How It All Ends: Risk Management (pt 7 of 7)

[SSedmak]

Please revisit the credibility of the economic experts you talked to in the wake of the recent recession. Did they warn of recession in 2006? If not, then they have zero credibility. Zero.

Because there were many economists who did predict the recession in 2006, but the "credible" economists laughed at them in public.

So, who really has credibility? It's not just a popularity contest. Accuracy of predictions matters.

[SSedmak]

@SSedmak To clarify: several economists in 2006 predicted that a recession would start in the vicinity of early 2008. They were massively ridiculed by the "credible" economists who saw nothing but good times ahead.

The "credible" economists also thought that unemployment would stay under 8% if Obama's stimulus plan was passed. The "credible" economists continue to make bad prediction after bad prediction, but are never called out for what they are: biased shills for politicians and banks.

[rabiesman888]

awesome videos you remind me of dwight from the office in this one lol

[RJCadinho]

One question:

1- Besides forwarding this great insight view, how can we participate in helping?

Thank you

[LEONECOR]

This series has not eliminated my skepticism, but is a far better attempt than I usually see. I am ignorant about the science, my skepticism originates from they way in which climate change believers argue their case. They seem to seek to scare and intimidate rather than persuade. This series avoids both traps. It seeks to persuade. Ultimately, however, it rests on the authority of two scientific organisations. I fear that such organisatios are as vulnerable to lobbying and inertia as any other

[alexkvaskov]

like he said, aaas and nas have very small (relatively speaking) advertising budgets. who wants to influence and pay money to an institution that doesn't have a traditionally large advertising/consumer base under it? not saying that they aren't lobbied, but large news and corporate networks with huge advertising budgets are generally where climate change advertising (both pro and con) go.

[alexkvaskov]

Plus many of the world's other most respected and credible scientific think tanks and organizations from G20 countries agree with the NAS and AAAS on climate change. It is genuinely a global scientific consensus. Shouldn't we listen closely to what all these eggheads have to say?

[handplanty]

@ LEONECOR: (1) A large group of very credible insitutions recently collected all the data that could help indicate climate change (bird migrations, reproduction times, flower bloom, everything), over 29,500 data sets and called the report:

"attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change"

I'm not asking you to evaluate the science behind it or even examine the content of the article. You asked for the sources, so please check out the authors and their souces too.

[handplanty]

@ LEONECOR: (2) Just Google the copypasted name of the article and it should pop right up, even if it redirects you to Google Scholar. The names and insitutions of the authors are given in the footnotes on the first page, the rest of the sources are given in the rest of the article.

Also I recommend checking out NASA's Terra flights and their Living With A Star program (one more gold standard besides NAS).

Yes, I do realize I'm 3 months late, I just like to help people ;)

[gazmaticc]

hey america!!! don't be stupid. climate change is real. the earth is getting hotter. if u don't believe me...take a trip to the Caribbean. think it is warm up dere... don't come down here. economically...climate change is ruinin our business wen noone sees the reason to actually go to da tropics wen dey have "amable" conditions up dere.... don't take my word for it. go to the tropics. its bluddy well hot down here...

[juxstapossible]

Heavy stuff man. Clearly demonstrated, well cited, well done, off to bed them Ill finish the rest tommorow

[rashkavar]

Excellent series of videos; I'm glad to see someone trying to be proactive without resorting to appeals to faith or emotion rather than logic (I know I'll get burned for spurning faith, so I'll say it now: faith have their place. It is not here.)

The comment about that economist with his "non-finite copper:" I've heard that quote in classes (as a mining engineer), and what I think he was trying to say is that copper can be reused - there will never be no copper left. Just poor/spin wording.

[itchynights]

@rashkavar

But even if copper is being reused, there is still a finite amount of it. Maybe he meant to say we can infinitely reuse finite copper supplies?

[rashkavar]

@itchynights

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Perhaps I'm guilty of poor wording, as well.

Realistically speaking, though, if we have all of the copper in the earth's crust extracted and in the recycling loop, we'll have an essentially infinite supply for (I'm tempted to say centuries, but I'll go with decades) to come. There's a lot of copper (and any other metal of significance, for that matter) out there. I'm sure we'll eventually reach a point where we need more at any point in....

[rashkavar]

time than is available from earth, but we're nowhere near that level yet, and by the time we are, we'll likely have secured other sources like asteroid mining colonies and the like.

Of course, all this is dependant on our ability to survive the impending climate disaster (whether or not it was caused by our primitive industrial exploits).

[KnittyGrittyNatch]

I'm glad you explained Pascal's wager. I was wondering about that and thought, because this is based on fact and not theory, it was not so similar to Pascal's wager.

[mthemaniac]

I like your presentations, very good job! I still think activity on the sun has more to do with it than we do. Also, I would suggest adding the possible advantages of global warming to the net sum of that second column. What if warming doesn't mean the end but rather better conditions for agriculture etc?

mk

[kuraiken]

As for your assumption with solar activity, I recommend you to search the net a bit. There's quite some interesting stuff about it, especially if you compare the Venus and the planet Earth and see just how solar activity and greenhouse effect factor in. Since the temperatures we can survive in are a rather slim field, compared to the temperatures in existence (such as the sun temperature or the temperature of pluto).

[kuraiken]

(2)You might especially be interested in the faint-young-sun paradox, and the temperatures of the Venus which should be far below the temperatures of the earth, since only 130 watt/m^2 reach venus's surface and heat the planet compared to earth's 242 watt/m^2, since the Venus is covered by clouds so that 80% of the solar radiation (645 watt/m^2 is the original value) gets reflected by the clouds. Instead of being colder then earth however, it's g.h.e. effect heats it up to 460 celcius.

[arch1190]

moaning glory.. are you fucking kidding me? whats it like knowing that .0001% of the population is stupider than you?

[alexkvaskov]

how about 0.0000001%? yes, he is an extremely ignorant imbicile

[SinnottAnthony]

Objection!

You have to say it like Phoenix Wright!

[Sentry353]

I have found your videos to be very entertaining. Your views are very clinical and well thought out as with all individuals with a scientific tought process. So far, the problems I have with the whole thing are end results. Will we all cease to exist when GCC reaches it's tipping point or continue to exist? Reguardless I think we will. Maybe it's time for a few billion of us to cease to exist. After all, isn't that the real reason for GCC in the first place? Global overpopulation?

[SanteDane]

This is correct. Many people bring up the problem of over population but don't make the connection to climate change. Many others don't see over population as a problem at all. I myself have an idea for attempting to control population, but it is pretty critical.

[arch1190]

Jesus christ. how is his refusal to address whether we will all die or not a 'problem'? I'm sure we will survive, because people will reform once the effects of their actions become more tangible.

Really... you want global warming to indiscriminately kill half the world's population? how about we just kill the fatass pseudointellectual 16 year olds like you who's moms drive them halfway down the block so they can buy more cheetos

[Sentry353]

Hey, I like Cheetos! Not as much as Pringles, but like them I do.

GCC is just another way of gaining all encompassing control of the masses. The world's not going to end "at the tipping point".

Explain to me why they are calling for spending $47T globally to combat GCC, but have only spent $500B over the last decade plus to find and track killer asteroids. GCC = half the population gone. Asteroid = nothing gets to live.

Why?

All this guy is suggesting is speed up the process.

[alanschu14]

I pay to insure my vehicle because I am legally required to ;)

[mdiem]

I'm so in the mood for some cookies now.

[travmike151]

hellz yeaa:]

[Raiker12321]

I'm just a high schooler, but I think that anybody who needed more convincing than the first "The most terrifying video" and the "How it all ends" video are just plain stupid.

i believe that everyone who wasn't convinced by those first two videos IS stupid!

[mdiem]

I'm sure your high school science teacher can show you an experiment with a jar of CO2 and a thermometer too. Lab experiments aren't everything, but sometimes it does help to see things for yourself.

[Mysin171985]

I think what you do is awesome, I still think the answer is.. (and please prove me wrong) removal of the monetary system, and the intellegent manegment of the earths resorces. (sorry if I have spelled a word wrong and/or give a false sence of presumption)

[shutemdwn]

i cant find the cookies and punch :(

[wonderingmind42]

Yeah, budget cuts.  Sorry.

[wwickeddogg]

We pay for car insurance because the law requires it(NY).

The other problem with your analogy is that insurance is more like gambling because the insurer is an institutional player and you know that they are always going to win. On average you would be better off paying your insurance premium into a savings account.

Preventing global warming is way more important than insurance (which is a scam).

[TimTrimT]

Being American living in Europe for years- as someone who has had his ass saved by insurance TWICE (once in each country), you're wrong about insurance. 2 things:

1. If I had been paying into a savings acct. no WAY would I have had enough $ to put my life back together.

2. Here in DE insurance is universal and cheap. My car and home together are under €1,000/yr with all options: NICE car, BIG home. No freeloaders = a BARGAIN + peace of mind.

The US system's screwed, not the idea.

[wwickeddogg]

If the insurance company is not making money or is subsidized by the government, then that changes the calculation. My health insurance is $1,000 per month.

[TimTrimT]

Wow, I feel your pain. I could never afford health insurance in the US. Now I pay under under 1,500 per year (granted no family). Tax rate here is a bit higher than the US, but the standard of living is so high I don't care!

Spending most of my life in the US I now marvel at how effective media propaganda is at demonizing the word "socialized". But if you think about it the risks we all share as we move through life, they are exactly the things to socialize to ensure fair participation...

[TimTrimT]

It breaks my heart Wwickeddogg that you must foot the bill for all those who can't afford (or aren't willing to afford) health insurance. But it really works well when everyone contributes.

[Foriya]

I'll ask this simple question even though i expect no response.

why does it break your heart to watch someone else help someone in need?

[TimTrimT]

I'm not sure you read the whole thread.. Or maybe you don't understand... But when good guys pay insurance and their premiums are doubled or tripled to cover the cost of taking care of those without insurance..

Well that breaks my heart! It's unjust.

The system needs to encourage everyone to pay a fair share - not just gouge those willing to pay for the benefit those unwilling or unable to pay.

[Foriya]

woops i read the thread wrong my bad :P, and i totaly agree with you the US is out of control.

now i'm embarssed :|

[mdiem]

If insurance worked more like it was supposed to instead of a profit-driven racket, then insurance would be like lots of people putting money into a savings account and earning more interest than the sum of them individually.

[wwickeddogg]

A lot of people make the mistake of believing that insurance is actually socialism. Insurance is a scam in which the insurance company tricks you into betting against yourself.

Socialism is where people all pay money in and they all receive protection against potential disasters both personal and societal.

The insurance industry is a business so they must charge more than necessary in order to make a profit. They are profiting from your fear of death.

[elbuggo]

The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda.

- MICHAEL CRICHTON

BTW, you are doing a fine job indoctrinating kids to be emotional enviros. You are helping them removing doubt so that they can believe and feel it. I think you here have proved that science can just be another religion.

[DickMcPenis]

Why don't you present an argument then? I mean seriously, you can bash this guy all you want, but if you're not going to present a valid argument, then you're wasting your breath.

[elbuggo]

I did. Argument = premise + deduction + conclusion.

BTW, can't you see that the video is propped with Logical fallacy/Appeal to authority?

I understand that you want to believe. I'm sure you can feeel that you are right. Suppress doubt, and you get convinced, like in religion. But then it becomes a faith.

[slyhippo]

HAH! I knew you were racing sports! Ze has a good style for argument, nice that you picked it up.

[ForbiddenDisclosure]

I just watched 1 though 7; I think I need a hug - perhaps therapy.

Alas, perhaps I'll just 'go wild.'

Although Gr-4 was the best 14 years of my life, I've quite enjoyed your message thus far.

I'll keep watching.

[KID433321]

did your friend actually die from driving drunk?

[wonderingmind42]

Yes, shortly after high school. He was the passenger, and both he and the driver (both classmates from high school) were drunk. The diver survived with minimal injuries. My friend was killed when the tree impinged on his side of the car.

Blug.

[Reproductivist]

Both sides of yes is much worse than the corresponding other side IMO and climate change is probably better than no climate change too, at least for my country. If for no other reason, that it would hurt other countries more if they get flooded (Norway is impervious) or waste money on fighting it. The best solution is not do it yourself, but let other countries squander their position on the geo-political stage...

[olafsirpab]

in no way would the erratic climate be good for any country. The colder parts of the world will be almost equally screwed.

[calamariaxo]

You realize global warming will fuck up the gulf stream, thus making Norway pretty much a big block of ice?

Yes, I'm Norwegian too.

[Reproductivist]

It wont be that cold since it is close to the shore, but I wouldn't mind it getting almost as cold as Alaska, then we'd get more snow, fewer farmers and become a less attractive place to live for skinny whiny people and immigrants. I welcome a colder climate as it favors big, stocky or fat people.

[calamariaxo]

Yeash, the shore. The delicious shoreline that will be non-existent?

Not to mention the cozy winter storms and epic rioting and warring over the few resources left, sounds like a nice place to live.

[Reproductivist]

New copper is not finite because it increases all the time because more is made and come to the surface all the time and since people extract it and keep it from being swallowed by the earth it increases. Also if the universe is (near) infinite, the amount of copper is also (near) infinite.

[manofoss]

I have gotten more replies than I expected to my comment(s) to this video.I just read through them and saw that not a single one actually argued against my main point, which was that nothing what so ever can give anyone the right to initiate the use of force.Because of this I would like to make my point clear: No one can ever have the right to violate rights.I'd also like to pose a question:What can give someone the right to violate rights?

Fore those of you who disagree, please post arguments.

[manofoss]

And please post those arguments as replies to my comment so that I get an e-mail notifying my of your argument.

-Thank you.

PS: And yes; I do mean LOGICAL arguments - based on reason. I'm not interested in Kantian, Hegelian or any other form of mystical "arguments"...

[TheJuke]

I wish my science teachers would have been as charismatic as you instead of an absent minded coot that electrocutes him self while lecturing electrical safety.

I want my children to attend your school.

Good Job!

[adamdm87]

On the argument about human's "hosing ourselves": groups have people in many places and times through human history have created ecological disaters that have caused their downfall, simply through short-sighted action and maintaining what seemed acceptable standards.

Just check out either of "Collapse" by Jared Diamond, or "A new green history of the world" by Clive Ponting

Wonderingmind42, I like the work you've done with this whole expansion.

[ImperatorZor]

Was Giant Mutant Space Hamsters your innane threat to go agains the Global warming chart, or something someone sugjested in discrediting it?

[manofoss]

(a legitimate means for compelling the big companies to change is boycott - not government legislation and/or taxation, i.e. initiation of force)

[TempestStormwind]

Incidentally, he goes into that in How It All Ends: Get What You Want and How It All Ends: No Holds Barred.

Yes, he's that thorough.

[manofoss]

Yes, I have in fact just finished watching "Get What You Want. I still say that whatever science says it is up to political philosophy, not science, to decide whether government should take any action. My argument is still that no government has the right to initiate the use of force - their only legitimate job is to protect individuals against anyone who initiates the use of force (police, military and courts of law).

[TempestStormwind]

I don't think that instituting simple carbon legislation would count as "force". It's not like the government bashes in your door and blows up your car; all they'd do is implement a minor law and let the market do the rest. (A simple example is a "feebate" system at car lots: Within a weight class, you pay a fee on inefficient cars and get a rebate on efficient ones. You're not forced into a smaller car or anything, just nudged toward a more efficient one in the same class.)

[TempestStormwind]

And on a related note, I agree with you that the government's job is to protect its people.

Interestingly, the military has called climate change a threat to national security, based on science's knowledge of the physical world and the social scientists' understanding of human behaviour in it.

WM42 already discusses the 2003 Pentagon statement, but there's also this one (written by eleven admirals and generals in 2007):

tinyurl com/2zc57x

[manofoss]

"Interestingly, the military has called climate change a threat to national security, based on science's knowledge of the physical world and the social scientists' understanding of human behavior in it." If this is true (I don't doubt it) it would be a good reason to donate money to the army - for those who can afford it - so it will be well equipped to meet any such threat when/if it materializes.

PS: I'm glad we agree.

[TempestStormwind]

Follow the link I provided.

I'm paraphrasing the executive summary here (500 character limit), but they recommended:

1. Policy should accept climate change as real,

2. Take a leadership role to stabilize climate change at levels, BEFORE it becomes disruptive,

3. Help other nations deal with what damage will happpen.

That's it.

Everything about PREVENTING a threat, rather than REACTING to it.

Proactive, not reactive, action is needed here.

[manofoss]

All I'm saying is that no one has the right to violate rights. Any proactive measure that does not violate rights, I'm all for it! I don't want the climate to go pear shaped at all. My point is that no one has the right to violate rights, let (and encourage) anyone (to) do what ever they want - as long as no one violate rights. That is my whole point and argument.

[TempestStormwind]

No one may have the right to violate rights, but they will in certain situations.

This is the premise behind martial law. I don't like it one bit, but I recognize that it happens.

One need only look at Katrina to see what natural disasters did to society.

'Rights' as you see them are going to be violated. The question is, which is more acceptable: A minor violation of property, or a major violation of virtually all rights (including property) under martial law?

[manofoss]

Rights as I see them are held by individuals. In a civilized society we delegate our right to self-defense to a neutral third party, a government. So defending the rights of the individual citizens is the only right the government has. The right to self-defense on behalf of citizens. Anyone who violates rights are criminals. From this you may deduce what I think on matters such as those in your comment.

[manofoss]

It would be perfectly proper for a car dealer to do this, but not for a government - that would mean forcing, by a "minor" law, the dealer to adjusting his prices. By passing law such as this the government initiates the threat of force (the consequences of braking such a law being forced upon him/her). Equally valid for any and all customers to refrain from buying such inefficient cars - no government interference needed.

[TempestStormwind]

This operates on the assumption that the market system will do what's good for everyone of its own volition.

I don't doubt that it *can* do this. However, historically, it did not.

The classic example is lead-based paint (how many more people would have been crippled before market forces set in? Is that an acceptable price to pay? What if you were one of the crippled?), but in a climate context CFCs are more applicable.

Look up the Montreal Protocol. What we're suggesting is similar.

[manofoss]

"This operates on the assumption that the market system will do what's good for everyone of its own volition."

Look, all I'm saying is that nothing can give anyone the right to violate rights.

As for a free market doing anything of it's own volition; a market system is not an entity and has no volition. As for market forces; you, are a market force. But my main point is that no one has the right to violate rights.

[manofoss]

Just pitching an idea (somehow I doubt it'll work but stranger things have happened): Gather all the evidence and take it to court, make a case against those who emit CO2 and such. I don't have the right to conduct activities in my back yard which would lead to toxic fumes drifting into my neighbor's garden. Kind of the same on a much smaller scale isn't it?

[TempestStormwind]

And what happens if they find those who emit CO2 are guilty? Who's going to stop them?

By your own logic, we do not have the right to initiate force against them. And make no mistake, we WOULD be initiating it here: For the emitters, it's business as usual: before CO2 concentration reached levels this high, emissions weren't considered a threat.

There will be situations where initiating force is needed. It's the only way to truly defend YOU from MY liberties, and vice versa.

[manofoss]

"There will be situations where initiating force is needed."

You might want to take a look at history and see who else have used that argument - and see what followed when such an argument was accepted...

[manofoss]

"And make no mistake, we WOULD be initiating it here"

To initiate force against those who initiated its use is a contradiction in terms.

"...the only way to truly defend YOU from MY liberties, and vice versa."

Since no one has the right (or liberty) to violate rights (or liberties) no one needs any defense against anyone's liberties. That's not according to MY logic - just logic.

[TempestStormwind]

Until CO2 concentration reached a point where it started having an effect, emitting CO2 couldn't have been considered initiation of force, any more than walking forward is.

However, due to an external change, an action that wasn't force in the past is causing a problem. (The walker is about to hit a cliff, say, only he's carrying you.)

Do we do nothing, because we can't initiate force, and hope the walker wises up? Or do we get the walker to change direction through minor force?

[manofoss]

"Minor force" is still force.

Please answer the following question:

Do you think that anyone has the right to violate rights? (To put it another way) Do you think that forcing others is, or can be, good?

[TempestStormwind]

I do not think that we have the right to violate rights. However, I'm not so naiive as to believe that this will stop people from violating rights. They'll do it, even if they have no right to do so. So what do you do?

You buy car insurance because it's the law. Is that denying you your right to property? And how much of your property would it end up saving you if, through no fault of your own, someone else crashes into your car?

Prime example of risk mitigation through regulation.

[TheRealArchAngel]

*Gather all the evidence and take it to court, make a case against those who emit CO2 and such* You do understand the difference between circumstantial evidence, what the ICCP,NAS,and AAAS reports'opinions based on correlated data are,&"slam dunk" direct hard evidence is,Yes? The Defender would show that Carbon Dioxide is rather timid when exposed to heat(like a vampire to sunlight) and will either expand rapidly or move away from heat (not absorb) with "exibit" demostrations. Case dismissed.

[manofoss]

wonderingmind42. Well, I made it this far. I'm taking i brake now and will return to the remaining videos later.

I'm even more impressed with the effort you've put in to this now than I was.

You present some pretty compelling arguments, for now my comment is:

Even granting that climate change is man made and might result with "a Mad Max world" I would still like to point out that it doesn't give anyone the right to initiate the use of force (mandatory regulations, taxations etc.)

[ImperatorZor]

Oh please, we use force all the time to benifit our society, we fund public mantatory schools with tax dollars which, as any student of history will tell you, had a major positive effect on society, we don't allow people to run into crouded rooms yelling FIRE! for shits and giggles. Your kind of thinking would have us sit back on our asses while Hitler slaughtered Jews for no better reason than his delusion of race.

[manofoss]

Oh please, are you actually saying that to INITIATE the use of force against others is proper? -actually that it is good to INITIATE the use of force.

(I quote from the comment you're replying to):

"...to point out that it doesn't give anyone the right to initiate the use of force..." Notice the word 'initiate'?

PS: "Your kind of thinking would have us sit back on our asses while Hitler slaughtered Jews for no better reason than his delusion of race." No it wouldn't.

[ImperatorZor]

On the note of Hitler, little thing called Total War, in which all resources are dedicated towards winning said war. This means the creation of vast standing armies, which need to be equiped, trained, armed and payed, which requires Taxation to fund. Don't tell me we could have stopped Hitler without Force. One of the primary duties of a government is to use force when nessisary, a government without force is WORTHLESS.

[manofoss]

INITIATE. INITIATE. INITIATE.

Is that clear enough for you now?

But fine. I say no one has the right to violate rights. You obviously think government has the right to violate rights.

I say no one has the right to INITIATE the use of force - you seemingly have no clue what the word 'initiate' means.

[shewantsrevenger22]

The bullshit cough was the best lol

[stuffsyaneed2know]

It's kind of sad how the number of views gradually decrease as we move through this part of the expansion pack. We really do have ADD in this society.

[bikerzuman]

So much of America is saying: "I am going to have to give up my (insert model of gas guzzling muscle car or SUV here) if I support action on climate change." The consequences of the upper left corner are personal and tangible, and the consequences of the lower right are communal and vague. Without leadership, our democracy will allow us to continue betting against the odds. Thank you for being a leader.

[zanash]

Ok so I agree with the fact that global warming is a problem, yet in this section I find a niggling little thing that annoys me. First of all the scientist is always wrong because he is wrong once, however stupid that mistake. Also the use of an anecdote is emotional and shouldn't be in an arguement that holds great support unbias provable sources.

[zanash]

edit: also the use...is imo emotional blackmail...an arguement that puts great sway in provable unbias sources.

[danmarkedman]

i agree.

someone start making some fear mongering commercials for our side.

[ExpandsInWater]

Sir, you are my hero.

[qordnwn]

good video, lol. I'm gonna put them all on my ipod and watch them

[kriptonis]

you are mean...i can't copy/past the links in the end of this video...you're forcing me to type them....you bad bad person!

[TempestStormwind]

Manpollo (dot) Org has all of the videos available for download, plus the scripts and more.

[RoelGeurtsen]

at least ure honnest!!

[wanderingmind21]

I insure my car.

[jthomp3120]

objections overruled!

[Saintlyghost]

Bless you for that sneeze