w0t?

While I generally agree with you, I do feel that there are some flaws in the path of invalidating the arguments.

You speak of climate change as an opportunity. That perspective is hard to assume without a strong belief in life in general as a value. I don't think its effective going into detail about the reasoning behind the decision before this value is established. The decision resonates well among those who feel threatened by a declining economy - whether it's binding or not. If one believes in the beauty of life and enjoys the birds singing, chances are they think pollution is a bad idea - I think it's a no-brainer.

Sympathy and agreement over values are much more effective in politics and advertising - which is why I think this video won't reasonate nearly as well with people who are already convinced that leaving is right than it does with people who are already concerned. And, imho, that is more likely to be reason for the decision to leave than the prospects for Americans.

You brought up successful innovations, investment and the free market. There is a central flaw in almost any argument that claims that the free market will solve anything. Carbon emmisions are not (yet) really measurable in money; the ecological footprint is not really measurable only in CO2. Instead, enviromental tenability is generally assumed to cost the consumer money, to be inconvenient, or to diminish the returns of an investment. That shouldn't say that it is generally impossible for that mechanism to work - but it's definitely an exception [1].

For "smart money" to favour e.g. sustainability and diversity of species, they have to be viewed in a way strong enough to make these criteria count more than the price tag or other qualities, like usability. This counts for investors and consumers alike and it will take generations to overcome this mentality [2]. Most societies try to measure quality of life in money and there aren't many people who realise there's a difference - at least that is my experience. Someone who has worked towards influence or fiscal wealth is likely to value them, or not?

As you mentioned - the costs of growth without considering life won't be carried by those decision makers; I would like to widen that to other fields like the use of "super" weapons which leave a big footprint on the planet. Is there anyone who could say, convicingly, that the state we are in is beyond of what can be repaired using money? Species are already going extinct [3]. Word is, Russia wants to populate Siberia with Mammoths - but does that solve anything?

My bottom line is that the first points you address hardly ever leave the realm of money (you do point out that there is an issue with the merits of not dumping waste in a river not being rewarded).

I do like your video and highly approve of you using your influence to establish, for instance, that there is empirical support for the claim that a carbon tax doesn't have to damage the GDP. But again, most people take the forecast of the GDP as a forecast for their personal life quality. And because neither the GDP, carbon tax, climate change, nor happiness is easily understandable, it's difficult to dismiss the argument that the carbon tax will make them less happy in the future. Politics, economics [4], and advertisement [5] procure really good diversions from any rational decision :-(

The most difficult for me get out is some very harsh criticism on your "bonus point". We don't know what his reasons are. You won't be able to support the claim that he's aiming to attack the oppisition on that personal level. Whatever force of reasoning you had with the people who support him, is going to be severly undermined. How are can rationalism and science be convincing when who they perceive as being "intellectuals" are using improper allegations against the person, not the decision? (I do realise there it is difficult if the arguments are not substantial)

Still, I admire that you bring up that there other possibilities; to become active and stop relying on a government to cover our asses.

This is my very late reaction to http://wmbriggs.com/post/9705/ http://wmbriggs.com/post/9761/

It has been lying around for a while (there's probably a bit of mould on it by now - let's just pretend it's cheese. Oh great -.- "Come and read my brainfart with mould and cheese")

I'm reacting to this because I think some of the presuppositions are dangerously unclear and misleading.

TL;DR 1. The article is misleading in the representation of the idea behind falsification 2. F. isn't flawed - it's just not suited to deal with highly complex systems with unknown parameters

Hmm. You know what? I had tons of lines written for this and I'm going to spare you the details on why it's a bad idea to use meteorology as an example and how saying 'my theory is true, therefore it will snow tomorrow' and the event of snow falling is NOT falsification.

Instead, have this:

a | b | => 0 | 0 | 1   <-- 0 | 1 | 1   <-- you don't know what a (or b) was 1 | 0 | 0 1 | 1 | 1

Don't do 'if I'm right, X is also true', do 'if I'm wrong, it should be easily to prove that using X' (where X can be an observable event). If the hypothesis includes probabilities (e.g. quantum mechanics, wave diffraction), falsifiability can still help you. It depends on how you lay out the hypothesis. We don’t know how quantum mechanics work and we don’t know how to prove its functionality - it still makes perfectly good science. Instead, we know, through falsification, that classical models for mechanics don’t suffice to explain what’s happening (Bell’s Theorem).