GCC: No Holds Barred

[The spartan]

After all the controversy over GCC we have been seeing on the forums for the past few days, I thought it finally time to whip out a few videos involving risk management involving GCC and addressing skeptic. These videos are called "How it all Ends: No Holds Bar" and are done by Greg Craven, a high school teacher and I think they are wonderfully done. All the videos together take less than an hour to watch, and they are very informative.

He doesn't preach about Global Warming or really act condescending to skeptics. Craven does a good job of appealing to reason and logic. Tell me what you think.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[s.rwitt]

I think three Global Warming threads on the first page are enough to warrant a global warming superthread.

[Ænema]

Hard to take that dude seriously when he's got a Court Jester hat on.

[The spartan]

Hard to take that dude seriously when he's got a Court Jester hat on.

Its just for kicks and giggles. He is also just a goofy guy, but he seems quite professional in the videos.

I think a misconception about a lot of skeptics about global warming is that we don't believe that more should be done for a better environment. Whether or not global warming is real is rather irrelevant to me.

The whole reason to making these videos is to progress policy to combat Global Warming. If you agree with such policy, then that is important really.

[Admiral Piett]

I think a misconception about a lot of skeptics about global warming is that we don't believe that more should be done for a better environment. Whether or not global warming is real is rather irrelevant to me.

[Phier]

I watched a few moments of the last one, about 30 seconds. It was an appeal to authority.

[The spartan]

I watched a few moments of the last one, about 30 seconds. It was an appeal to authority.

...In science?

[Phier]

...In science?

It had nothing to do with science, it was a 'these people are smarter than you are, how dare you question them'.

Been doing it close to 20 years now, I know the science involved, no appeal to authority is going to get me to suddenly think I must be wrong.

We have seen just how scientifically bankrupt one of those 'authorities' was already.

I've seen another of his videos already some time back, some other person posted that one on some other forum where he turns global warming into a pascals wager that its better to do SOMETHING just in case, even going into a bit of day after tomorrow.

I'm not concerned with the politics, just the science. The science has been sketchy and unconvincing PRIOR to "Climate Gate" now we have to wonder how much of the data out there is compromised.

[Admiral Piett]

It had nothing to do with science, it was a 'these people are smarter than you are, how dare you question them'.

Been doing it close to 20 years now, I know the science involved, no appeal to authority is going to get me to suddenly think I must be wrong.

We have seen just how scientifically bankrupt one of those 'authorities' was already.

I've seen another of his videos already some time back, some other person posted that one on some other forum where he turns global warming into a pascals wager that its better to do SOMETHING just in case, even going into a bit of day after tomorrow.

I'm not concerned with the politics, just the science. The science has been sketchy and unconvincing PRIOR to "Climate Gate" now we have to wonder how much of the data out there is compromised.

I agree with this sentiment. I always felt that the underdogs in the science community were usually the ones that ended up being right in many historical circumstances.

[The spartan]

I agree with this sentiment. I always felt that the underdogs in the science community were usually the ones that ended up being right in many historical circumstances.

...Try telling that to the scientists...

[Denny Crane!]

It had nothing to do with science, it was a 'these people are smarter than you are, how dare you question them'.

Been doing it close to 20 years now, I know the science involved, no appeal to authority is going to get me to suddenly think I must be wrong.

We have seen just how scientifically bankrupt one of those 'authorities' was already.

I've seen another of his videos already some time back, some other person posted that one on some other forum where he turns global warming into a pascals wager that its better to do SOMETHING just in case, even going into a bit of day after tomorrow.

I'm not concerned with the politics, just the science. The science has been sketchy and unconvincing PRIOR to "Climate Gate" now we have to wonder how much of the data out there is compromised.

That was me, I'm embarrassed! He was/is entertaining with it though!

[The spartan]

It had nothing to do with science, it was a 'these people are smarter than you are, how dare you question them'.

Been doing it close to 20 years now, I know the science involved, no appeal to authority is going to get me to suddenly think I must be wrong.

We have seen just how scientifically bankrupt one of those 'authorities' was already.

I've seen another of his videos already some time back, some other person posted that one on some other forum where he turns global warming into a pascals wager that its better to do SOMETHING just in case, even going into a bit of day after tomorrow.

I'm not concerned with the politics, just the science. The science has been sketchy and unconvincing PRIOR to "Climate Gate" now we have to wonder how much of the data out there is compromised.

It has everything to do with science! This isn't some 2-bit opinion on the matter, these are statements by the best of the best. People who are not biased, well trusted, very thorough organizations with HUGE reputations on the line. You can't dismiss them by saying "Well, you are just trying to appeal to authority". That is completely ridiculous! Why do you believe the authorities on other issues? Why do you trust drug companies (assuming you take some kind of medication)? Don't tell me something as silly as a drug test gives you confidence in them. It seems like you are denying science here. You are saying "their peer-reviewed, vigorous processes of interpreting data is not only more erroneous than they say, it is completely wrong". If you don't believe in the best processes of the system, why do you trust the system itself? This isn't to say that anyone is infallible, because no one is. But we aren't looking for anyone to be infallible, we are looking for an accurate enough interpretation to base our risk assessment on, which, if you look at the very convincing chart he puts up in the 3rd video, we have. We have enough credible sources on one side to make a clear decision about it. Seeing as how those organizations have not retracted their previous statements even after this so called "climate gate", they must still have confidence in their work.

And the video you were referring to is "How it All Ends", which isn't a Pascals Wager. A lot of skeptics slapped that label on it, but they don't have any credence to their claim. You might as call "risk assessment" Pascal's Wager in that case.

Please watch all the videos, Phier, I think it would do you good. It nicely demonstrates why it is important to be an expert before making your own claims on an issue. Data is a lot more complicated than you seem to accept.

[Gaidin]

I watched a few moments of the last one, about 30 seconds. It was an appeal to authority.

Eh, appeals to authority are legit to an extent. They're legit as a response to somebody with no training(interchangeable with education) trying to argue something in which they have no training. Many advanced arguments depend on concepts that require their own study to understand the background of to be able to build to the subject being argued in the first place. This isn't exactly something you can throw out in any typical form of debate. It's why 99% of physics PHDs will not argue chemistry with a chemistry PHD, and vice versa.

Appeals to authority are not legitimate when two people have the training and have proven such. IE, between two Physics PHDs. However, a PhD telling a student how it is regarding a topic above his level, and depending on the authority of his research and career to convey the point when he does not have time to teach him all the concepts leading up to the discussion, is quite legitimate in the end. That is why you often see PHD commentary commonly referenced in debates. Appeals are common, but are not always fallacious.

I think three Global Warming threads on the first page are enough to warrant a global warming superthread.

Aside: re combining the threads -- DEAR GOD NO. They both have their lines of discussion and combining them into one would create a massive convoluted mess. Would've been nice if you combined the second one at the time of creation but after they're both 90+ posts long? Horrible idea.

[Denny Crane!]

The reason why it was flawed Spartan is because it is Pascals wager. What is the worst that could happen lays it out just as such, we'd better do this just in case because the risk in not doing it is to great. It also assumes that government action won't suck the resources out of the economy, stifling it and meaning that groundbreaking research doesn't occur where it might have previously. There are a million variables and even the ones he takes into account are poorly considered.

[The spartan]

The reason why it was flawed Spartan is because it is Pascals wager. What is the worst that could happen lays it out just as such, we'd better do this just in case because the risk in not doing it is to great. It also assumes that government action won't suck the resources out of the economy, stifling it and meaning that groundbreaking research doesn't occur where it might have previously. There are a million variables and even the ones he takes into account are poorly considered.

It is not a Pascals Wager...

[chilon]

I would recommend that both the scientifically challenged Climate Change Deniers and the doomsday obsessed environmental extremists both read the section on climate change in the new Super Freakonomics book. Unlike both the luddite left and the deny all evidence not in line with our ideology political right, the discussion on climate change that involves researchers at Intellectual Ventures is both philosophically pragmatic and scientifically honest. They acknowledge the reality of climate change (humans are affecting the climate to bad effect) without resorting to alarmist bad science (they dislike Al Gore's movie as inaccurate propaganda). Unlike many politicals, they are actually seeking SOLUTIONS for the future and not just whining about how humanity should go back to hunter-gatherer times and all gasoline car drivers are evil (like the environmental left) or acting with haughty hubris and gleefully denying any evidence that disrupts their pre-packaged ideological belief system (the denying political right).




Here is a profile on Intellectual Ventures:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...7/b3991401.htm

[Denny Crane!]

I would recommend that both the scientifically challenged Climate Change Deniers and the doomsday obsessed environmental extremists both read the section on climate change in the new Super Freakonomics book. Unlike both the luddite left and the deny all evidence not in line with our ideology political right, the discussion on climate change that involves researchers at Intellectual Ventures is both philosophically pragmatic and scientifically honest. They acknowledge the reality of climate change (humans are affecting the climate to bad effect) without resorting to alarmist bad science (they dislike Al Gore's movie as inaccurate propaganda). Unlike many politicals, they are actually seeking SOLUTIONS for the future and not just whining about how humanity should go back to hunter-gatherer times and all gasoline car drivers are evil (like the environmental left) or acting with haughty hubris and gleefully denying any evidence that disrupts their pre-packaged ideological belief system (the denying political right).




Here is a profile on Intellectual Ventures:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...7/b3991401.htm

I would if it hadn't got such horrendous reviews. I like to read good books if possible.

[chilon]

I would if it hadn't got such horrendous reviews. I like to read good books if possible.

I have no idea which reviews you are reading (or why) but I would highly recommend not listening to reviewers as I can guess why it did not get good reviews and it has nothing to do with the content I mentioned. Personally I never listen to reviews of anything (books, movies, music) and I have a personal pet peeve with people who discount something based on "bad reviews". Personally I would rather read actual books and make my own judgment than just read reviews and assume the reviewer obviously must be right.

I did read Christopher Hitchen's reviews of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's books in Atlantic Monthly a few months back. This exercise in futility reminded me why I NEVER listen to reviewers. While Hitchens is generally considered one of the most intelligent literary reviewers alive today, his review of the two Comedy Central hosts' books completely missed the point. Someone basing their perception of the books on Hitchens' review would have very different ideas and comments than someone who actually read the books and understood the point (which Hitchens seems to have skillfully missed).

Back to Super Freakonomics: The book is not written like normal books. There is no thesis that underlies the entire book and no connecting theme to all the different strands. It really is just a collection of different essays on different topics thrown together to make a book. Also, it is not close to Pulitzer quality writing.

Yet those two facts hardly invalidate the valuable informational content of the essays, which are informative and provide editorial that is not easily pigeon holed into left-wing or right-wing ideology. This lack of a polemical nature could also contribute to reviewers giving it "bad reviews" because book reviewers tend to like polemics more than nuanced and intricate arguments.

For that reason, the book has tremendous value far beyond its literary quality. Of course, you could just look up all the research the book collects individually and become even more informed but that is a time consuming and tedious task. Levitt is no Malcolm Gladwell, that is for sure but the actual information in the book is certainly worth investigating if you have an interest in any of the topics discussed.

BTW The Brothers Karamazov is a good book but won't inform you in any way on the climate change debate.

[Denny Crane!]

I have no idea which reviews you are reading (or why) but I would highly recommend not listening to reviewers as I can guess why it did not get good reviews and it has nothing to do with the content I mentioned. Personally I never listen to reviews of anything (books, movies, music) and I have a personal pet peeve with people who discount something based on "bad reviews". Personally I would rather read actual books and make my own judgment than just read reviews and assume the reviewer obviously must be right.

When there are 1001 good books a year to read and I can read 52 it pays to read reviews, and not just reviewers but meta reviews as well. Reviews from diverse stories. And I know you want to fill my head with anecdotes about how you read a book that was good and this other guy said it was bad but that does not invalidate literary reviews. Consistently good books get reviewed well, bad books get reviewed badly and if a few slip through the net I have limited time and I can take that chance.

I'd like you to bear in mind the first book got good reviews but the overwhelming opinion is that they just cashed in on this next one by by churning out another book with shaky theories and anything heavily theory based aimed at the mass market is not likely to be comprehensive and as such liimited in use to someone like myself anyway.

I did read Christopher Hitchen's reviews of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's books in Atlantic Monthly a few months back. This exercise in futility reminded me why I NEVER listen to reviewers. While Hitchens is generally considered one of the most intelligent literary reviewers alive today, his review of the two Comedy Central hosts' books completely missed the point. Someone basing their perception of the books on Hitchens' review would have very different ideas and comments than someone who actually read the books and understood the point (which Hitchens seems to have skillfully missed).

Hitchens is not considered to be one of the most intelligent anything. Perhaps you also think Richard Littlejohn to be the height of literary comment? Popularity does not equal intelligence and quite frankly entertaining atheist though he is, the man is to philosophy what the mirror is to The Times.

[Gaidin]

Why isn't it? He's given reasonable logic as to why it is, what's the counter?