This is an interesting Pascal’s Wager type of bet. So instead of saying if Global Warming is true or not, he’s saying let’s make a bet on how we should act. In fact, the truth about Global Warming becomes moot. It’s an interesting argument and it’s hit over a 750,000 hits on youtube that he wrote a book about it expanding the argument. He even wants people to challenge him so that he can improve his argument. I’ve got some replies, but I have to admit, it’s a pretty ingenious argument.
The speaker is a high school science teacher and he just simply uses pure logic.
Here’s the video to check out:
There’s also some stuff I want to add from Thomas Friedman’s book Hot, Flat, and Crowded:
- If Global Warming is a Hoax, then it’s the most wonderful hoax there is. It makes us healthier, we have more efficient energy, and it innovates new green ideas.
- In terms of globalization, if we’re not going to be the leader in this “green” technology, you can bet that China will. In fact, they’re already starting and within 10 years, they’ll be the number one in solar cells and they’ll have a leg up in the “green” technology. Indeed, Friedman sees the 20th century as the globalization century. The 21st century will probably be known as the climate-control century.
- Perhaps this is the one that should really grab people. Right now, we’re fighting this War on Terror. If you look at the world closely, the Taliban are being funded through Saudi Arabian people. They’re rich and so they can throw their money at anything they want. But here’s the dumb part, guess how they’re getting their money? People are buying their oil. And who are the number one consumers of oil? AMERICA. Thus, we are fighting and supporting the War on Terror simultaneously. That is just plain stupid. If we focused our energies on not using oil products like more efficient cars, or ever using full electric cars, the Saudi’s will be worried and they can no longer support the Taliban.
- Along with this, we have been very lack with Saudi Arabia’s lack of human rights. It’s because we turn a blind eye to a country if we need a resource from it. But if we no longer need oil, then we begin criticizing Saudi Arabia and since our policies have a lot global influence (especially after going green), they’ll have to be influenced by us. Sure, it’s not logic or reason they’re listening to, but when it comes to politics, we must be pragmatic. This is probably the most pragmatic argument I’ve heard that requires us to go green. Indeed, we owe it to the world.
- With this new innovation, there aren’t going to be a few losers and a few winners. Because the world is so globalized, EVERYONE is going to win or EVERYONE is going to lose.
In other news, Fareed Zakaria weighs in on his views about it and I think it’s spot on by comparing with insurance. He also invites two people to discuss global warming and how much cost we should implement:Bjorn Lomborg and Paul Krugman. They are on opposite sides of the spectrum but very intelligent folks and the argue their side really well. Check it out here. (Note: stop it at 12:35.)
Pingback: Global Warming Debate Solved? « Killer J
Good video. I presented a rebuttal on my website. I’m seriously not trying to hijack your blog, but it wouldn’t let me input my Logic Matrix from word in this comment box. check it out:
I appreciate that his argument encourages action as opposed to inaction. By equating inaction with a choice (the Nay side of the argument), this forces a person to then make a decision.
Beyond that, this is choice that, when all is said and done, has caused individuals to take an active role in the larger world and their environmental impact. Even if it does prove to be a hoax, it seems to have no real lasting negative impacts. A recession/depression can be recovered from easily enough.
A good cartoon that shows the pragmatics, not the politics, of global warming: http://green.thefuntimesguide.com/2009/12/copenhagen_cartoon.php
this video assumes that whether or not climate change does exist will become known. what if we take significant action to save the world and the planet is saved? What would people attribute the no climate change to? Could it be said that our actions changed the course of the planet? The question will always return to whether or not climate change is real, therefore we can’t just throw out the question of if it’s real or not. I think the only way to find out if climate change is a threat, is inaction, but the other side of the argument comes, what if it turns out to be true. then that inaction is the doom of us all. Maybe a middle ground should be established for both sides of the argument.
Jordan. Why must we make that assumption? Suppose we’ll never know. The pragmatism still holds I think. If we never know the real answer, then it seems to make more sense, not less, that we should be safe than sorry. I find this video a good middle ground that establishes a nice answer: even if we don’t know that global warming is true, we should still act as if it is.
THAT’S EXACTLY IT! There is a middle ground to this argument that gets lost in political agendas! And I’m trying to find real, practical solutions that work for everyone. Not to plug my blog or anything but conservance.wordpress.com is where it’s at my friend.
Good site Matt. I’ll link it on the right-side of the page.
Jared Diamond thinks that big businesses can save the environment. Check it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06diamond.html?pagewanted=all
I’v heard that argument before from Newt Gingrich of all people. I think that to a certain extent yes big business CAN fight climate change, but it will take some serious and smart government coercion or a large percentage of the population refusing to buy environmentally harmful goods. Gone are the days of companies doing what’s best or what’s right, it’s been replaced by companies bowing to the whims of fickle consumers, look at how many years experts told the auto industry to focus more on smaller, fuel efficient vehicles.
Perhaps, but businesses are only going after what the customer wants. If the customer wants Hummers, businesses will make them. I think you’ve got to change the customer’s mindset if you want to change businesses.
Hey, wait a minute! You criticized me for saying “Global Warming Solved?” for my post. But your post is “A solution to Global Warming Crisis.” Hypocrite.
You’re right. Instead, I offer four solutions: the video, Friedman, Zakaria, and Krugman. Thus, I changed the title of my post.
Pingback: What I’ve Learned this Past Year — 2009 Edition « Shaun Miller’s Weblog