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.
the hat probably sums it up.
This is a version of Pascal’s Wager. Here is how the original works.
Christianity (for him Catholicism) may be true, or it may be false. We may believe it, or we may choose not to.
If we believe and its true we go to heaven. Great.
If we believe and its false, we live a better life. Great
If we disbelieve and its false its no better than the above. Neutral.
If we disbelieve and its true, eternal damnation. Very bad indeed.
Therefore we should believe. The problem of course is that someone says that I was wondering whether to believe in Islam. It seems that if I disbelieve that and its true then I also get eternally dammned, but I cannot believe in that and Christianity, so what am I to do? And then there are those pesky Protestants, what about them? And the Buddhists, who make the mistake of not promising eternal damnation, so maybe they don’t count. But then, there is reincarnation as a toad, so maybe they do….
I disagree, case 1 is not the worst case. Let me worst case it. We spend billions on fighting cage, we mandate biofuels. Food prices soar. Iran can’t sell oil and can’t afford food. Citizens riot. Iran collapses zealot in charge of nukes believes it is an American plot, nukes Israel Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Pakistan thinks they were nuked by India and nukes them. India retaliates. Radiation spreads around globe millions die. Hundreds of millions die in food riots and countries collapse as citizens flee or try to hoarde and hide from fallout. That is no less believable then the cagw fantasy scenario.
It is a simple use of the false logic of the precautionary principle. That is: actions with uncertain possible negative outcomes should be avoided.”
I used to be in business with younger partner. he was approached by a firm trying to sell key man insurance. Due to my age the premiums were very high.
I pointed out to him that the premiums would kill the firm anyway irrespective of whether I fell under a bus.
Ironically he is now dead form prostate cancer but I am still here after testicular cancer. Funny old world.
The logic in that film can be reversed.
Doing something will wreck the economy just as surely as climate change will.
The only sensible thing is to do nothing and hope.
5. GCC is largely beneficial, we take no action and reap the benefits of longer growing seasons etc.
6. GCC is over hyped, we take drastic action which fails to have any descernable effect – result > the cure is worse than the disease. (China, India etc. take no action).
I remember a poster that showed a monkey and a typewriter, the comment was that if you “give enough monkeys a typewriter, you will end up with a Shakespeare ”
Sadly it doesn’t hold up for Climate Scientists – the best you can hope for is yet another BUFFOON.
Several comments in this thread have equated Pascal’s Wager with the argument presented by Craven in his “Guy with a Marker” video. Although there are similarities in form, Pascal’s Wager is, IMHO, quite different in substance.
According to Wikipedia:
In Pascal’s box #1, we choose to live as if God exists, sacrificing some pleasures and luxuries, even thought God does not exist. That is not a big price to pay. In Craven’s box #1, we incur a GLOBAL DEPRESSION to stop a nonexistent Human-Caused GCC from occurring! We also incur Natural GCC, which is much worse than Human-Caused GCC according to the geologic, ice core, and pre-Industrial Age history. A very big price to pay, indeed.
In Pascal’s box #4, we choose to live as if God does not exist, but He does, and we end up in eternal damnation in Hell. That is a very big price to pay. In Craven’s box #4, we incur CATASTROPHES, but only if Human-Caused GCC is as bad as predicted by the official Climate “Hockey Team” models, if they are correct. Since 1979, Global Warming predictions of those Climate Models have been overstated by 400%, so we have little to worry about on that account.
So, bottom line, as the song says, “Don’t worry, be happy.”
Ira
It is not fiddling with variables like CO², clouds etc. hoping it will be the right switch pulled out of so many, some of them still unknown. The question is about adaptation. Mankind is able to adapt to changing circumstances and some human beings have found pretty inconvenient niches to live in, e.g. the Inuit and the Touareg. No doubt, mankind can and will meet these challenges. It is better to adapt only if and when necessary than kicking up a fuss now and probably worsening everything. But changes do not necessarily mean worsening, which that guy obviously did not mention in his demonstration.
I like the Southpark version of making the global warming debate obsolete – much funnier 🙂
In case 3 most likely we are forced to make a HAPPY FACE to the costs additional to the CATASTROPHES because the cost will not decrease CO2 significantly. In Germany we have EUR 50 billion per year with constant CO2.
I disagree totally. We should look again at the flawed ”science”, correct the gross errors and live a cheaper more energy prolific life. Let nature take its course.
The flaw is obvious – in the second row we can either have global depression or catastrophes.
You then have to show that catastrophes are worse than global depression, which he doesn’t.
And since global depression is certain but catastrophes less than certain, why would we pick certain awfullness?
When it comes to clownish champions of science flunking the logic test on global warming, Bill Nye is not far behind.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/if-only-bill-nye-knew-what-science-was-john-oliver-couldve-been-funny/
I posted a rebuttal of this a few years ago and had over 2,000 views. Nothing compared to his 6 million. What is more interesting – a horror story or a message that there is nothing to worry about? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgFgGS98XqA
What a class-A idiot.
A BIG Fail! It didn’t convince me in the slightest. I agree with Ira about the fact that Action=Yes in both True and False boxes lead to polar opposite results – which is illogical. But I also note that the ‘man with the marker’ also assumes that Action=Yes in the True box would actually work and stop GCC! Further, if the actions really could stop GCC, and if GCC has a large natural component, what are the unintended consequences of screwing with the climate?
It’s a naive and somewhat idiotic application of simple game theory. but without real assessments of the financial pay offs for each outcomei it’s not worth the paper it’s written on.
Such logic assumes that decisions based on logic are unobtainable and therefore extreme fears should be our only criteria for decision making. Such totally fatalistic methodology can be used in just about any situation that essentially would result the seizing up of all actions.
For example, if I leave the house today I could in a worse case scenario: die in a car accident, be murdered on the streets, be hit by lighting and killed, fatally injured in a fall or various other possible nasty scenarios.
Now if I stayed home I could be fired and fall into an economic depression.
Clearly the better alternative is to stay at home because the worst case scenario is so much superior in potential outcome.
As for world issues I can thing of many potential global catastrophes that each require different responses to avoid the worst case scenario. For example: planet sterilization by meteor or comet strike, global pandemic, nuclear war, sun caused EMP blast destroys the entire world electrical grid, aliens hear our radio signals come and destroy us, computers become self aware and take over the world, Mister Obama declares him self dictator for life and civil war starts, etc, etc.
If you make decisions based on worst case scenario civilization will grind to a halt and that in itself would be a unparalleled disaster.
It’s called “Pascal’s Wager” and its fallacious.
What a child can do with a piece of chalk:
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh154/crocko05/Itscalledweather_zps4d90f653.jpg
The real four boxes should be 1) Global Warming is mostly driven by man and we spend massive amounts of money to fix it 2) Global warming is mostly driven by man and we ignore it 3) Global warming is mostly naturally occuring and we spend massive amounts to fix it (and waste that money) or 4) Global warming is naturally occuring and we accept.
Case #1 is the proverbial happy face. Case #2 is the “catastrophe” case. Case #3 is one that dooms billions of people to poverty without access to inexpensive electricity/energy and everything that can provide (heat, water, food resources, transportation, opportunity) and Case #4 is also the proverbial happy face.
Given that no one can show Case #2, I would argue that we do everything to avoid Case #3 for humanity’s sake.
|——————————————————————-|
| R | A Kill Self Now B |
| U | YES | NO |
| Mortal? | abort now | wait and see |
|——————————————————————-|
| False | kick the bucket 🙁 | kick the can 🙂 |
|——————————————————————-|
| True | kick the bucket 🙁 | kick the can 🙂 |
|——————————————————————-|
| p i c k a c o l u m , a n y c o l u m n 😀 |
|——————————————————————-|
I’m not making this up. (Yeah, I know I’ve got a credibility problem when I have to start a comment with, ‘I’m not making this up.’)
But, seriously, I’m not making this up. One of the first things a newborn infant responds to, as their brand new eyes start to see, is a smiley face. This is a well researched and recognized response, and in fact, in the literature it’s called just that; ‘the smile response.’ Any kind of smiley face will do. Even those well known solid yellow circle comic smiley faces will elicit a response.
Therefore in my mind (which still has some form of existence after years of over exuberant alcohol consumption) I feel that any research that simplistically relies on appealing to the very first emotional response we exhibit after we’ve been plopped into this world is research that’s inherently suspect.
Well, there is a great problem here with the original video:
the chance that the global climate will change is pretty much 100%.
Whether we do anything or not, and whether the change will be good or not.
100%.
Do nothing or do something, doesn’t matter, we can not keep the climate from changing.
100%
Climate change is here to stay. (Well, actually it has been here all along ever since the first observed instance of the Earth’s climate.)
Climate warming on a global scale being caused by human CO2 emissions remains very minor to barely noticeable to not discernable in the last 15 to 17 years if it is measureable.
Do nothing or do something doesn’t matter if we can’t discern the difference, does it?
Craven does not deserve the amount of attention he is being given. He is a neurotic imbecile, using phony childish arguments, decpetion and misdirection to sell his program.