Even if you don't want to believe in Global Warming, we still need clean air and clean water and a way to better handle our trash. We still need to be protective of our environment.
Note that Hitchens, unlike many of the "posters" herein, admits that he knows little about the SCIENCE of global warming. Good ole' Hitchens, honest to the end. It gets old reading the crackpot comments about AGW from unlettered people who have no science degrees, research experience, or publications in relevant peer-reviewed journals.
+Brooks Anderson If we are to make good decisions as a democracy, we should discuss political issues among ourselves. We shouldn't leave the decision making up to a select few, even if they're more educated. Hitchens had the self awareness to abstain from the issue because he was a public figure and an intellectual. We are not.
The problem is politicians politicizing science over non-issues between scientists. People like Bush (No.2) were deciding what climate scientists like James Hansen (NASA's top climatologist) could, or could not, publish. The mere idea of an inarticulate Texas oil man deciding what distinguished scientists can or cannot publish on the topic of climate change, because it would be bad for business, is revolting. You see so many goofy posts about AGW that, if the matter was not so serious, as the unrelenting drought here in Northern Mexico, would be funny. "Equal time" for blathering nonsense is highly overrated (to misquote Mr.Hitchens). .(old geologist)
That's because Hitchens is intelligent enough to realize his own limitations and the holes in his knowledge. Nobody knows everything nor can everbody be good at everything: a wise and intelligent person will realize this and freely admit his ignorance while the fool will persist in his folly and claim he knows better than those who are experts on the topic. The problem is that democracy doesn't take this into account and awards every person one single vote (based on nothing but reaching a certain age). If the majority isn't willing and/or able to reflect on fundamental topics, especially those pertaining to global issues, yet is tasked with electing those who'll make the decisions we are royally fornicated. All of us, including those who know better.
This is the kind of discussion that needs to take place, these are the ideas we need to exchange. This man and his generous and intelligent spirit has such depth and if not wisdom then the logic with which to approach the problems we have today.
@@razvaz I'm curious as how one could make the argument that the polar caps melting away and the overall temperature of the planet rising by several degrees ISN'T harmful.
@@razvaz Hahaha! There is potential harm in everything whether you are a believer or not. Be careful you don't get killed by your hot dog...because it is more deadly than islamic terrorism in the USA.
This from a dude who encouraged teenage smoking and drinking, indulged in both heavily despite knowing their effects, and who died 20 years too young. Perhaps it’s a bit more complicated…
Water vapor (WV) clearly is a stronger greenhouse gas but there is one important aspect of it that you're completely missing. It's presence in the atmosphere is temperature dependent. Warmer air holds more WV. At freezing there is almost no WV. That means there is very little WV above a few thousand feet in elevation. And it means that WV is primarily limited to lower latitudes. The residence time of WV is also very short, only a few days.
this guy is incredible... he drinks like a sailor yet makes more cogent and well structured arguments than a current world leader who is supposedly 30 years sober.
At work recently I was having a conversation about pollution/climate change and a coworker asked me "so do you care about the environment?" and I thought to myself 'Shouldn't everyone???' the real question should be "are you prepared to do something about worlds pollution?" not 'do you care'. But sadly a staggering number of people simply don't care. Imagine the Earth in 40 years time? It seriously frightens me. I wonder if they will care then?
As far as I see it the best way to stop things like global warming is to approach it from all angles. Don't let companies cut corners when filtering pollution, Develop more energy efficient products (added bonus these also produce less heat meaning less air conditioner use in the summer and cheaper electric bills), preserve plant life better, make roofs more reflective to reduce heat absorption, and finally make toxic chemicals illegal if a less toxic counterpart exists.
Basically, the well oiled apparatus of critical thinking that he developed in his brain gives him the right answer even if he doesn't know if it's true.
+No I don't Very probably. And they were fools to think that Christopher would dismiss such a problem, or not see the consequences that are implicated.
I just have to say, Chris Hitchens has the greatest voice of all time! It's so cool that I could listen to him narrate ANYTHING. He and Patrick Stewart could perform a two man show of Anne of Green Gables, and I would be absolutely enthralled.
@A86 I’m not denying the greenhouse effect. You simply don’t understand how it works. Water vapor constitutes about 3% of the atmosphere, or roughly 70 times the concentration of CO2. And water vapor creates a negative feedback for temperature. A CO2 rise from 0.03% to 0.04% is simply insufficient to result in a measurable effect on the climate since the minor effect it induces is overwhelmed 70 times by feedback in cloud cover.
He puts into words exactly how I feel about global warming but lack the language skill to express it. I remain skeptical today about how much human activities contribute to global warming, but it seems only sensible to put a curb on CO2 emission until we know more.
+Kmeister Even if CO2 didn't warm the planet, it will kill life in the ocean. So if you'd like to eat in the future you should still do exactly as science says to do about it. The foodchain is actually an upside down pyramid, if we remove the base there will be no end to the human torment.
Why are you still skeptical about it? This late in the game, what more would you need to be convinced that we are disrupting our global climate and the balance of nature on a massive scale? By the insane amount of greenhouse gases we still pump into the atmosphere alone. Add to that the acidification of the water and sky, the systematic destruction of natural habitats, triggering unprecedented mass extinction of organic lifeforms. These events have happened naturally sometimes as well, yes. But it wouldn't be happening now, if it weren't for us. The facts really are in. Our continued failure to act on them appropriately is dooming future generations.
there is no global warming . The atmosphere and bioshere require more carbon dioxide, 1,000 parts or more per million , because vegetation has been starved of Co2 . We must stop deforestation .
I agree with what he is saying but it is a shame that the solution is probably not achievable since it requires a global effort. If nations like China will not participate then it is really a lost cause anyway.
the question is not particularly anthropogenic CO2 forcing, it is the (arguable) positive feedback mechanisms that are set off as a result. CH4 forcing as a result of tundra decay due to higher temperatures is just one of these and there are many more. CO2 outputs do need to be reduced if for nothing else, via the 'precautionary principle' which Hitchins refers to here. We don't have another shot at it if we don't.
@@johnysac420 Where I live in Illinois, the weather is expected to rise, and 100 degrees or higher days will be more common, compared to it being a rare occurrence. That could be dangerous for older people. to have that much very hot days in the summer. Then again, even of Climate Change didn't affect me that much, that wouldn't make it any less of an issue. Climate change is going to cause worldwide droughts, extinctions and rise of water levels anyway.Climate change denial in the 2020s is just ignorant at this point, i'm not going to go back and fourth when you will just probably spit out the facts anyway.
An old video. Hitch was the kind of man who would likely have reviewed the evidence available to us today, and conclude that the overwhelming evidence points to a significant acceleration in change of this planet's climate, an unprecedented change. Save for the periods in the planet's history which lead up to at least two mass extinctions. Hitch liked facts. Today's facts.
"overwhelming evidence points to a significant acceleration in change of this planet's climate, an unprecedented change" Link to evidence? Periods which lead (pronounced "leed")? In the present? Did you mean periods which led?
@RuinSonic Recycling is a v important part of reducing emmisions going forwards. Even a small energy save makes it a net save. Any net save is a positive contribution to emmision reduction. The target should be to improve this net save year on year to make it more and more worthwhile to recycle. Throwing stuff away, for the most part, is more costly, wasteful and produces more emmisions. Recycling is a good part of the solution. :)
Even if it isn't man-made, and I believe we've determined it to be, it's still our job to take care of it. I've spoken with the ostriches and they're not too interested in the job.
The earth will certainly get around 2 degrees hotter. It's very hard to do something about emission gasses and whatnot. Think about it; You want a Tesla because it's a fucking awesome car and good for the environment right? Now think about how they make these cars. Yes, the building has a roof covered in solar panels, how did they make them? How did they ship them? The people of the solar panels who made them need clothes, protective gear, coffee in the lunch hour etc etc. How are these coffee beans, clothes, protective gears produced? How is the plastic made that covers those clothes? The zippers are made from iron, producing iron is very very bad for the environment. How are the tools and vehicles made to extract the iron and produce it? You can go on and on and on and on and on and.... How are they shipped, how are they processed? Our civilization is built upon fossil fuels... etc etc. I live in a country that is 60% under sea level and we're holding back the sea for thousands of years already and it's getting harder and harder every year. It's hard to reduce it, but it can be done... I also think Thorium nuclear energy power the green future. Nuclear energy isn't as bad as the media says it is... Yes the uranium reactors are inefficient but if we develop Thorium nuclear energy reactors we can power the whole fucking world! All green because it doesn't create as much waste as other energy things. I'm getting tired of typing... you girls (girls first bitches! :p) and guys get the idea :)
the animal agriculture industry contributes the most to climate change. The best way to stop it is actually the easiest, eat some plants instead of animals and there ya go. 51% of green house gas emissions gone.
I was a little upset when I first wrote my comment so the tone is a little bad but I agree! Look how much space those panels take... Next thing you know is that they will cut down trees to make space for the solar panels. Instead of having reactors around the country that will provide so. much. more power. People don't understand how eco nuclear power actually is, and to be honest, I *don't* blame them because how the media reports nuclear power. They also think about nuclear bombs and of course Chernobyl and of course "recently" Fukushima. There has to be better information about these subject instead of people shouting at each other from 2 sides. I think that Thorium is at least, for now, the best, safest and efficient way to use nuclear power, until we can really use Fusion instead of Fission based nuclear power. Thanks for your comment, I appreciate it (✿◠‿◠) Sorry for my English, it is not my native language...
those brains washed idiots don't even know that lithium and silicon mining are not as easy as coal or crude oil/natural gas to be produced the biggest scammer of course elon musk, he will be gone soon after trump cut his mouth from billion usd tax we can only hope if marine le pen won france, the fake green energy will be wiped out, and european nuclear fusion project will be priority :D
We can't say for sure if there is a God or not, we don't have another life to do the experiment on, should we also act as if there is a God just in case?
@A86 True. And I'll add furthermore that someone finding a "trend" doesn't make what they've found a trend. Statistical significance is the only qualifier for anything related to collections of data, not the claimant. The website you referenced artificially parses the available information, creating a cheapened sample, which makes their output garbage data. Hit the stats books, review their process, and if you still come to their conclusion, your answer is not motivated by reason.
No he simply stated that he does not know enough about this subject, but when confronted with the dichotomy of take action or do not take action, taking action seemed the obvious choice.
"Cannot prove GW is not caused by humans" - actually they have already.. Carbon 14 vs. Carbon 13 signatures, and the relative ratio between the two, coincide well with the start of the industrial revolution in the 1930s.
+Matt Bell If you are sure global warming is a problem or that God exists, then you don't need the type of argument that Pascal made, or that Hitchens makes here. You only need it if you're not sure.
+John Purcell Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Do you have evidence that pumping it into the atmosphere will not disturb the earth's climate? Hitchens was speaking on account of his (limited) knowledge that the consensus is unprecedented CO2 levels ----> messed up climate.
So what is your assessment? Should we follow Hitchen's logic? Also, I have read that it takes 30 years for the earth to reach equilibrium with increased CO2, if that is the case, we are currently enjoying the climate of 1982's level of CO2. Since we are emitting CO2 exponentially, we have a lot of catching up to do (in the area of equilibrium).
@RuinSonic What's the price of land, these days? The answer to that question is the true cost of throwing away things like plastic and styrofoam, because it has to be put into landfill. The 'cost' of recycling is far less in the long run, even though it takes more energy in the short term.
I think the key difference is that we can verify that negative consequences can happen in life, and even in future lives, but not in "the afterlife" which has no evidence of existence.
As Brooks Anderson posted: " Note that Hitchens, unlike many of the "posters" herein, admits that he knows little about the SCIENCE of global warming." which is precise proof how brilliant he was!
Agree 100% with Hitch. There will be no reset button. Better to make the changes now while we have the resources to do so, thn find in 30 years time that we missed the boat.
@MilessGloriosus - "Nowhere have I denied the greenhouse effect" To claim CO2 has little or no effect on temperature is to deny the Greenhouse Effect. The Greenhouse Effect, in terms of how it relates to CO2, is the scientific law that CO2 concentrations RAISE TEMPERATURE DUE TO RADIATIVE FORCING. To say that it doesn't is to deny the Greenhouse Effect since aerosols like CO2 raising temperature is the essence of what the Greenhouse Effect is. Do you get it now? Is it getting through?
Well I mean IF it wasn´t humans that caused climate change, BUT we assumed it was us, then our strategy to combat it would be flawed, wouldn´t it? IF this were the case we should find out what is the real reason, and than combat that. Don´t think he had thought this one through.
Actually, no. the temperature spike in the last 30 years has put us about the medieval warm period, the Roman times, and any time since the last interglacial. The cooling of the Little Ice Age increased famines and malnutrition in Europe, which increased the severity of the Black Death, but increased heat beyond a certain level also results in reduced crop yields.
Pascal's wager is not a bad argument because of its structure; Pascal's wager is a bad argument because of implicit assumptions it makes regarding the specific scenarios involved. For example, one common critique of Pascal's wager is that it does not promote truly complementary positions. For example, which God should one believe in? There are multiple deities that could exist and multiple holy texts which claim that a failure to perform certain actions results in infinite harm. The choice, then, is not merely whether to believe or disbelieve in a God, but also in which God one should believe or disbelieve. If one chooses to believe a particular God, but a different God is correct, that person will still receive infinite harm for their choice to believe in the wrong God. This critique of Pascal's wager does not apply to the question of anthropomorphic climate change. Whether climate change is or is not anthropomorphic are actually complementary positions. Another common critique of Pascal's wager is about sincerity of belief and/or whether belief is a choice. Pascal's wager is about choosing to either believe or disbelieve in a certain God. Many people counter this by claiming that belief is not a choice one can make, but rather, is a natural consequence of the evidence to which they have been exposed. This critique claims that, even taking potential consequences into account, this doesn't affect whether or not someone actually believes in that God. In the same vein, someone may act as if they believe in God, but not actually believe it. Rather, they may choose to act that way simply to avoid infinite harm. An omniscient God would be able to distinguish between genuine belief and insincere actions taken for the sole purpose of avoiding infinite harm. Indeed, the Christian God claims to be able to do this and claims that He will do this! In this aspect, even choosing to act a certain way to avoid infinite harm may not prevent infinite harm in the end. Again, this critique does not apply to anthropomorphic climate change. If anthropomorphic climate change is real, it doesn't matter whether or not you believe it's real. All that matters is your actions. It is not as if anthropomorphic climate change is an intelligent being who may choose to change the climate regardless of your actions simply because someone didn't genuinely believe in it. Pascal's wager represents a classical decision-making strategy. Most people who have ever played a strategic game have employed this decision-making strategy, for instance. That this strategy is misapplied in the context of a belief in God does not invalidate the strategy under all contexts. Edit: fixed a misspelling of "complementary".
@@MuffinsAPlenty No... You took something I said, like 2 years ago, and then said it to someone else, in a recent comment. Contradictory to what you said to my post. You're a troll.
@A86 A “sudden ice storm” that persists for 40,000 years instead must be recognized as having been an instantaneous climate disruption event - covering a significant area (Siberia & N America). We simply can’t reconstruct the global temp records for that specific year. It strains credulity to suggest that the rest of the globe did not experience major temp shifts at the same time, almost certainly exceeding 1C. Our current temp shifts are not abnormal.
@A86 Your references only gave verbal assertions of increases in droughts and floods. But still no DATA was provided. As far as ice ages developing over hundreds of years - that's unproven, and there is significant evidence that some developed much more quickly - look up frozen mammoths. But the main point is that the assertion that CO2 increases will drive up global temperatures remains pure conjecture. We've seen some minor temperature fluctuations, but they're likely unrelated to CO2.
@A86 Still no DATA for a real increase in frequency of Droughts and Floods. The skepticalscience link was interesting, but a quick review of the comments revealed the weakness of their argument - they biased the stats where they could by assuming localization (using normal temps for locations with no records). The IPCC link provides some other data, but does not show a statistically significant increase in Droughts and Floods occurring now.
Hence, separating the "concept" of GW ( i.e. globe getting hotter, measurements, et al. ) from the "connotations" of GW ( political movements, pseudo science, et al ). The phrase has multiple and overlapping definitions. BTW I don't think anyone disputes that there was "global warming" from about 1880-1998 Just like the period after the Maunder minimum.
The greenhouse effect is not in question. Causality of CO2 levels effecting temperature is. As for Fourier, he did not really discover the greenhouse effect. He thought it might be some possible explanation for temperature discrepancy that he calculated, while not knowing the Earth's albedo, etc. He would be embarrassed at what that idea has become. You are on thin ice, indeed if you want to argue Fourier with me :) Fourier and Laplace transformations are the core of my work.
There has never been a model proposed that actually works that way. The volcanoes put out a lot more than just CO2. The problem is that the greenhouse effect is weak when the albedo is very high. The CO2 absorption spectrum is much stronger in the IR range of radiated heat. In the higher spectra, O2 is much more effective. So, at high albedo, trading O2 for CO2 could be a net loss of effect. You need more than that.
Hitchens's argument about erring on the side of caution about whether or not humans are responsible for global warming reminds me of the argument that people should embrace Christianity in case it is true in order to avoid hell (Pascal's Wager).
@milnoid It's regarding the "too late" aspect that we probably disagree the most. I understand the tipping point concept, but I don't accept that it applies in the case of CO2. Yes, all other things being equal, the most conservative approach would be to act as through we're at the precipice. I just fail to see that as being the case right now. And all other things are certainly not equal - the economic cost of "just in case" action will consign many millions to poverty and depression.
Just trowing out 'Pascal's wager' isn't being clear. There are specific reasons why Pascal's wager isn't sound. My question is simply what applies here? Assuming humans are responsible for the warming isn't 'the worst case scenario'. It is a logically possible scenario. It seems reasonable upon a thorough cost benefit analysis that people who are undecided whether human activity is responsible for warming or not should air on the cautious side.
That same explanation eluded him when he declared himself an atheist: If there's a Heaven and only believers enter Heaven, precaution would dictate belief in Heaven just in case is real. If you die and there is no Heaven, you lost nothing.
@MilessGloriosus - "A “sudden ice storm” that persists for 40,000 years instead must be recognized as having been an instantaneous climate disruption event" What is this "sudden ice storm" you're referring to and when did GLOBAL TEMPERATURE drop 1 degree or more and atmospheric CO2 concentrations rise or fall more than 100ppm in a few hundred years during this time?
CO2, on the other hand, is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere with a very long residence time. And it is not temperature dependent. You find CO2 well mixed throughout all levels of the troposphere and from pole to pole. CO2's radiative absorption bands also operate in a critical area ~667 cm-1 where WV does not.
This is what I don't get about the people who argue that nuclear winter won't happen if WW3 happens. (Which might have been what he was referring to at the beginning.) You can make arguments both ways. So...there's only one way to be sure. Who wants to try that experiment?
@RuinSonic IMO, the fundamental problem is the human capacity to override reason with emotion. Many very intelligent people, atheists included, turn a blind eye to the mountains of evidence that our world is changing and what may happen to us, or be required of us to stop the worst from happening.
@MilessGloriosus - "But compare CO2 to water vapor" What about it? Water vapor levels can rise in correlation with CO2 levels because increased CO2 levels raises temperature, which in turn causes more evaporation of water, which in turn creates more water vapor; which in turn raises heat further which can cause MORE evaporation and more water vapor. CO2 can compliment the rise of water vapor. Especially since CO2 tends to sink to water tables and help them evaporate with added heat.
I see you did not actually read the study. 3000 measurement of points global temperature data 0 measurable increase from 1997-2012, Probably even slight cooling, pending round errors. That means that the "pause" is now longer than the "warming period" which followed a cooling period. Looking at the graph, the data has a very interesting symmetry. The Fourier transform data may tell something.
@RuinSonic Why are these guys arguing with you using philosophy instead of science? The same people who would probably be praising Hitchens on any other video are bizarrely disconnected from what he is saying on global warming. I'm with you here 100%.
@MilessGloriosus - Though water vapor in the form of clouds can have negative radiative forcing because increased cloud cover can lower global temperatures. However, much of the increased recent water vapor isn't turning into clouds. "you STILL haven't provided any DATA for your first assertion" Re-read those sections I mentioned from the link. If for whatever reason you still don't think it's enough data I can provide other sources.
@A86 What isTweaking Parameters? Your facility with calculations and knowledge about the complexity of atmospheric models proves you know precisely what I’m talking about. For example, using a 500 year CO2 residence time instead of the peer-reviewed average of about 10 years from 35+ other studies.
@MilessGloriosus - "and there is significant evidence that some developed much more quickly - look up frozen mammoths" What does development of sudden ice storms have to do with GLOBAL TEMPERATURE or atmospheric CO2 concentrations? The fact that ice storms can occur quickly does not show that the global temperature increased or decreased over 1 degree in a few hundred years, or that atmospheric CO2 dropped or rose more than 200% in a few hundred years.
This is a simple question of insurance. You do not need to be an actuary in order to understand that you need insurance. You do not need to be a meteorologist in order to understand whether or not flood insurance is something you should buy. Taking a stance that we need to act to make sure that we do not change life as we know it in a particularly negative way with regard to global warming is reasonable policy. There is some threat here. Even if we do not know exactly the level of the threat, we are quite aware at this time that the threat is not zero. The insurance we need against this threat can be obtained by taking action as if it is real and fairly severe. If we need to change course later because the threat is not as severe as it might have been, it is not a big issue globally. If we do not take action or sufficient action until it is too late to counteract this, then it is a big deal. The biggest problem with this is that the people making the current decisions about this for the most part will never know if their decisions were disastrous or not. The only thing they will know for sure is if they made money in the short term. It is no accident that most of these people in the U.S. call themselves Christians. The most most fundamental teachings of Jesus were to take no thought for tomorrow. Leave everything behind and follow him. If you think about this at all for adults with families this would be a singularly immoral act in much the same way ignoring global warming is the most irresponsible and immoral policy decision that I can think of in the history of man. The automatic assumption in America that Christianity as well as Christians are moral really needs to be rethought. Thanks Hitch for helping me to more fully understand this.
It's interesting to hear Hitchen's effectively endorse Pascal's Wager when it comes to "climate change." Considering how much as changed since he made this comment over 15 years ago, I wonder if he would still say the same thing.
This planet will recover and move on despite what we do. It's simply our choice on how much of an impact we make for our species. Either way life will remain here for likely 3-4 more billion years and perhaps a bit more, whether we're here or not.
The difference being that Pascals Wager when applied to religion is a false dichotomy that doesn't include all the possible outcomes or actions. With regard to global warming the options seem quite exhausted at "does happen" "doesn't happen" "prepared for it" "didn't prepare for it" and so the main flaw in Pascals Wager (in that it produces false dichotomy's) doesn't exist in this instant. Either way it's irrelevant because any action should be evidence led and not logic led.
@MilessGloriosus - "In a static atmosphere" Pray tell what is a "static atmosphere"? If you're referring to motion the motion of the atmosphere has almost nothing to do with the radiative forcing of CO2.
@A86 Two giant AGW errors: 1) that a change from 0.03% to 0.04% CO2 is enough to offset the standard water vapor negative feedback loop. This assertion is demonstrably falsified by the last 15 years of global temperature decline. 2) That the CO2 we generate will stay in the atmosphere for centuries, meaning we must stem the increase now before it’s too late. This is also untrue - the actual residence time is closer to a decade.
Except that, if you read any of the research on the issue, the sun is very stable. It varies only about 0.1% over the course of the 11 year solar cycle. The change in radiative forcing for solar has been about 0.5 Watts per square meter (W/m2) over the past 100 years. The change in greenhouse gas forcing has been 2.8W/m2 over the same period.
@milnoid Cap and Trade supporters include BP, GM, Chrysler, Ford, GE, Pepsico, J&J, Alcoa. (and Enron). In my view, the reason why more companies aren't jumping on this bandwagon is because they don't see a direct benefit. More would be scrambling for a place at the trough if they throught these regs were about to be enacted. I agree with you, though, that "the emissions will happen". What occurs next is something we will have to see. So far, there doesn't seem to be much there.
Surely you aren't proposing that soot would change the albedo of the entire globe. The effects of soot are pretty localized. Also, the change in co2 in the atmosphere was not a small one, it rose to 13% of the atmosphere. Methane, also a GHG, was building up from volcanic activity because of the lack of weathering or contact with the surface. Even if it were some other effect that initiated the warming, there can be no doubt that such high co2 levels would have sped it up once it begun.
@MilessGloriosus - (con't) to show temps in the span of a few centuries. That doesn't even make any sense since any temperature record is simply a compilation of many years. That's like saying you can plant a forest but can't plant a few individual trees.
You havent got a clue have you? Chief Justice Burton pointed out that the “apocalyptic vision” promoted in AIT was politically partisan, not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. Although Burton ruled that the movie could be shown in UK schools, he added that it must be accompanied by a cautionary statement about the political/ideological nature of the movie. If this did not occur, then screening the movie would contravene an Act of Parliament
That's not what I asked at all. You wrote that "they decided not to blame the sun for the temp". I wanted to know what you meant by that, and on what basis you made the claim.
Although he is using Pascal's Wager he is applying it to something that is pretty much fact, whether it is us or not we know that the planet is warming as therefore should take precautions to help it. When it comes to religion it is a whole different argument as it is much more destructive than simply allocating more resources towards helping the environment.
And it is pretty much fact that the earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling for thousands and thousands of years without our help but yet we are going to affect change for the better as if the earth is just this innocent bystander? Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should just pollute the planet and destroy everything in sight. I just think we over estimate ourselves a wee bit.
Jake H If you are not familiar with it, Pascal's Wager is a theory used to support the argument that we should believe in and worship a God. This is because of theory, in simple terms, states we have nothing to lose by worshiping a God and so by doing so we may be rewarded after death even if the chances are slim of that God actually existing. However, as we know, the worshiping of a God is harmful to the human race. Hitchens uses it here by saying we should do something about climate change even if we are not the cause as we have nothing to lose by doing so as there is no way to prove for certain we are the primary cause of global warming.
CO2 doesn't help much if you have a very high albedo that reflects the same spectra of energy that you are receiving. The current thinking is that volcanic soot changed the albedo. The greenhouse works best when the incoming and outgoing spectra are different (radiated). ie.e more transparent to the incoming energy than the outgoing energy. Venus is a completely different case. e.g. we don't have a battery acid layer to our atmosphere. CO2 earth = 0.0003% @1bar CO2 Venus = 95% @90bar
Note, we have other greenhouse gasses as well in the athmosphere which are even more responsible for earths climate, but I hope you get the idea of what I meant. CO2 does play an important role in our climate as catalyst and indicator for the global temperature. Just wanted to add that.
@MilessGloriosus - "We simply can’t reconstruct the global temp records for that specific year" And what year is this supposedly? Since we can reconstruct global temperatures for many other years I'm betting you're incorrect. "to suggest that the rest of the globe did not experience major temp shifts" No, it doesn't. The "Little Ice Age" Period from 1400-1850 was largely a local phenomenon. It didn't affect the entire planet even though it was significant for parts of the Northern Hemisphere.
@RuinSonic The impact of recycling on the environment is negligible. The big three are energy production, transportation, and building efficiency, precisely the areas where progress is amazingly slow, although the technology to change that already exists and has in most cases for decades.
Bubbles of air trapped in ice cores, these can then be directly compared with existing air samples. Even if that's not good enough for you, direct measurements started in the late 1950's and since then we've gone from 320 ppm to 400 in a very clear trend. I recommend some reading. I don't know why it's relevant but the light bulb was invented in the 1840's in england.
"Firstly, he seems to deny the cost of the preventative measures." Deny? Where does he deny it? Sure they aren't mentioned... but that's not denial. I'm also not sure that he says it's not big deal. I think rather we can't do anything about the scenario where it isn't caused by humans and we can afford neither. Well no - that argument cannot be applied to scenarios which aren't dichotomous like it is the case with Pascals Wager. Also Pascals Wager isn't about actions... but belief.
@milnoid - You say you were a global warming skeptic. Have you read "the Deniers" by Lawrence Solomon? If not, you should read it before making any further pronouncements. Solomon is an environmentalist (as am I) who started out as a believer - his intent was to reveal the flaws in the skeptics cases. Much has changed since it was published in 2008. But if anything, the case against AGW is far stronger now than when he wrote this book, which dismantled the entire scientific case for AGW.
Even when he doesn't know and admits to it ....he is still right
That is the true mark of intelligence.
Even if you don't want to believe in Global Warming, we still need clean air and clean water and a way to better handle our trash. We still need to be protective of our environment.
Absolutely. Two parts of the same argument, and neither can be ignored.
Very true. And 6 years after this comment not much has changed.
@A Robespierre I used to be a Maulthusian too until I realised we produce enough food for 10 Billion people with potential capacity to spare.
No one disagrees
Note that Hitchens, unlike many of the "posters" herein, admits that he knows little about the SCIENCE of global warming. Good ole' Hitchens, honest to the end. It gets old reading the crackpot comments about AGW from unlettered people who have no science degrees, research experience, or publications in relevant peer-reviewed journals.
+Brooks Anderson If we are to make good decisions as a democracy, we should discuss political issues among ourselves. We shouldn't leave the decision making up to a select few, even if they're more educated. Hitchens had the self awareness to abstain from the issue because he was a public figure and an intellectual. We are not.
The problem is politicians politicizing science over non-issues between scientists. People like Bush (No.2) were deciding what climate scientists like James Hansen (NASA's top climatologist) could, or could not, publish. The mere idea of an inarticulate Texas oil man deciding what distinguished scientists can or cannot publish on the topic of climate change, because it would be bad for business, is revolting. You see so many goofy posts about AGW that, if the matter was not so serious, as the unrelenting drought here in Northern Mexico, would be funny. "Equal time" for blathering nonsense is highly overrated (to misquote Mr.Hitchens). .(old geologist)
That's because Hitchens is intelligent enough to realize his own limitations and the holes in his knowledge. Nobody knows everything nor can everbody be good at everything: a wise and intelligent person will realize this and freely admit his ignorance while the fool will persist in his folly and claim he knows better than those who are experts on the topic.
The problem is that democracy doesn't take this into account and awards every person one single vote (based on nothing but reaching a certain age). If the majority isn't willing and/or able to reflect on fundamental topics, especially those pertaining to global issues, yet is tasked with electing those who'll make the decisions we are royally fornicated. All of us, including those who know better.
He knows a little about the science. Emphasis on the little. Other than that he was on point.
This was also decades ago before we had the actual information.
This man is surely and sorely missed.
This is the kind of discussion that needs to take place, these are the ideas we need to exchange. This man and his generous and intelligent spirit has such depth and if not wisdom then the logic with which to approach the problems we have today.
RIP Christopher Hitchens, man of great clarity and expression.
Easily the clearest explanation of the precautionary principle yet.
The Precautionary Principle only applies here if you accept there is potential harm.
@@razvaz I'm curious as how one could make the argument that the polar caps melting away and the overall temperature of the planet rising by several degrees ISN'T harmful.
@@MrConstantine02 I didn't say that wouldn't be harmful. I said you had to accept the potential of it happening.
@@razvaz Hahaha!
There is potential harm in everything whether you are a believer or not.
Be careful you don't get killed by your hot dog...because it is more deadly than islamic terrorism in the USA.
This from a dude who encouraged teenage smoking and drinking, indulged in both heavily despite knowing their effects, and who died 20 years too young. Perhaps it’s a bit more complicated…
Even him admitting he doesn't know a lot about the science his analysis is spot on. There is no Option or Plan B if we get it wrong.
Water vapor (WV) clearly is a stronger greenhouse gas but there is one important aspect of it that you're completely missing. It's presence in the atmosphere is temperature dependent. Warmer air holds more WV. At freezing there is almost no WV. That means there is very little WV above a few thousand feet in elevation. And it means that WV is primarily limited to lower latitudes. The residence time of WV is also very short, only a few days.
I miss the fuck out of Christopher Hitchens. We need him here now.
Cliff Hanley No I wouldn't
this guy is incredible... he drinks like a sailor yet makes more cogent and well structured arguments than a current world leader who is supposedly 30 years sober.
Who other than Hitchens could communicate the Precautionary Principle so elegantly.
At work recently I was having a conversation about pollution/climate change and a coworker asked me "so do you care about the environment?" and I thought to myself 'Shouldn't everyone???' the real question should be "are you prepared to do something about worlds pollution?" not 'do you care'. But sadly a staggering number of people simply don't care.
Imagine the Earth in 40 years time? It seriously frightens me. I wonder if they will care then?
As far as I see it the best way to stop things like global warming is to approach it from all angles.
Don't let companies cut corners when filtering pollution, Develop more energy efficient products (added bonus these also produce less heat meaning less air conditioner use in the summer and cheaper electric bills), preserve plant life better, make roofs more reflective to reduce heat absorption, and finally make toxic chemicals illegal if a less toxic counterpart exists.
It's as though he knows the question in advance...such a clever man who says it as it is. Miss him so much!
Well he had already written about it so he didn’t need to create a reply on the spot
This man knows what steps to take upon arguments and issues of which he has no expertise on.
Well spoken.
Basically, the well oiled apparatus of critical thinking that he developed in his brain gives him the right answer even if he doesn't know if it's true.
I don't mean to state the obvious but...
DAMN HE'S GOOD.
Ironic that you would mention Fourier as well, being that he was the first person that proposed a greenhouse effect.
The questioners probably mistook Peter Hitchen's opinion of this subject for Christopher's xP
+No I don't Very probably. And they were fools to think that Christopher would dismiss such a problem, or not see the consequences that are implicated.
I just have to say, Chris Hitchens has the greatest voice of all time! It's so cool that I could listen to him narrate ANYTHING. He and Patrick Stewart could perform a two man show of Anne of Green Gables, and I would be absolutely enthralled.
Christopher please
August 2019. It's too late.
August 2020. COVID pandemic. Game over
@A86 I’m not denying the greenhouse effect. You simply don’t understand how it works. Water vapor constitutes about 3% of the atmosphere, or roughly 70 times the concentration of CO2. And water vapor creates a negative feedback for temperature. A CO2 rise from 0.03% to 0.04% is simply insufficient to result in a measurable effect on the climate since the minor effect it induces is overwhelmed 70 times by feedback in cloud cover.
What? Okay, follow these steps:
1. Go to Google
2. Click on the "news" tab
3. Type in "Arctic Ice"
4. Click "search"
He puts into words exactly how I feel about global warming but lack the language skill to express it. I remain skeptical today about how much human activities contribute to global warming, but it seems only sensible to put a curb on CO2 emission until we know more.
+Kmeister Even if CO2 didn't warm the planet, it will kill life in the ocean. So if you'd like to eat in the future you should still do exactly as science says to do about it. The foodchain is actually an upside down pyramid, if we remove the base there will be no end to the human torment.
Why are you still skeptical about it? This late in the game, what more would you need to be convinced that we are disrupting our global climate and the balance of nature on a massive scale? By the insane amount of greenhouse gases we still pump into the atmosphere alone. Add to that the acidification of the water and sky, the systematic destruction of natural habitats, triggering unprecedented mass extinction of organic lifeforms. These events have happened naturally sometimes as well, yes. But it wouldn't be happening now, if it weren't for us. The facts really are in. Our continued failure to act on them appropriately is dooming future generations.
there is no global warming . The atmosphere and bioshere require more carbon dioxide, 1,000 parts or more per million , because vegetation has been starved of Co2 . We must stop deforestation .
Seeing as though CO2 emissions rise and the temperature does not, no, it is NOT sensible to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on curbing it.
So you know more science than 97%+ of ALL climate scientists who do NOTHING but study climate? You must be smarter the Einstein.
so elegant, if he would do figure skating he would top Alexei Yagudin
+Feldenkrais + Fitness Ⓥ: That's... an image. ._.
When you don’t know the answer, you break down the question and create possible answers, critical thinking at its best
I agree with what he is saying but it is a shame that the solution is probably not achievable since it requires a global effort. If nations like China will not participate then it is really a lost cause anyway.
the question is not particularly anthropogenic CO2 forcing, it is the (arguable) positive feedback mechanisms that are set off as a result. CH4 forcing as a result of tundra decay due to higher temperatures is just one of these and there are many more. CO2 outputs do need to be reduced if for nothing else, via the 'precautionary principle' which Hitchins refers to here. We don't have another shot at it if we don't.
12 years after this interview and we are indeed finding out what it's going to do and it ain't pretty.
LR Vogt - 12 years later its still a non issue. This wouldn’t have affects for thousands of years
@@johnysac420 some comments like yours, is so dumb, it hurts.
DEUnknownPLAY3R - is your daily life affected by global warming in its current state?
DEUnknownPLAY3R - ill wait 😂
@@johnysac420 Where I live in Illinois, the weather is expected to rise, and 100 degrees or higher days will be more common, compared to it being a rare occurrence. That could be dangerous for older people. to have that much very hot days in the summer. Then again, even of Climate Change didn't affect me that much, that wouldn't make it any less of an issue. Climate change is going to cause worldwide droughts, extinctions and rise of water levels anyway.Climate change denial in the 2020s is just ignorant at this point, i'm not going to go back and fourth when you will just probably spit out the facts anyway.
An old video. Hitch was the kind of man who would likely have reviewed the evidence available to us today, and conclude that the overwhelming evidence points to a significant acceleration in change of this planet's climate, an unprecedented change. Save for the periods in the planet's history which lead up to at least two mass extinctions.
Hitch liked facts. Today's facts.
A year later , Hitch has spotted, quite correctly, that the green movement had evolved into a religion - see hitch vs hitch debate
"overwhelming evidence points to a significant acceleration in change of this planet's climate, an unprecedented change"
Link to evidence?
Periods which lead (pronounced "leed")? In the present? Did you mean periods which led?
Credible Hulk incorrect. If he would've checked the facts he'd have realised it was bullshit. Much like he exposed mother Theresa, and religion
Damn I love this man
@RuinSonic Recycling is a v important part of reducing emmisions going forwards. Even a small energy save makes it a net save. Any net save is a positive contribution to emmision reduction. The target should be to improve this net save year on year to make it more and more worthwhile to recycle.
Throwing stuff away, for the most part, is more costly, wasteful and produces more emmisions. Recycling is a good part of the solution. :)
Even if it isn't man-made, and I believe we've determined it to be, it's still our job to take care of it. I've spoken with the ostriches and they're not too interested in the job.
And did you talk to China and India?
The earth will certainly get around 2 degrees hotter. It's very hard to do something about emission gasses and whatnot. Think about it;
You want a Tesla because it's a fucking awesome car and good for the environment right? Now think about how they make these cars. Yes, the building has a roof covered in solar panels, how did they make them? How did they ship them? The people of the solar panels who made them need clothes, protective gear, coffee in the lunch hour etc etc. How are these coffee beans, clothes, protective gears produced? How is the plastic made that covers those clothes? The zippers are made from iron, producing iron is very very bad for the environment. How are the tools and vehicles made to extract the iron and produce it? You can go on and on and on and on and on and....
How are they shipped, how are they processed? Our civilization is built upon fossil fuels...
etc etc. I live in a country that is 60% under sea level and we're holding back the sea for thousands of years already and it's getting harder and harder every year.
It's hard to reduce it, but it can be done...
I also think Thorium nuclear energy power the green future. Nuclear energy isn't as bad as the media says it is... Yes the uranium reactors are inefficient but if we develop Thorium nuclear energy reactors we can power the whole fucking world! All green because it doesn't create as much waste as other energy things.
I'm getting tired of typing... you girls (girls first bitches! :p) and guys get the idea :)
Yukana Kochi great comment
the animal agriculture industry contributes the most to climate change. The best way to stop it is actually the easiest, eat some plants instead of animals and there ya go. 51% of green house gas emissions gone.
Nuclear fusion is the answer...not some shitty like silicon solar panel or lithium battery :D
I was a little upset when I first wrote my comment so the tone is a little bad but I agree! Look how much space those panels take... Next thing you know is that they will cut down trees to make space for the solar panels. Instead of having reactors around the country that will provide so. much. more power. People don't understand how eco nuclear power actually is, and to be honest, I *don't* blame them because how the media reports nuclear power. They also think about nuclear bombs and of course Chernobyl and of course "recently" Fukushima. There has to be better information about these subject instead of people shouting at each other from 2 sides.
I think that Thorium is at least, for now, the best, safest and efficient way to use nuclear power, until we can really use Fusion instead of Fission based nuclear power.
Thanks for your comment, I appreciate it (✿◠‿◠)
Sorry for my English, it is not my native language...
those brains washed idiots don't even know that lithium and silicon mining are not as easy as coal or crude oil/natural gas to be produced
the biggest scammer of course elon musk, he will be gone soon after trump cut his mouth from billion usd tax
we can only hope if marine le pen won france, the fake green energy will be wiped out, and european nuclear fusion project will be priority :D
We can't say for sure if there is a God or not, we don't have another life to do the experiment on, should we also act as if there is a God just in case?
There is no evidence of God's existance. However, there is evidence that shows that the planets temperature is increasing due to human activity.
Ivan Perez But this universe exists so that is evidence of?
Jeremy calhoun
The fact that the universe exists is not evidence of God. The universe existance is evidence that the universe exists.
Shit troll.
Ivan Perez Ok but there is no evidence that god doesn't exist either.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” - Christopher Hitchens
Wikipedia has a pretty good page on Piltdown man. They state several times that the find was challenged from the outset.
@A86 True. And I'll add furthermore that someone finding a "trend" doesn't make what they've found a trend. Statistical significance is the only qualifier for anything related to collections of data, not the claimant. The website you referenced artificially parses the available information, creating a cheapened sample, which makes their output garbage data. Hit the stats books, review their process, and if you still come to their conclusion, your answer is not motivated by reason.
This man is a genius. He knows you can not prove that global warming us caused by humans (David Hume) but he finds away around it.
You can prove humans are causing climate change
No he simply stated that he does not know enough about this subject, but when confronted with the dichotomy of take action or do not take action, taking action seemed the obvious choice.
"Cannot prove GW is not caused by humans" - actually they have already.. Carbon 14 vs. Carbon 13 signatures, and the relative ratio between the two, coincide well with the start of the industrial revolution in the 1930s.
Isn't this Pascal's wager in global warming form???
+John Purcell No, this affects our actual livelihood--Pascal's wager affects our imaginary one.
+Matt Bell If you are sure global warming is a problem or that God exists, then you don't need the type of argument that Pascal made, or that Hitchens makes here. You only need it if you're not sure.
You do because one affects our actual livelihood and the other does not. Gambling with planetary possibilities would be foolish.
+John Purcell Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Do you have evidence that pumping it into the atmosphere will not disturb the earth's climate? Hitchens was speaking on account of his (limited) knowledge that the consensus is unprecedented CO2 levels ----> messed up climate.
+John Purcell : pretty much.
So what is your assessment? Should we follow Hitchen's logic? Also, I have read that it takes 30 years for the earth to reach equilibrium with increased CO2, if that is the case, we are currently enjoying the climate of 1982's level of CO2. Since we are emitting CO2 exponentially, we have a lot of catching up to do (in the area of equilibrium).
@RuinSonic
What's the price of land, these days?
The answer to that question is the true cost of throwing away things like plastic and styrofoam, because it has to be put into landfill. The 'cost' of recycling is far less in the long run, even though it takes more energy in the short term.
I think the key difference is that we can verify that negative consequences can happen in life, and even in future lives, but not in "the afterlife" which has no evidence of existence.
As Brooks Anderson posted: " Note that Hitchens, unlike many of the "posters" herein, admits that he knows little about the SCIENCE of global warming." which is precise proof how brilliant he was!
And he suggested we do the right thing for the right reasons even if there is doubt
Agree 100% with Hitch. There will be no reset button. Better to make the changes now while we have the resources to do so, thn find in 30 years time that we missed the boat.
@MilessGloriosus - "Nowhere have I denied the greenhouse effect"
To claim CO2 has little or no effect on temperature is to deny the Greenhouse Effect. The Greenhouse Effect, in terms of how it relates to CO2, is the scientific law that CO2 concentrations RAISE TEMPERATURE DUE TO RADIATIVE FORCING. To say that it doesn't is to deny the Greenhouse Effect since aerosols like CO2 raising temperature is the essence of what the Greenhouse Effect is. Do you get it now? Is it getting through?
Well I mean IF it wasn´t humans that caused climate change, BUT we assumed it was us, then our strategy to combat it would be flawed, wouldn´t it? IF this were the case we should find out what is the real reason, and than combat that. Don´t think he had thought this one through.
Actually, no. the temperature spike in the last 30 years has put us about the medieval warm period, the Roman times, and any time since the last interglacial. The cooling of the Little Ice Age increased famines and malnutrition in Europe, which increased the severity of the Black Death, but increased heat beyond a certain level also results in reduced crop yields.
Interesting how he uses Pascal's Wager here - an argument he has so often derided
Pascal's wager is not a bad argument because of its structure; Pascal's wager is a bad argument because of implicit assumptions it makes regarding the specific scenarios involved.
For example, one common critique of Pascal's wager is that it does not promote truly complementary positions. For example, which God should one believe in? There are multiple deities that could exist and multiple holy texts which claim that a failure to perform certain actions results in infinite harm. The choice, then, is not merely whether to believe or disbelieve in a God, but also in which God one should believe or disbelieve. If one chooses to believe a particular God, but a different God is correct, that person will still receive infinite harm for their choice to believe in the wrong God. This critique of Pascal's wager does not apply to the question of anthropomorphic climate change. Whether climate change is or is not anthropomorphic are actually complementary positions.
Another common critique of Pascal's wager is about sincerity of belief and/or whether belief is a choice. Pascal's wager is about choosing to either believe or disbelieve in a certain God. Many people counter this by claiming that belief is not a choice one can make, but rather, is a natural consequence of the evidence to which they have been exposed. This critique claims that, even taking potential consequences into account, this doesn't affect whether or not someone actually believes in that God. In the same vein, someone may act as if they believe in God, but not actually believe it. Rather, they may choose to act that way simply to avoid infinite harm. An omniscient God would be able to distinguish between genuine belief and insincere actions taken for the sole purpose of avoiding infinite harm. Indeed, the Christian God claims to be able to do this and claims that He will do this! In this aspect, even choosing to act a certain way to avoid infinite harm may not prevent infinite harm in the end. Again, this critique does not apply to anthropomorphic climate change. If anthropomorphic climate change is real, it doesn't matter whether or not you believe it's real. All that matters is your actions. It is not as if anthropomorphic climate change is an intelligent being who may choose to change the climate regardless of your actions simply because someone didn't genuinely believe in it.
Pascal's wager represents a classical decision-making strategy. Most people who have ever played a strategic game have employed this decision-making strategy, for instance. That this strategy is misapplied in the context of a belief in God does not invalidate the strategy under all contexts.
Edit: fixed a misspelling of "complementary".
@@MuffinsAPlenty See troll... You just want to argue with people.
@@MarkLewis... What I said here is the same thing I said to you. There are plenty of people who claim to be "rational" but who don't think.
@@MuffinsAPlenty No... You took something I said, like 2 years ago, and then said it to someone else, in a recent comment. Contradictory to what you said to my post. You're a troll.
@@MarkLewis... Nah, if you actually read what I said in my posts, you would see that's not true.
The person asking the question clearly misunderstood Mr. Hitchens.
@A86 A “sudden ice storm” that persists for 40,000 years instead must be recognized as having been an instantaneous climate disruption event - covering a significant area (Siberia & N America). We simply can’t reconstruct the global temp records for that specific year. It strains credulity to suggest that the rest of the globe did not experience major temp shifts at the same time, almost certainly exceeding 1C. Our current temp shifts are not abnormal.
@A86 Your references only gave verbal assertions of increases in droughts and floods. But still no DATA was provided. As far as ice ages developing over hundreds of years - that's unproven, and there is significant evidence that some developed much more quickly - look up frozen mammoths. But the main point is that the assertion that CO2 increases will drive up global temperatures remains pure conjecture. We've seen some minor temperature fluctuations, but they're likely unrelated to CO2.
@A86 Still no DATA for a real increase in frequency of Droughts and Floods. The skepticalscience link was interesting, but a quick review of the comments revealed the weakness of their argument - they biased the stats where they could by assuming localization (using normal temps for locations with no records). The IPCC link provides some other data, but does not show a statistically significant increase in Droughts and Floods occurring now.
Hence, separating the "concept" of GW ( i.e. globe getting hotter, measurements, et al. ) from the "connotations" of GW ( political movements, pseudo science, et al ). The phrase has multiple and overlapping definitions.
BTW I don't think anyone disputes that there was "global warming" from about 1880-1998 Just like the period after the Maunder minimum.
The greenhouse effect is not in question. Causality of CO2 levels effecting temperature is. As for Fourier, he did not really discover the greenhouse effect. He thought it might be some possible explanation for temperature discrepancy that he calculated, while not knowing the Earth's albedo, etc. He would be embarrassed at what that idea has become.
You are on thin ice, indeed if you want to argue Fourier with me :) Fourier and Laplace transformations are the core of my work.
There has never been a model proposed that actually works that way. The volcanoes put out a lot more than just CO2. The problem is that the greenhouse effect is weak when the albedo is very high. The CO2 absorption spectrum is much stronger in the IR range of radiated heat. In the higher spectra, O2 is much more effective. So, at high albedo, trading O2 for CO2 could be a net loss of effect.
You need more than that.
Hitchens's argument about erring on the side of caution about whether or not humans are responsible for global warming reminds me of the argument that people should embrace Christianity in case it is true in order to avoid hell (Pascal's Wager).
So yeah, we have found out that the consequences are worse than the most dire predictions.
@milnoid It's regarding the "too late" aspect that we probably disagree the most. I understand the tipping point concept, but I don't accept that it applies in the case of CO2. Yes, all other things being equal, the most conservative approach would be to act as through we're at the precipice. I just fail to see that as being the case right now. And all other things are certainly not equal - the economic cost of "just in case" action will consign many millions to poverty and depression.
Just trowing out 'Pascal's wager' isn't being clear. There are specific reasons why Pascal's wager isn't sound. My question is simply what applies here?
Assuming humans are responsible for the warming isn't 'the worst case scenario'. It is a logically possible scenario. It seems reasonable upon a thorough cost benefit analysis that people who are undecided whether human activity is responsible for warming or not should air on the cautious side.
That same explanation eluded him when he declared himself an atheist: If there's a Heaven and only believers enter Heaven, precaution would dictate belief in Heaven just in case is real. If you die and there is no Heaven, you lost nothing.
@MilessGloriosus - "A “sudden ice storm” that persists for 40,000 years instead must be recognized as having been an instantaneous climate disruption event"
What is this "sudden ice storm" you're referring to and when did GLOBAL TEMPERATURE drop 1 degree or more and atmospheric CO2 concentrations rise or fall more than 100ppm in a few hundred years during this time?
CO2, on the other hand, is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere with a very long residence time. And it is not temperature dependent. You find CO2 well mixed throughout all levels of the troposphere and from pole to pole. CO2's radiative absorption bands also operate in a critical area ~667 cm-1 where WV does not.
This is what I don't get about the people who argue that nuclear winter won't happen if WW3 happens. (Which might have been what he was referring to at the beginning.) You can make arguments both ways. So...there's only one way to be sure. Who wants to try that experiment?
@RuinSonic IMO, the fundamental problem is the human capacity to override reason with emotion. Many very intelligent people, atheists included, turn a blind eye to the mountains of evidence that our world is changing and what may happen to us, or be required of us to stop the worst from happening.
Basically he's saying it's better to be safe than sorry in terms of global warming.
@MilessGloriosus - "But compare CO2 to water vapor"
What about it? Water vapor levels can rise in correlation with CO2 levels because increased CO2 levels raises temperature, which in turn causes more evaporation of water, which in turn creates more water vapor; which in turn raises heat further which can cause MORE evaporation and more water vapor. CO2 can compliment the rise of water vapor. Especially since CO2 tends to sink to water tables and help them evaporate with added heat.
I see you did not actually read the study. 3000 measurement of points global temperature data 0 measurable increase from 1997-2012, Probably even slight cooling, pending round errors.
That means that the "pause" is now longer than the "warming period" which followed a cooling period.
Looking at the graph, the data has a very interesting symmetry. The Fourier transform data may tell something.
@RuinSonic Why are these guys arguing with you using philosophy instead of science? The same people who would probably be praising Hitchens on any other video are bizarrely disconnected from what he is saying on global warming. I'm with you here 100%.
I'm not afraid to discuss it, what do you want to discuss?
@MilessGloriosus - Though water vapor in the form of clouds can have negative radiative forcing because increased cloud cover can lower global temperatures. However, much of the increased recent water vapor isn't turning into clouds.
"you STILL haven't provided any DATA for your first assertion"
Re-read those sections I mentioned from the link. If for whatever reason you still don't think it's enough data I can provide other sources.
@A86 What isTweaking Parameters? Your facility with calculations and knowledge about the complexity of atmospheric models proves you know precisely what I’m talking about. For example, using a 500 year CO2 residence time instead of the peer-reviewed average of about 10 years from 35+ other studies.
Even the former founder of Greenpeace says global warming or climate change is bunk. Chris likes to hear himself talk.
While I understand that someone could come to that conclusion due to the similarity of the arguments what exactly is it that makes it faulty?
@MilessGloriosus - "and there is significant evidence that some developed much more quickly - look up frozen mammoths"
What does development of sudden ice storms have to do with GLOBAL TEMPERATURE or atmospheric CO2 concentrations? The fact that ice storms can occur quickly does not show that the global temperature increased or decreased over 1 degree in a few hundred years, or that atmospheric CO2 dropped or rose more than 200% in a few hundred years.
This is a simple question of insurance. You do not need to be an actuary in order to understand that you need insurance. You do not need to be a meteorologist in order to understand whether or not flood insurance is something you should buy.
Taking a stance that we need to act to make sure that we do not change life as we know it in a particularly negative way with regard to global warming is reasonable policy. There is some threat here. Even if we do not know exactly the level of the threat, we are quite aware at this time that the threat is not zero.
The insurance we need against this threat can be obtained by taking action as if it is real and fairly severe. If we need to change course later because the threat is not as severe as it might have been, it is not a big issue globally. If we do not take action or sufficient action until it is too late to counteract this, then it is a big deal.
The biggest problem with this is that the people making the current decisions about this for the most part will never know if their decisions were disastrous or not. The only thing they will know for sure is if they made money in the short term.
It is no accident that most of these people in the U.S. call themselves Christians. The most most fundamental teachings of Jesus were to take no thought for tomorrow. Leave everything behind and follow him.
If you think about this at all for adults with families this would be a singularly immoral act in much the same way ignoring global warming is the most irresponsible and immoral policy decision that I can think of in the history of man.
The automatic assumption in America that Christianity as well as Christians are moral really needs to be rethought.
Thanks Hitch for helping me to more fully understand this.
It's interesting to hear Hitchen's effectively endorse Pascal's Wager when it comes to "climate change." Considering how much as changed since he made this comment over 15 years ago, I wonder if he would still say the same thing.
This planet will recover and move on despite what we do. It's simply our choice on how much of an impact we make for our species. Either way life will remain here for likely 3-4 more billion years and perhaps a bit more, whether we're here or not.
TodayWasAGoodDay9 With our current emissions rates we can expect the majority of the planet to become uninhabitable to humans.
The difference being that Pascals Wager when applied to religion is a false dichotomy that doesn't include all the possible outcomes or actions. With regard to global warming the options seem quite exhausted at "does happen" "doesn't happen" "prepared for it" "didn't prepare for it" and so the main flaw in Pascals Wager (in that it produces false dichotomy's) doesn't exist in this instant. Either way it's irrelevant because any action should be evidence led and not logic led.
mars's atmosphere is mostly c02 and its average temp is -150
+Josh Rubin Haha it's also a lot further from the sun... hmmmm? Why would it be colder? Global warming is definitely a conspiracy.
Mars' atmosphere is also only about 1% the thickness of Earth's, so there's that too...
@MilessGloriosus - "In a static atmosphere"
Pray tell what is a "static atmosphere"? If you're referring to motion the motion of the atmosphere has almost nothing to do with the radiative forcing of CO2.
@A86 Two giant AGW errors: 1) that a change from 0.03% to 0.04% CO2 is enough to offset the standard water vapor negative feedback loop. This assertion is demonstrably falsified by the last 15 years of global temperature decline. 2) That the CO2 we generate will stay in the atmosphere for centuries, meaning we must stem the increase now before it’s too late. This is also untrue - the actual residence time is closer to a decade.
Except that, if you read any of the research on the issue, the sun is very stable. It varies only about 0.1% over the course of the 11 year solar cycle. The change in radiative forcing for solar has been about 0.5 Watts per square meter (W/m2) over the past 100 years. The change in greenhouse gas forcing has been 2.8W/m2 over the same period.
@milnoid Cap and Trade supporters include BP, GM, Chrysler, Ford, GE, Pepsico, J&J, Alcoa. (and Enron). In my view, the reason why more companies aren't jumping on this bandwagon is because they don't see a direct benefit. More would be scrambling for a place at the trough if they throught these regs were about to be enacted. I agree with you, though, that "the emissions will happen". What occurs next is something we will have to see. So far, there doesn't seem to be much there.
Surely you aren't proposing that soot would change the albedo of the entire globe. The effects of soot are pretty localized. Also, the change in co2 in the atmosphere was not a small one, it rose to 13% of the atmosphere. Methane, also a GHG, was building up from volcanic activity because of the lack of weathering or contact with the surface. Even if it were some other effect that initiated the warming, there can be no doubt that such high co2 levels would have sped it up once it begun.
I'm extremely familiar with the data. You clearly did not read the actual statement from the Met Office and instead only read the Daily Mail article.
@MilessGloriosus - (con't) to show temps in the span of a few centuries. That doesn't even make any sense since any temperature record is simply a compilation of many years. That's like saying you can plant a forest but can't plant a few individual trees.
You havent got a clue have you? Chief Justice Burton pointed out that the “apocalyptic vision” promoted in AIT was politically partisan, not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. Although Burton ruled that the movie could be shown in UK schools, he added that it must be accompanied by a cautionary statement about the political/ideological nature of the movie. If this did not occur, then screening the movie would contravene an Act of Parliament
That's not what I asked at all. You wrote that "they decided not to blame the sun for the temp". I wanted to know what you meant by that, and on what basis you made the claim.
Although he is using Pascal's Wager he is applying it to something that is pretty much fact, whether it is us or not we know that the planet is warming as therefore should take precautions to help it. When it comes to religion it is a whole different argument as it is much more destructive than simply allocating more resources towards helping the environment.
And it is pretty much fact that the earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling for thousands and thousands of years without our help but yet we are going to affect change for the better as if the earth is just this innocent bystander? Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should just pollute the planet and destroy everything in sight. I just think we over estimate ourselves a wee bit.
Cameron Bruce could you explain how he is applying pascals wager here? Just want to learn something new
Jake H If you are not familiar with it, Pascal's Wager is a theory used to support the argument that we should believe in and worship a God. This is because of theory, in simple terms, states we have nothing to lose by worshiping a God and so by doing so we may be rewarded after death even if the chances are slim of that God actually existing. However, as we know, the worshiping of a God is harmful to the human race. Hitchens uses it here by saying we should do something about climate change even if we are not the cause as we have nothing to lose by doing so as there is no way to prove for certain we are the primary cause of global warming.
CO2 doesn't help much if you have a very high albedo that reflects the same spectra of energy that you are receiving. The current thinking is that volcanic soot changed the albedo. The greenhouse works best when the incoming and outgoing spectra are different (radiated). ie.e more transparent to the incoming energy than the outgoing energy.
Venus is a completely different case. e.g. we don't have a battery acid layer to our atmosphere.
CO2 earth = 0.0003% @1bar CO2 Venus = 95% @90bar
Guys keep in mind that this was said in 2007. Global Warming was not nearly as well known back then.
Wikipedia is NOT a primary research source. Go to the original papers.
Note, we have other greenhouse gasses as well in the athmosphere which are even more responsible for earths climate, but I hope you get the idea of what I meant. CO2 does play an important role in our climate as catalyst and indicator for the global temperature. Just wanted to add that.
@MilessGloriosus - "We simply can’t reconstruct the global temp records for that specific year"
And what year is this supposedly? Since we can reconstruct global temperatures for many other years I'm betting you're incorrect.
"to suggest that the rest of the globe did not experience major temp shifts" No, it doesn't. The "Little Ice Age" Period from 1400-1850 was largely a local phenomenon. It didn't affect the entire planet even though it was significant for parts of the Northern Hemisphere.
@RuinSonic The impact of recycling on the environment is negligible. The big three are energy production, transportation, and building efficiency, precisely the areas where progress is amazingly slow, although the technology to change that already exists and has in most cases for decades.
Bubbles of air trapped in ice cores, these can then be directly compared with existing air samples. Even if that's not good enough for you, direct measurements started in the late 1950's and since then we've gone from 320 ppm to 400 in a very clear trend. I recommend some reading. I don't know why it's relevant but the light bulb was invented in the 1840's in england.
"Firstly, he seems to deny the cost of the preventative measures."
Deny? Where does he deny it? Sure they aren't mentioned... but that's not denial.
I'm also not sure that he says it's not big deal. I think rather we can't do anything about the scenario where it isn't caused by humans and we can afford neither.
Well no - that argument cannot be applied to scenarios which aren't dichotomous like it is the case with Pascals Wager. Also Pascals Wager isn't about actions... but belief.
@milnoid - You say you were a global warming skeptic. Have you read "the Deniers" by Lawrence Solomon? If not, you should read it before making any further pronouncements. Solomon is an environmentalist (as am I) who started out as a believer - his intent was to reveal the flaws in the skeptics cases. Much has changed since it was published in 2008. But if anything, the case against AGW is far stronger now than when he wrote this book, which dismantled the entire scientific case for AGW.