Interesting argument about global warming

[ace]

Generally speaking, I tend to stay out of debates, mainly because I'm more interested in what others have to say (despite some occasional debatery I have done in the past). But I couldn't help but show this. This guy has got an incredibly good point, and I'm shocked that I haven't seen this argument made before, as it seems like an obvious one.

http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html

So basically this guy talks about how we tend to argue over whether global warming is true or not and how that's what we base our judgement for what our solution (or lack thereof) should be--and how we should instead consider the results of the decision we make, regardless of whether or not global warming is an issue to be concerned about.

He breaks it down into four possible outcomes, based on whether it is a serious issue, and whether or not we deal with it. The point he makes is that while there is certainly a 50/50 chance for a having a positive versus an incredibly harsh negative outcome depending on our course of action, the consequences for having not acted if it were a serious issue more than outweigh the consequences of having acted when we needed not.

I think he makes an incredibly good point. Thoughts?


Yeah, I know, I stole the title from the link. I'm awesomely unoriginal like that. :p

[KuriKai]

I don't mind about global warming, because I like the heat and It will be beneficial for my home country (New Zealand)

[Aliotroph?]

Assuming it doesn't change the weather and send a cold current the wrong way and freeze New Zealand. :D

I got another argument: the stuff we pump into the air is poisoning us.

[Doom_Dude]

I think that dude summed it all up pretty well.

Either that or New Zealand goes under the rising water, except the mountains around where Mordor is located. :p

[KuriKai]

the bbc had something about it and New Zealand was the only beneficiary of it^^

[xbolt]

I just found this article about Al Gore, the guy who made 'An Inconvenient Truth'.

An Inconvenient Utility Bill (http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367)

As someone once said: a FAT hypocrite.

[rustyslacker]

Do you believe that global warming is a problem, xbolt?

[xbolt]

Do you believe that global warming is a problem, xbolt?
In a word? No.

[Pieter Enis]

Global warming in itself is no problem at all. The consequences however ... :p

[Kristian]

His argument is lacking one crucial factor, and that is the probability distribution of the posed problem (in this case, the probabilities for each of "Global warming is true" and "Global warming is false").

To illustrate, let's say I propose that, unless everyone on the planet gives me a zillion dollars (total), the moon will collapse onto the Earth and destroy civilization as we know it. Now, this statement could be true or false, and we'd make roughly the same scheme as in the Global warming example. If my statement is false, and everyone gives me a zillion dollars, then everything will be fine, although the cost would be substantial. If my statement is false, and everyone ignores me, then everything would also be just fine (with no costs to anyone).

If, however, my statement is true, and everyone gives me the zillion dollars, then -- again, exactly like the global warming example -- everything will be peaches and cream. If my statement is true and everyone ignores me, the results would be catastrophic (just like the global warming example).

Using his arguments, the decision decided upon would be to give me the zillion dollars.

The flaw in the argument is that, unless you take into account the probabilities of each possible value of the proposed statement (in this case P(true) and P(false)), *any* ridiculous statement with as disastrous as improbable consequences would be acted upon to minimize the "bad" outcome.

Summarized: Had the guy mentioned that both "true" and "false" are well within the remotely probable range (which I believe both sides can agree on) then his argument would be flawless. As is stands, his argument/decision method can be shown to have ridiculous effects.

[ace]

Summarized: Had the guy mentioned that both "true" and "false" are well within the remotely probable range (which I believe both sides can agree on) then his argument would be flawless.

Which he does exactly so at approximately 2:07. ;)

Granted, he does mention the fact that this argument can be applied to any situation similar to this one--but that must depend on the consequences of each side in different situations. Perhaps in a different situation, taking no action would--for whatever reason--be the better choice, based on the consequences; but he doesn't point this out. Still, as far as this situation goes, I would say this is a pretty strong argument.



Xbolt, do you at least think this guy has a point? If global warming does turn out to be a problem and we don't do anything about it, we're pretty screwed--and much, much worse out than if we do something about it and it doesn't become a problem.

As for the Al Gore article, I frankly can't say I'm surprised. He's an American politician, after all. Can we really expect anything else at this point? :/

[Kristian]

Which he does exactly so at approximately 2:07. ;)
Not exactly. What he says is that "so, at this point, we all agree that these are both possibilities". He doesn't sufficiently stress that not only do both have to be *possible* (i.e. not being completely impossible) but they both have to be sufficiently probable that you need to take both into account. This is straight from elementary Decision Theory. Another way of putting it is this:

P(X) = the probability of X
V(X) = the "value" of X (meaning, taking into account consequences, both positive and negative)

P(outcome1) * V(outcome1) > P(outcome2) * V(outcome2) -> Act to outcome1.
If P(outcome2) is extremely small (say, close to mathematical impossibility) then no matter what V(outcome2) is it will always be better to act on outcome1.

First one must establish that not only are all the outcomes possible, but that they have a sufficient probability that they need to be included in the chart. Only then can you use column analysis in the way this guy does. It is also okay to use column analysis if you don't know the probabilities (or can't estimate it) but are sure they're not extremely unlikely (however possible they are).

Yes, I know this is really splitting hairs, and is really only about a bit of careless use of words on the guy's behalf (because I'm sure he knows a lot of Decision Theory, and I'm sure he implicitly means exactly what I've said... I just wish he'd been even more clear), but he left his argument up for scrutiny, so you have to scrutinize it. :-/

I do agree with the guy, as I said, because I'm absolutely sure both "true" and "false" are sufficiently probable.

[blood imp]

I myself personally think that Global Warming is a reality. There is lots of evidence poinnting toward it (although I'm not saying all the evidence is). And yes, the guy does have a point. I see it like this, using only the variables he used:
Ticket A: If we take action, and GW/GCC is True, then we survive all happy, with some costs, which were worth while anyway. Let's represent this with {^_^ - $}.
If we take action, and GW/GCC is False, then we loose money, and perhaps go into depression. Let's represent this with {-$$}.
Ticket B: If we take no action, and GW/GCC is False, then we're happy, suffering no costs. Let's represent this with {^_^}.
If we take no action, and GW/GCC is True, then we go into Economic depression, bad politics, bad society, horrible environment, death, and disease. Let's represent this with {-$$ + *rant* + *cranky* + *burn* + *byte* + *chuck*}

So let's review. Ticket A = {^_^ + -$$}
Ticket B = {^_^ + -$$ + *rant* + *cranky* + *burn* + *byte* + *chuck*}

See the difference?

But then again, it really doesn't matter, because JESUS IS GOING TO SAVE US (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bB2rt3IKJc)!

[BeTaNoL]

I don't mind about global warming, because I like the heat and It will be beneficial for my home country (New Zealand)

This is because global warming WILL get worse and will NOT stop.

No country will give up money and prosperity of their nations to save the Earth (therefore save other countries). It's the human nature.

The global warming has begun, and there is no more way back. I don't know if my grandson will ever exist...

[blood imp]

This is because global warming WILL get worse and will NOT stop.

No country will give up money and prosperity of their nations to save the Earth (therefore save other countries). It's the human nature.

The global warming has begun, and there is no more way back. I don't know if my grandson will ever exist...
You pessimist.

[BeTaNoL]

Yes, after KuriKai said, I'm as hell as pessimist... Because there are A LOT of people that still thinks that this whole green house effect and global warming is, with a lack of a better word, bullshit... And with this thought still going on and gazillions of tons of carbon dioxide being disposed in the air every day, yes I'm pessimist!

But aside of that, everything looks great!
:P

[blood imp]

I meant the "no going back" part. With enough effort, we can change the course of things. However, most human beings are either too lazy, too ignorant, or too comfortable to try.

[Aliotroph?]

You don't know that it won't trip some switch in nature that flips things around either. Could end up on a frozen planet instead of a hot one.

[BeTaNoL]

Uh... It already tripped on some switch... GLOBAL WARMING!
Didn't you see a great rise of hurricanes numbers in the world? Is having hurricanes in places here in Brazil that never happened before in history! That's screwed up!

[blood imp]

Yes, but Global Warming can turn into Global Dimming. In fact, it's pretty much one or the other...

[Giftmacher]

Right now I'm caught between dismissing it as Scientists jumping to conclusions, and deciding it IS an issue and it's gonna mess up all the weather patterns and we're all screwed.

I think the argument that it's just the Earth naturally changing (as it has been since they announced Team Fortress 2, meaning the beginning of time *rofl*) is a good and logical one, but on the other hand the changes that have been happening ever since everything went electronic can't be ignored.

But that's why we all need underwater cities like Rapture! *party* Where the temperature is just right and seaslug-drugs mutate the people!
...or maybe the agonizing wait for the release of Bioshock is just melting my brain.

[blood imp]

Mmm... Bioshock...
Yes, it could be just a "natural change" but the evidence that it's because of us (although we're also "natural") is greater. Plus, we have no proof that temperture and CO2 levels have ever been this high...