It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See (for all you skeptics overloards out their )

page: 2
18
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 09:54 AM
I think the flaw in his premise is that he is trying to apply binary logic to an analog situation. He assumes two rows, which is correct, but he implies that each row has an equal chance of being true. I don't think that's the case. Let's apply the same logic to the premise: if I go outside, I may be struck by lightning. Once again, we have the same two rows: (1) false - I won't be struck by lightning, and (2) - I will be struck by lightning. We'll use the same columns: (A) - I take steps to prevent that, and (B) I don't take steps to prevent that.

That would give us the same grid he has. (1A) I spend big bucks to safeguard against a lightning strike that never came. (1B) I don't spend anything to protect against lightning strikes, and nothing happens. (2A) I spend a lot of money to protect against lightning strike, and it saves my life. (2B) I don't do anything to guard against lightning strikes, and I'm struck by lightning.

According to his logic, we should all be spending big bucks to guard against lightning strikes whenever we are outside, because in the (A) column we only lose money, but in the (2B) grid we could lose our lives. In practice, of course, we don't because the likelyhood of scenarios (1B) and (2B) are pretty remote.

Another assumtion that he has is that the way to combat global warming is to spend money. I'd have to take exception to that as well. We're told that manmade global warming is due to excessive amounts of CO2 that humans are pumping in the air. My understanding, and someone correct me if I'm wrong here, is that the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide is miniscule compared to the greenhouse effect caused by water vapor. Even if we tried, I don't think humans could pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere to even get close to the greenhouse effect caused by water evaporating off the oceans.

But let's assume that's true, and manmade CO2 emmisions are increasing the greenhouse effect. In that case, the solution is to stop or reduce CO2 emmissions to the point where it has no effect. But that's not the solution being proposed. The proposed solution is to increase taxes and give the money to an international body. If global warming can be curbed with money, then just print as much as you need to deal with the problem. It's just fiat money anyway.

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 09:56 AM
reply to post by Cataka

What's the video about folks?

Some random guy applies Pascal's Wager to climate change.

reply to post by PurpleDog UK

Can anyone, after watching this argue against the logic presented.

Yes. Very easily.

His worst case scenario for "Global warming is false" + "We take unnecessary action" is insufficient because he focuses only on money, and he's grossly simplifying the possibilities to true/false. What if, for example, climate change is factual, but it's not that we're experiencing global warming but rather, we're entering into a period of solar minimum likely to result in an ice age. In that case, taking technological steps to reduce worldwide temperatures could potentially cause the end of life on earth.

Once that scenario is plugged into the appropriate box, his argument completely falls apart.

edit on 21-11-2010 by LordBucket because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 10:07 AM
reply to post by LordBucket

Lord Bucket

Fair point you make......

BUT if we choose to do nothing and your 'assumption' is NOT correct then we fall into the worst case scenario again....

Your thinking relies on assumptions just as much as the video suggests....

BOTTOM Line - I, You, the Video do NOT know what the variables are BUT if we do nothing chances are we suffer....

Regards

PurpleDOG UK

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 10:19 AM
Without more description, I'm not curious enough to look.

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 10:26 AM
This video was a waste of time. He states that none of his friends or family could argue against his logic.

What he does is literally boxes in his argument and reinforces each. This tactic will notvlook at options outside his box. For instance, what if we are not causing global climate change, what if it is a natural cycle or if it is occurring due to the sun or other astral phenomena? This still creates the massive change he discusses in his lower right box, yet mankind has absolutely no control ove this, none what so ever.

Bad video, waste of time and not well thoughtbout in my opinion!

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:01 AM
reply to post by PurpleDog UK

BUT if we choose to do nothing and your 'assumption' is NOT correct
then we fall into the worst case scenario again....

...ok, but if the assumption on the other side is not correct, the same applies. The whole point of this excerise is to examine worst case possibilities. You can't arbitrarily consider "worst case" on one side, but only "mildly inconvenient case" on the other and consider that a fair comparison.

The "worst case" in either column could reasonably result in the end of all life on earth. Saying "but oh...what if one side isn't true?" completely misses the whole point of the logical excercise he's engaging in. If we knew that one side or the other was not correct, we'd know exactly what to do. The whole point is that we don't so he's comparing worst cases if we guess wrong.

if we do nothing chances are we suffer....

No. Not true even using the logic used in the video. Using that logic, the chances of us suffering is exactly 50%.

I don't particularly want to defend the "logic" presented in this video. It is flawed. However, even if we use the logic presented in the video, his portrayal is inaccurate.

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:04 AM

Originally posted by cushycrux
For some people, you have to speak s-l-o-w and c-l-e-a-r, so they can maybe understand you..

Haaa, I hear you. I guess I was expecting something truly terrifying.
I thought at the last second a giant demon face was gonna appear to lunge at me whilst screaming real loud.

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:30 AM
This global warming stuff would crack me up if it wasn't so tragic.

Cell phones used to be analog, then they went with repeaters, then compression, then multiplexing, and now everything is digital. And with digital comes higher frequencies. Higher frequencies are better at penetrating cloud and moisture in the air. No static like AM radio. A high enough frequency and not even a single bit will be lost, which is critical in decompressing a signal. These are called Microwaves.

Now what happens when you put something in a Microwave. That's right. It gets hot. All of our cities are carpeted in non stop microwave transmitters now. Redundant carriers covering the same neighborhoods, with towers everywhere pointing in all directions.

If they turned off all the microwave transmitters there would be a drop of half a degree, maybe overnight, which is huge.

Isn't it logical that this would cost [color=gold]less money than any other vague feel good solution that always seems to be just over the horizon?

David Grouchy

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by badw0lf
it's about considering all sides of the problem and coming to a conclusion based on possibilities of both action OR inaction.

But see, there you have it.... who says it's a problem to begin with? Why must we consider GCC a problem?? Is it just because the Earth is changing that it MUST be a problem?
edit on 21/11/2010 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)

I dunno, cancer often occurs naturally, yet we do everything we can to fix it once we've been stricken with it.

The thing I'm worried about is that while people argue that if it's natural then we may aswell just ignore it, they are forgetting that it is undeniable we are not looking after the planet. we're effectively giving the cancer victim a carton of smokes and saying "Don't worry, you'll be dead anyway, so go for it."

If we can help to alleviate the consequences of negative change - regardless of it's cause - by at least not contributing to it further, then to do nothing is remiss.

edit on 21/11/2010 by badw0lf because: finger warming is needed...

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:43 AM
reply to post by LordBucket

Well to be fair, he did conclude by asking people to apply a more robust collection of outcomes/actions, and whether he is serious or not, he did ask for people to let him know if the concept is flawed.

You have to take both into account, you can't argue his logic if faulty if you don't at least apply it further. I think the main point was accurate. Using the extremes, isn't wrong when ultimately they are quite possible.

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:45 PM

you can't argue his logic if faulty if you don't at least apply it further. I think the main point was accurate. Using the extremes, isn't wrong when ultimately they are quite possible.

Look, if you really find that kind of argument convincing, then let me run this by you: I assert that if you don't immediately empty your bank account and give me all your money, along with your wife and daughter as sex slaves, you and everyone you know will be taken away by locusts and slowly and painfully eaten alive over the next several weeks.

So, there are two possiblities. Either I am correct, or I am incorrect. And there are two possible choices you can make. You can either do as I suggest, or you can not do as I suggest. Four different possibilities:

• If I'm right, and you do what I suggest, then everyone lives and is happy.
• If I'm wrong and you don't do what I suggest, nothing happens, everyone is happy.

• If I'm right, and you don't do what I suggest, then everyone you know suffers horrible deaths
• If I'm wrong, and you do what I suggest, sure you'll lose your money and your family, but everyone will still be alive.

The first two cancel out, so we only need examine the results of the second two. If you give me all your stuff, worst that happens is you lose your money and family. But if you don't, the worst that can happen is that you and everyone you know will suffer horrible awful miderable and painfully slow deaths, eaten alive by locusts.

So clearly the odds favor you doing what I want, right?

Please dress up your wife and daughter in some tasteful lingerie before you send them over.

• posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 01:08 PM
Logical, rational reasoning and forethought elude most of the planet.

I can't tell you how many times I have argued this exact point with my friends and associates and been met with only meat headed denial-ism.

As many of my other posts would indicate, I have almost completely lost any faith I had in humanity and it's systems of governance and policy.

I'm just gonna buy a portable A/C and a load of sun screen and some otter pops.

weeeeeeeeeee!

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 03:13 PM

thanks for doing that for me

second

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 03:40 PM
Ok im not debunking the idea, but the guy is taking credit for a this which he obviously stole from Dan Miller Presentation Video

(Scroll to 26 mins and you get the exact same talk) furthermore this whole topic iv found is being discussed on this thread

BTW I conclude the Video iv linked is 10x scarier than the OP video, Its an hour long but it truely is astounding & you will learn more at the thread mentioned.

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 04:21 PM
reply to post by LordBucket

Hey....! Bucket.....

You would appear to be the apotheosis of logical reasoning and decision making but your very individual perspective excludes one very human trait - ref 'emotion'.

Any decision making process that anyone makes will always incorporate an element of emotion alongside a great big dollop of rational thought..... unless your brain is wired like a pc or Mac.

Your analogy to Mother & Daughter scenarios dressed up in lingerie leads me to suspect a perversion in your thinking too....... maybe you've been too long on the world wide web ''surfing''..... Just a thought....

Hey, maybe I am completely Wrong or then again ?????

Regards

PurpleDOG UK

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 04:32 PM
one error is tho in the yes column he uses cost/global depression on the false row , but not in the true row, if he aknowleges the possibility of global collapse (as extreme ) it should be in the true row also, just because its true wouldnt less the chance of global depression.

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 04:34 PM
reply to post by Nephi1337

This is little more than a variation of Pascal's Wager. en.wikipedia.org...

And the most serious flaw with the wager is that, whenever the "doing nothing" column has an extremely BAD consequence, it's always more logical to do something. In short, it's not always a logical argument.

For instance; I doubt anyone here looks under their bed every night to check for the bogeyman hiding under it, waiting for them to fall asleep so he can sneak out and kill them. Yet, we can fill the same chart out and display that it's MUCH better if you check under your bed every night.

So, not checking under your bed = death by bogey man, not doing anything about "GCC" = death by fire and brimstone.

Funny thing is, I'm an Atheist, who does not check under his bed for the bogey man.

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 05:00 PM
reply to post by PurpleDog UK

Your analogy to Mother & Daughter scenarios dressed up in lingerie
leads me to suspect a perversion in your thinking

your very individual perspective excludes one very human trait - ref 'emotion'.

Did it not occur to you that I might have chosen that particular example in hopes of evoking an emotional response to demonstrate how ridiculous the premise of the video is?

You're correct in your implication that I'm taking emotion out of it. Pascal's Wager works on some people because it evokes a fear response. It falsley frames a choice as choosing between the least terrifying of two options. That works very well on some people. But it's an emotional play, and not the "logical" argument it masquerades as.

For those who missed it from page one, yes...the guy in this video is invoking Pascal's Wager. It's a hundreds-year-old ploy disguised as logic.

Don't fall for it.

Note:
Global warming might be a legitimite phenemenon that we might benefit from addressing. Maybe. But the premise used by this video to encourage action is completely bogus. As demonstrated, the very same reasoning can be used to manipulate any possible course of action into sounding like the lesser of two evils. Regardless of your individual positions on global warming, don't let people use fear to manipulate you into doing what they want.

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 05:21 PM
reply to post by Nephi1337

Quit being so lazy. Include a bit of a write up in your topic. I have no interest in blindly linking to something that is probably just another dud.

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 05:24 PM
reply to post by LordBucket

the first time I saw it i knew his arguement was fooo
thats what I noticed, but till now I thought it was just me...
thanks for the info on the technique....star

new topics

top topics

18