Climate Change Debate is Now Officially Over
Yesterday I was pointed to a video titled “The Most Terrifying Video You Will Ever See“. While this video is now nearly 7 years old, the message it outs forward is even more relevant today than it was in 2007. The man who made the video, Greg Craven, has since turned this analysis of the problem of debating climate change into a book called “What’s the Worst That Could Happen? A Rational Response to the Climate Change Debate” which is available at Amazon. While I haven’t read the book, what the video shows is a simple way to show the problems associated with the climate change debate, and 4 of the possible outcomes of action on climate change versus inaction.
Some have compared this argument to a “Pascal’s Wager” fallacy of climate change, one where it’s best to take the route of least possible harm, and in a way I grant that comparison. The main difference here is that there is heaps of evidence for anthropogenic climate change, and zero for hell. The Pascal’s Wager idea falls flat when we can see firsthand the costs of environmental degradation on ecosystems, and the way the changes in the climate have changed the planet already.
While I wouldn’t call this video the most terrifying video I have ever seen, it certainly is a wake-up call for those in a position of denialism. Inaction in this case is not only foolish, given the fact that the jury is NOT out about anthropogenic climate change, but as the video points out, the outcomes of that scenario could be utterly catastrophic.
So which chance would you choose? Do nothing, just in case it’s a waste, or do something because all the signs point to that as the best approach?