Which side are you on, the "column" or the "row" side?

The video above is one person's argument about why we should respond to the possibility of Global Warming.

Below is my brother's (a meteorologist, but NOT a freakin' "weather man"!) response to the video.

He constructed a classic contingency 2x2 table, which we use often in scoring meteorological forecasts which are deterministic: no/yes (0 or 1), versus probabilistic values between 0 and 1.

In his table, you have "correct forecasts", the lower left and the upper right. Forecast N, and verify N is the upper right. Forecast Y and verify Y is the lower left.

In the upper left, you forecast Y and verify N. That is called a "false alarm".

In the lower right, you forecast N and verify Y. That is called a "missed forecast".

It is well known in meteorological circles that the penalty for a "miss" is much greater than the penalty for a "false alarm". For the latter, if you have many false alarms, you might end up with the "cry wolf" syndrome. However, sociological studies are showing that this is not as bad as some might think. For the former, you and up with bad things happening, and nothing having been done.

Apply this to a Tornado Warning. Would you rather have taken cover for a Tornado Warning and nothing happen, or have not gotten the warning, and then been hit by the tornado? The latter is the "missed forecast", and it is much worse. Yes, there are costs involved with taking action and nothing happening. But the underlying question is this: Why should anyone be upset because the catastrophe didn't happen?!? Like saying, "I took cover and there was no tornado". Would you have rather been in the tornado? I say not!

He did mention something near the end - reality is not either of the extremes, but a fuzzy grey area (between 0 and 1). There is pretty conclusive evidence that GCC (global climate change) is happening (probably in the 90-95% range). There is slightly less evidence that it is wholly caused by humans (if you believe the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) report, which was "downgraded" by the US and Chinese), its in the 80-90% range.

In terms of response - we can do nothing (0), do everything we can and spend tons of money (1), or find a suitable solution that will balance economic cost with impact to climate (in the middle). The real problem is that folks are arguing about the columns, when they pretend to argue about the rows. They don't want to pay for the cost. But like he said, if something isn't done at all, and GCC is happening, the cost may end up being a lot higher than it would have been initially (now) to curtail GCC.

The bottom line, the major reason for GCC is most likely (80-90%) by hydrocarbon emissions by humans. Hydrocarbon emission is mostly the result of burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are comprised of things like coal, and ..... OIL! Big Oil!