This guy is proposing a compelling argument concerning the existence of global warming. And I think he has a point. His argument is somewhat similar to Pascal's Wager argument for the existence of God. I can't see how any of the criticism of Pascal's Wager would affect this argument since the mostly deal with belief in a more theological sense.
However some responses to this video has been that only one course of action is truly positive, ie. to do nothing and that the theory of global warming turns out to be false. This is not a true counter argument though, since it fails to recognize that we are not talking about each instance as isolated events. We looking at the columns vs. the rows, and thusly they have to be seen in a holistic sense. This means that you must consider the total cost of each column to be able to make your choice. Viewed in that way, both columns will have a possible negative effect on
the global economy. But only the "no" column gives more truly negative costs in terms of lives, food, water, the whole nine yards.
As you may understand I agree with this argument. However I don't mind critique of it, as long as it is done in a civil way.
-- Blessed Be --
/ | \ Taran MacDuir
No comments:
Post a Comment