A high school science teacher has put forward a very interesting argument on Global Warming and what we, as “squatters” on this planet ought or ought not to do.
According to him, he has found a method of reasoning that will make all the arguments on Global Warming moot or useless to discuss. Interested? Unconvinced?
Here is the video, check it out and see for yourself:
If you didn’t catch what wonderingmind42 was saying, I will try my best to summarize it here.
Basically, he reasoned that there are 2 possibilities: that the alarmists are right and we are spiralling into Global Warming disaster or that the nay-sayers are on the money – that there is nothing to worry about.
He then delineated the options for our actions regarding GCC or Global Climate Change (over simplifying them in the process). He said that we could either act on the issue or do nothing (either through deliberate inaction or blissful ignorance).
Then he noted the effects in case GCC is not true and we act against it: that money will be spent needlessly which may ultimately lead to economic repercussions like global depression the likes of which would belittle the US 1930s stock market plummet (deliberately exaggerated).
He then said that we will be happy either if Global Warming wasn’t true and we did not take action, or if Global Warming was true and we did.
Lastly, he mentioned that if GCC was real and we did nothing, we will be seeing a post-apocalyptic world somewhere along Mad Max’ reality (sorry, showing my age here) or something like the Matrix trilogy painted without the machines revolting. A world where economic strife is prevalent, social problems abound, wars, famines, etc. Again, the picture he painted is deliberately exaggerated.
He then states that since we cannot predict whether GCC is true or not, we need to look at it depending on action and inaction. He likens the choice to buying lottery tickets with our fate on the line. The teacher then reasons that the risks are worse if we choose inaction – so action on the issue of Global Warming would be the only logical choice.
Personally I am still not 100% convinced by his argument over the effects of both action and inaction – they were way too oversimplified and exaggerated. The dichotomy between action and inaction also neglects to address the full range of what we can or cannot do.
However, I do see his point.
Spending a lot of money to make this world a better place for our children and – if GCC supporters are right – ourselves is money well spent. I think that he is right, the consequences of inaction indeed far outweigh that of action and to that I add mine: What’s a few bilion dollars if it ensures all our collective existences and well-being on this planet?
The choice is now yours, do you help spread Global Warming awareness (action option) so that the government can do something about it? Or we just sit back (inaction) and risk watching the temperature rise literally?