I've disabled comments because it turns out that there's a hole in the argument presented in "The Most Terrifying Video" big enough to drive a Hummer through, and the argument has been UPDATED to address that hole.
So instead of rehashing the debate here, go watch the new version titled "HOW IT ALL ENDS" for what has so far turned out to be an IRREFUTABLE argument for action on climate change. Sound impossible?
Then ignore Mann altogether and look at the other studies that all show the same results. (Yes, the current IPCC report, tinyurl com/2xl4c6, STILL SHOWS HOCKEYSTICK GRAPHS. Just not Mann's.)
The argument on Mann wasn't about the blade. It was about the straightness of the stick, due to the uncertainties involved in distant paleoclimate. Even after it was corrected, the blade still stands -- and others, wholly independent of Mann, get the same results.
The same Wegman who signed THIS: tinyurl com/325yf9
In spite of this having no foundation in the actual data: tinyurl com/2xskf7
Now, setting that aside, even if you completely throw out the Mann hockey stick that McKitrick ("let's use Celsius in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law") and Michaels ("let's confuse degrees and radians") attacked, you're STILL left with hockey sticks...
And hockey sticks that show a MWP and LIA without changing Mann's conclusion: tinyurl com/7avvb
No, I haven't, because I'm not qualified to interpret it. It'd just be an exercise in Excel with no conclusions.
But you and I are qualified to ignore Mann's data altogether, and even the data from any group Mann's been involved in, if you think his isn't worth using. There are other groups to check.
If you're so keen on plotting data and pretending to be a climatologist, try it that:
It's not rocket science you know. You don't need to be a climatologist to know that when the temperature goes down it's cold and when it goes up its hot.
Why do you think the IPCC dropped Mann's hockey stick like a hot potato ? F-R-A-U-D
Stop talking about Mann. I'm not supporting him, his work, or his graph.
I'm talking about the others, such as Crowley and Lowery (2000), Briffa et al (2001), Esper, Cook, and Schweingruber (2002), Jones et al (1998), Moberg et al (2005), Pollack, Huang and Shen (1998), and Oerlemans (2005).
They illustrate the same blade, and to my knowledge haven't been attacked by McKitrick/Michaels (Mann's vocal critics).
I hadn't read Beck's. Thanks for the link, I'll look into it.
However, I'd like to note that 21st Century Science and Technology is published by Lyndon LaRouche, who is guilty of criminal fraud and believes modern science is a conspiracy against human potential. Furthermore, the paper lacks a peer-review process and has simply parroted known skeptic and former tobacco shill Fred Singer more than once without citation. I would not consider it anywhere near as credible as any of these:
I was in the process of digging up URLs to the publicly-available papers I cited earlier, but I found out that all of them have all of their data available for free at a single website:
ncdc noaa gov/paleo/recons html
There's even others I missed. Just ignore any one with Mann in it and you'll nicely sidestep your issue.
Hell, plot 'em raw. My point still holds: You'll get a sharp blade for the 20th century.
Are you in favor of the turning all economic policy over to the Council of Economic Advisors? Should we cede all regulation of carbon emissions (CEs) over to the IPCC/UN? If we don't impose a worldwide government enforcement mechanism there are gapping collective action problems in your argument for reducing CEs. The costs of GCC worst-case scenarios are scary, but isn't the worst case scenario for creating a global governance model (massive reduction in liberty) to deal with GCC also scary?
This is addressed already. I would suggest you look at How It All Ends, which is his full version of this argument.
Specifically, your claims show up in How It All Ends: Risk Management and How It All Ends: Get What You Want. Check those two ones out after watching How It All Ends, and you'll get your answer along with all of the reasoning behind it for you to refute.
my science teacher has been talking about this alot lately. im really interested and i agree with you. even through we dont have PROOF..there is a chance and the outcome of our future if we arnt true..and we do not take action..it Bad..so why dont we take action just in case..
... Keep in mind though there are few things that we could not turn off like policing and defensive...but what if we closed up shops for a month.. daycares...insurance companies and other facilities that we can live without for a month. What if all governments within there own nations did this...what kind of impact on the Earth would that be?
... would it reverse some things and let Earth heal naturally before we started raping her of her energy? Would that planet by pass us and be destroyed by the sun? I can tell you what would happen if we stopped using so much energy we would take time off work which can be good for those that are stressed maybe give all of us time to think of more solutions... we could spend time with our children before THE END...
recently saw a video about planet X and that it will swing by earth and possibly cause climate changes or another theory is that is, what has caused climate change and we our attracting this planet to us... so what if we stopped!!!! WHAT IF WE STOPPED USING ENERGY ...kind of like turning off the beaken of light so that we can't be seen...What would happen if we did that... would that slow things down enough to give us time...
Ok... I am leaning to the side of we are attracting climate change... ever action has a reaction right? every equation that has variables can be changed if the variables are changed therefore changing the end result... so I've been on the internet looking around at various theories and simple news reports on what is happening on our earth and beyond... we are simply attracting too much heat... too much energy..
You are awesome! I tried showing this video to my friends, they bashed it. They suck... I mean, you make great points and you can contradicts everyone's conterpoints. Why do people feel the need to bash on someone who's trying to help out people? Just... wow. :D Thanks man, you rock!
What's more likely is that people aren't trying to bash others, they're trying to defend their own beliefs. Which is only human -- almost no one likes to find out they're wrong.
This is why science trains people to try to be neutral, and let the evidence shape their opinions. (For a particularly dramatic example, see youtube. com/watch?v=upA9f7yTpIc)
But thanks for spreading the videos around; this information (especially How It All Ends) needs to get out.
I have no idea who you are. But I am glad I came across your videos.You make so many good points.One being science is not always certain, and how it is based on measurement.And how scienctist acknowledge their equipment is not perfect, etc, etc. You are awesome. I've seen a few of your videos thus far.Which means we have to take action in one of those 4 boxes.I think its better to be ready for whatever scientists are predicting from their measurements than not be ready at all for anything.
Here is a fact that should be somehow verifiable: there are so much journalists contradicting global warming, when actually the whole scientific community agree on the worst case scenario... Seems to be a lot of desinformation in USA, to keep the people confused about this subject.
Thanks to guys like you man, things are changing for a better: heard some political decisions have been made lately in UK, let's hope we'll see public opinion make this spread around the world!
But why should we worry about saving the planet when we have oil to steal and gay people to keep from getting married?! Who cares if we're destroying our species' hopes for a future...we teach evolution in our schools! But seriously, thanks for helping me respond to morons and republicans (as if there's a difference). I wish I had you as a science teacher. I love blowing shit up too.
People are too stupid to watch 10 minutes of information affects their world. They would rather be watching greys anatomy. Cmon who wants to asses the risk of armegeddon when we could be watching McDreamy? Ps. This guy is eccentric.. and i like it.
What i believe really happped is yes there was global cooling they tryed to fix it and made global warming,what will be next, so i'm not saying anything about wether there is GCC but that they have no hope of fixing to only to make it worse
Here the the thing, it use to be global cooling, so a bunch of scientist got together and told us what need to be done,and here we are 30 years later and now they say we have global warming we were wrong about the cooling
I never said i did. "leading scientist" don't don't have a good track record whe comes to global problems. They have tried to fiz it before and have admited that they may have made it worse, i say no second chance.
There is no point in discouraging people trying to rally together and make an attempt to stop GCC before it gets worse. It is counter productive, and if we discover we can't stop it, then we can prepare to "avoid the runaway train." You don't hide from problems just because there is a chance that you can't solve them. There is always a difference in certainty, but like his argument, it's about the best action to take despite the uncertainty.
We don't know if this is a "runaway" train. We can't even figure out if GCC is caused by us, yet alone know if it is unstoppable. Why avoid trying to stop it and let it run wild when there is good chance we could stop it. If it is caused by us, then we can counter-act our previous actions and stop GCC. If it wasn't caused by us, who is to say we can't change counter-act it anyways?
Correction: The overwhelming consensus within the scientific community is that GGC is caused by us. It's only really still a "debate" in forums such as this.
Correction: The overwhelming consensus within the scientific community is that GGC is caused by us. It's only really still a "debate" in forums such as this.
Having just heard B. Clinton today @ UCLA (pls don't go off on any tangents)...one of your assumptions is incorrect. So far, the countries that have met or superseded their Kyoto Agreement goals have found their economies to be growing not diminishing(ie: Denmark and G. Britain). Amer's median income has dropped over 4% under this admin. US is not actively pursuing comprehensive changes to combat GCC. It's erroneous to presume there will be economic depression if these changes are made.
Isn't it also worth considering the possibility that any actions we do take now will be insufficient to stop GCC? If so, shouldn't we really be discussing the idea that we should act to survive the changes that do occur?
Better to get people out of the way of a runaway train than leap out in front to try and stop it.
seen all 3, keep the grid, don't rely just on argument or science, most people need an engaging person, which you are.
potential additional arguments to keep, anecdote about your prof and it doesn't matter (overwhelming scale of problem), FBI example - connect the dots, controlled spending won't tank the economy.
The orginal video is almost viral! I first watched it 5 days ago with 1,140,000 hits. Today 30/10/07 the number of views are 1,425,000. It is already mushrooming.
i want to point out some stuff that you do to make them controversial without having to be contoversial about CC.1.you start by saying "whats the worst that could happen" in video 1 and in video3 end up saying "what have we got to lose" is that so diferent? 2.you say that you have a way to overcome the scientific contoversie with a "new" argument and end up asking us to trust you and science oraganizations.
THANKS FOR YOUR VIDEOS. I too am a teacher. I have the same conversations about evolution and human population growth as well as climate change. I teach environmental studies, biology and earthscience. Your logic and debate style are tight --- keep it up ---We all need to hear it. I will show your videos in my classes. Thanks Again
ok, i believe that this was a much more mature way of handling the criticism. although the other two were pretty funny...you have my support all the way. i believe that you should have the chance to express this argument globally!!!
You are wrong, American dollars are no longer backed by gold. In the past they use to, but not anymore, due to the implement of the Federal Reserve Bank. Check out Zeitgeist to learn more about that.
Never say die! Please do the theoritical offshore wind only aproach. Complete with energy storage, nature saving, reforestation coal sequestration, ect. It would only cost about "an extra pack of cigs" per day for 30 yrs. The numbers are rather easy. And please don't forget to boycot fashion corndogism and (part of) China (because they have to pay too)
why can't the all the federal governments just in the world just make more money
for the rest of us poor ass people to buy more stuff like solar panels and shit like that
whats the problem with just giving out more money its just paper
hmm wait could it have anything to do with trees but then again they can make money out of something else right lol other than that i have know idea why they can't ??
Intelligent decesions CAN be made with complete uncertainty so long as you can rank the possible outcomes. (Measurement is not required!!!)
Play-It-Safe: Choose the action with the best worst case scenario.
Gamblers-Strategy: Choose the action with the best possible scenario.
The only point I believe he has made is that given complete uncertainty, the play-it-safe method is the only RESPONSIBLE method for making this decesion.
Excuse me? Science implies uncertainty? Wow so much for being a teacher, somebody who probably has never read Plato's Republic. Perception --> Hypothesis --> Limited Grasp --> Understanding, that's how knowledge works.
Adamn: No, it is you who have a poor grasp of (philosophy of) science. You do not need absolute knowledge to have knowledge. All scientific knowledge (and arguably ALL knowledge) is probabilistic. Please disprove this rationally if you can.
Umm, do I have to spell this out for you? Only absolute knowledge counts as knowledge, because knowledge is a foundationalist structure. Granted, certain forms of scientific knowledge are suscept to skepticism (scepticism). For instance, a mathematical proof with absolutely certainty is knowledge.
It's so obvious that a lot of people who come here to criticize the guy haven't even watched the previous videos. You keep bringing up points that he has already answered. Do your homework, lazy bums!
If global warming does occur, maybe we could harness the increasing storms with windmills and boom! ...there's our clean energy to reverse global warming! Just a weird thought I had.
As I said before, there are many things we as individuals do, and do not do. By following the instructions of those who promote action in prevention of GCC, we are already doing something, which will have an undeniable effect. Littering less, for example, has an undeniably positive effect on the environment.
Actions without understanding? Mainstream population has been and continues to be informed about the dangers of GCC and about measures that can be taken, that, altough seemingly insignificant, can do so much if everyone does it. As for no one knowing what should be done, saying something like that is assuming that the only things that can be done involve grand majestic government interventions of some kind.
It's not that we don't know about GCC. we hear about everyday. It that these leading scientist don't know what they are talking about. I am sure that they will only make things worse, and have no hope of fixing anything.
Here is the thing you say that neither you nor i are qualified to bedate GCC, and i would tend to agree. I also think that no one is even the scientist know engough. 30 years or so ago leading experters decided that we were harming the invorment with lead that we use to put in gas. Now they did convince the goverment to remove it from the gas and now all gas is unleaded. Here is the kicker the removal of the lead made the envirment worse, the lead actually was causing global cooling.
I really have to say that this is a great series of Videos and you make some valuable points.Hopefully this will get some more people to understand that Global warming is taking place. Good Job keep it up! :D
I like your ideas but I only wish that we could somehow make this Manpollo Project possible by sheer manpower alone. Your videos did change some of my views on Climate Change and I agree completely that something has to be done. I'm only skeptical on just what has to be done because I don't think that anyone really knows what to do.
urgh... lol there was more that I wanted to say, lol dont worry it wasent mean or immature, just that I wanted to see if you could touch on these subjects and if they have a small part to play in global warming...
anyone interested in seeing discenting opinions - google "Climate change: The Deniers". It's a 35 part series of articles in Canada's National Post. All real scientists, all sceptics.
I cannot believe you compared the issue of global warming with eugenics. They are totally different beasts.
Also, i believe he's already covered the case where consensus amongst the scientists is wrong (or according to you, leading a conspiracy through vested interests) in his first video and his little grid. What he's primarily advocating is risk management.
The video you deleted and replaced hit the front page on Digg, which now is a dead link. You're missing thousands of views because of that... not so smart.
Lets first assume that the effects of global warming are far worse than the effects of attempting to stop it... That's essentially what you are saying, and that is a huge assumption. There is no way to get around that.
The only way to test your assumed probabilities is unfortunately to see what happens 20 years from now. This is because this issue is so politically charged.
Your grid demonstrates nothing valuable and leads simply to the logical conclusion of your assumptions.
He already addressed your concern with the garbageman comparison, "The problem will be solved........ 20 years from now at 20 times the cost." How much are you willing to pay for confirmation of a rapidly becoming scientific certainty. Something is happening, something big, I'd like to tell you to watch, but would rather noone see it.
It seems to me that all these oft-quoted scientists provide only very vague opinions and catchy sound bites, while the outcast "deniers" provide hard science and facts.
Sorry, but hard data is more convincing to this skeptic.
Al Gore is no authority on the subject , just like Tipper Gore was not the authority on popular music lyrics back in the 80's. Look it up on Youtube. It's a hoot to watch Frank Zappa kicking her ass (figuratively of course).
Your argument about the Manhattan project is easily offset by the well known and more recent story of WMD's of Iraq. We did something about them just like we did something about the Germans in 1941.
The success rate is 50%. I estimate the success rate of combating Anthropogenic Global Warming to be about the same. In other words, flip the coin. Or better yet, wait for better science.
The bad thing is, 1998 was the peak of current warming trend. Since then we had falling temperatures. Unless you get your "best and brightest" to work soon, there will not be much to work on. 1998 was a freak year with a temperature spike that was offset by a couple of cold years right after.
Since 2002 the Earth has been on a gentle cooling trend that continues.
if you have half a brain how can't u tell that the climate is already changing?I rember when we actually had white christmas not white springs. Right there a flag has to go off. This year in ny we went straight from a really late winter to summer there was no spring. I'm not a sience major or anything like that, I just have a little common sense and I'm pretty sure this guy probably doesn't have anal cranial insertion and might deffiently know what he's talking about
This video was much better than the first two. Better to explain how science works and why we should start taking action as soon as possible, than to try to dazzle people with over simple grids.
i think you are better off trying to convince the youth as they are more eager to learn,and willing to make a change,but your videos are to complex for youth to understand and for most people without high learning skils,and that covers most of the population,youtube is a site that is very populair under the youth,maybe an idea?if you can make a more youth and child understanding video,i promise to show it to as much youth as i know.
I beg of you wondering mind, watch this video, in google video type in "the great global warming swindle". It will blow you away.. Then you will understand why you can't make these big assumptions
And I beg of you to read some of the scientific community's response to that program. Even the scientists interviewed in it denounced it as one sided, badly researched, and employing invalidated or out of date findings, including those used to support the central claim of a CO2 - temperature lag. The wikipedia article on the programme is particularly informative. The important thing to keep in mind here is that is is a small minority of scientists who take this view. (cont. in next reply)
Assuming you're not a climate scientist, whose argument does it make sense to believe - that of a director often criticised for seeking only to spark controversy rather than to inform, or that of the large majority of the scientific community? And who are you to decide, from one television programme, that they are all wrong? And above all, consider the central point of these videos - consider the consequences of inaction and disbelief in comparison to those of action.
first off. I haven't decided anything. It is he(the teacher) that has made the decisions for the future of all the earth. second... have you even watched the video? don't talk it down if you haven't even watched the damn thing. Also. Nobody here is a climate scientist, that is why NONE of us can make the decision. PERIOD.
The very thought put into his video is erroneous, blind and flawed. what else can I say...
Just read the latest newsweek, and it made me so angry. It said the vast majority of the scientific community agrees that GCC is occurring, but big oil companies are paying scientists to write the contrary. That pisses me off...Just thought you should know
It's depressing to me, to read your comments. Yes he may be furthering the trend of "HAY LOOKIT THIS", but it's a proven method at least. The community is grasping at straws, trying anything to provoke an action before they have to say, "We told you so..."
I can see it is a real matter of urgency. Put on a little hat, explain your feelings while your at it... A good old place to just get everything off your chest while saving the world. Thats good old America... Just let the magazine empty and waaam the bad guy is dead
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Thumbs up for the explosions though. It realy reflects how dedicated, and loyal your audience is. And how genuinely interested they are. Mabye next time you can do a little dance, put on a mask or something. That might help keep the followers in tune. Yep that is a good plan too. Solve global warming with a little side of entertainment. That will get big guns rollin. Real proffesional
I know you have a curriculum to follow. don't worry, the smart ones wont believe your bullshit. I know you have to teach it regardless of whether it is true. But thats okay because your getting paid. That is just fine, do it for the family.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Uncertainty is exactly what science practices are aimed at overcoming.. that thing called applicability... Any uncertainty in science is a lack of science... any uncertainty is ignorance.
Oh, the gravity thing. Yes gravity is not fully understood. Infact the current general belief about gravity is outragous. So when you talk about science. try to mention the things that you know, not that you don't know anything... science is not a lack thereof.
Oh about science being all uncertain... real clever Sorry buddy that doesn't flow right. Most Science teachers claim absolute certainty in many of the things they teach. Even at the college level. So that little escape clause yeh, that has to go. Yeh I am sorry I know your a school teacher and all but uh, we've been to the moon it is no matter of uncertainty. Oh and on top of that uh, we've made cars and stuff, and computers...
What the science community should have said is, someone has to do something about the problem sometime in the near future. Not, EVERYBODY HAS TO DO SOMETHING NOW!!! That is plain old misleading
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If the problem is no longer scientific. Why in the hell would we be looking at "SCIENCE" to give us an answer. apparently you are relying on "SCIENCE" to solve political problems? very intelligent
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Oh, I don't know if the guy who responded to your video is right. But in cases such as those which by the way are what will define the actual future are not a big chemistry problem but more a problem of predicting what Other countries are going to do about it, and that is a totally non -science association of america- problem. So as we can see you are thinking very incoherently as to how the problem can be solved. the problem is no longer scientific.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So instead of telling us all how athoritative these agencies are, why don't you tell us exactly what your actually thinking and why. Just because some agency is athoritative doesn't boil down to why we should actually do anything about it. I'm sure there are athoritative buddhist agencies, that doesn't mean were all gonna become buddhists. So tell us your real reasoning... whats at the core of that mindset? Stop bullshiting us
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
All you do is go out and say. Everyone needs to take action now!!! well thats bullshit. everyone doesn't need to take action. You arent stating the details of your plan, your being ambiguous in terms of exactly what you think has to be done. In short, your full of shit. You just want to rally as much people as you can to fight your war, and your not afraid to bullshit every single one of them for what you beleive in.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
slight misinterpretations do alot. does 'WE' mean the united States or does it mean the entire world? Exactly what would be needed quantitatively speaking? 30% of the population? 10%? 80%? the message of urgency is incorrect. If you want 30% of the population to buy your 'product' you might say... Everyone needs to buy this product, and 30% buy it. But if you were to say, 30% need to buy this product now, you might get only 22% to buy it. MANIPULATION
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You said that if we don't accept this, then we will never accept any science. That statement is completely out of bounds. You may be a loyal follower of the science community, but that is different from accepting a view blindely just because it was posted by an athoritative agency. Science is the work of making the measurements, and blind beleif in big dogs is called being blind beleiver, not a scientist. You don't think there is any mistake in these big scientifis statements huh?...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Lets see... You claim these great big science organizations are so smart...hmmm what do we all know about great big smart people organizations... CIA for example... Having mentioned the word CIA lets mention some other words, see if you can scretch your mind... 911, roswell, pearl harbur. Do I need to mention anything else? You should include in your video a detailed history of the organization and it's consistence in telling the truth... I havent checked. but I can only imagine cloudiness
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You said if you can't find the errors then to spread the word. If someone has the same errors as you, and you don't know which errors they have, then they are spreading the word as ignoranty as you are... apparently you are decided that what your doing is right, Nomatter what. But thats not science. That is nonsense
What happened was cooling was from particulates, and other nasty pollutants, they inreased the albedo(cloudiness) of the earth resulting in cooling when we stopped emitting those pollutants the cooling stopped. No: if we started emitted particulates again they and CO2 they would not cancel, we would have global climtae change, not warming or cooling just a bad rearrangement :(.
"What happened was cooling was from particulates" You have peer reviewed research to back this claim up? Seems the evidence for that cooling period was from a slow down in the sun's activity. How do you explain the warming started in the late 1800s?
not only that but how do we know what the earths 1,000 year cycles are? or 10,000 year cycles? we barely can comprehend what its 100 year cycles are... barely.
If you read Michael Crichton's State of Fear, you can see how much guesswork goes into climate science. I'm sure it has gotten better even since that book was published, but the models we use to "predict" the future of the climate is not foolproof. (cont...)
For instance, El Nino. We know it happens every four years, but don't know what it does. Or cloud cover. It varies from day to day. How do you put these things into an accurate model? The answer is guesswork. Highly scientific, educated and researched guesswork, but guesswork nonetheless.
not even close to foolproof. i stopped watching the weather altogether because of how much guesswork goes into the forecast.
i read an old farmer almanac when i was a kid(from the 1800's) and they put out general climates for the whole year... and i believe they were more accurate than todays standards.
How about comparing the funding for the NASA program or something like that. I don't think that the solutions for global warming will harm the human race in anyway. Save for the inconvenince.
He does compare it to a NASA program. He says it is equal to the Manhattan project combined with the Apollo project.
I wouldn't tread carefully around the Manhattan project, though. Many consider it to have saved lives. Unfortunately, hindsight makes every act seem one of evil intentions.
There will obviously be repercussions of the choice we make. As far as we know, trying to fix the problem may harm us. But doing nothing could have the same result.
Regardless of whether global warming is an actually fact or not I am sure that the world would be a much nicer place to live in with less pollution. But... I object to your use of comparing the funding of the Manhattan project to the funding of global warming. The difference between designing bombs for blowing up cities and making earth a better place to live in for all inhabitants is kind of bad taste don't you think? cont...
Totally agree with you on the fact that we should do something about fixing the enviroment. Especially when the technology is at hand to do it. cont...
So anyway (this is for the viewers and you), I came across this video while browsing a philsoophy forum categorising global warming discussions. It basically tries to argue against the common belief that humans aren't causing GCC (global warming specifically)
video dot google dot ca slash videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566
The thing that strikes me is that a lot of people think that dumping large amounts of anything (in this case pollution, co2) into an ecosystem or biosphere won't cause any consequences. It's bizarre to see.
In the 1980's I knew that excessive pollution will lead to an environment like Venus'. The 1980's! Sheesh.
CO2 is not a pollutant. It's a normal component of the atmosphere. And CO2 levels were 3-4 TIMES current in the geological past. We are actually at a CO2 low in geological history. I know the proponents of AGW include pollution to try and link the two, but they are SEPARTE ISSUES. Co2 is not a pollutant.
Yes, there was a time when CO2 levels were much higher than now. But there was also no animal life on the planet at the time. Good luck breathing in that atmosphere.
Otherwise, removing the use of fossil fuels including oil greatly reduces carbon emissions. Without those emissions, you don't have to pump CO2, and you don't have to worry about it.
That is NOT true. It was 150 million years ago and the dinosaurs flourished!!! If we get off oil, you can kiss goodbye to your way of life, and kill millions through starvation and freezing.
Oh and that's really so bad, is it? Inalienable rights like life liberty and so forth come at the cost of having it forced upon the population. But related to what you're talking about, it is also a luxury, not some sort of magical fairy induced objective truth.
I am prepared to accept the future. It doesn't look to happy, either. We cut oil and everyone freezes (unless an alternative is used). We do nothing, and could very well be the end of modern civilization. Wars over water and food throughout the world, even in currently wealthy countries. We're at at lose-lose situation. We must choose the lesser of two evils.
I tend to agree with the video posters basic argument. Something needs to be done. To prove that humans have caused or contribute to the change would take the whole history of Earth, analyzing the climate cycles since the beginning. It's impossible. Instead, we should try to do something because there are benefits beyond that of combating climate change, even if it turns out to be futile or superfluous.
You are assuming 2 things. A: we can actually change the climate by doing something, and B: if we do nothing it will be bad. What if it's not possible to change the climate? What if a warmer world is much better? Seems it was for the Midieval Warm Period people. It was warmer then than it is now, or projected to be by the IPCC.
What I'm saying is that there are other benefits, beyond the most obvious, that would result from the most common ideas of combating climate change. Even if it does not change the climate, it would, for instance, cease the reliance on foreign oil and oil altogether. With oil running out and foreign oil helping to fund terrorist groups, I would consider it an overall good thing.
I'm in favor of finding an alternative to oil since we are currently at Peak Oil. But it's funding for things like piping CO2 underground, or the carbon credit trading system. Both huge waste of money better spent on other things, like cancer research.
Let's do a quick summary of what I've gathered so far. I have not been able to read all the replies from the first video. I will attempt to do that later.
You basically outline 4 possibilities of the future, in a pascal's wager-esque manner. Either nothing will happen and we waste money, or nothing will happen and we don't waste money, something will happen and we suffer, or something will happen and we're better off because we did something.
Since having an 'oversimplified' argument allows people who want to believe that all they need to do is defeat your argument, I'm not so certain that detractors have done much more than argue over semantics and other irrelevant matters.
The fact remains: something might happen, and we likely won't do anything to stop it. As was stated in the videos about exponential growth, the longer we wait, the worse it will be
You have addressed the crux of the problem of a pascal's wager argument when applied to anything empirically provable: the original argument (that of whether to worship God) is filled with unanswerable questions. GCC, on the other hand, is pretty consistently agreed upon by scientists, as you've covered. This is a good start.
A lot of people tend to use scare tactics like "if we support this program it will destroy our economy (and then what happens when 99942 Apophis hits us??)". I completely disagree that we will ever suffer that consequence, simply because prior to doing anything, we can (or should) be able to come up with a workaround to replace the improvement.
I'm sure you're not suggesting something like 'well we can fix AGCC by going back to the stone age' or anything of that sort. So why should anybody start to think that the feasible solutions will involve anything so extreme as to cause events like depressions or extended recessions, etc?
Finally (for now) I would like to add a moral argument, just for fun. A lot of our top minds think there will be a problem in the future. The current trend is to not do (that much) to stop it.
I will grant that the moral argument is anthropocentric (the biosphere will benefit as a side effect, as well as due to our concern for our own survival), but that shouldn't be something to counter argue. Also moral relativism shouldn't be brought up because this certainly will happen. The only course of action is to attempt to resolve the AGCC issue.
And "they" are wrong. There is no physical link between the power of Katrina and AGW, just opinion and guess work. How come no hurricanes last year, or, so far, thus year? Human caused global warming is falling appart as the evidence staks up against it.
Following your logic, we should then pump massive money into moving people way from volcanos and active plate boundaries, hurricane and tornado alley.
I think these videos are so apealing due to the fact he's a teacher and not condersending, willing to except that there is another side and not just spouting about the world ending etc. I love the way he tells us key facts for both arguments and how this guy goes out of his way not to argue for or against but use facts. thats why i think this is popular, he could be talking about icecream flavours and i think i'd listen cuz he uses facts and not opinion!
ur logic is sound and i see no flaws; but............. HE'S A WITCH
BURN HIM, BURN HIM
monkyyy0 2 months ago in playlist More videos from wonderingmind42
This has been flagged as spam show
eat well excersize,,, die anyway,,,
spend tons of money on idiotic social issues,,, die anyway,,,
Sun remains a main sequence star, continually growing warmer and brighter by ~10% every 1 billion years.
no matter what you do,,, the sun will GET you in the end,,,
unless you LEAVE,,, that is where mankind needs to spend its money,,,
on LEAVING,,,
lars008 7 months ago
Kudos for the Mentos fountain :)
Anyway, I can't find a flaw in your argument, just in the narrow conclusion.
So the scientists say:
1. The climate is changing - yup
2. Humans are primarily the ones driving it - could be irrelevant
3. It's gonna be bad - no doubt
4. We should do something about it quick - narrow conclusion
What's missing from the statement is a definitive conclusion that
it can be stopped or reversed.
So the Manpollo project should seek survivability options too.
wordpresswidget 1 year ago
I've disabled comments because it turns out that there's a hole in the argument presented in "The Most Terrifying Video" big enough to drive a Hummer through, and the argument has been UPDATED to address that hole.
So instead of rehashing the debate here, go watch the new version titled "HOW IT ALL ENDS" for what has so far turned out to be an IRREFUTABLE argument for action on climate change. Sound impossible?
Go check it out, and see what YOU think.
youtube dot com /watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg
wonderingmind42 4 years ago
Rubbish.
Read the studies of Mann's "peer reviews" ... prior to his hockey stick being shown to be a fraud and dropped by the IPCC.
sydneydoc 4 years ago
Then ignore Mann altogether and look at the other studies that all show the same results. (Yes, the current IPCC report, tinyurl com/2xl4c6, STILL SHOWS HOCKEYSTICK GRAPHS. Just not Mann's.)
The argument on Mann wasn't about the blade. It was about the straightness of the stick, due to the uncertainties involved in distant paleoclimate. Even after it was corrected, the blade still stands -- and others, wholly independent of Mann, get the same results.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Have you read the Wegman report ?
Have you tried plotting MANN'S OWN DATA yourself ?
-- No flat blade. No sudden upturn.
sydneydoc 4 years ago
I should have added ... try plotting Mann's RAW data ... before he manipulated it.
You will see the Little Ice Age and the end of the Medieval Warm Period.
sydneydoc 4 years ago
The same Wegman who signed THIS: tinyurl com/325yf9
In spite of this having no foundation in the actual data: tinyurl com/2xskf7
Now, setting that aside, even if you completely throw out the Mann hockey stick that McKitrick ("let's use Celsius in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law") and Michaels ("let's confuse degrees and radians") attacked, you're STILL left with hockey sticks...
And hockey sticks that show a MWP and LIA without changing Mann's conclusion: tinyurl com/7avvb
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Yes. Wegman was one of many scientists signing a report suggesting that AGW is nonsense.
Have you read his report ?
He shows how you get hockey sticks with ANY data, using Mann's fraud.
Have you tried plotting Mann's RAW data ?
I'll bet you haven't !!
sydneydoc 4 years ago
No, I haven't, because I'm not qualified to interpret it. It'd just be an exercise in Excel with no conclusions.
But you and I are qualified to ignore Mann's data altogether, and even the data from any group Mann's been involved in, if you think his isn't worth using. There are other groups to check.
If you're so keen on plotting data and pretending to be a climatologist, try it that:
tinyurl com/3yxrgu
You'll still get the stick.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Tempest,
It's not rocket science you know. You don't need to be a climatologist to know that when the temperature goes down it's cold and when it goes up its hot.
Why do you think the IPCC dropped Mann's hockey stick like a hot potato ? F-R-A-U-D
sydneydoc 4 years ago
Stop talking about Mann. I'm not supporting him, his work, or his graph.
I'm talking about the others, such as Crowley and Lowery (2000), Briffa et al (2001), Esper, Cook, and Schweingruber (2002), Jones et al (1998), Moberg et al (2005), Pollack, Huang and Shen (1998), and Oerlemans (2005).
They illustrate the same blade, and to my knowledge haven't been attacked by McKitrick/Michaels (Mann's vocal critics).
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Tempest,
Yes, I'm sure the IPCC also wants everyone to stop talking about the embarassing hockey stick fraud too.
Give us your links and I'll look them up. I usually read several papers a day.
Have you read these: ?
21stcenturysciencetech . com / 2006_articles / IceCoreSprg97 . pdf
... and Beck's survey:
biomind . de / nogreenhouse / daten / EE%2018-2_Beck . pdf
sydneydoc 4 years ago
I hadn't read Beck's. Thanks for the link, I'll look into it.
However, I'd like to note that 21st Century Science and Technology is published by Lyndon LaRouche, who is guilty of criminal fraud and believes modern science is a conspiracy against human potential. Furthermore, the paper lacks a peer-review process and has simply parroted known skeptic and former tobacco shill Fred Singer more than once without citation. I would not consider it anywhere near as credible as any of these:
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
...
I was in the process of digging up URLs to the publicly-available papers I cited earlier, but I found out that all of them have all of their data available for free at a single website:
ncdc noaa gov/paleo/recons html
There's even others I missed. Just ignore any one with Mann in it and you'll nicely sidestep your issue.
Hell, plot 'em raw. My point still holds: You'll get a sharp blade for the 20th century.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Tempest,
Beck's survey of 180 studies on CO2 should change your viewpoint. He also investigates in detail Callender's paper of 1935 as used by the IPCC.
Please let me know when you've read it and I'll show you some more ways data has been faked.
I'd recommend reading this paper even for people without scientific backgrounds ... you may have to skim some of the detail.
sydneydoc 4 years ago
Are you in favor of the turning all economic policy over to the Council of Economic Advisors? Should we cede all regulation of carbon emissions (CEs) over to the IPCC/UN? If we don't impose a worldwide government enforcement mechanism there are gapping collective action problems in your argument for reducing CEs. The costs of GCC worst-case scenarios are scary, but isn't the worst case scenario for creating a global governance model (massive reduction in liberty) to deal with GCC also scary?
DTrimms 4 years ago
This is addressed already. I would suggest you look at How It All Ends, which is his full version of this argument.
Specifically, your claims show up in How It All Ends: Risk Management and How It All Ends: Get What You Want. Check those two ones out after watching How It All Ends, and you'll get your answer along with all of the reasoning behind it for you to refute.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
hi i am 13. and in 7th grade.
my science teacher has been talking about this alot lately. im really interested and i agree with you. even through we dont have PROOF..there is a chance and the outcome of our future if we arnt true..and we do not take action..it Bad..so why dont we take action just in case..
thank you for these videos!
12395aa1 4 years ago 2
... Keep in mind though there are few things that we could not turn off like policing and defensive...but what if we closed up shops for a month.. daycares...insurance companies and other facilities that we can live without for a month. What if all governments within there own nations did this...what kind of impact on the Earth would that be?
princessj26 4 years ago
... would it reverse some things and let Earth heal naturally before we started raping her of her energy? Would that planet by pass us and be destroyed by the sun? I can tell you what would happen if we stopped using so much energy we would take time off work which can be good for those that are stressed maybe give all of us time to think of more solutions... we could spend time with our children before THE END...
princessj26 4 years ago
recently saw a video about planet X and that it will swing by earth and possibly cause climate changes or another theory is that is, what has caused climate change and we our attracting this planet to us... so what if we stopped!!!! WHAT IF WE STOPPED USING ENERGY ...kind of like turning off the beaken of light so that we can't be seen...What would happen if we did that... would that slow things down enough to give us time...
princessj26 4 years ago
Appreciate if you could respond to me!!!
Ok... I am leaning to the side of we are attracting climate change... ever action has a reaction right? every equation that has variables can be changed if the variables are changed therefore changing the end result... so I've been on the internet looking around at various theories and simple news reports on what is happening on our earth and beyond... we are simply attracting too much heat... too much energy..
princessj26 4 years ago
You are awesome! I tried showing this video to my friends, they bashed it. They suck... I mean, you make great points and you can contradicts everyone's conterpoints. Why do people feel the need to bash on someone who's trying to help out people? Just... wow. :D Thanks man, you rock!
hkyfrk01 4 years ago
What's more likely is that people aren't trying to bash others, they're trying to defend their own beliefs. Which is only human -- almost no one likes to find out they're wrong.
This is why science trains people to try to be neutral, and let the evidence shape their opinions. (For a particularly dramatic example, see youtube. com/watch?v=upA9f7yTpIc)
But thanks for spreading the videos around; this information (especially How It All Ends) needs to get out.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
I have no idea who you are. But I am glad I came across your videos.You make so many good points.One being science is not always certain, and how it is based on measurement.And how scienctist acknowledge their equipment is not perfect, etc, etc. You are awesome. I've seen a few of your videos thus far.Which means we have to take action in one of those 4 boxes.I think its better to be ready for whatever scientists are predicting from their measurements than not be ready at all for anything.
84marc84 4 years ago
Great stuff!!!!! Ways to go!!
cuv4xd 4 years ago
you rock. I never had a chance to do any of those things in the university lab. Chemical Engineers are so responsible! (that was a Joke)
baley7 4 years ago
you are awesome
jerryd789456 4 years ago
Here is a fact that should be somehow verifiable: there are so much journalists contradicting global warming, when actually the whole scientific community agree on the worst case scenario... Seems to be a lot of desinformation in USA, to keep the people confused about this subject.
Thanks to guys like you man, things are changing for a better: heard some political decisions have been made lately in UK, let's hope we'll see public opinion make this spread around the world!
zit0un 4 years ago
But why should we worry about saving the planet when we have oil to steal and gay people to keep from getting married?! Who cares if we're destroying our species' hopes for a future...we teach evolution in our schools! But seriously, thanks for helping me respond to morons and republicans (as if there's a difference). I wish I had you as a science teacher. I love blowing shit up too.
princcspian 4 years ago
People are too stupid to watch 10 minutes of information affects their world. They would rather be watching greys anatomy. Cmon who wants to asses the risk of armegeddon when we could be watching McDreamy? Ps. This guy is eccentric.. and i like it.
Lovemyfender14 4 years ago 6
Sad but true, especially amongst the shoe shoppers of our population !
trulynot 4 years ago
What i believe really happped is yes there was global cooling they tryed to fix it and made global warming,what will be next, so i'm not saying anything about wether there is GCC but that they have no hope of fixing to only to make it worse
thaz999 4 years ago
Here the the thing, it use to be global cooling, so a bunch of scientist got together and told us what need to be done,and here we are 30 years later and now they say we have global warming we were wrong about the cooling
thaz999 4 years ago
actual, there wasnt that huge of group, it was mainly media hyping global cooling.
nerzule 4 years ago
right..they don't know anything but you do?
spacec0wboy47 4 years ago
I never said i did. "leading scientist" don't don't have a good track record whe comes to global problems. They have tried to fiz it before and have admited that they may have made it worse, i say no second chance.
thaz999 4 years ago
There is no point in discouraging people trying to rally together and make an attempt to stop GCC before it gets worse. It is counter productive, and if we discover we can't stop it, then we can prepare to "avoid the runaway train." You don't hide from problems just because there is a chance that you can't solve them. There is always a difference in certainty, but like his argument, it's about the best action to take despite the uncertainty.
spacec0wboy47 4 years ago
For AMHawley2:
We don't know if this is a "runaway" train. We can't even figure out if GCC is caused by us, yet alone know if it is unstoppable. Why avoid trying to stop it and let it run wild when there is good chance we could stop it. If it is caused by us, then we can counter-act our previous actions and stop GCC. If it wasn't caused by us, who is to say we can't change counter-act it anyways?
spacec0wboy47 4 years ago
Correction: The overwhelming consensus within the scientific community is that GGC is caused by us. It's only really still a "debate" in forums such as this.
iiopen 4 years ago
Correction: The overwhelming consensus within the scientific community is that GGC is caused by us. It's only really still a "debate" in forums such as this.
iiopen 4 years ago
You might like to refer to the seminal work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn which coined the phrase "paradigm shift".
It would be interesting to track the changes in scientific community opinion on GCC.
btw - you should get onto broadcast TV. Maybe send your youtube links to Channel 4, the BBC or some of the other more responsible channels.
Keep up the good work.
energyman777 4 years ago
Having just heard B. Clinton today @ UCLA (pls don't go off on any tangents)...one of your assumptions is incorrect. So far, the countries that have met or superseded their Kyoto Agreement goals have found their economies to be growing not diminishing(ie: Denmark and G. Britain). Amer's median income has dropped over 4% under this admin. US is not actively pursuing comprehensive changes to combat GCC. It's erroneous to presume there will be economic depression if these changes are made.
sasquatchisSC 4 years ago
yeah good logic, i like your videos.
I wud like to know more what and when scientist think will happend if people dont do anything.
then i can really see how mush it will infect me.
As i know lot people already do something about it. In many European countrys so called green partys are werry popular.
projekt81 4 years ago
Isn't it also worth considering the possibility that any actions we do take now will be insufficient to stop GCC? If so, shouldn't we really be discussing the idea that we should act to survive the changes that do occur?
Better to get people out of the way of a runaway train than leap out in front to try and stop it.
AMHawley2 4 years ago
seen all 3, keep the grid, don't rely just on argument or science, most people need an engaging person, which you are.
potential additional arguments to keep, anecdote about your prof and it doesn't matter (overwhelming scale of problem), FBI example - connect the dots, controlled spending won't tank the economy.
The orginal video is almost viral! I first watched it 5 days ago with 1,140,000 hits. Today 30/10/07 the number of views are 1,425,000. It is already mushrooming.
antimonyinlima 4 years ago
You have a sexy, sexy brain.
crackedspaceboy 4 years ago 4
i want to point out some stuff that you do to make them controversial without having to be contoversial about CC.1.you start by saying "whats the worst that could happen" in video 1 and in video3 end up saying "what have we got to lose" is that so diferent? 2.you say that you have a way to overcome the scientific contoversie with a "new" argument and end up asking us to trust you and science oraganizations.
felaran 4 years ago
THANKS FOR YOUR VIDEOS. I too am a teacher. I have the same conversations about evolution and human population growth as well as climate change. I teach environmental studies, biology and earthscience. Your logic and debate style are tight --- keep it up ---We all need to hear it. I will show your videos in my classes. Thanks Again
ShalomYal 4 years ago
I find it funny how when I manage to speak "the truth" about something, I get 2 thumbs down.
NEWS FLASH PEOPLE
Political science is a science
Mathematics is a science
Actuarial science is a science
Social sciences are (you guess it)
Addamn 4 years ago
ok, i believe that this was a much more mature way of handling the criticism. although the other two were pretty funny...you have my support all the way. i believe that you should have the chance to express this argument globally!!!
tai180 4 years ago
doesnt matter, printing more money will not work, dont trust the economic major, ill believe you...
jbourquin 4 years ago
You are wrong, American dollars are no longer backed by gold. In the past they use to, but not anymore, due to the implement of the Federal Reserve Bank. Check out Zeitgeist to learn more about that.
Tiktakrdm 4 years ago
we cant simply print more money, if we print more money, we will have less gold to back up our money, therefore making the inflation rate soar
jbourquin 4 years ago
Never say die! Please do the theoritical offshore wind only aproach. Complete with energy storage, nature saving, reforestation coal sequestration, ect. It would only cost about "an extra pack of cigs" per day for 30 yrs. The numbers are rather easy. And please don't forget to boycot fashion corndogism and (part of) China (because they have to pay too)
fireofenergy 4 years ago
why can't the all the federal governments just in the world just make more money
for the rest of us poor ass people to buy more stuff like solar panels and shit like that
whats the problem with just giving out more money its just paper
hmm wait could it have anything to do with trees but then again they can make money out of something else right lol other than that i have know idea why they can't ??
monicabeny 4 years ago
Intelligent decesions CAN be made with complete uncertainty so long as you can rank the possible outcomes. (Measurement is not required!!!)
Play-It-Safe: Choose the action with the best worst case scenario.
Gamblers-Strategy: Choose the action with the best possible scenario.
The only point I believe he has made is that given complete uncertainty, the play-it-safe method is the only RESPONSIBLE method for making this decesion.
What method would you use?
soupthatisthick 4 years ago
2:30
Excuse me? Science implies uncertainty? Wow so much for being a teacher, somebody who probably has never read Plato's Republic. Perception --> Hypothesis --> Limited Grasp --> Understanding, that's how knowledge works.
Addamn 4 years ago
Adamn: No, it is you who have a poor grasp of (philosophy of) science. You do not need absolute knowledge to have knowledge. All scientific knowledge (and arguably ALL knowledge) is probabilistic. Please disprove this rationally if you can.
quathar 4 years ago
Umm, do I have to spell this out for you? Only absolute knowledge counts as knowledge, because knowledge is a foundationalist structure. Granted, certain forms of scientific knowledge are suscept to skepticism (scepticism). For instance, a mathematical proof with absolutely certainty is knowledge.
Addamn 4 years ago
of course science implies uncertainty
ironcladdad 4 years ago
It's so obvious that a lot of people who come here to criticize the guy haven't even watched the previous videos. You keep bringing up points that he has already answered. Do your homework, lazy bums!
stereo123 4 years ago
i can't wait for global climate change. whats wrong with a little, well, big change, in the society works?
randomhero1080 4 years ago
you're an idiot
pilgrim1080 4 years ago
Nay, he's actually quite intelligent, not pigheaded, and genuinely cares about what he's talking about.
I believe your own statement reveals who the true idiot is.
Stealthy12345 4 years ago
If global warming does occur, maybe we could harness the increasing storms with windmills and boom! ...there's our clean energy to reverse global warming! Just a weird thought I had.
bistro39 4 years ago
As I said before, there are many things we as individuals do, and do not do. By following the instructions of those who promote action in prevention of GCC, we are already doing something, which will have an undeniable effect. Littering less, for example, has an undeniably positive effect on the environment.
Philc103 4 years ago
you just caused a whole bunch of global warming if those pollutive expolosions.
mrblob20 4 years ago
I'm not sure there were that many, and I don't think he did them all, and some of them were also repeats of the same footage.
Philc103 4 years ago
No one know whats should be done. Action without understanding will only make things worse.
thaz999 4 years ago
Actions without understanding? Mainstream population has been and continues to be informed about the dangers of GCC and about measures that can be taken, that, altough seemingly insignificant, can do so much if everyone does it. As for no one knowing what should be done, saying something like that is assuming that the only things that can be done involve grand majestic government interventions of some kind.
Philc103 4 years ago
It's not that we don't know about GCC. we hear about everyday. It that these leading scientist don't know what they are talking about. I am sure that they will only make things worse, and have no hope of fixing anything.
thaz999 4 years ago
Here is the thing you say that neither you nor i are qualified to bedate GCC, and i would tend to agree. I also think that no one is even the scientist know engough. 30 years or so ago leading experters decided that we were harming the invorment with lead that we use to put in gas. Now they did convince the goverment to remove it from the gas and now all gas is unleaded. Here is the kicker the removal of the lead made the envirment worse, the lead actually was causing global cooling.
thaz999 4 years ago
I really have to say that this is a great series of Videos and you make some valuable points.Hopefully this will get some more people to understand that Global warming is taking place. Good Job keep it up! :D
N0d4chi 4 years ago
Thank you! for your patience and passion. hopefully both will be contagious and unified movement will occur. I'll do my bit and forward this on!
livinggently 4 years ago
I like your ideas but I only wish that we could somehow make this Manpollo Project possible by sheer manpower alone. Your videos did change some of my views on Climate Change and I agree completely that something has to be done. I'm only skeptical on just what has to be done because I don't think that anyone really knows what to do.
ZinFu 4 years ago
urgh... lol there was more that I wanted to say, lol dont worry it wasent mean or immature, just that I wanted to see if you could touch on these subjects and if they have a small part to play in global warming...
thank you for taking your time to read these
Adam
reccesqn 4 years ago
Nice work, wish you were my science teacher!
Here's a benefit. The countries Hamburgers cause global warming. Pasture animals use FAR more resuarces than vegetables, so chew on that!
bluelounge 4 years ago
I recommend Crichton's "State of Fear" it has great reference section for scientific papers that didn't make it into the mainstream media.
Also the "Global Warming Swindle" from the BBC avail. on youtube which also has "leading scientists" on the other side of the debate.
My feeling is if you are true to your scientific thought process you will end up somewhere in the middle of this debate.
True science cannot exist in politics or in the arena of public opinion.
non8ducor8duco 4 years ago
Be Wary of "leading scientists" they are human with vested interests.
Remember what the "leading scientists " of the day in the early twentieth century said about eugenics.
Or what they were saying in the 1970s about global cooling.
Or what Lord Kelvin was saying about science at the turn of the century .
non8ducor8duco 4 years ago
That's absolutely right.
anyone interested in seeing discenting opinions - google "Climate change: The Deniers". It's a 35 part series of articles in Canada's National Post. All real scientists, all sceptics.
thuneau 4 years ago
I cannot believe you compared the issue of global warming with eugenics. They are totally different beasts.
Also, i believe he's already covered the case where consensus amongst the scientists is wrong (or according to you, leading a conspiracy through vested interests) in his first video and his little grid. What he's primarily advocating is risk management.
c1ee 4 years ago
GAHH i wish i had you as my teacher... what was the one at 2:50? that one was niiice.
omega4446 4 years ago
The video you deleted and replaced hit the front page on Digg, which now is a dead link. You're missing thousands of views because of that... not so smart.
jaapstronks 4 years ago
1. This guy has done more research into this than anyone posting on YouTube.
2. He is using facts backed up by the two most prestigious scientific groups in the U.S.
If you're still arguing with his position, go back to believing the world is flat and leave these decisions to the grownups.
dggeek 4 years ago 6
Lets first assume that the effects of global warming are far worse than the effects of attempting to stop it... That's essentially what you are saying, and that is a huge assumption. There is no way to get around that.
The only way to test your assumed probabilities is unfortunately to see what happens 20 years from now. This is because this issue is so politically charged.
Your grid demonstrates nothing valuable and leads simply to the logical conclusion of your assumptions.
jimmajamma 4 years ago
He already addressed your concern with the garbageman comparison, "The problem will be solved........ 20 years from now at 20 times the cost." How much are you willing to pay for confirmation of a rapidly becoming scientific certainty. Something is happening, something big, I'd like to tell you to watch, but would rather noone see it.
semisuave 4 years ago
It seems to me that all these oft-quoted scientists provide only very vague opinions and catchy sound bites, while the outcast "deniers" provide hard science and facts.
Sorry, but hard data is more convincing to this skeptic.
thuneau 4 years ago
Al Gore is no authority on the subject , just like Tipper Gore was not the authority on popular music lyrics back in the 80's. Look it up on Youtube. It's a hoot to watch Frank Zappa kicking her ass (figuratively of course).
thuneau 4 years ago
who said anything about Gore, Dumb ass!
st4ume1000 4 years ago
Your argument about the Manhattan project is easily offset by the well known and more recent story of WMD's of Iraq. We did something about them just like we did something about the Germans in 1941.
The success rate is 50%. I estimate the success rate of combating Anthropogenic Global Warming to be about the same. In other words, flip the coin. Or better yet, wait for better science.
thuneau 4 years ago
The bad thing is, 1998 was the peak of current warming trend. Since then we had falling temperatures. Unless you get your "best and brightest" to work soon, there will not be much to work on. 1998 was a freak year with a temperature spike that was offset by a couple of cold years right after.
Since 2002 the Earth has been on a gentle cooling trend that continues.
thuneau 4 years ago
brilliant; but I would rather have some money in my pocket before I get drowned and hit with lighting thank you.
hazard808 4 years ago
i'd like to say "politely"
if you do believe in what you say!
way aid in GCC by all those explosives!
ayashm 4 years ago
BRAVO! your logic is undeniable.
brainalisious 4 years ago 2
if you have half a brain how can't u tell that the climate is already changing?I rember when we actually had white christmas not white springs. Right there a flag has to go off. This year in ny we went straight from a really late winter to summer there was no spring. I'm not a sience major or anything like that, I just have a little common sense and I'm pretty sure this guy probably doesn't have anal cranial insertion and might deffiently know what he's talking about
zendarias 4 years ago
I have no words for how much you rock, except that um...YOU ROCK!
revolotus 4 years ago
This video was much better than the first two. Better to explain how science works and why we should start taking action as soon as possible, than to try to dazzle people with over simple grids.
choupick 4 years ago
hi
i think you are better off trying to convince the youth as they are more eager to learn,and willing to make a change,but your videos are to complex for youth to understand and for most people without high learning skils,and that covers most of the population,youtube is a site that is very populair under the youth,maybe an idea?if you can make a more youth and child understanding video,i promise to show it to as much youth as i know.
siatje 4 years ago
this has turned into a bigger project than you thought i suppose. its very interesting though. and was that thermite in the planter?
coryhayden73 4 years ago
I beg of you wondering mind, watch this video, in google video type in "the great global warming swindle". It will blow you away.. Then you will understand why you can't make these big assumptions
lefdes 4 years ago
And I beg of you to read some of the scientific community's response to that program. Even the scientists interviewed in it denounced it as one sided, badly researched, and employing invalidated or out of date findings, including those used to support the central claim of a CO2 - temperature lag. The wikipedia article on the programme is particularly informative. The important thing to keep in mind here is that is is a small minority of scientists who take this view. (cont. in next reply)
lwichs 4 years ago
Assuming you're not a climate scientist, whose argument does it make sense to believe - that of a director often criticised for seeking only to spark controversy rather than to inform, or that of the large majority of the scientific community? And who are you to decide, from one television programme, that they are all wrong? And above all, consider the central point of these videos - consider the consequences of inaction and disbelief in comparison to those of action.
lwichs 4 years ago 2
first off. I haven't decided anything. It is he(the teacher) that has made the decisions for the future of all the earth. second... have you even watched the video? don't talk it down if you haven't even watched the damn thing. Also. Nobody here is a climate scientist, that is why NONE of us can make the decision. PERIOD.
The very thought put into his video is erroneous, blind and flawed. what else can I say...
lefdes 4 years ago
Wondering mind,
Just read the latest newsweek, and it made me so angry. It said the vast majority of the scientific community agrees that GCC is occurring, but big oil companies are paying scientists to write the contrary. That pisses me off...Just thought you should know
lokeykyl 4 years ago
throw a few punch lines in. Do a little sales work and you got the flock behind your back...
Where are you leading them?
lefde 4 years ago
It's depressing to me, to read your comments. Yes he may be furthering the trend of "HAY LOOKIT THIS", but it's a proven method at least. The community is grasping at straws, trying anything to provoke an action before they have to say, "We told you so..."
raemeredith 4 years ago
I can see it is a real matter of urgency. Put on a little hat, explain your feelings while your at it... A good old place to just get everything off your chest while saving the world. Thats good old America... Just let the magazine empty and waaam the bad guy is dead
lefde 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Thumbs up for the explosions though. It realy reflects how dedicated, and loyal your audience is. And how genuinely interested they are. Mabye next time you can do a little dance, put on a mask or something. That might help keep the followers in tune. Yep that is a good plan too. Solve global warming with a little side of entertainment. That will get big guns rollin. Real proffesional
lefde 4 years ago
I know you have a curriculum to follow. don't worry, the smart ones wont believe your bullshit. I know you have to teach it regardless of whether it is true. But thats okay because your getting paid. That is just fine, do it for the family.
lefde 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Uncertainty is exactly what science practices are aimed at overcoming.. that thing called applicability... Any uncertainty in science is a lack of science... any uncertainty is ignorance.
Oh, the gravity thing. Yes gravity is not fully understood. Infact the current general belief about gravity is outragous. So when you talk about science. try to mention the things that you know, not that you don't know anything... science is not a lack thereof.
lefde 4 years ago
Oh about science being all uncertain... real clever Sorry buddy that doesn't flow right. Most Science teachers claim absolute certainty in many of the things they teach. Even at the college level. So that little escape clause yeh, that has to go. Yeh I am sorry I know your a school teacher and all but uh, we've been to the moon it is no matter of uncertainty. Oh and on top of that uh, we've made cars and stuff, and computers...
lefde 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So fuck you. and fuck global warming!!!
lefde 4 years ago
What the science community should have said is, someone has to do something about the problem sometime in the near future. Not, EVERYBODY HAS TO DO SOMETHING NOW!!! That is plain old misleading
lefde 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If the problem is no longer scientific. Why in the hell would we be looking at "SCIENCE" to give us an answer. apparently you are relying on "SCIENCE" to solve political problems? very intelligent
lefde 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh, I don't know if the guy who responded to your video is right. But in cases such as those which by the way are what will define the actual future are not a big chemistry problem but more a problem of predicting what Other countries are going to do about it, and that is a totally non -science association of america- problem. So as we can see you are thinking very incoherently as to how the problem can be solved. the problem is no longer scientific.
lefde 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So instead of telling us all how athoritative these agencies are, why don't you tell us exactly what your actually thinking and why. Just because some agency is athoritative doesn't boil down to why we should actually do anything about it. I'm sure there are athoritative buddhist agencies, that doesn't mean were all gonna become buddhists. So tell us your real reasoning... whats at the core of that mindset? Stop bullshiting us
lefde 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
All you do is go out and say. Everyone needs to take action now!!! well thats bullshit. everyone doesn't need to take action. You arent stating the details of your plan, your being ambiguous in terms of exactly what you think has to be done. In short, your full of shit. You just want to rally as much people as you can to fight your war, and your not afraid to bullshit every single one of them for what you beleive in.
lefde 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
slight misinterpretations do alot. does 'WE' mean the united States or does it mean the entire world? Exactly what would be needed quantitatively speaking? 30% of the population? 10%? 80%? the message of urgency is incorrect. If you want 30% of the population to buy your 'product' you might say... Everyone needs to buy this product, and 30% buy it. But if you were to say, 30% need to buy this product now, you might get only 22% to buy it. MANIPULATION
lefde 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You said that if we don't accept this, then we will never accept any science. That statement is completely out of bounds. You may be a loyal follower of the science community, but that is different from accepting a view blindely just because it was posted by an athoritative agency. Science is the work of making the measurements, and blind beleif in big dogs is called being blind beleiver, not a scientist. You don't think there is any mistake in these big scientifis statements huh?...
lefde 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Lets see... You claim these great big science organizations are so smart...hmmm what do we all know about great big smart people organizations... CIA for example... Having mentioned the word CIA lets mention some other words, see if you can scretch your mind... 911, roswell, pearl harbur. Do I need to mention anything else? You should include in your video a detailed history of the organization and it's consistence in telling the truth... I havent checked. but I can only imagine cloudiness
lefde 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You said if you can't find the errors then to spread the word. If someone has the same errors as you, and you don't know which errors they have, then they are spreading the word as ignoranty as you are... apparently you are decided that what your doing is right, Nomatter what. But thats not science. That is nonsense
lefde 4 years ago
5% of the worlds population yet 25% of the CO2 emissions? America REALLY needs to step up.
snowbird112358 4 years ago 2
This is why we don't let scientists (or members of the teacher's union) decide public policy!
knucklescrape 4 years ago
How do you sort through the various opinions: look at the data!!!
knucklescrape 4 years ago
in the 1970's the rage was "Global COOLING" what ever happened with that??
bccritters 4 years ago
The current "consensus" took over as the leading dogma because the planet started to warm up again after 1975.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
seems to me that global warming would be natures way of cleansing itself. sort of like forest fires that cause pine cones to open and flourish.
(i doubt the earth cares whether it purges humans in the process)
bccritters 4 years ago
google "global cooling myth"
wagthedog1 4 years ago
What happened was cooling was from particulates, and other nasty pollutants, they inreased the albedo(cloudiness) of the earth resulting in cooling when we stopped emitting those pollutants the cooling stopped. No: if we started emitted particulates again they and CO2 they would not cancel, we would have global climtae change, not warming or cooling just a bad rearrangement :(.
wanderingmind21 4 years ago
"What happened was cooling was from particulates" You have peer reviewed research to back this claim up? Seems the evidence for that cooling period was from a slow down in the sun's activity. How do you explain the warming started in the late 1800s?
jrwakefield 4 years ago
not only that but how do we know what the earths 1,000 year cycles are? or 10,000 year cycles? we barely can comprehend what its 100 year cycles are... barely.
bccritters 4 years ago
google "global cooling myth" for how climate science back then differs from now.
wagthedog1 4 years ago
and how will todays science differ from tomorrows? do you see my point?
bccritters 4 years ago
If you read Michael Crichton's State of Fear, you can see how much guesswork goes into climate science. I'm sure it has gotten better even since that book was published, but the models we use to "predict" the future of the climate is not foolproof. (cont...)
greendracobob 4 years ago
For instance, El Nino. We know it happens every four years, but don't know what it does. Or cloud cover. It varies from day to day. How do you put these things into an accurate model? The answer is guesswork. Highly scientific, educated and researched guesswork, but guesswork nonetheless.
greendracobob 4 years ago
not even close to foolproof. i stopped watching the weather altogether because of how much guesswork goes into the forecast.
i read an old farmer almanac when i was a kid(from the 1800's) and they put out general climates for the whole year... and i believe they were more accurate than todays standards.
bccritters 4 years ago
How about comparing the funding for the NASA program or something like that. I don't think that the solutions for global warming will harm the human race in anyway. Save for the inconvenince.
lisaintokyo 4 years ago
He does compare it to a NASA program. He says it is equal to the Manhattan project combined with the Apollo project.
I wouldn't tread carefully around the Manhattan project, though. Many consider it to have saved lives. Unfortunately, hindsight makes every act seem one of evil intentions.
There will obviously be repercussions of the choice we make. As far as we know, trying to fix the problem may harm us. But doing nothing could have the same result.
greendracobob 4 years ago
Fire bombing cities in Germany was no different than the A-Bombs in Japan. Just the latter did it in one.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Regardless of whether global warming is an actually fact or not I am sure that the world would be a much nicer place to live in with less pollution. But... I object to your use of comparing the funding of the Manhattan project to the funding of global warming. The difference between designing bombs for blowing up cities and making earth a better place to live in for all inhabitants is kind of bad taste don't you think? cont...
lisaintokyo 4 years ago
Totally agree with you on the fact that we should do something about fixing the enviroment. Especially when the technology is at hand to do it. cont...
lisaintokyo 4 years ago
So anyway (this is for the viewers and you), I came across this video while browsing a philsoophy forum categorising global warming discussions. It basically tries to argue against the common belief that humans aren't causing GCC (global warming specifically)
video dot google dot ca slash videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566
pureghetto 4 years ago
The thing that strikes me is that a lot of people think that dumping large amounts of anything (in this case pollution, co2) into an ecosystem or biosphere won't cause any consequences. It's bizarre to see.
In the 1980's I knew that excessive pollution will lead to an environment like Venus'. The 1980's! Sheesh.
pureghetto 4 years ago
CO2 is not a pollutant. It's a normal component of the atmosphere. And CO2 levels were 3-4 TIMES current in the geological past. We are actually at a CO2 low in geological history. I know the proponents of AGW include pollution to try and link the two, but they are SEPARTE ISSUES. Co2 is not a pollutant.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Yes, there was a time when CO2 levels were much higher than now. But there was also no animal life on the planet at the time. Good luck breathing in that atmosphere.
Otherwise, removing the use of fossil fuels including oil greatly reduces carbon emissions. Without those emissions, you don't have to pump CO2, and you don't have to worry about it.
greendracobob 4 years ago
That is NOT true. It was 150 million years ago and the dinosaurs flourished!!! If we get off oil, you can kiss goodbye to your way of life, and kill millions through starvation and freezing.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Oh and that's really so bad, is it? Inalienable rights like life liberty and so forth come at the cost of having it forced upon the population. But related to what you're talking about, it is also a luxury, not some sort of magical fairy induced objective truth.
pureghetto 4 years ago
I am prepared to accept the future. It doesn't look to happy, either. We cut oil and everyone freezes (unless an alternative is used). We do nothing, and could very well be the end of modern civilization. Wars over water and food throughout the world, even in currently wealthy countries. We're at at lose-lose situation. We must choose the lesser of two evils.
greendracobob 4 years ago
I tend to agree with the video posters basic argument. Something needs to be done. To prove that humans have caused or contribute to the change would take the whole history of Earth, analyzing the climate cycles since the beginning. It's impossible. Instead, we should try to do something because there are benefits beyond that of combating climate change, even if it turns out to be futile or superfluous.
greendracobob 4 years ago
You are assuming 2 things. A: we can actually change the climate by doing something, and B: if we do nothing it will be bad. What if it's not possible to change the climate? What if a warmer world is much better? Seems it was for the Midieval Warm Period people. It was warmer then than it is now, or projected to be by the IPCC.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
What I'm saying is that there are other benefits, beyond the most obvious, that would result from the most common ideas of combating climate change. Even if it does not change the climate, it would, for instance, cease the reliance on foreign oil and oil altogether. With oil running out and foreign oil helping to fund terrorist groups, I would consider it an overall good thing.
greendracobob 4 years ago
I'm in favor of finding an alternative to oil since we are currently at Peak Oil. But it's funding for things like piping CO2 underground, or the carbon credit trading system. Both huge waste of money better spent on other things, like cancer research.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Let's do a quick summary of what I've gathered so far. I have not been able to read all the replies from the first video. I will attempt to do that later.
You basically outline 4 possibilities of the future, in a pascal's wager-esque manner. Either nothing will happen and we waste money, or nothing will happen and we don't waste money, something will happen and we suffer, or something will happen and we're better off because we did something.
pureghetto 4 years ago
Since having an 'oversimplified' argument allows people who want to believe that all they need to do is defeat your argument, I'm not so certain that detractors have done much more than argue over semantics and other irrelevant matters.
The fact remains: something might happen, and we likely won't do anything to stop it. As was stated in the videos about exponential growth, the longer we wait, the worse it will be
pureghetto 4 years ago
You have addressed the crux of the problem of a pascal's wager argument when applied to anything empirically provable: the original argument (that of whether to worship God) is filled with unanswerable questions. GCC, on the other hand, is pretty consistently agreed upon by scientists, as you've covered. This is a good start.
pureghetto 4 years ago
...continued (had to step out for the day):
A lot of people tend to use scare tactics like "if we support this program it will destroy our economy (and then what happens when 99942 Apophis hits us??)". I completely disagree that we will ever suffer that consequence, simply because prior to doing anything, we can (or should) be able to come up with a workaround to replace the improvement.
pureghetto 4 years ago
I'm sure you're not suggesting something like 'well we can fix AGCC by going back to the stone age' or anything of that sort. So why should anybody start to think that the feasible solutions will involve anything so extreme as to cause events like depressions or extended recessions, etc?
pureghetto 4 years ago
Finally (for now) I would like to add a moral argument, just for fun. A lot of our top minds think there will be a problem in the future. The current trend is to not do (that much) to stop it.
pureghetto 4 years ago
I will grant that the moral argument is anthropocentric (the biosphere will benefit as a side effect, as well as due to our concern for our own survival), but that shouldn't be something to counter argue. Also moral relativism shouldn't be brought up because this certainly will happen. The only course of action is to attempt to resolve the AGCC issue.
pureghetto 4 years ago
What is GW is a benifit to humans? Longer growing season in the north and south. No winters hence no heating of our homes?
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Global Warming is believed to cause unstable climate and strong storms. The devastation of hurricane Katrina is being attributed to climate change.
xRubyWeaponx 4 years ago
And "they" are wrong. There is no physical link between the power of Katrina and AGW, just opinion and guess work. How come no hurricanes last year, or, so far, thus year? Human caused global warming is falling appart as the evidence staks up against it.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Following your logic, we should then pump massive money into moving people way from volcanos and active plate boundaries, hurricane and tornado alley.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
There's an idea of solving all of the world's problems, but that doesn't mean 'hey lol let's go bankrupt doing it'.
pureghetto 4 years ago
I think these videos are so apealing due to the fact he's a teacher and not condersending, willing to except that there is another side and not just spouting about the world ending etc. I love the way he tells us key facts for both arguments and how this guy goes out of his way not to argue for or against but use facts. thats why i think this is popular, he could be talking about icecream flavours and i think i'd listen cuz he uses facts and not opinion!
thatmeanwhelp 4 years ago
Wonderingmind sent me an email and asked for my thoughts. I thought I would share with you all what my response was...
dogandponyshow dot typepad dot com
Cheers!
mafeej 4 years ago
Excellent reply. Well done, well thought out. You've come to the same conclusions I have.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
I would deffinately be for a Manpollo project, How can we get that started?
mccarrollud 4 years ago