and Human Civilization will ADAPT to inevitable Natural and Human-Caused Climate Change as we have throughout history.)
Bottom Line: This “One Guy With A Marker” DID NOT MAKE “The Global Warming Debate Completely Obsolete.” His failures of logic:
- He assumes HUMAN-CAUSED Climate Change is the only kind we need to worry about, which flies in the face of the fact that most Global Climate Change has been and continues to be NATURAL, and not under Human control or influence.
- He assumes costly Action to prevent GCC will cause a GLOBAL DEPRESSION (box #1) if GCC is “False”, but the same costly Action will cause a HAPPY FACE (box #3) if GCC is “True”. Box #3 contradicts box #1.
- He ignores the fact that GCC models have way over-predicted Global Warming. For example, taking 1979 (when worldwide Satellite temperature data came available) as a starting point, the average of 102 Global Climate Models predicted warming of 0.9°C (1.5°F) by 2013. Actual warming from 1979 to 2013 has been less than a quarter of that, and there has been no net Global Warming since 1997. During this time period, CO2 levels have continued their rapid rise. (See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/global-warming-is-real-but-not-a-big-deal-2/)
- He assumes “All or Nothing at all” and “Camelot or Catastrophe” which is the characteristic of irresponsible EMOTIONAL argument. He ignores the shades of grey in-between. He brings POLITICAL rhetoric to what should be a rational SCIENTIFIC discussion.
Ira Glickstein
[UPDATE 18 May 2014. In a comment:
John Coleman says May 15, 2014 at 12:52 pm)
Ira, please make a video that presents the counter argument so I can put the two videos together for a You Tube “gotcha”. This guy is getting lots of hits and needs to be answered on You Tube.
Thanks for the suggestion John! I’ve done a video Titled: “One Guy With a Marker – DECONSTRUCTED”. It is on You Tube at http://youtu.be/pSmV_QhDmc4 Comments are welcome. Ira]
=============================================================
Related: See Craven Attention, where Steve Mosher reports on Greg Craven making a buffoon of himself at AGU.
So, what has done to prepare for the Zombie Apocalypse?
What’s GCC? Does G stand for Godzilla here too? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/14/off-the-rails-godzilla-and-climate/
Not even close.
Needs to rethink his assumptions.
cn
Let’s see, warmer weather, longer growing seasons, more CO2 which means more plant growth, disappearing Tundra which means more inhabitable land, where’s the downside.
Typical juvenile thought process as nurtured in the state schools.
this stupid diagram would work with any silly fear that a guy suddenly discovered.
What about another choice:
We are aware of a potential long term problem, but it is not immediate and there is no need to grossly overstate it or panic. We have already taken many positive steps to reduce pollution and our carbon footprint. Like so many other challanges humanity has faced, over the long run, innovation and technology will solve the problem.
Therefore take no draconian Government action at this time. There are far more pressing problems to tackle, like national debt and the economy. We need to in the short term become energy independent and develop our own relatively inexpensive resources.
This is a version of Pascal’s wager. It has the same practical value as the programming language with the same name: it’s a tool to teach logical errors.
“3. GCC is True and we take Action that stops GCC dead in its tracks. The result is a happy face”
According to NASA it’s unstoppable so why even try?
Craven assumes in his scenario #3 that if we take action, we will stop GCC dead in its tracks. But what happened to all the claims that we are already beyond the tipping point and that we have locked in warming for hundreds of years to come? There is little evidence that any actions we take will have a noticeable effect on climate. So the happy face in box #3 is the least likely result.
Even if GCC is true, the more likely outcomes will be:
1) We spend a fortune in money and lives trying to prevent climate change with little or no effect, and then we find ourselves without resources to adapt to the still changing climate.
2) We spend a fortune trying to prevent warming just as we are about to begin a new ice age, and all we succeed in doing is hastening global cooling.
Neither of the more likely outcomes produces a smiley face.
tteclod says:
May 15, 2014 at 2:07 pm
This is a version of Pascal’s wager. It has the same practical value as the programming language with the same name: it’s a tool to teach logical errors.
*********************************************************************************************************
Hey go easy there. Pascal is my language of choice. It works very well.
Throw the baby into the volcano! Right now! No time to lose! Are you willing to take the chance on what will happen if we dont?
I feel compelled to come to Mr. Craven’s defense. True, the logic is sophomoric, but I personally don’t see it as much worse than that of most catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming proponents.
In these nutty arguments, the set-up is almost always in the initial assumptions. Most any person will nod in agreement for the time-being in an effort to hear the entire idea.
However, whenever one of these cult members starts their argument, and you can see where it is going, you look very rude cutting it off at the stage of presenting assumptions.
This is because, to others, you look rude for not even listening to someone’s idea before they have gotten it presented.
Also, per your own values, you generally do not want to be rude to others unless justified, and justification requires more than, “excuse me, could I ask you about something?”
-Except when you know what the sales pitch is, and that this is a set-up.
If we let the State set up a dictatorship to solve any problems there will be catastrophic consequences.
25th caller to mention Pascal’s Wager wins tickets to Poincare’s Conjecture opening for Godel’s Theorem at Euclid’s Proof.
What if “we” (the developed world) take action, and “they” (the developing world) continue to emit GHGs in quantities that completely outweigh our reductions.
Sounds like the worst possible scenario, where Box 1 and Box 4 aren’t mutually exclusive.
Oh what… that’s not a “what if”… that’s historical reality so far.
We pretty well know that the “solutions” won’t work if CAGW is true, so if CAGW is true and we choose column A we will be broke with no resources to adapt to it. Choose column B we retain the economical resources necessary to adapt.
The false assumption is believing that the remedy will work.
An argument that appeals to emotion without giving appropriate thought to the details.
It’s an appeal to one’s emotion that you must chose to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is a fallacy since the desirability of a consequence doesn’t make it true.
The first casualty in this video is truth.
In the YES column the two boxes should be the same because if you solve the problem you don’t know you’ve solved it because you’ve never seen the result of it being true, so no smile I’m afraid, just “Cost & Global Depression”. In the NO column, you don’t smile if “False” because you’ll still be being told that it’s going to happen by the usual gang of eco-religious fanatics. Which leaves “Catastrophes” like bad would happen suddenly, well it wouldn’t. What you’d actually do is adapt as and when depending on individual events,risks, costs, benefits and priorities, like we do anyway in all aspects of life, in the sensible world I inhabit ie Business as usual.
I like reading blogs like this because sometimes you get to hear from highly intelligent and thoughtful people and you learn stuff. On the other hand, sifting the wheat from the chaff is sometimes more than I can endure.
where is the box for taking action and harming the climate?
TRG says:
May 15, 2014 at 3:20 pm
I like reading blogs like this because sometimes you get to hear from highly intelligent and thoughtful people and you learn stuff. On the other hand, sifting the wheat from the chaff is sometimes more than I can endure.
If I was guilty of chaff I apologize, my only defense is in a game theory sense “One Guy With a Marker” is using a parlor trick to try to Jedi HandWave the gullible.
There is no(and arguably can be NO b/c of how flawed the models are and how ill equipped said models are to act as a predicative exercise) factoring of %s and orders of probability and as was pointed out the entire exercise is cloaked in the idea that there are ONLY adverse effects which is folly.
They grew grapes in Iceland and Greenland in antiquity the wheel keeps turning and it is hard to take such sophomoric idiocy seriously.
bobbyv says:
May 15, 2014 at 3:26 pm
where is the box for taking action and harming the climate?
by inference he is postulating that the Gaia Watermelon Kult is ABSOLUTELY engaged in the correct preventive measure…which is STUNNING given the last 17 years.
I am in awe that the gentleman in question has eliminated with 100% certainty the possibility we are creeping into a mini ice age.
Astounding really.
Back in November of 2009 I wrote an article debunking Greg Craven’s above nonsense presentation. http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/11/08/when-scientists-fail-to-present-all-the-known-facts-including-the-ones-that-contract-their-hypothesis-they-become-propagandists-and-bad-scientists.