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.
Mathematical Game Theory has a 2-person game called “Sentry’s Dilemma”. In this game, the sentry must decide whether or not to shoot someone who might or might not be an enemy. Suppose you assume that failure to shoot an enemy means he will shoot you — a kind of infinite loss. The odd conclusion is that no matter how likely you think it is that he’s an ally, you must shoot him. This is a thought-provoking game. The mathematically correct solution is obviously wrong, but it’s not easy to explain why.
The 2X2 matrix above is very much like a 2-person game, except that humanity chooses the column and nature chooses the row. Like the Sentry’s Dilemma, if you assume that climate change will cause infinite disaster, and if you assume that we have the means to prevent infinite disaster, then the mathematically correct solution is that we must take that action.
The problem with this analysis IMHO is that both assumptions are false. It’s not certain that climate change will cause infinite disaster And, it’s not even probable that we have the means to prevent that disaster, if that’s what nature has in store for us.
Regardless of whether it is true or false, the cost of fighting GCC is already producing the conditions for a global depression and the ensuing social unrest and war by raising the price of energy and food. Mr. Craven’s position that we will have a ‘smiley face’ is entirely wrong. The UN’s prediction that GCC, and AGW in particular, will cause millions of climate refugees ignores the very real evidence that fighting AGW on their terms has already cost the lives of millions of people through famine and violence.
He even looks stupid. Next!
The hat is appropriate.
Nearly ten years ago I went through the same exercise with a different result:
Rob Dawg’s Rules for Climate Intervention:
[formerly named Rob Dawg’s rules for environmental inaction:]
You may NOT skip questions. Feel free to substitute the eco-emergency of
the moment for “global warming” as all are equal in the eyes of science.
Is there local climate change? Yes/No
No: end Don’t Know: pause Yes: continue
Is there global climate change? Yes/No
No: end Don’t Know: pause Yes: continue
Is global climate change bad? Yes/No
No: end Don’t Know: pause Yes: continue
Is global climate change going to continue? Yes/No
No: end Don’t Know: pause Yes: continue
Is global climate change controllable? Yes/No
No: end Don’t Know: pause Yes: continue
Is global climate change controllable by human action? Yes/No
No: end Don’t Know: pause Yes: continue
Is global climate change worse than the actions required? Yes/No
No: end Don’t Know: pause Yes: continue
If you have reached this point on the decision tree you may
now proceed to the public plebiscite process to determine
which radical actions are most popular/acceptable.
—–
Remember I went through this a decade ago.
This did the rounds years ago under the heading “the most important video you will ever see.”
It is just another way of stating the “what if we made a better world for no reason” argument.
Let’s be charitable. When he says “we” take action, he might actually mean everyone. (Highly unlikely, I know. He’s an American, and so probably doesn’t take the rest of the world into account, but let’s pretend he does.)
In that case, it may be unrealistic, but he does mean the whole world reducing its CO2 emissions.
But Louis is right. There is still an unwarranted assumption there. He assumes that Action will prevent the catastrophe.
It won’t.
It’s too late.
Last summer I opened a can of beer. The CO2 from that beer was the final bit needed to push us over the tipping point. It is working its way through the system. The chain of events is now unstoppable.
We’re doomed.
OMG! We’re doomed! After applying his theory to zombie invasions we have no recourse but to dig up everything hat is dead and eat it.
The clown in the vid does at least demonstrate a firm grasp of what the ’cause’ is really about: lying to gullible idiots.
son of mulder makes a good point. Boxes 1 and 3 are basically the same. It doesn’t matter if GCC is true or not. If we take steps to combat GCC, and the predictions of gloom and doom fail to materialize, alarmists will claim our actions prevented the catastrophe. The only way to prove them wrong is if we take no action and nothing bad happens to the climate. That is why they are getting so desperate for us to take action. They know their fraud will be exposed soon if we don’t.
My first reaction is that people should be require a license to have the right to use a marker.
As apparently some people are too stupid for this privilege.
But then remembered that government is so stupid they would probably think this hapless twit should be only one with this privilege.
What if Earth cools? Can we really afford to do nothing in preparation for cooling? The required added Energy supplies and Food Sources. Only one conclusion, we must prepare for Cooling. aka the Cooling Precautionary Principle.
A few years ago, he was forced to disable comments on youtube because so many holes were being poked into it. So funny.
Here’s my grid:
I predict that if the world doesn’t pay me 1 billion dollars, the world will end in 2020.
Pay Don’t pay
I’m right world losses a measly 1 billion END OF THE WORLD!
I’m wrong world losses a measly 1 billion Nothing happens
Well given the OMG, END OF THE WORLD if I’m not paid … it’s only logical to pay me. I’ll accept gold, diamonds and US currency thanks. It’s foolproof as long as you focus only on illogical imaginary worst case scenarios! But come on, do you really want to risk it!?
I don’t know why you’re giving air time to this garbage. He piles logical fallacy onto logical fallacy.
“No one I’ve show it to so far has been able to poke a hole in it. …”
So far his his dog, his cat, and his pet rabbit have seen it….
Ha ha ha,
I debated with him for a very short time in youtube comment board,until he realized I knew far more than he did on the topic.I had invited him to discuss his stuff at my old global warming skeptics forum,but never did join for the debate.
He does not impress me in the least.
saw this years ago. stupid, naive argument. As I recall, it assumes there’s no cost in “fixing” the problem, when in fact that’s where most of the human cost resides.
You can defeat all alarmists simply using Reductio ad Absurdum
The like the mayor of my old home town once said “if everyone swept his own doorstep the whole world would clean.” So all I can say to these alarmists is set the example and sweep your own doorstep. Hey lefty low CO2 starts with you.
My first thought was he drinks too many sugar drinks (look at the empty cans on his desk).
But best summed up in Einstein’s words:
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the the universe.”
Theo Goodwin says (May 15, 2014 at 1:50 pm): “It is the very same reasoning that is found in Pascal’s Wager. The conclusion of Pascal’s argument is that every rational person will be in church on Sunday. (Pascal stated the argument for Christians.)”
I suppose the Muslim equivalent is called “Muhammad’s Wager.” 🙂
He doesn’t cover the most likely scenarios
1. “We act, but it does nothing because the warming isn’t man made and the warming continues” — In this case you’ve just caused a global recession AND the world comes to and end also, basically both the upper left and bottom right corners of his chart happen at the same time. That is worse than just the lower left box.
2. “We act, and the climate changes, but not how we want it to change”.
How do we know if we change man’s input to the climate what the result will be? He only assumes our actions will cause the exact effect on the climate we want, not too little, not too much, but just exactly right. Even if we effectively remove man’s impact on the climate, the climate will still have forces acting on it, so removing man’s impact does not mean the climate stays the same. What if we ARE warming the climate, but without our input, the climate would head into an ice age? In that case, we remove our effect then the earth goes into an ice age that freezes all but the areas near the equator, and all the bad things that happen if we had done nothing and the warming continues look ten times more appealing than all the bad things that happen when 2/3 of the world is under a sheet of ice.
I’ve been saying the same thing ever since this loon posted his video but like all religious fanatics, recognizing and admitting to failures in logic often falls on deaf ears.
This arguement is strangely familiar. I believe in my youth it was the same arguement I would make to my date in the backseat of the car at the drivein.. If we have sex there are two possibilities: 1.We will both enjoy it or 2. I will enjoy it. We have no choice, we must select column A and have sex. There was 97% consensus among the guys that this was the correct choice but as expected many of the girls were skeptics.