In Gerg Craven's argument, he looks at whether Global Climate Change is true or false and whether we should take action or not take action. He shows us the consequences of each option in form of a grid and examines each of these consequences. He argues that we should focus on whether we should take action or not rather than whether it is true or false as that is not in our hands. He concludes that when faced with uncertainties about our future, the only responsible choice is to take action even if it is false as it eliminates the risk of not acting. After hearing his argument, we can ask ourselves is his argument valid and assuming it is, is the conclusion true? I believe that the major premise of his argument is infact true as he has examined different possibilities and not just focused on one, he has taken a number of steps in order to reach his conclusion and his reasoning seems to be valid. Therefore, I feel that his conclusion is a valid one as he has examined different outcomes and from that deduced the most responsible choice that eliminates the risks associated with it.
