Burden of Proof | David Mitchell's Soapbox
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 вер 2011
- David Mitchell rants about Global Warming.
LIKE David Mitchell's Soapbox @ on. davidmitchellsoapbox
David Mitchell's Soapbox DVD @ amzn.to/soapboxdvd
David Mitchell follows his sustainability rant with one on saving the environment. There is always heated debate about global warming, but until there is proof it doesn't exist, shouldn't we be looking for solutions?
ABOUT DAVID MITCHELL'S SOAPBOX:
David Mitchell, star of UK TV favourites Peep Show and That Mitchell and Webb Look, brings us his unique perspective on the issues facing men of the world today. - Комедії
0.1% is 1 in 1000, not 10000. I wouldn't normally point that out, but it's David Mitchell. He's more pedantic than most people on the planet haha
He's brilliant, but clearly not a mathematician.
The message is clear: Talking to plants is good for them. Ranting in front of them will kill them.
OMG! This is something Mitchell would say himself! Sorry to comment years later, but this is my first time seeing this video.
@@marywood8794 you're right that it is a bit late, but if Mitchell is looking for a new writer, my DMs are open.
When the Mythbusters tested music, the plants responded better to Death Metal than Mozart (Or the control.) These were pea vines, by the way. Not manly Oaks, practically pansies. So, I'd think that they can withstand a little ranting from David Mitchell.
The spider plant was doing ok.
"Reports are coming in that we have largely ruined Earth as a habitat for human beings, but is over and everything is fine now!"
Ironically one of the few situations where that would not be true - things would continue to remain not-fine and in fact grow progressively more not-fine until everything was so not-fine that your local news team would quickly run out of opinionated viewer messages to read aloud on air.
REMAIN INDOORS
ua-cam.com/video/caXeAMseve0/v-deo.html
If, for some reason, I won a dinner with a celebrity of my choice I would pick David Mitchell.
He just seems like such a rational, kind-hearted, and in a word : good, man.
While it's not true, that the burden of proof lies on someone denying a claim, the point here is that the scientists ARE offering evidence.
So now, if you're a "denier", it's up to you to show that the evidence is either misinterpreted or false. The scientists have met the burden of proof. The deniers have not.
Michał MindYourOwnBusiness Philosophically speaking, you are right; the burden of proof doesn't lie with the denier. However, we are not discussing a hypothesis in cosmology or string theory here, that would have no effect on our lives. We are discussing an issue that could potentially doom humanity. In such a case we need to apply risk management and not worry who's philosophically responsible for concrete proofs (that don't really exist outside of math and physics anyway).
+arthurthegreat Data and evidence shows and is completely agreed upon to be 95% due to human activity..
Depends on the context. Scientifically, denying climate change is going against the status quo so the burden lies with the deniers. In intelligent conversation generally, again, the burden of proof lies with the deniers. Man-made climate change is the generally accepted view, so those deviating from the view must provide the evidence.
2017 here. "Deniers" have considered showing that the evidence is either misinterpreted or false, decided against it and found that simply deconstructing the very concept of "facts" is easier to accomplish.
What a time to be alive!
Most folk who are skeptical don't doubt that man changes the climate, but that the measures proposed to fix the climate are actually good for humanity. They take the rather reasonable position that the only reason we care about the planet is we haven't got another one, so we ought to make sure we can live on this one till we find someplace else. If trying to solve man made climate change means making life worse for everyone here, and stifling innovation then why do something that is detrimental to mankind in both the short and long run?
Also it's not that people deny climate change is a thing. They are skeptical that mankind is actually destroying the planet, and think that the measures to solve any problem are too draconian to work. Life is a lot better since we've started using electricity and cars.
In short. The people who are skeptical think that it's better to have carbon emissions than to have no electricity. (Also nuclear power is amazing, and is the best solution up until we find one that doesn't rely on the earth deciding it likes us, and will give us plenty of wind and no clouds.)
It's amazing and truly tragic that nearly 9 years later, more and more people are of the opinion that "I think I'll go with the side of the argument that means I don't have to change anything I'm doing in any way whatsoever. Yeah that sounds good"
News, true, false, and misinterpreted, spreads so far so fast now that people believe putting a # or changing their pfp makes them a better person, or that going to a rally they don't really understand but is against 'The Man' is good activism. It's sad to see how many people live their lives doing things they think will get brownie points with a political or activist etc group rather than living for themselves and not immediately believing everything they read online - which is precisely what everyone warned kids against at the rise of the internet.
We came so far forward we've started going backwards
@@strawberrypencl I’m not sure which side of the debate your on, but your statement is true in the purest form. People actually thinking for themselves is the only recourse. Great statement!
I think most of us that have a problem with it have a problem with it because it's really poor people like me who are being forced to pay for it as well and that's not fair, then there's the issue of technology which is in NO WAY sufficiently advanced yet for us to segway fully to renewables without many many avoidable deaths, change on this point cannot be rushed no matter how urgent the problem, it must be implemented gradually otherwise the deaths from policy will be almost equal to the deaths from the problem itself and I haven't even begun to address the issue that three of the worst emmiters, India, Russia, and China are not on board, China for example is building a new coal fired power station each week.
Well, modern capitalism has a nice ability to make a majority of people feel like they're getting less than what others (the elites, who in many ways deserve superior treatments perhaps) are getting. It doesn't matter that the majority is still getting more than what they got in the past, since people compare themselves against each other and not against static and objective standards. In this case, many people to a degree at least don't feel strongly that earth is worth saving since they wont be benefitting as much as the elites do. Overall, birthrates are falling in the developed world, and inequality is growing. If people dont even want to keep on reproducing, then who are they saving the world for? The elites?
And this is all while the elites seem much less inclined to save the world than the ordinary persons.
Here's the sad thing. I've noticed recently that a ton of people now say "oh why do anything at all? it's too late anyways". I strongly suspect that a LOT of them are the same fuckers who denied climate change earlier.
Taking action also has the added bonuses of cleaner air, water and environment and more sustainable economic activity moving forward... even if the theory of man made climate change is wrong. Which it isn't. These outcomes should be desirable in and of themselves!
We can clear the air water and environment because it’s polluted. Global warming doesn’t have to come into that at all. Having dirty rivers is it’s own issues. You can easily show people. You can easily show results within YEARS. people that don’t believe in global warming, still believe we should clean the air and rivers and other things. You do know that; right?
@@michaelesposito2629 - Then why do nearly all of them oppose any significant moves in these areas? Their usual mantra is nearly always about pushing fossil fuels and rejecting any other moves towards progress because it's 'not necessary', as man-made climate change is viewed as some kind of worldwide mass conspiracy theory/hoax.
The issue is the actions that would have to be taken in order to reach the goal.
Sad that this is still relevant, huh?
Yep, that is 8 years ago. Three of which the USA have spent reverting every progress made in the five years before.
@@AlbertZiegler069 Great like in "great carbon footprint"....
Completely disregards the new philosophical paradigm of alternative factuality, though.
@@Schmidtelpunkt Not really. Nothing has changed, factories are not polluting more. Trump has done precious little.
It takes a lot of arrogance to not only make the extraordinary claim that there is an invisible man in the sky who gave birth to itself via a virgin birth, but also to assert that the burden of disproving this extraordinary claim is on those who are not gullible enough to believe it.
Dear David, 0.1% is 1/1000, not 1/10000.
+Zebulon Haggis -- 0.1% = 0.001, thus 10000 * 0.001 = 10 and 1000 * 0.001 = 1. I initially assumed OP misheard, but David did indeed make that mathematical error.
Then again, perhaps David included that mistake intentionally as part of his imitation of a stupid person that doesn't mind rolling the dice when it comes to preventable infant deaths.
Pedantic people watching videos from a pedantic comedian find it satisfying to pedantically correct said pedantic comedian, who would have thought. I would also like to point out the pedantry nature of your own comment aaaannnnnnndddddddddd I've came, ahhhh, much better.
Slave2PaperWithInkOn What is the relevance to this?
But can you prove it to me who can't count, or refuses to count. Besides, not all so called Mathematicians agree.
I think he was referring to two different ratios there. He meant it as an "it could be this or this" kind of scenario. "The percentage that this could kill your child is 0.1% or 0.01% (giving examples of some small percentages)." Makes sense?
Sad times we live in when a comedian's decade old rant on climate change makes more sense than any major world leader's position.
You're right, but on the upside, I've noticed way less climate change denial overall
Those plants around him are dying while he talks. Nice little detail.
"The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus AND COULD ACTUALLY BACK UP THEIR ARGUMENTS."
(Fixed it for you. To be Galileo, you have to be right, not just persecuted).
This is a good way of putting it, but the argument of '99% of scientists say its true so therefore it must be' is also silly
@@peliguitarcovers what you are doing is ignorance. You don't tell a doctor "no I don't have cancer, you are all lying" because your milkman or postman said you don't have it
@@ArthurKnight1899 I never suggested that. Though how many people have gone on to have full and happy lives when experts say they have months to live?
@@peliguitarcovers Well hold on a second there. How many experts were consulted on that opinion? Every single expert in the field? Or just the 3 experts close enough to your local hospital? Because a 99% consensus rate is a lot more impressive when it includes every expert on the planet, compared to when it is based on 3 people (lets ignore how you get 99% out of 3 people XD).
And even then, you don't ignore their advice for treatment, even though they MIGHT be wrong 0.01% of the time. And that is probably even an exaggeration. Given how many die from cancer every year, and how rare miracle stories are, I think the rate at which doctors giving fatal predictions being wrong is extremely low.
So a high consensus rate has a high chance of being correct, the more people the consensus involves, the higher the chance of being correct, and you don't ignore advice from experts even IF they MIGHT be incorrect.
So hundred thousand experts giving a fatal prediction means you should listen
Galileo didn't even have all that much proof at the time. He just happened to be proved right later.
2:18 - I get to correct a stickler, YES!!! 0.1% is one in 1 thousand, not 1 in ten thousand!!!
I came down to the comments to find this comment!
Damien W Glad to oblige!
So what?
Even without climate change, even if there was no such thing as man-made climate change (I believe it's real, by the way) people should still concede this point.
Eventually all the fossil fuels that cause these emissions will run out. It's a finite resource and we use so much of them that supplies are rapidly dwindling. Even without climate change, in 50-100 years time, it'll all be just gone, and we'll have to find something else. So surely the sensible thing would be to find another, fuel source - something that can't run out. That would be sensible, rather than to just wait for the oil and the gas and the coal to run out and then sit around and watch our society crumble, because without oil especially (or something that can replace it) our society will simply grind to a halt.
To think otherwise is just short-sighted.
***** "... sit around and watch our society crumble, because without oil especially (or something that can replace it) our society will simply grind to a halt."
That is simply false.
Maracara081
Food's delivered in lorries. Lorries run on petrol. Without petrol, no lorries. No lorries, no food.
_Everyone starves_. Society collapses.
King Steve There is way too much oil left. We will make the planet uninhabitable before we use it all.
+Nathan Dehnel Not really. If you work out the math - which involves interpolating our rate of consumption - we have something like 80 years worth of oil based fuel remaining (give or take 10). The Earth will still be very hospitable at that point - even with extreme weather events, if it does indeed happen to be true. Coal will last a bit longer (100-150 years) but it is horrendously inefficient - and not to mention a health hazard for anyone who even lives remotely close to a coal power plant. So, no there isn't 'way too much oil left'. At least, there isn't enough for the kinds of things that we're using it for today - like automobiles and electricity. A chemistry lab might still be able to obtain a few litres of the stuff for their synthesis, but that'll really be it.
Note : Of course, the rich of the world won't feel a thing. But things will get really messy for the middle and lower class
+Marcara081 While I would love to agree with you when you say that civilization will just carry on without oil, I'm afraid the reality is a lot more grim. Right now, fossil fuels represent the only real 'easy-to-use' source of energy that we have. All you need to do to obtain energy from oil is burn it - I mean sure, there are efficient ways of doing it, but the basic idea still stands. You need a full on reactor to to produce nuclear energy.
You could technically argue that society would just shift to electrical vehicles that could hypothetically be generated a vast array of nuclear plants. Well, to achieve that sort of prevalence, we need to be building a couple of reactors every few months. Care to guess how many we are actually building? Did I hear one a year? Oh you optimistic sod.. No, we're building roughly 5 a decade (give or take). And as much as I admire the shear confidence of the renewable source advocates, the reality is that renewable sources simply cannot give us the energy we will need in a few decades. What's the solution? Well, discover fusion - which is still '40 years away' - and/or simply use less until we do.
I believe it, because I've been alive since the 70s, and I remember what the Climate was like 25 years ago. Even if you want to avoid the guilt, and assume that it's all a natural phenomenom, it's a natural phenomenom that's threatening all our major cities, because we built them all on seacoasts, which are rapidly becoming floodplanes. When it's an Asteroid, in a disaster movie, we write a bunch of working class heroes to go into space, and blow it up (Because for some reason, it's easier to train drill operators how to be astronauts than to teach astronauts how to operate an automated drill.) So, let's just assume that Mother Nature hates us, for reasons (That totally aren't our fault) we're talking about Extinction here. You want Extinction? Or do you want to go show Mother Nature who's boss?
Beachfront property has never been a good long term investment.
Building Skyscrapers on the coast is silly. This is a crisis of engineering and architectural malfeasance... Not climate, which is constantly changing and throwing out massive storms.
Venice built a city of Canals... That makes sense. Yet, even that has a date of expiration on it. You have to engineer a better solution or build in a better location.
Everyone is struggling with the reality that even inanimate objects don't last forever when they should be focused on how doing business with China is the ultimate middle finger to the Environment. The Chinese pour waste directly into the rivers, lakes, and Oceans. They are the biggest recyclers, but only because the west pays them to recycle shipped in garbage. China still just tosses it's own recyclables away.
I know climate change is real, but local climate has almost nothing to do with climate change. That's the same argument climate deniers use when it's extremely cold, and they say "we need more global warming, it's to cold".
Yeah even if you think it's not down to humans and is 100% natural (some of it is natural, we've just made it way worse and faster, to the point where unlike before, life can't adapt to it because it's to much to quickly and there's an actual risk of a runaway greenhouse effect) surely you'd still want to do something about it in order to at the very least minimise the damage.
@@charlestownsend9280 why are you preaching to us and not India,China and the USA?
@@orwellboy1958Who is "us" and why do you think China, India and the US are not the intended recipients of this message?
"Argh! We've improved the planet and quality of life and created a better world to live in FOR NOTHING!"
"But everyone's healthier, happier, and smarter?"
"Sure, but what about the OIL PROFITS!?"
Actually you can't. Go look up the counter-arguments to "Pascal's Wager".
David, you neglected one important fact: "putting out my cigar" would greatly limit my ability to make money!!!
putting out a cigar also wouldnt stop the fact the roof is already on fire and might actually calm your nerves so you think more calmly what to do about it.
Putting out your cigar will not make everyone else put out theirs.
'Neutral' is what it says, neither agreement or disagreement. 'No one disagrees' is a little misleading as it seems to be being used in the sense of 'everyone agrees'
Great video and great subject! Thanks
Fucking yes mate (except for the mathematical error) 💜💜
it took 3 years for this comment to get a like, but man it was deserved
Have a third, in two weeks, from me
7 likes in four years
10 likes in 5 years.
This is too complex a point to be grasped by your average climate change denialist.
ChrisC Too true. A lot of these people hold "belief" to a higher standard than any solid evidence, even though their belief comes without any basis.
Lol, especially funny when you realize that David Mitchell defends his Christian beliefs; a position by which he has less than zero evidence to support.
ajnode He has stated multiple times that he's an agnostic, so I don't know where you're getting your information from
ajnode Where is your proof that David Mitchell has Christian beliefs? Oh right, you don't have any so shut up.
Hahahahah - logical agnosticism, as in: "Based on scientific principles, it is wrong to say with complete certainty that there is no god," is different from the kind that Mitchell has... "I am not convinced that there is no god, and I really hope there is an all-powerful benevolent god like the one I was brought up believing in." Though a paraphrasing, if you would like to dispute my take on his point, please do. Unless you're saying that Mitchell was brought up believing in a different all-powerful 'benevolent' (lol) god than the one of Christianity, then you are wrong. He not only wants to believe in this god, but he is somewhat convinced of that beings existence. At the expense of denigrating the atheism movement (which typically encompasses the kind of agnostic that claims that there probably is no god, but it would be dishonest of them to claim that there 100% is not).
Either way, the guy is a fucking comedian - his position on anything else is tentative at best.
I'm not normally this pedantic, David, but, as this is one of your videos, I feel compelled to be: 0.1% is one thousandth, not one ten-thousandth. 😉
Ohhhh, quite the test to see if David really has a "mild" case of OCD or not. If this video is edited and replaced then the answer is "yes"... but he'd better make sure that his beard is the exact same length and that every hair on his head are in the exact same place in the edited segment.
@@MandleRoss ... every hair on his head *is ... (lol couldn't resist)
@@SpiritmanProductions damn you to grammar hell!
"Ok. Maybe they're all wrong. Maybe everybody who's looked at it who's qualified to look at it is wrong"
I just love this. Sums up the sentiment of conspiracy wackos so damn well...
0.1% is one in 1000 not 10,000. Mitchell you fool
I'm glad someone commented this before I did
yep, that invalidates his whole point, the entire video, the entire climate change discussion, you're a sharp one! well done commenting on the smallest points possible, I guess superficiality is in vogue
Someone's getting salty :D
annoyed at how people like to correct infantile shit instead of addressing the points the video make, but I guess I was hoping for too much
*Annoyed *made/was making :)
Steven Crowder vs David Mitchell would be a spectacle
The reason it would be a spectacle is because Crowder would end up looking very small indeed, which is a delicious concept.
Hmm, I wish to buy some of this 'Mouse Hate Powder'. Anyone know where I can purchase some?
All good points except for one thing - if the roof is on fire, I think that extinguishing your cigar may be the least of your worries. ;)
Well if this isn't a contemporary issue
i love this man
The subtitles are not in sync with the video
And surely, despite the overwhelming body of proof that exists, the whole point of this video is that even if there is a small chance that we might make the planet uninhabitable we should take every measure to avoid it
Love this guy. I could listen to him talk about almost anything. Good thing he is willing and able to talk about almost anything. :)
posted in 2011. still relevant in 2014. yay, humanity...
2017, still relevant! By now it's "a concept created by the Chienese."
By _and for_ the Chinese, in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.
aaannndd in 2017 too :-/
Peter Schipper and it will be until the last 2 humans left on earth are burning up and choking to death on greenhouse gasses and one of ems like "well actually its quite normal for there to be periods of warming in earth cycles"
2017 here. Well, I guess we're fucking it up right good atm.
More than 11 years later.... we're still arguing - got a good answer to 'what's the difference between Evelyn Waugh and a bowl of rhubarb' yet, David?
Actually, yes: since global warming means an increase in temperatures, we can measure for that and determine whether or not it is occurring.
100/0.1=1000?
He has already committed suicide upon this. No need for a harakiri from his entire extended family.
Dylan 100 ÷ 0.1 does equal 1000
Don't interrogate the British
.1% chance is one in 1000! ..and you call yourself a nerd.
0.1%, he said
EDIT: I hadn't seem it was .1 and not 1. Also, he says ten thousand, not a thousand as I had thought.
+Gabriel Rangel .1 and 0.1 are exactly the same
+Gabriel Rangel Wow, I've seen it all now.
+Stormwern yeah David Mitchell, geeze
+darius savory oh you and your factorials
isn't this the guy from peepshow? sick!
There are two factors that you're overlooking. 1) The severity of the correlation between climate change and human activity (if it exists) and 2) The cost of preventive measures. Those two will determined whether or not taking action is therefore sensible. A blanket policy like that proposed in the video is not feasible.
This isn't *quite* an accurate representation of the Burden of Proof - traditionally, the burden is on the party making the positive claim. There is no burden on someone making a negative claim, as negative claims simply assert the world is as it has been. Positive claims assert that something exists that we did not know about, or is happening that we did not know about, and therefore require proof.
But that's the thing. Scientists have been *providing* proof for this for an immense amount of time. And at the point at which the burden has been met by the party making the positive claim, the party opposed to that claim must either accept the claim or provide evidence for it not being true.
...okay, but you get the point of the video was that no matter what, any reasonable human should err on the side of caution.
@@limetwistanimations8628 Well, sure. Err on the side of caution, but you should still accept evidence backed up by experimentation, etc.
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson
It's best we all just smile and go where the stream might take us.
It's funny because it's wrong (not denying climate change but the number of times scientists have spouted nonsense is astronomical; I say that as a scientist). What's good is that the scientific method relies on evidence and refutable claims, so it's the best way to get to the truth, but that doesn't mean you can't get some things wrong on the path to truth.
Like Newtonian physics governing the universe? That was science. Total consensus among the world's leading scientists, for a long, long time. All the evidence and the best tools known to man showed it was. To deny was literally lunacy. Yet, it was completely wrong. Science isn't an answer, it's a process...it's never "true", it's only a good process.
Has anybody else noticed that at 2:18 in the video he says that "a point one percent chance is one in ten thousand," when a 0.1% chance is actually one in one thousand, not one in ten thousand!
i'm glad that someone's saying it.
Upsetting that this was posted in 2011!
You have weed in your conservatory :) 0.28
Luke empty: Because every plant with palmate leaves *must* be weed.
I propose we engineer a way to get this video in front of as many eyeballs in the white house establishment as possible.
Please cite your sources.
THANK YOU for this rant David Mitchell. I've been trying to put this to people for ages. I think I even sounded like you for a while, but it doesn't work in my girlie voice.
still watching this 10 years later and it couldn't be more relevant :(
Founders of Greenpeace were a lawyer, a union leader, a weapons engineer, a journalist, a PHD in Animal Ecology and another journalist, later politician.
Not a single one of them are climate geologists, or any kind of geologist at all.
They are free to be skeptical, but they are not QUALIFIED to be skeptical. Any more than a F1 driver is qualified to be skeptical jet fuel efficiency contrary to all Aerospace engineers. :-)
I'm bothered by the fact I didn't realize "point one" can mean 0.01, as in my native tongue it would pretty clearly mean 0.1. I'm not sure if that's just a mistake or is it something common to the Anglosphere; saying "point [x]" and straight up meaning hundredths?
No, he said it wrong. In English we’d say “point oh-one” for 0.01, “point one” for 0.1. You didn’t hear it incorrectly or anything like that.
It's not whether CC is real or not that matters, its the extreme and often ludicrous proposals put forward as to what to do about it.
You assume too much, by thinking the people who deny it are logical thinkers. Surprise they are not.
My point was that if the proof has already been provided it's up for the non-believers to rebut the evidence and prove they are wrong.
Question isn't really if climate change exists, it's if it's worth preventing.
Personally I feel climate change could have very pricy impacts on society, and it's worth it to prevent it.
So, I think the logical dissection of this video is this:
Persuasive point: People should do things about climate change regardless of their belief in climate change.
Item 1: There is exists some research that supports human caused global warming and a number of reputable organizations either support or are neutral on this. For the purposes of this argument, let's say that man-made global warming is unprovable, but that the question exists.
Item 2: If global warming is man-made and continues as some have projected, the planet will become uninhabitable for humans, an extremely bad, irrevocable consequence.
Item 3: There are four outcomes:
3a. Global warming does exist and humanity does something about it: Planet theoretically remains habitable longer.
3b. Global warming does exist and humanity does nothing about it: Planet becomes uninhabitable to humans
3c. Global warming does not exist and humanity does something about it: Planet remains habitable
3d. Global warming does not exist and humanity does nothing about it: Planet remains habitable.
The only negative scenario of that that (extremely simplified) logic tree is if it exists and we do nothing. Let's say we can't prove global warming one way or the other. Humanity's actions come down to doing something or not. By doing something, we reduce the negative outcomes to none.
Admittedly, this ignores opportunity cost and resource allocation issues. It's not an airtight argument, but I don't think it's quite as wrong as some people as insinuating.
So, I know you're trying to be moderate for the sake of argument, but there are some corections to be made:
1. There exists nearly every single piece of research on the topic that supports the theory. It is absolutely provable, and has been proven. The number of reputable organisations and people is 97% who believe it is "very likely" that human activity is behind observed warming trends (source: NASA)
2. The planet will not become uninhabitable for humans. The worst-case scenario is that the ecosystems our civilisations rely upon will be unable to support current or projected populations, leading to massive population decline, collapse of economy and industry. The 'carrying capacity' of the planet will be catastrophically exceeded, and population will re-stabilise at a much lower level than currently. The resulting loss of industry would cause an inadvertent drop in emissions that would bring warming back under control. A new normality would be established for billions of surviving people, but after the loss of further billions,and a large proportion of plant and animal species onthe planet. Natural systems eventaully enforce equilibrium, but it can be a very bloody affair getting to that point if you insist on forcing imbalance, and the resut will likely be a much less healthy or appealing equilibrium than the one we evolved in.
Outcomes:
3a: If we do something about it, we manage to rein in warming and limit it to 2 degrees by the end of the century, We have still overseen the most catastrophic extinction event since the end of the dinosaurs thanks to our relentless destruction of habitat and biodiversity, but the effects are not fatal to our civilisation. We emerge as a more balanced force on the environment, relying on less destructive means of energy and food production.
3b. See point 2.
3c. Impossible, but best-case scenario. We do not suffer the effects of warming (though our impact on biodiversity and species extinction largely remains). Our energy and food production has become considerably more efficient, and despite temporary economic damage, our long term prospects are greatly improved. Diseases linked to air pollution are drastically reduced, incidences of athsma and pulmonary problems become rare.
3d. We continue towards another crisis point caused by our unchanged attitude, and our effects on biodiversity through pollution, habitat destruction and leachates into water systems causes a slightly lesser form of 3b. Civilisation collapses or adapts more gradually and re-normalises having been forced into less destructive habits by sheer necessity.
Jeff The problem with logic trees such as that driving a 'solution' can be summed up with a "getting hit by a bus" scenario. If you leave the house there is a chance you will get hit by a bus. There is also a chance you won't. The best survival solution for all scenarios is not to leave the house. By doing that do we reduce all the 'negative outcomes' to none? It depends how you qualify a 'negative outcome'.
David lost the argument almost immediately by assuming they're intelligent or rational :(
And that is why they ignore everything you say. You can't change anyone's mind if you start out by insulting them.
If your goal is to feel superior, then go on and watch as they destroy your world. If you want a livable world, stop insulting them and try to change their minds.
@@RandallHallKaizenReiki Agreed.
This is essentially the climate change equivalent of Pascal's wager
Except that there is evidence that climate change is happening, and all the scientific bodies agree. The only people who disagree are the uninformed or those with ulterior motives.
So take pascal's wager, but now have it delivered by Jesus himself, while performing lab testable miracles. Changes a bit, doesn't it?
LOL. The sign of a really strong logical debate is always ad hominem attacks and ignoring the actual point. You win. :)
Similarly, your right to decide how you spend your money and effort stops at my right to decide how I want to spend my money and effort. Forcing everybody into acting in a particular, uniform way is a total answer. Total answers are incredibly dangerous.
really enjoy watching this on a beautiful, seventy degree christmas eve in connecticut.
Call off the thousands of scientists everyone! We have people stepping outside and checking their weather!
70? Are you sitting in a Sauna or something?
Farenheit
Predicted Benny the butcher's album name?
I spotted the weed plant in there.
0.1% = 1:1,000 not 1:10,000
I only scrolled down to see who on Earth (or what's left of it) are the people who actually downvoted this.
I mean COME ON.
That is brilliant. And now, 11 years later, in 2023 we have what we have. No proof needed.
1. Agreed
2. Isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 indicates the increase comes from burning fossils fuels (Ghosh 2003). Burning fossils fuels would also result in a decrease in oxygen. This has been observed (Manning 2006).
3. The anthropogenic contribution ranges from about 80% to well in excess of 100% (Tett et al. 2000; Meehl et al. 2004; Stone et al. 2007; Lean and Rind 2008; Huber and Knutti 2011; Foster and Rahmstorf 21011; Gillett et al. 2012).
4. The negatives far outweigh any positives.
david mitchell sent me here
yeah but David in your analogy if the roof is on fire then it's very unlikely putting out your cigar will make any difference what so ever
Yes, but I demand that you put it out, because that tiny bit of smoke coming from your cigar is what is causing the air to become unbreathable, not the smoke from the conflagration on the roof.
How do you propose that something is investigated without scientific methods? How would you determine claims of it's existence?
A 2013 survey of 3984 abstracts from peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2011 that expressed an opinion on anthropogenic global warming found that 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity
Love David Mitchell and obviously I take climate change as fact but he misunderstands how the burden of proof works in his hypothetical scenario (a world where climate change is not proven) and contradicts himself a couple of times, all the same still a good video and overall message.
"0.1% chance is 1 in 10000"
maths fail.
This is a variation on Pascal's Wager, and subject to the same criticisms.
2. We should spend money on both; the question is how much on each, bearing in mind our finite resources mean we can't fully sort out either. What do we care about more, the certainty of starvation or the possibility of global warming? And how much benefit would we get from each bit of time/money we spend on each? It's much, MUCH more complicated than just "do both".
whole planet uninhabitable? i get where he is coming from but i don't think that climate change man-made or not could possibly make the whole earth uninhabitable to all forms of life. yes humans may die, but other creatures would most likely live on.
***** if bacteria and small animals are still living on earth then it is not "completely uninhabitable."
+Tom Taylor (tom189) Wait, which source says that it will become uninhabitable? Even if all the ice and glaciers melt (as it has in most of earth's history) and water levels match their highest ever (+150m as they did in the Cretaceous), the avg global temperature was around 27C. I mean sure, the planet will be in political chaos and sea-side cities would have to shift inland or disappear. But that's still pretty habitable.
isn't this essentially the pascals wager of climate change? i like these vids but this isn't a great argument
+TheCriticalGamer This is using the same kind of decision-theory-based reasoning that Pascal's wager does, but not in the same way. Decision theory is not inherently fallacious -- it's sometimes used in poker strategy, for example.
The problem with Pascal's wager is not that it uses decision theory, it's the part about having "infinite gain" and "infinite loss" as possible payoffs for believing/disbelieving in God. Because if there is a minuscule chance that God exists and will reward you if and only if you believe in him, there is presumably also a minuscule chance that he will reward you if and only if you *disbelieve* in him. So you'd have to factor that into the risk assessment, and you'd come up with an expected gain of infinity minus infinity (indeterminate) no matter what you believe.
yh, i understand. I mean i don't disagree with what Mitchell is saying necessarily, I do believe climate change is a vastly important concern and needs to be dealt with, but just looking from the point of view of someone who wouldn't may not believe it, it's kind of a weak argument imo and pascals wager has a number of other flaws besides the one you mentioned which i'm sure your aware of so it just seems weak to use that sort of logic in this instance as well
+TheCriticalGamer There's a whole body of scientific consensus. That is, most of the people qualified to study the problem think there's a problem. That's a stronger condition than Pascal's wager, which does not take into consideration the preponderance of evidence.
I'm not arguing with that. The issue is that there is masses of evidence but for whatever reason, whether it be political or self serving, people are denying the evidence. I'm just sayin that, given that fact, that this pascal's wager esq. argument isn't a particularly strong one imo
+TheCriticalGamer why not? im not a mathematician or someone well read in game theory but the argument seems sound. Not perfect of course but the common sense off 'if the consequences are dire, maybe we should take the precautions even though they may slightly inconvenience us' seems reasonable. no?
Wouldn't a .1 percent chance be one in one thousand not on in ten thousand?
It's possible to prove a null hypothesis in a limited set of elements. For instance I could prove the null hypothesis "No Japanese is spoken in this video" by identifying each part of speech as English and demonstrating that any part that could be construed as Japanese is much more coherent when construed to be English.
Yes that's some lazy maths. I guess he's human
(cont. from last post)
An auspices that, to even consider reversing it logically, the "burden of proof" now rests on their shoulders as much (if not moreso) than the climate change advocates.
Still, your point is a valid one. And I'm actually glad it's currently top comment. People shouldn't forget this. Thumbs up from me.
This is assuming that there is at least an equivalent amount of evidence to support the impending vampire apocalypse as there is global warming.
Ten years on this is funnier than ever, in that gallows way
This seems similar to Pascal's wager.
No, Pascal's Wager is rife with unstated major premises. This is just a cost/benefit risk analysis.
Eh, I dunno. I'm not even sure Mitchell states his point right. I would say that the onus is on the people claiming that climate change is man made, but that we've already proved it.
Stanley Barrell-Kane
That's right.
Pascal's wager fails because he's created a false dichotomy. Doesn't apply in this instance.
Pascal's wager fails because he thinks you become a better person by going through the motions even if you're incapable of actually believing.
fully agree with David's logic, but not with his initial assumptions: he (and most people discussing the issue) misses the point of natural global warming versus man-made global warming. We are currently coming out of an ice age, and spikes in CO2, temperature and sea levels are fully expected, since there are historical precedents that this happened over and over in earth's history - just google graphs for climate patterns over the last 500,000 to 1 million years, and you will see a repeating pattern: slow decrease of CO2, temp and sea levels for 150,000 years or so (ice ages), followed by a rapid and dramatic increase in temp, CO2 and sea levels (interglacial periods=warm periods). The assertion by some scientists, governments and the media that the current increases are all man-made is scientifically ignorant; we simply do not know what percentage of these increases are man-made versus naturally occurring. As a scientist in an unrelated field, I would put the percentage of human impact on current climate change lower than 20%, mainly because temp and sea levels are exactly where they supposed to be according to natural occurring climate changes (see historical records); CO2 is currently about 20% higher than in other "recent" warm periods over the last 800,000 years - but there is always natural variations in CO2 levels, so is all of this 20% man-made? Also keep in mind that over larger time scales, current temp and CO2 are at lowest levels ever: 100 million years ago, CO2 was at 2000ppm, and temp was 10oC higher. 500 Million years ago, CO2 was at 5000ppm (12.5 times higher than current levels of 400ppm). Thus, over larger time scales, earth is currently at an all time low for both temp and CO2. All this can be learned by using google, no reading of primary literature is required! Also, many scientists do not agree with the official climate agenda, but if you rely on federal grants for your job and livelihood, you learn to keep your mouth shut to make sure your kids have a home, and food on the table.
He's saying that the claim has an overwhelming amount of evidence behind it. In most cases, supernatural to pick a point, the Burden is most certainly on the person making a claim without sufficient and verifiable evidence. But here because the claim is so substantiated your choice is between almost positively making the damage to the planet worse or almost positively trying to aid in repairing or slowing down the damage that we've caused.
IKR
.1% is actually 1/1000 :L
The problem is that you're trying to use logic as a currency at a market that only deals in denier currency. Deniers already know they are wrong, hence the ridiculous lengths they go to in order to misinterpret data, cherry-pick numbers, etc. Their desire for short-term profits pushes their toxic agenda, even if it means global hardships for everyone (including their children).
Mr Brightside Climate change has gone on throughout history due to different factors. The carbon rich atmosphere of earth was converted into an oxygenated one when moss first appeared. It became full of nitrogen when volcanic eruptions released it. Now it’s changing again because all the carbon sealed in the earth during the Carboniferous Period is being released again. The difference is now it’s being changed by us, and we have the ability to stop releasing all this carbon. Sure, the climate of earth will change again, but don’t we all have an interest in preventing this for as long as possible, due to the fact that we need the climate to stay the same for us to keep life on earth as it is today?
compared to now, the coldest part of the last ice age was only 10 deg C cooler for the earth's average. A 5 deg change for global average is huge. It will mean 70 feet ocean rise, massive death and destruction, more droughts and floods, etc. And who says we will stop at 5 deg. rise? Based on past CO2 levels, this level should equilize in about 100 years to be about a 10 deg C rise...up to 300 ft ocean rise.
Please list the peer-reviewed publications and reputable scientific bodies that strongly dispute the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. I'm not talking about journos parsing stolen emails, or hacks picking away at marginal aspects of the warming case. I'm talking about a view that incorporates the multiple converging lines of evidence - average temperature rise, oceanic temperature and chemistry changes, etc - into a strong argument.
"More C02 = more vegetation"
Yeah, all that CO2 just magically turns into vegetation as it leaves our cars and factories. A fairy throws a little dust and *POOF* trees everywhere.
"The best cure for Christianity is reading the Bible."
Mark Twain
Sadly you also need a bit of knowledge and logical thinking ability
Michael Crichton said it best:
"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
/continued....
A source for the most basic of particle physics and kinetic energy? How about your high school physics book? Ever done the little physics experiment with ice and needle with a weight on it; and see the ice melt than freeze again? The basics of heat, kinetic energy, pressure, and particle density is in that very experiment.
The general flaw in this argument is assuming that going green is an entirely positive change. Going green would be a *net positive* change, but there are plenty of sacrifices along the way. Economies will suffer, people will have to overhaul and convert massive technological infrastructure, foreign policy will need to be shifted to push for a global climate control cooperative, etc. The fact is, scientists *have* met the burden of proof and climate deniers haven’t, so that’s really all there should be to it. But saying “We should go for it even if there’s a tiny chance it’s happening” is the wrong stance to take, imo, because it invites logical challenges that distract from the main and much more important point that we have to do this hard thing because we will destroy ourselves if we don’t.
Someone show this to Nigel Farage.
Hello from 2018. Let me introduce you to the president of the United States of America.
There are many global agreements: Declaration of Human Rights; Geneva Conventions; Montreal Protocol. None of them have resulted in a World Government. Why should a carbon tax? It is possible to devise a ring-fenced tax. There are many examples of this. The money does not end up being spent on wars.
Kyle, my opinions on christmas are anathemic. I could go on a huge rant about it and film it in the style of David Mitchell but I will get more hate mail than if I personally soldoff Josef Fritzel's dungeon on ebay.