Another terrifying video

[halopwner179]

Murphy law is a fun thing to toss into this so i would most likely go for row one so we will most likely live even if it is at a cost. also since this argument is quite solid i would ask if i could use this in one or so of my classes to see how the masses i learn with react to it.

[ASaxonAtHeart]

Oh. :P

[ASaxonAtHeart]

By a minute and a half into this video, I'm reluctantly facing the fact that I will probably have to let go of one of my previously strongly affirmed beliefs.

[Sitharion]

That is a very big smiley-face. If I get a 50/50 chance to see a volcano-sized smiley, I think I'll take my chances. Because, come on, a volcano-sized smiley.

[vanRijn64]

Poe's Law dooms you to hate and scorn.

[codyahernek]

I choose row two, mediocracy is boring.

[blacksilkblacksilk]

(2) contd.

So if we do not KNOW for sure, and therefore probably not understand, then how do we determine what action to take ?

(Asuming that the soil is washed away and leads to volcano argument serves as a metaphor)

Because if we do not KNOW any action might make things 1) better 2) worse 3) have no effect at all with respect top the problem.

So my take on this catch is that science must be developped to the point where we can determine suitable action. Else it would be gambling actionism.

[blacksilkblacksilk]

Brilliant argument.

However there is a slight catch. If we can determine if it`s true, then we probably understand things well enough to take suitable action, and it is not a choice anymore - ideally speaking of course - becasue determining means we KNOW it`s true and we understand it - to an extent.

If we must however make a decision based on two smilys in one row, and - we win in any case - vs one row with MtDoom - then we do not - yet - KNOW. So we do not properly understand. CONTINUED

[Tarantio1983]

what if errossion isn't the cause of the apocalypse?!

what if it's some man-made thing like; psychotic AI military mainframes, a bio-viral weapon that spawns a horde of zombies or dna-cloned dinosaurs or anything from any major movie of the past 30 years?!

then we're all screwed no matter what ... so fuck it all, i'm gonna get drunk and not give a hoot! :P

[SuperDisser]

Pascal's wager.

[TornadoCreator]

Good point well made. Because at this point any reasonable person says "aaah, but your argument only works if we consider the likelihood of 'true' and 'not true' to be equal", which you then relate to something else like.... Global Warming.

It's a good point and you've got be to question Global Warming more, but I've read some very convincing scientific literature and I'm not prepared to say it's not happening and/or not our fault just yet...

[SadamSkywalker]

I like to play a game of hight stakes. I will take the lower path.

[BishopBlackhand]

Yellowstone is going first.

[GAMESGLORIOUSGAMES]

@BishopBlackhand its not goung first..... america and canada is going first, everyone else not so long after

[lindybeige]

@GAMESGLORIOUSGAMES I think BishopBlackhand meant the supervolcano, which is in the USA.

[GAMESGLORIOUSGAMES]

@lindybeige yes but if the supervolcano goes off which is likely since yellowstone is rising a few feet each year then the hole of the usa will go in minutes or even seconds. Thats what i meant especially where it its

[youmaus]

All small islands start out as bald rocks. Birds shit on the rocks. Then mosses grasses and trees add to this accumulation by creating new carbohydrates from airborne water and carbonic gases through photosynthesis. The soil from the unsnowshoed cattle accumulates in places like Freislan...when the volcano erupts the rock vapour precipitates as even more very rich soil. I live on a river delta island where you can grow and export sod for landscaping every year and never notice a difference.

[noobler9]

ahhh yes, good spoof good spoof :d, especially the part about likelyhood unfortunately in general, from what the paleo-anthropologists think, not just meteorological scientists in a large amount... they're thinking this sort of disaster thing is why we're descended from such a small smaller than 10k breeding population, and of course the whole 99%+ species who have gone extinct~ so there's reasonable belief in bad things, and they're small things, but they impact us a lot anyways

[pureshadows]

In this video: People who didn't read the info nor watched the second video and then preceeded to respond as if the video was being serious.

[beefstewisevil]

Hole in the theory: Volcanoes are more awesome than smiley faces, and by nature, holes.

[XxDuckXxXFanXx]

First of all you are thinking still too simply. Who the hell are going to regulate other countries? America? Whats the cost with forcing other countries to comply? I guess show them the smiley faces.. not going to happen. What if instead of dumping money into preventing the possibly unprevntable, have another row of alternate plans to deal with the aftermath. The world will not end in one day regardles of the movies you watch. If we weren't $13,187,127,889,408.54 in debt would help too

[adrastea99]

Is that a big enough hole in your theory?

[lindybeige]

@adrastea99 I fear that you have missed the point of this video. It is an ironic spoof of a much-viewed YouTube video made by someone else. This other video did not take into account the ludicrousness or improbability of any given threat.

[adrastea99]

Yeah, I saw the second video and just laughed at my horrible mistake

[toxicbob2000]

@lindybeige There need to be at least two shouted jokes involving the digestive system or genitalia for the average person to understand that something is intended as comedy (see: the popularity of Will Ferrel, Dane Cook, etc.)

[adrastea99]

Except if we made decisions like that, if we made such a graph for every single theory and every time choose to take action, we would spend so many resources taking action that the entire species would go extinct, causing one huge frowny face

This theory supposes that we have no information, that we are deciding something without having any previous knowledge whatsoever

We can't say if one theory is MORE true or LESS true, we only have a yes or no choice

We can't afford to make such choices

[imanoob71]

No action; If the earth is eroding faster, then weaker/thinner parts will erode to volcano breaking point sooner. As certain areas become unstable and ooze molten lava, you simply move elsewhere to where there were once tall mountains. Cost is alot less than changing an entire way of doing things.

If the theory is not true, Huge smiley face, no cost.

[LoomisLoftis]

Define the costs. This is where it gets tough. You can't define the costs. You can't trust government to define the costs for you. what if the "pound sign" is excruciatingly huge and the associated smiley face is tiny. What if there is a third column where the outcome is a whole host of unintended consequences. The problem with your chart is that it is oversimplified to the point of being meaningless.

[lindybeige]

@LoomisLoftis I think you need to check the batteries in your ironometer.

[speedysavant]

I was going to tease you about the volcanoes when I was half way through the video - I think we'd have to worry about the lack of farmland before we'd worry about significantly thinning the crust ;) But then the video progressed and the idea was so ridiculously funny that I wholly approve of it. Volcanoes! Sodom and Gomorrah in Space! Sauron Wins! That's a good way to describe it, I think. Well done!

[DannyBlackEyes]

I laughed. This is satire at it's finest. Thank you.

[Luukeksi]

Bwahahahaha

[marleb1985]

Comments to original video has been disabled so I post it here :) This is a very weak reasoning because it misses the key point which decides about what choice would be correct - the ODDS. I could demand millions of dollars to prevent Earth from getting hit by a comet (which is unlike to happen in next thousand of years) and with the exactly same graph I would be right and people give me the money :) Yes, I have watched the second part and laughed hard, thanks lindybeige for making this vids :]

[Pyrela]

This same argument could be used for believeing in god. In fact, anyone who uses an argument like this I DEMAND that they believe in god, for the very same reason, before I'll listen to them.(Ok, I lied. I'd still ignore them.)

[Mehow80]

@Pyrela That's a really good point but it doesn't disprove his reasoning.

[Arcanavii]

I think you should present this video to our blood sucking politician. Not that it would help, but it would knock a few of them down a peg.

[StoopidSins]

There's a much better payoff for choosing no action on the chances it's untrue.

I would choose that path!

Also - There is so many possible ways the world could be destroyed at any second which we are not in control of, which are also much more likely.

[medeiro18]

this guy ripped off another guys take on this

at times word for word

[lindybeige]

Really? Who? This is news to me, though I am aware that others have pointed out that the video I criticise is flawed.

[ccanch]

If it is true and we do take action, there is still a possibility that our action will not be enough.

[numarolld1]

snowshoes on cattle or end of the world...hmmm...i think they'd both end up killing us.

[elgostine]

admittedly, speaking as an environmental science (student admittedly) yeah the evidence can be abit shonky at times , really its not an easy task, bhowever chlimate change isnt just about britain getting meditteranian summers.. its a coupla othr thigs.. heat i can deal wih, the oceanbecoming more acidic due to CO2 im worried about..

seriously though..the climate change thing is a convenient mask' because the actions which cut CO2 and stuff often hav the benefit of fixing alot of other issus

[lindybeige]

Increasing the efficiency of power stations, decreasing the amount of wasted energy etc. is good, yes, but the incentives of cost are there already for those. Stuff like carbon capture and underground storage are going to decrease efficiency and increase costs a LOT, however, so it isn't all good news.

[elgostine]

,...thats what i mean... we are hoping we move completely away from the old mindset of focssil fuels and non renewables.. carbon dioxie capture can be utilized though... (those fanta bottles arnt going to make themselves fizzy now are they :P

were hoping to move to natural gas, hydrogen, economies.. the word im looking for is a sustanable world, we think that really that by adressing climate change as its presented, we can hopefully revamp the whole global system....abit far fetched i know.

[EmperorBarbarosa]

as the earth gets warmer the amount of co2 that water can hold goes down. the co2 in the oceans moves into the atmosphere. that is where it is coming from for the most part.

[lindybeige]

I have heard the contrary claimed. I shall have to look into this one again.

[kimdkus]

But on the other hand, I would pay money to see the government try to put snowshoes a cow!! LOL!!! It would be worth it. LOL!!! Ok, hold still, Bessie, don't move. LOL!!!  Senator, go over there and put snowshoes on the cow. LOL!! We could take bets to see who wins, the Senator or the cow. :))

[kimdkus]

ok, so if it isn't true, but I give my money and nothing happens, do I get my money back?? :)) I have a receipt. And do the eskimos get their snow shoes back if nothing happens?

[piokul]

Speaking shortly - the costs (pound sign) of actions preventing dangers of little probability are to big to be paid. Actually they would kill us. And do it for certain. So I'd rather take the risk, where the danger is uncertain, even unprobable.

[lindybeige]

Yes.

[piokul]

We generally sweep the land from one place to another. The sea dosn't only swallow up the land, it also builds it up in other places. About it being better to take action - its not. We're taking all types of deadly risks all the time. Most of'em having little probability. If we took action to prevent them all (it's impossible anyway), we wouldn't have time to do anything else. You can die by unfortunatelly triping and falling on a sidewalk. But we don't cover the sidewalks with thick carpets.

[debobrien1]

I have a question for everyone concerned in this discussion....does it really Matter how we got to the conclusion that action is necessary? I think Anyone making an honest effort to champion a worthy cause despite massive flaming and criticism to their character and ego etc....should be congratulated and given the proverbial pat on the back.

it doesn't matter weather yours or his little square is better, what matters is getting the word out. and he Does say numerous times to Check his facts

[lindybeige]

It matters because he is probably wrong, and truth always matters. This is an important issue.

What does it matter why people spend half their time praying, as long as they pray? 1. Because prayer probably achieves nothing 2. Because they could have spent that time doing something better. 3. Because we demean ourselves by following folly.

[debobrien1]

yes, having spent the larger part of my day watching the videos from wonderingmind42, I can with authority say you were saying pretty much the same thing, and he also expands his point and addresses all the skeptics points who shot holes in his initial video with massive amounts of study and time spent on his crusade. I can honestly say when I first opened this one I thought you had taken his "take this video and run with it" to heart and made your own version

[cubsbaseball5]

y r u writing like a medieval person haha keep writing this is funny

[cubsbaseball5]

k 'oh smart one'  type in The Most Terrifying You'll Ever See' and compare your words to his......almost exactly the same

[lindybeige]

Oh dear grasshopper, you appear to have missed the point of this completely. I am making this video to point out that his chart argument is flawed. I am using the devices of irony and satire.

[FrameSticker]

His grid by itself is flawed (as he himself admitted in about 99% of his videos). However, if you go watch "How it All Ends," the renwed, V.2 of "The Most Terrifying Video you'll ever see," you will most likely understand how assigning probabilities to the rows ends up makes the argument becomer rock solid. And if not, watch his expansion pack videos. And if not... talk to me.

[lindybeige]

Yes, his grid on its own is rubbish, and yes, eventually enough people pointed this out to him for him to make another video, but he still didn't change his tune. I've seen his Mk II video, and will one day make a video pointing out that he provides a spectacular lack of evidence for global warming in it. It is very far from "rock solid" given that it is groundless. Wait for more vids from me.

[FrameSticker]

That's because you don't understand the message this guy is trying to bring to the argument. He's not saying, "AGW is occuring now and we should take every possible action to stop it," but rather, "Given the strong-worded statements from AAAS, NAS, USACP and the Pentagon, shouldn't we at least create a project to assign expected values to the grid so we stop thinking in row thinking (or, "Is AGW true,") and start column thinking (or, "what action, if at all, should me take?")

[RndmUsr1]

You argument is the "Giant Mutant Space Hamster" argument from Greg's videos. He has already responded to you "proving" that his argument is flawed. (IE: no one is saying that the earth is crumbling away, but 45 international scientific peer reviewed organizations are saying that climate change is happening and we are causing it) Good try, but your hole you poked has been repaired (long ago).

[lindybeige]

I did more than poke a hole in the chart argument. I commented on other things - the Emperor's new clothes nature of the debate, the hidden motives behind people's attempts to persuade etc. But you are right. Have you seen my other vids on this issue?

[cubsbaseball5]

y would you copy the other guys video.....dont say that you didnt its obvious!!

[lindybeige]

The only thing keeping me sane here is the sure and certain knowledge that you either have to be joking, or you haven't watched my version.

[MrCookie537]

the answer is 42 it is the answer to everything it is the ultimate question lol

[kronchev]

I think it's a good argument for any kind of action vs inaction. The thing is the probabiltiy really DOES matter when dealing with this kind of graph because they are weighted; you even give weight to yourself when you say "volcano bad, smilie face good"

Still, I do very much agree with you, this is the closest way to saying "better safe than sorry" and that's what I believe.

[AndrewGirle]

A hypothesis (essentially a model to explain observations) should, with careful thought, make predictions. On that basis, CO2, which is allegedly interfering at a PRACTICAL level with heat transmission, should be affecting infrared astronomical observations. Now, I am not an astronomer, but I am guessing that technical astronomy experts could say right away whether they have had to change the way they make observations over the recent 'massive CO2 increases".

Anyone?

[lindybeige]

What an interesting thought. I've heard nothing on this. I'm not sure what a change in infra-red observations would tell us about cause and effect, though.

[kronchev]

Infrared isn't heat, infrared is a product of heat.

[pimpinpan]

LMAOO

yea ive seen that original video by wonderingmind42, and this is brilliant

[somecomputergeek]

You're a fucking idiot. You have no business attempting satire or talking about science. You're level of ignorance is offensive to me. Please get the opinion of somebody much smarter than you BEFORE you post another video.

[lindybeige]

Interesting. Rather than point out a flaw in my argument, you simply say that I am stupid. This very strongly suggests that you can not specify a flaw in my argument.

[immortaliserwow]

That video is a joke :D..right?

There r so many serious and angry comments that i am not sure anymore.

Ofc there are many morons in the net but it is still a Joke right?

[lindybeige]

Watch the follow up video and it shall become clear.

[twhite828]

I chuckled at the 'rubbing away the earth' part. I wonder how many trillions of rugby matches could be played on a given piece of land before enough material (including the bedrock that would eventually get exposed) was removed to create a sufficient weak spot for magma to push through.

That is a nasty bit of math.

[Twisted200]

The problem with your theory is this: whether we either take action or don't, the outcome in effect will be the same. You seem to have failed to realize that the 'cost' of taking action is not only in pounds, but in resources. Thus you are not really saving the world, but instead throwing in a bit of smiley face, and a little bit of Armageddon in together. That to me is a flaw.

[lindybeige]

I confess I'm not sure that I follow your argument. It strikes me as possible, though, that you have not watched the follow-up video to this one, and have taken me seriously.

[Okaruwazashi]

This "what's the worst that could happen, let's just do it" thing is fine in many circumstances for individuals, but is absolutely terrible for policy makers.

A policy should be based on evidenced predictions of consequences. Global risks like climate change should be investigated thoroughly.

Don't get me wrong, I think you make good points. I just think we should make sure our concluding position is a good one - one of risk prediction and mitigation for example.

[lindybeige]

Ah, well the CO2 argument is that the tiny fraction of CO2 emissions for which Man is responsible (<2%) is somehow the important bit. Using the same logic, the Mississippi is not important, but the mud on my football shirt is. It's the bit they can sell me products to control. Of course, one way to get more plants is to increase the CO2 in the atmosphere...

[AdminOfTheSpacepope]

I read somewhere in Wikipedia the anthropogenic part of greenhouse gas emissions is about 4-5%.

Of course change in CO2 level can't be directly translated into change of temperature, but still: what if the temperate just rises for 2%? If we take a region with an average temperature of 290 degrees Kelvin, that would mean an increase of 5,8 degrees (Celsius that is). Quite catastrophic.

[lindybeige]

Yes, and if it leads to no rise, that wouldn't be catastrophic. What I'd like to see is evidence.

[gregvs3]

Oh nice, you're using kelvin instead of Celsius for your percentage calculations. No one uses Kelvin except for physical chemistry - gas behavior and reaction rates. If you use celsius instead like you would if you were doing honest science - it would be: 290-270.15 = 19.85 degrees celsius, 2% of which is 0.397 degrees celsius. Hardly catastrophic.

It's that kind of junk science that really makes the environmental movement appear to be more of a religion than anything else.

[reftheviking]

you asked for arguments against your theory on soil erosion? well firstly rivers wash away more silt and soil than football or cattle ever have, so nature being nature probably has ananswer dor this.... plants. have you got a compost bin? leave it long enough and the compost breaks down into soil, so if we take the thought that the soil lost due to erosion is constntly being replaced that just leaves the question is it an equall equation? or do we need more plants, trees and vegetation?

[oliveirosdigital]

The options are:

to do the things we are doing... and then get the results we had been get in last years until now ;

Start to do diferent things than we do habitualy ... and then start to have diferent results than we had been get in last years until now

The real thing is i am going to do something diferent today, or not? Are we changing our habits What is your choice?

[oliveirosdigital]

It seems there are unlimited potentials...

NO ACTION is impossible... people are already acting ... this is not about stop acting ...

NO ACTION ... hum... May be it is the solution...

stop acting... and let Nature do the things LOL ....

[thomasbrigsted]

Your argument is a bit pathetic really.

If 98% of all scientists and the NAS and AAAS would om out and say that a deadly global volcanic eruption is imminent, I would gladly have the government spend my tax money on somthing that could accomodate such a threat.

BUT THEY DON'T!

The AAAS and the NAS as well as 98% of all scientist in the world (cross scientific research areas) do however recognize global warming.

See the difference?

[lindybeige]

98% of all scientists do not know much about the causes of climate change. The figure 98% is made up. An agency that is required to say a thing for its funding will say a thing. I prefer actual evidence. Reported opinion isn't evidence. Besides, this video is attacking the false logic of another specific video, not the issue as a whole.

[thomasbrigsted]

I'm sorry, but I think you are talking out of ignorance. The number 98% is very real.

Besides, do you know who the AAAS and NAS are?

The AAAS is the largest society of scientist in the world (with about 144000 members).

The NAS only has about 15000 members, however 1 out of 10 of these are Nobel laureates.

But please, don't take my word for it. Look them both up.

See if you can come up with two (or just one) equally big group of unbiased scientists that refute global warming.

[lindybeige]

57% is also a very real number. Science does not work by consensus. If 98% of all scientists voted that gravity does not exist, gravity would still exist. Indeed, science only progresses at all when people go against the consensus, after discovering some new evidence. Most people say (for the sake of a quiet life?) that they believe in gods - this does not make any god exist. Saying that 98% of scientists believe in X does not make X true. 98% of all scientist haven't even been asked.

[thomasbrigsted]

If I were a skeptic...

and organisations like NAS, AAAS and even Pentagon and a number of oil companies called global warming a serious issue and something that should be dealt with immidiately, then I would definitely check MY sources.

The 98% is a number given by the IPCC (who also thinks global warming is very real).

Now, tell me, who are your experts?

Which group of scientists has been able to convince you that there is no problem whatsoever with letting out greenhouse gasses like Co2.

[lindybeige]

The IPCC was set up and funded specifically to promote the idea of global warming and the role of carbon emissions in it. If it concluded otherwise, all its employees would be unemployed. Even so, it was tentative in its conclusions. It had 30 years of access to the world's best data, and still it had to draw up outrageously misleading graphs to try and show its point. Oil companies etc. say it's a problem for PR reasons 'cos belief = "good".

[thomasbrigsted]

Okay, so you're basically saying the IPCC is part of a global conspiracy.

How about the NAS and the AAAS? Are they in on the conspiracy too?

Do you even know those scientific organisations?

I'm still waiting for your society of acientific experts. Or are they too hard to round up?

[thomasbrigsted]

That's YOUR theory. But where is the "evidence" to prove it?

Why should everyone else than you present evidence?

[lindybeige]

Ha ha! What a dodge! Why didn't you reply to my other post I just sent?

The onus of proof lies with the global warming people, just as the onus of proof lies with the Christian church to prove that god exists, not with atheists to prove that he doesn't.

A field of study in which people are not allowed to falsify anything is not science.

Enough already - let us leave each other in comparative peace.

[lindybeige]

The onus of proof is on the people calling for my action based on their theory. If I demand that you go to church every week because of a god that I believe in, the onus is on me to prove that my god exists. Despite this, religions like Christianity were able to force everyone to "believe". I do not want to be forced into saying that I believe in something until I see evidence for it.

[lindybeige]

To date, none of the organisations you mention has told the public what the link is between carbon emissions and climate warming. They say "we emit more carbon" and "it's getting warmer" but what is the link? If they had evidence for a link, why would they keep it secret? Do you really not find it suspicious that they fail to mention why they think there's a link?

[thomasbrigsted]

Ok, this is eally basic stuff, but I'll explain it to you:

1. Humans emit carbon (C) through the burning of fossile fuels (e.g. oil and coal).

2. C + O2 (Oxygen) = CO2

3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means it traps the heat from the sun within Earth's atmosphere.

4. More heat means higher temperatures.

Now tell me: Who are your experts that deny these fact? Who can possibly be more credible than AAAS and NAS?

[lindybeige]

1. When Mt St Helens went pop (in er... 1981?) it emitted more CO2 than all the factories on Earth for 40 years. mankind emits less than 2% of CO2.

2. and 3. This is the theory, although even in theory CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas. The big one is water vapour. No one is dealing with that for some reason...

4. No it doesn't. Climate has feedback mechanisms. Besides, most of the planet is cooling at the moment - an inconvenient truth.

We need *evidence* linking 1. and climate change.

[Master293]

Mt. Saint Helens "popped" in 1980.

[lindybeige]

Did it? Right, thanks, I was going by memory. Interestingly, some people say that you have to use the first 40 years of the 20th C for this to be true, not the forty immediately prior to the eruption, which I think is praising through faint damnation. This was of course just one of many eruptions around the world.

[Master293]

Yeah, I would not have said anything, but I live in Washington. (The state where St. Helens resides.)

[hanskristian123]

I have a theory! But it's a bit long, and I have made some figures. Can you send me your e-mail address? And I can send the document proving you're wrong!;)

[lindybeige]

"Theory"... "proving" - one does not seem to follow from the other. Does this theory concern the need for snow-shoes for cattle?

[hanskristian123]

Point is, I have a theory which I think proves that you are wrong...

[lindybeige]

Great, well if this is so, then it will be a theory so important that it would deserve very much more than a private correspondence by e-mail. Make it public - show the world how wrong I am, save it by doing so, and then sleep with anyone you want and buy anything you want from the money and fame that would come from such a feat.

[hanskristian123]

It just a theory, Maybe I'm wrong... But i will post it when i come home from work!

I will also say that i think your videos are great, and you're funny! Maybe you can make some other "a point about ... " movies? That would be great.

[Afoxi]

How does a "theory" "prove" something? Theories can't prove anything, you need to actually have it happen in order for it to be proof.

[lindybeige]

You are quite right. You may, though, have missed the point of the video. Perhaps you need to watch the video to which this is a reply, and my follow-up video "Why women should sleep with me" in order to get the point.

[Afoxi]

Hmm... I'm not sure what happened, but that comment was actually a reply directed at someone else who wanted to send you a theory that would "prove" you wrong.

As to the point, I think it was obvious, but if not then, Mt. Doom and Sauron sealed the deal.

I will still watch the follow up anyway.

[lindybeige]

Whoops - we seemed to have had our wires crossed. Sorry.

[Afoxi]

No no, i seem to have replied to the video directly rather than to the other gentlemen, so it's bound to happen anyway.

[thomasbrigsted]

I'm not telling you what to believe, I'm merely suggesting that you investigate your sources better. For instance go to AAAS' homepage and you will find detailed explanations for the link between carbon emissions and climate warming.

GCC is not similar to proving the existence of God. This is science. And the data is right there. The data has been retrieved and interpretated by some of the best scientists on the planet and - with a few exceptions - they all agree that GCC is real and manmade.

[lindybeige]

Can you give me a specific page on which is presented hard evidence for a link between CO2 emissions and global warming?

[thomasbrigsted]

How about physics 101?

Look, I've already explained the science to you in an earlier post and told you to look up NAS and AAAS.

But I am not going to have this argument with you again, lindybeige. Because all you do is deny, deny, deny.

All you keep saying is: "I am not convinced. Give me more proof".

You can't argue with that! No one can! So go back and live in your own world of denial, where US never landed on the moon and Kennedy was shot from the grassy knoll.

[lindybeige]

Interesting. This is a standard response. Surely if you knew of a single page of evidence for what I ask, then you would simply point me to it. By this method you would instantly win the argument, so why do you not do it?  I am not asking for proof. I am asking for something very different: evidence, and this is entirely reasonable of me. I have been to the sites you mention and have found nothing, but perhaps they have for some cunning reason hidden the evidence on an obscure page.

[thomasbrigsted]

Okay, I'm getting curious here. What kind of evidence do you think would satisfy you?

- A formula - like the one I wrote below?

- A detailed geological/climatological report from one or more reputed scientists (pref. nobel leurates)?

- A signed document from the scientific community stating that global warming is real and manmade (like the IPCC report)?

Please tell me what kind of evidence you will find suitable, and I will guide you in the right direction.

[lindybeige]

Curiosity is good. - Couldn't find a formula on this page, but I did find the post with four numbered points. These just outline the theory.

- A report that presents evidence for a link is good. I have looked at many detailed reports, none of which presents any evidence for a link, save that a rise in Man-made CO2 emissions and supposed global warming are simultaneous.

- I need measurements of actual real things. A signed document from a million learned bishops is not evidence of god.

[thomasbrigsted]

Hmmm, what you are asking for is impossible.

Scientists make experiments and observe the outcome. Then they produce theories regarding the science. They don't prove anything.

Say, how would you prove the THEORY of gravity? You don't! Yet, you rely on it, because scientists have observed that when we drop something it hits the ground.

Same thing with global warming. Thousands of scientists have made observations and now most of them rely on the conclusion, it is real and partly manmade.

[lindybeige]

With gravity, measurements can be made. You can measure the speed of falling objects, and design experiments to test what factors affect this speed, and in the case of gravity the relationship is firmly established by millions of recorded observations. Indeed, planets have been discovered by making calculations based on the "laws" of gravity, and then observing the sky where a planet was predicted to be. I am not asking the impossible. I'll give you one clue: "palaeoenvironmental".

[thomasbrigsted]

You wrote: "in the case of gravity the relationship is firmly established by millions of recorded observations".

But you also wrote: "A signed document from a million learned bishops is not evidence of god"

See, how you contradict yourself?

Also, it is called the "Theory of gravity" and not the "Proof of Gravity" since people are still debating it (like good scientists should do).

Global warming is still debated but most climatologists believe it (like the theory of gravity).

[lindybeige]

Oh boy, you really don't get it do you?

There is a massive, stupendous, positively gargantuan difference between an opinion and a fact.

Observations of fact, recorded faithfully, are facts, they are data, they are evidence.

Signed documents saying "We agree to say that we believe X" are opinions, and can exist independently of facts.

So, I'll try again: do you know of any actual facts, data, evidence, for a link between a rise in Man-made CO2 emissions and global warming?

[thomasbrigsted]

When you drop a ball from a given height on planet earth, it will hit the ground

This may lead us to believe (when repeated many times) that there is something pulling the ball downwards (say gravity) and after a number of observations we may even think of a formula that describe the phenomenon.

[thomasbrigsted]

With global warming it is the same:

We have seen rises in earth's temperature, which in part is due to other factors (like sunspots, volcanoes etc.)

But all of the warming can not be explained by external factors. And since man IS letting out Co2 (through the burning of fossil fuels), it seems only reasonable that the unprecedented high temperatures are due to man.

Of cause it may not be so. Just like gravity may not exist.

[lindybeige]

I think anyone reading this exchange, possessed of a reasonable mind, would find it highly suspicious that you do not simply provide what I ask for: some evidence.

In the last century, Man has filled the air with energy in the form of radio waves and microwaves. There has been a massive rise in radio stations, mobile phones etc. By your logic it is reasonable to conclude that this explain global warming.

Why can the warming not be explained by non-Man made factors?

[thomasbrigsted]

The failings of the theory [of gravity] are obvious. Gaze up into the sky. The moon obviously rotates around the earth. You can see that. Why don't humans rotate around mountains? Why don't insects rotate around cars? Why doesn't the moon rotate around the sun? Sometimes the theory of gravity seems to work and other times not. There are obvious gaps in gravity theory. Gravitationalists cannot find the missing gravitational links.

[lindybeige]

Nice try, but this is drivel. Gravitational observations do not predict that insects would revolve around cars. Indeed, if they did, this would run counter to Newtonian laws. The moon DOES orbit the sun, of course. The Earth is far heavier than mountains, though the gravitational effect of mountains was measured in Scotland some centuries ago.

[thomasbrigsted]

To make matters worse, proponents of gravity theory hypothesize about mysterious things called gravitons and gravity waves. These have never been observed, and when some accounts of detecting gravity waves were published, the physicists involved had to quickly retract them.

[thomasbrigsted]

It is clearly a matter of the scientific establishment elite protecting their own. Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peer-reviewed journals, and scientists who propose anti-gravity quickly lose their funding. Universal gravity theory is just a way to keep the grant money flowing.

[lindybeige]

Nice try. As ever, whenever I ask the simplest question that cuts to the heart of the matter, you change the subject. Either present some actual evidence to back up your case or just give up.

[thomasbrigsted]

Every time I present you some evidence you just go: "Oh, but they are all payed off or part of a global conspiracy" (just like the anti-gravity people).

I've given you IPCC, NAS, AAAS even Pentagon, but that's not good enough for you for none of these organisations have the exact "undefined evidence" that you understand or accept.

So just forget it. Accept the obvious fact that all the experts in the world may be wrong and you "lindybeige" knows better than them.

[lindybeige]

You have not yet presented ANY evidence.

[thomasbrigsted]

There is no evidence! BECAUSE IT IS SCIENCE! Scientists make measurements and from that they produce theories.

There is no evidence for ANYTHING in the scientific world (hence my example with gravity-denial).

Don't you know anything about science?

Jeez, I thought you were smarter than that!

[lindybeige]

Wow - this is a truly spectacular posting. Thanks very much for it. It has brightened my day with its effulgent ignorance. If you think that in science there is no such thing as evidence, then you very clearly have no grasp of what science is. I think you should sit down with a nice cup of tea.

[thomasbrigsted]

Hello, my name is lindybeige, and here is my logic:

Please bring me the evidence that a tornado will hit Florida some day in the future.

No, I don't want to hear about statistical probability, the butterfly effect or geological or atmospherical interactions.

No. BRING ME THE EVIDENCE because if you fail to do so then I will know FOR A FACT that it will never happen.

Have a nice day.

[lindybeige]

You're cute. That tea seems to have helped.

[thomasbrigsted]

Show me the evidence that it has!

[lindybeige]

Good answer :-)

[PerfectChaos1212]

well i mean we shouldn't go crazy spending money to prevent it but we should use common sense to cut back on usage, maybe turn to solar power etc...... but we will all inevitably die. life existed with out us and will continue to after were dead and gone its a simple fact it seems to me that most generations from the boomers up are so terrified about mortality...something that was barely present before in history

[PerfectChaos1212]

Lol, well on a brighter side if we don't do anything and climate change is happening it wont be for another 500 years that humanity is killed off, or we evolve. and even if we do survive we still have to worry about asteroids, wars, super volcanoes, the continued shifting of the tectonic plates, natural climate change, the sun becoming a red giant and engulfing the inner planets, improper use of genetic engendering. but i believe we need to take care of the planet being sentient and all

[thomasbrigsted]

And one more thing:

All the scientists who claim global warming IS real and IS manmade also accept the fact that they may be wrong. Really, they do!

Interestingly enough I have NEVER heard you say that YOU may be wrong.

Some would call that skepticism - I call it denialism. Just like anti-gravitists or anti evolutionists.

You can't argue with that.

[lindybeige]

Of course I could be wrong. What I was arguing, however, did not require me to state this obvious thing.

I don't have to be right. The people arguing for global warming, and advocating our taking action to limit carbon emissions, they DO have to be right.

[Littlejon126]

Brilliant! Anyone who disagrees with the logic here is totally incorrect.

This same graph/logic can be used for the support of carrying a concealed firearm and its virtues. You just change action/none to carry or not, and true/false to robbed/not robbed.

My only disagreement is that it puts everything in very black and white terms, which is very much like politics; everything is either completely good always or totally evil always, which isn't necessarily true. Right? I've confused myself.

[Bloodylion101]

but if al the sand goes in the sea the sea will just take it back on land i reckon

[lindybeige]

You could be right - some sort of feedback mechanism, leading to unforeseen consequences? If you can sell the doom-and-gloom possibilities of this theory, then you should be able to get a grant to research it.

[RyderSpearmann]

Brilliant! :)

[MrDeverill]

I was thinking, dig up loads of land from the sea bed - Sea lowers (y). And put it on the already made land - land rises (y).

I should be elected or something 8-)

[hess6wi]

Just try assigning some probability values; or even see some of the other videos this guy posted. He's addressed this problem and quite a few more, I've watched the entire catalogue. That's a much more convincing case.

[SenorNeekers]

The entire reasoning is like Pascal's wager. I watched the other video, and liked yours much better. Global warming? Yeah right, it's the cattle without snowshoes.

Brilliant man, absolutely brilliant.

[hess6wi]

Sorry to be an old stick in the mud... but this isn't Pascal's wager as it is possible to assign probability values to and pay offs aren't infinite. Hence we remove the St. Petersberg problem.

[lindybeige]

Can you assign accurate probabilities based on evidence? If so, you are better informed than anyone else in the world.

[hess6wi]

Within a statistical probability it can be done.