getting to the point

[bhakti]

I think this is the most candid and to-the-point argument on climate change that I've heard. It's well worth ten minutes of your time; heck, it's worth watching just out of appreciation for good logic, all apart from its social relevance.

Comments

[aleyhr]

Wow - can we send this to congress? G8?? Only problem is that you can do this same grid for any other problem (avian flu, terroist attacks, etc) and get the same kind of grid. The issue here is that the bottom square is So extreme, and so global.

[sabacthani]

God either exists or He doesn't. Based on the testimony, both general revelation (nature) and special revelation (Scriptures/Bible), it is safe to assume that God does in fact exist. It is abundantly fair to conceive, that there is at least 50% chance that the Christian Creator God does in fact exist. Therefore, since we stand to gain eternity, and thus infinity, the wise and safe choice is to live as though God does exist. If we are right, we gain everything, and lose nothing. If we are wrong, we lose nothing and gain nothing. Therefore, based on simple mathematics, only the fool would choose to live a Godless life. Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have nothing to lose. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

[bhakti]

Quite so.

Except in that classic case, one could change the logic by reconsidering the "what do you lose?" side of the equation; those of us unbelievers are generally of the opinion that there is an intangible but important cost to mistaken belief, to be weighed against the promised gains.

And then, of course, there is the matter of odds. Which are a sticky point, of course, because that brings the whole matter of dogma back into the debates, both theological and ecological.

[sabacthani]

Exactly, and once it gets back to odds, the discussion doesn't seem any more clear to me than it was before I watched that guy on youTube. The craziest right winger would certainly fund incentives to stop global warming if she thought that it was likely to happen. Instead, they argue that it's a waste of tax payer money because it is so unlikely to happen. You could use the same charts and graphs to represent an attack by Gojira on the eastern seaboard, but it wouldn't be a foolproof argument in favor of counter-Gojira initiatives.

Unfortunately, I think the "killer argument" in the case of environmental danger is the hard evidence that scientists have been accumulating, and the general consensus among the scientific community. However, if you have an administration that doesn't trust Science, as a field, it's a problem. And an administration that is expecting the end of the world, anyway, to usher in the New Jerusalem? You're totally screwed.

It's about the folks in the middle.

[bhakti]

Clearly, no, this argument isn't going to persuade people who have already made up their minds that massive global climate change is grossly unlikely. And no, it's certainly not going to persuade the current administration