There are some HUGE assumptions involved in his argument that I don't like. The biggest one being that we can override and reverse global warming with our actions, thus making the planet inhabitable. This assumption allows him to place a very convenient smiley face in the bottom left when conceivably the bottom left box could be the aggregate of top left and bottom right. On this new playing field, the only smiley face lies under inaction which could, at that point, seem like the only reasonable action. When he was taking extremes he forgot to take the extreme cases of the bottom left which could have an extreme on the polar opposite end of the spectrum. I don't buy it, liberal bias, yadda yadda yadda. He oversimplified a very complex situation. If for any moment you think that our future must lie in one of those four boxes you need to get your head checked.
FURTHERMORE, imagine a situation where we cannot do anything about the effects of global warming, and that our time before total destruction is indeed fixed independent of our actions. Would you prefer to live with a blissful, ignorant smiley face or live in economic depression? Cases can be made for both sides, and although we all would like to be smug and take the moral, intellectual and truthful high ground, think a little harder about it. I mean really think about it, you might find out something about yourself you didn't know before.
Well... if you listen to what he says.. he never once claims that we can "reverse global warming." He simply says that we spent money in preparation for it. In fact, if you watch again, just after he places the smiley in the lower left box he states that the money and regulation allows us to "counteract climate change." Here he uses the word counteract, which means to render ineffective, to restrain, or to neutralize. In other words, global warming still happens; however, our money spent allows us to live with these changes as opposed to not being prepared for them. The dude even acknowledges this when he says "it [global warming] still happened, but we managed it. It's a different world, but it's livable." Note that he never claims to reverse global warming as you have stated. The smiley represents a livable world, not a fully "repaired" world. with this view, perhaps he is a bit closer to the "aggregate" of top left and bottom right that you speak of. However, i would argue that it is no where near the "catastrophic" proportions
( ... )
Comments 6
This assumption allows him to place a very convenient smiley face in the bottom left when conceivably the bottom left box could be the aggregate of top left and bottom right. On this new playing field, the only smiley face lies under inaction which could, at that point, seem like the only reasonable action. When he was taking extremes he forgot to take the extreme cases of the bottom left which could have an extreme on the polar opposite end of the spectrum.
I don't buy it, liberal bias, yadda yadda yadda. He oversimplified a very complex situation. If for any moment you think that our future must lie in one of those four boxes you need to get your head checked.
Reply
Reply
it's so dramatic... like you just asked me to kill someone, but i have to discover myself before i do it.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment