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.
Karim D. Ghantous says
May 15, 2014 at 11:30 pm
Good instinct. The “unavoidable conclusion” argument is central to the Marxist belief system. Because science, you know. Like gravity and stuff, man.
In fact I’ve heard some variations of it so many times I can’t recount them all. It’s just that this particular clown’s smugness reminded me of that Maoist clown.
The take action and stop global warming will have the high cost and global depression, even if it works… the cost is independent of whether it was needed or not. Glossing that over and leaving it out of the chart shows that he’s either an idiot or a con-man… either way, not someone to give a moment’s thought to.
A critical analysis, using game theory, with included video: http://clydeisrael.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/a-or-b-the-prisoners-dilemma-and-climate-change/#more-185
How do you poke a hole in vacuum?
He also left out “HOW MANY DIE?” because we take action! AND several other hidden costs of taking action.
The unpublished reason for the Three Mile Island Accident was because until that accident they ONLY analyzed for WORST case scenarios and accidents (e.g. a 1 in pipe break – the smallest pipe in the plant and a 24 double guillotine pipe break the largest and worst possible method). If it was OK at these two values IT MUST BE OK in between! Well, the problem was with a leak on a pipe larger than 1 inch but not at 24 inches. None of the data fit what the operators were taught – they were confused and not properly trained. The rest is history. In 100 years the AGW FRAUD will be history – BUT WE WILL HAVE WASTED A BILLION-TRILLION $
How much of the continued recession in the USA and elsewhere is caused by the present “Take Action” to eliminate AGW?
Those who have this type of view of the world (black/white) and are highly risk averse can end up paralyzed. Every action can lead to catastrophe. Sunny day and hot? Better take an umbrella and coat–you can’t be too safe. Better not go for a walk, someone might mug you. Spend weeks and weeks trying to decide what suit to buy because it might be the wrong choice and someone will laugh at you. Revise and revise and revise that report because maybe there is a mistake.
Yeah, and if the players of tic tac toe make optimal moves with no mistakes the game can’t be won.
Why does everything have to end up in absolutist terms. The take away I get, not just from the subject post and comments, but from this AGW/skeptic discussion in general, is what my common sense response should be. Consider the thin troposphere, 20k at the equator and 7 at the poles, then 7 billion people, soon to be 9 billion; all burning and dumping carbon into that thin finite space. Does common sense tell me that is not a good thing? Can the effect be benign? No, then what can little ole me do about it? It’s not much, but solar panels on my roof cut my electric bill considerably. The technology is not there yet, but I can imagine that not too long from now I will be able to plug in a car from those solar panels. My small house is well insulated with good windows and I don’t fly as much as I did in the past. My car gets good gas millage and I try to avoid unnecessary trips. For medical reasons I eat less meat and that translates into less energy usage. It’s not much, but for one libertarian person, it’s something. Trying to decentralize from the grid is a good thing. Others should be encouraged to do so.
I think we Americans are the essential nation that can lead as well. If we don’t lead, much of the rest of the developing world will just burn more and more coal and aspire to consume as much as us in the developed countries. Surely we can agree that massive burning of coal is not a good idea. We have natural gas and nuclear. Wind and solar can help. This won’t “stop” global warming but it could take some of the curse off of it if lots of folks transition to new energy sources and consume less of it.
It is not human nature to get throw our hands up and just let it happen without a fight. Even if warming were not occurring, an ethic of stewardship should not be controversial. An ethic toward energy efficiency and stewardship does not equate to crashing the economy.
This is a great example of wht happens when we toss away the scientific method and substitute in its stead the precautionary principle. It is as if we’ve rejected the enlightenment and moved backwards to the dark ages.
Also, to point out a fundamental flaw in the logic, under the column A, he has global depression ONLY for the case when climate change turns out not to be true, but directly under it he has a happy face for if it DOES turn out to be true. That is nonsense, if the cost will cause a depression along the “climate change is NOT TRUE” row, it will also cause a depression on the climate change is TRUE row. I don’t understand why he puts a happy face on that. (well I do understand, but it is flawed)
That isn’t a debate or an argument, that is an agenda!
His argument is as facile as the St Paul et al “proof” of the existence of god.
“If God doesn’t exist, everyone is wasting their time praying to him- therefore God exists”
This is only proof that St Paul et al thinks everyone else is an idiot.
“Does common sense tell me that is not a good thing? Can the effect be benign? No, then what can little ole me do about it?”
The effect COULD be benign. There’s no proof one way or another. AGW proponents stipulate non-benign outcomes, based on their models, but those models are not reality (nor even very good models of reality.)
You declaring “No” based on your “common sense” isn’t the end of the story of if it’s worth doing.
IF stopping 3 degrees of warming meant everyone needed to live in a 400 Sqft apartment within walking distance of their work, would it mean it should be done? Pretty much civilization as we know it would end.
That said, I drive cars with good gas mileage, I have a small fuel-efficient house that meets my needs . I do these things to benefit ME, not to benefit the World Wildlife Federation buying up tracts of land in the Amazon and wanting to be funded. I do these things to benefit ME, not the abundant third world countries looking for handouts. I do these things to benefit ME, not to give the UN an excuse to wield power over sovereign nations.
Research into new forms of energy is always a worthwhile cause, research into new methods of conservation is good. Adopting these things before they’re economically viable based simply on an ideal, hype or political payout for cronies is stupid.
What a load of disingenuous hoo-ha. He is setting up a bias so that his preferred choice is the one that MUST be taken.
He doesn’t know what the outcome of taking no action in the face of a TRUE state is. Everything he claims to be an outcome itself may or may not come to pass. And I will point out that global warming is likely to be much more benign than global cooling. As an example, show me how well the food crops on the Greenland ice sheet are doing.
He also ignores the fact that humans have adapted to very severe climatic conditions over a few hundred thousand years — and that includes adapting to the harsh climate of a global ice age.
No. His claim is not at all bullet proof. It is only bullet proof if you accept his initial claims.
Idiotic. A long restatement of the precautionary principle.
The fact that global depression is well known, while global catastrophe is in no way proven, just shows where this so-called objective commentator really comes from.
Equally this “row” vs “column” thinking – completely fabricated nonsense.
Nevermind the fact that wasting economic resources in useless efforts to reduce carbon emissions hinders our ability to build a strong resilient economy that will help us cope with the results of naturally occurring weather and climate issues.
If we do this, and we’re wrong; it won’t be global depression we’re worried about. It’ll be mass starvation and human suffering because we sold our future for a pocket full of magic beans.
People in the third world need to develop their economies and they aren’t going to do it with solar panels and prius’.
Zaphod Beeblebrox (part-time galactic president) says:
May 16, 2014 at 9:46 am His argument is as facile as the St Paul et al “proof” of the existence of god. “If God doesn’t exist, everyone is wasting their time praying to him- therefore God exists”
This is only proof that St Paul et al thinks everyone else is an idiot.”
The Galactic inventor cannot provide a reference; this I can guarantee.
“Zeke says:
May 16, 2014 at 1:36 pm
…
The Galactic inventor cannot provide a reference; this I can guarantee.”
He doesn’t need to….
Why not?
There is no other reference to be had … see Hebrews 6:13…
False ascription of a statement to an author is not good scholarship. It is also dishonest to make up quotes.
I didn’t make up the quote….you can look it up…
No I can’t because it is not in the NT. Galactic Inventor can tell us where he got the quote.
The best selection is row 1, column B. Next best is a minimal study of what drives sunspot numbers and what actions to take to mitigate the effects of global cooling.
Three observations at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html demonstrate that CO2 change has no significant effect on climate This was made public 6 years ago.
1) In the late Ordovician, the planet plunged into the Andean/Saharan ice age and later emerged from it while the CO2 level was about 10 times the present.
2) During the last glacial period, warming trends changed to cooling trends while the CO2 level was higher than it had been during the warming trend.
3) During the 20th century, average global temperature trends went down, up, down, up, flat (soon to be down) while the CO2 level went steadily, progressively up. Lack of correlation implies lack of causation.
This finding was corroborated and the two climate drivers that explain 90% of the average global temperatures since before 1900 are identified at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com
The basic gist of this guy’s argument is the now rather stale line that we cannot
afford to wait to take action. His best case, or lesser of two evils is one that
involves taking action when none is needed, resulting in worldwide depression.
The left column smiley face involves doing nothing with GCC being false. If his
logic were correct, and one did not know which answer was the right one, Logic would
force one to hedge his bet against the possibility that GCC was possibly true.
His argument is not about which is the correct course of action, it is about getting
people to chose global depression instead of the Armageddon or Doomsday scenario.
We skeptics see 350PPM as a piss in the ocean. We know the answer results in
a 🙂 and not a 🙁