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.
He has the mental agility of a head of broccoli.
The only thing that I agree with Craven on … is that he is wearing the right hat.
In support of:
RJ says:
May 15, 2014 at 1:01 pm
The impact of a large asteroid would be even more catastrophic, ending human life on earth, so by his logic we must commit to spend all our money creating the means to identify and destroy any such asteroid, This, of course, would not leave any funds available to combat CAGW, but the number 1 priority has to come first!!!!!
William:
The Fool’s marker presentation needs to address a couple of key issues which all warmists have avoided even acknowledging, as opposed to actually discussing.
The Fool should have noted that as the green scams (wind and solar) are not capable of significantly reducing CO2 emissions (best actionable is around 20% reduction for a tripling of electrical costs), if CO2 emissions truly are a problem (which they are not) we need a massive program to convert the entire planet to nuclear power, sad face for environmentalists/warmists who do not understand or ignore basic engineering facts and are completely clueless concerning as to how economies work and do not work, and who irrationally hate nuclear power.
The Fool should have noted that as nuclear power is roughly 8 times more expensive than coal plants, a massive transfer of wealth from the developed countries to the developing countries is required to enable the entire world to be powered by nuclear power. The Fool should have noted that as the developed countries are deeply in debt this will require massive cuts to education, health care, roads, government departments (another sad face).
The Fool should also have added that part of the carbon scam is signing on to a massive carbon tax which will create thousands of bureaucratic carbon trading jobs Vs the loss of millions of jobs due to the tripling of electrical costs and the loss of more jobs to Asia as Asia will cheat and will not follow the idiotic carbon cap. (another sad face).
Another flaw in the logic of the video not mentioned in the original post is that ignores the cost to society if a warmer world is beneficial and we prevent that warming.
I’m surprised he didn’t use finger puppets or interpretative dance!
“A variation of the god/no god argument. Totally lame.”
Except that believing in God per se costs nothing. And even if people disagree with you, they will still respect your right to your own opinions. Religion could be brought into the equation but that is for another forum.
IIRC, his claims that his premise is valid based on the assumption (the only assumption he admits) that we don’t know one way or another.
But we do know. We do have a rough posterior probability of AGW being true, and it’s less than 50% IMHO. If it was 50/50, maybe he’d have a point. But 50/50 is not the same as not knowing. 50/50 by definition means that we do know. Just like we know that a coin flip will give 50/50 results.
What is the definition of rationality? Believing and acting in proportion to evidence. If that means funding asteroid detection, I would be all for that. In fact, I am.
This video, or one like it, was around several years ago, and it was obvious that the endgame was determined by unsupported assumptions.
It’s kind of like when someone says, “Let’s face it…”, you know that they are trying to trick you into agreeing to something that is probably not true. The same thing takes place on the phony board game. It is a game, isn’t it?
The solution is simple: everyone who believes in CAGW needs to adopt the Amish way of life immediately. Move to the country and start homesteading. If they don’t, then I don’t believe that they actually believe in CAGW.
The first rule of Climate Hoax club is we do not talk about the “hoax” in Climate Hoax club.
Sorry mods I tried the links can you please delete the two above. I hope this works
[all that appears is a “This video does not exist.” warning. Mod]
@Gary Young Hladik.
“I suppose the Muslim equivalent is called “Muhammad’s Wager.””
No, it isn’t. Muhammad did not present that argument. Not is it clear that it would strictly work for Islam, since some Muslim theologians argue that the punishment of Hell is not eternal, and therefore not infinite.
But one of the weaknesses with the wager (pointed out by Hobbes*, among many others.) is that it can be applied to most religions that include rewards and punishments, including the religion you made up five minutes ago. I used Harwood’s Wager to argue for honouring the Ancient Gods.
(See “In Praise of Zeus”, R. Harwood, The Philosophers’ Magazine 3:18-19 (1998)
(*Thomas Hobbes, not this Hobbes, who is undoubtedly named after him.
http://imgur.com/a/z0Vt6)
I enjoyed this ARTICLE and I would like THANK you for SHARING it.
What a flatulent load of garbanzo beans. The “guy with a marker” says “what if the alarmists aren’t wrong, then we are facing mega-disaster in 20 or even 10 years…”
Right. Consider what the alarmists have said 20, even 30 years ago, about what we would be facing in 10 or 20 years (year 2000!):
“Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of eco-refugees, threatening political chaos.” -Noel Brown, ex UNEP Director, 1989
“[Inaction will cause]… by the turn of the century [2000], an ecological catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.” -Mustafa Tolba, 1982, former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program
Well, we’re still here, but none of that baloney happened. The sea is just the same. Everything is just the same. Wow. It’s like a broken record, or constant Crying Wolf. They just keep uttering the same fear mongering drivel over and over again, decade after decade, they keep saying that we are doomed in a decade or two, but decades pass, and there is no doom. Yeah, we’re supposed to put ourselves into global depressions and strict global governance and control for what ain’t. going. to. happen.
“Five years is all we have left if we are going to preserve any kind of quality in the world.” -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford Biologist, Earth Day 1970
As several said up front, total waste of time watching it. I’m sure all of the arguments I’ll make have been made already by the bright group of folks around here, and I’ll just name a few.
First, in column 1, true, you STILL get all the crap of column 2, true, only you have nothing in the bank to help make it better. In either case you’re still probably screwed. In column 2, true, he tried to act all “I’m being fair and stuff” because he was so “harsh” on column 1, false, but that just plays into his scenario, he’s not being “unbiased” he’s being completely biased and trying to cover it up with slight of hand. And, most importantly, there is still the issue of TRUE being TRUE as far as rising temperatures but rising temperatures are GOOD and BENEFICIAL.
You, Mr. “wondermind42” – do not have such a wonderful mind. You’re as biased as most and as blind to your biases as most. And, yes, I am probably blinded by my biases as well – but not blinded to his!
Again my apologies mods can you please try this link and delete the other. Thank you
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC8QtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DmvVoBbMBv2c&ei=dIB1U8-_Dc3j8AXDg4LoDA&usg=AFQjCNFWTsEeWk4Xf9esq9VJLWucD3ai6w
The problem, as I see it, is that Craven is (“Obviously” to quote a well-known troll here) unable to see the future. Given the fact that he claims otherwise he is obviously a false prophet. I say he needs to read Deuteronomy 18.
Craven’s video was debunked by another YouTube video when it came out in 2007:
And another thing, regarding the marker dude’s worry that in a decade or so we are going to be facing the sea rising en masse over island nations and coastal communities, well, as far as the powers that be in terms of wealth and money are concerned, they don’t seem at all worried, as the Maldives are building a multi-billion dollar airport on the beach, see graphic: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/what-about-the-maldives-airport/
“…what a waste it is to lose one’s mind or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is.” Dan Quayle III
Greg Craven has presented a potted version of the Stern Review.
Mr Craven seems to be unaware of the time value of costs and benefits. His timing assumptions for column A and column B costs and benefits are not stated.
But we know from the Stern Review that the time value of costs and benefits (discount rate) has to be set extremely low in order to come to the Mr Craven’s conclusion, which is the same conclusion as the Stern Review. (Professor Stern is perfectly aware of the inter-generational bias in his Review.)
The problem is that the costs are up front and the benefits far off in the future. (At the usual risk-free real discount rate of about 7%, the real (without inflation) value of a benefit or a cost falls to half after about 10 years.)
As I understand Professor Tol’s critique of the Stern Review, this is a major defect of the Stern Review.
Mr Craven focuses on costs. But what about the benefits of increased CO2 and the benefits of warming? This too was a defect in the Stern Review, also pointed out by Professor Tol..
In this blog, Ira stated, “Certainly, maximum environmental spending will damage the world-wide economy, but I doubt that type of spending, alone, will trigger a “Global Depression””.
My comment
Policies to shut down coal power plants in favor of high cost renewables won’t cause depression if other sources of cheap energy can be developed. What would cause a global depression is the same thing that caused the global depression of the 1970’s, government policies that radically increase the cost of energy.
The purpose of carbon taxes is to reduce CO2 emissions by increasing the behavioral cost of energy above its resource cost.
Theoretically revenue from business and personal taxes could be reduced to exactly offset revenue from carbon revenues, but few governments would be willing to do that. Instead, carbon taxes would likely be used less efficiently by government than by businesses and households. Carbon taxes could cause depression in a particular country because they are unlikely to be revenue-neutral and because they would tend to distort international trade..
Exporters in high-energy cost countries could suffer from competition by countries with lower carbon taxes. Producers for domestic markets could suffer from competition by cheap imports from countries with low-energy taxes. Prices would in effect be set by government policies instead of resource costs. This could in theory be a zero-sum game: winning and losing countries would balance wins and losses.
No global depression but depression in those countries with high carbon taxes.
To get a global depression would needs a draconian international treaty for reducing carbon emissions that would be enforced on all nations so that carbon taxes are revenue-neutral in all countries. This is theoretically possible but politically impossible.
What is more certain is that the world-wide increase in inefficient government spending would dissipate whatever benefits might accrue from reduction of carbon emissions. (I am here referring to economic efficiency rather than inefficiency that arises through inappropriate budget allocations and corruption.)
I conclude that Ira is correct in saying that maximum environmental spending, but for the wrong reasons.
This reminded me of a quote by Soylent Green:
“These guys (Climate Scientists) are so incompetent, they have to cheat to prove a circular argument.” — Soylent Green.
I would not recommend his Blog to anyone who is offended by the sight of nekked
women, but he is on our side on the issue of AGW.
Also from his Blog:
“If more people had their Ship High In Transit eaten by skunks, it’d be a better world.” — Steamboat McGoo Steamboat was another vocal AGW skeptic.
Can someone with a vid cam please do a response
showing how we must equally prepare for
an alien invasion, just in case…
Even the United Nations is preparing lol:
https://www.google.com/search?q=united+nations+alien+ambassador&tbs=lr:lang_1en&complete=0&gbv=0&hl=en&lr=lang_en&num=99
This reminds me of an argument for the conversion of the United States to Communism made to me some years back by a little-known Colorado Maoist. She was so proud of her special insights and equally convinced about the intellectual unavoidability of that choice. And she sounded just as stupid.
I know, I frequent some strange neighborhoods. It’s the one thing that truly is unavoidable in the People’s Republic of Boulder.
You know what’s funny? While I was out today, I wondered – purely hypothetically – if anyone would try to use the “unavoidable conclusion” fallacy to promote communism. I dismissed the thought, but I am bemused that it has already been tried. 🙂
Re: The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See, NOT!