How It All Ends: Risk Management (pt 5 of 7)

[SSedmak]

You speak of credibility. What exactly is the credibility of the mainstream economists who failed to see the 2007-2009 recession coming?

Your problem is that popular economic schools are the equivalent of flat-earthers. They have been thoroughly discredited beyond belief, but they don't go away because they say what politicians and banks want to hear. Bias much?

Evaluate your sources indeed!

[SSedmak]

Sound economic analysis in the USA. HA HA HA HA!

Are these the same economists who publicly laughed at Austrian economists who predicted recession in 2007? The same economists who continued laughing at the risk of recession after one had already started months earlier?

[Akotlya1]

I couldnt find the hole he referenced... :(

I thought i was smart

[gazmaticc]

ummmm.....how dumb are you when you smoke cigarettes that the company who are selling them says to you that these cigarettes will kill you. imagine. since back in the 17th century people have been sayin that tobacco is bad for you... yet people still smoke... hmm... should i be shocked wen the people who are responsible(indirectly or wat not) for global warming are sayin dat "hey! global warmin is bad. cut co2 emissions. now" hmm...another tobacco story? i really hope not

[gazmaticc]

in the abundance of knowledge the fool remains stupid. if you really cant believe that the earth is warming. turn off your air conditioning. summer has ended...more or less and it is actually getting hotter... hmmm. global Warming maybe?? nar it aint global warming. the government is trying to raise your taxes. whooo. really? get smart

[Seefood73]

where are all the links? I can't go hunting all the names and papers you throw like that in the air.

Proper Bibliography please. click able if possible

[frozenboricua]

Oh please, stop splitting hairs. The guy provides you with plenty of sources, for and against his position. He even tells you how to google them. That's more than I can say for most documentaries and blogs on the subject, specially those by climate change deniers.

[donfolstar]

Do you have a name for your argument?

Being able to say "are you familiar with the X argument/idea/whatever" would be a heck of a lot easier then "hey, have you seen that awesome series of youtube videos by wonderingmind where he creates decision making grid in regards to AGW".

[alexkvaskov]

simply call it "how it all ends" series

many climate people here on youtube will know what you mean

[fenderbender92]

Makes more sense than Al Gore ever will

You deserve a DVD release :P

[arch1190]

wonderingmind, i know this doesnt change the argument, but there should be economic harm whether or not GCC is true..right?

[cmoleon]

carefully crafted deliberate nonsense arguments are proven tools of controlled opposition

[passycot]

wat aloda ballacks

[oohaychris]

Re: Backgrounder 1229, When you say "nationally recognized econometric firm", are you refering to WEFA (aka IHS)? If so, on what basis do you "discredit" their statements?

P.S. Good work and Go Wild!

[suckitmyspace117]

Change IS hard, just as how we're still using QWERTY keyboards to spam Youtube when there is a more efficient Dvorak keyboard that places the most common letters on the home row and makes spamming easy.

[akushiii]

i say, do what you can best to reduce pollution that is in fact polluting the atmosphere... and not worry about weather global warming is caused by humans or is natural, and then go build a fallout shelter to wait through the disasters... prepare yourself

[imdefender]

the wost that would happen if climate change was False is that you'ed look like an idiot

[BaDogKiggles]

@imdefender an energy efficient idiot

[ozzyloki]

$1.91 !!!! umm... that would be an improvement eh?

[roecla]

The best part about it is: When you talk about the "catastrophe" in the bottom right it sounds so incredible that I always think "Oh he's exaggerating and then my reason tells me "Darling, I'm sorry, but he isn't"

[wonderingmind42]

Yeah, me too.

[doctorsamadams]

he is exaggerating. the climate is not as predictable as he says it is, nor is there anything close to a widespread scientific consensus as he claims there is. everyone has a feeling of apocalyptic dread, but don't let it run away with you. global warming is real, but we don't have nearly enough information to call it our fault or make a line on a graph that extends 100 years into the future.

[dbrotman]

In what way is he exaggerating? How much more information would you need before you are convinced that the consequence of inaction is greater than the consequence of action. It is interesting that you are compelled to admit that global warming is real. Many skeptics of climate change were in complete denial a few years ago.

[jumpmonkey11]

If you'd have watched the earlier videos you would have realised he counters those points...

[Stonehawk]

YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK IS FUNNY?

"Regulation is bad for the economy! Deregulate! Deregultae! DEREGULATE!!!" ...then the goddamn financial sector folds. BECAUSE IT WAS TOO UNREGULATED! HA! HAHA! HAHAHA!

Damn. That just kills me.

[ted77756]

A request in the video is made to find a hole in the argument.

Basically, the video went a bit fast. The text comments seem to explain some of the possible errors.

The idea is that 1 set includes the other. Although, one set is the Government Regulation. The other is to do nothing and have a disaster. (It went by fast. Sorry, I missed that.)

Over time, doing nothing is the same as Government. Then the set theory statement made holds. ?? Is that his point ??

[itCameFromEarth]

You forgot a box:

We spend a whole bunch of money to stop it and it happens anyways. That box is worse than all of the others.

[suckitmyspace117]

That can be included with the lower right box because we took action too late.

[mdiem]

I think I remember in the original video that you are free to add boxes for in-between scenarios. I would put that between A and B on the T row.

That assumes that some good, however small, would come from taking some action & that would be a better outcome than full unmitigated disaster.

[micsca]

Where does he come up with sea levels rising 20-30 feet? That video is nonsense. The IPCC, the leading authority on global climate change estimates that maybe 20 inch rise in sea level the next hundred years, worst case. He's just making crap up out of thin air. No credible scientists in peer-review journals make those fantastic claims that he states.

[AHarris1764]

So what was the hole???? Did anyone find it?

-Alex

[MonkeySports]

I think the hole is that the lower right-hand corner represents a future in which we did not take action against climate change, so we would not have to deal with the results of that action, as we would in the upper left-hand corner. There would still be economic results of some sort, because, like he says, we would be reacting quickly to disaster, and those results may be worse than those described in the upper left-hand corner, but they also might not, and they probably wouldn't be the same.

[mdiem]

The logical hole I found was that regardless how much worse sector (B,T) was, it doesn't change the fact that sector (A,F) still entails a significant cost and would be an undesirable outcome.

[Henrin]

Can someone please save me some time and tell me the "hole in [his] assertion" from 7:32?

[Bigslye5]

we must have posted at the same time... see my post below.

[Bigslye5]

This is great stuff. I'm a huge proponent of getting this message out. BTW, pssssssssst, I did find the hole in his assertion (about 7:25 into the video): The economic harm in the upper left box (GCC is false but we take action) does NOT exist in the lower right box (GCC is true but we take no action) because, by definition, the economic harm of taking action does not exist when taking no action. The economic harm when GCC is true or false however, is drastically different.

[Bigslye5]

... meant to say AGCC, Anthropologic Global Climate Change.

[mockingbird187]

Something about worldwide bleeching of coral reefs, drought, flood, famine, a bunch of Katrinas, and the spread of Malaria to the north and south of the equator tells me that global warming may be something we might want to prevent.

[bullslawdan]

He presupposes that global warming or global climate change is bad.

What if preventing global warming is harmful to us because global warming is good, or because global cooling is more harmful than global warming?

How's that for your irrefutable logic?

[000sexy1]

it is global climate instability, global climate change or warming are bad names for it, thats what he has been saying, and there are disasters happening everywhere because of how unstable it is all becoming.

maybe you should listen to it all before you judge, because you WILL be shut down, silly skeptic.

[bullslawdan]

I did listen to it all.

I still have yet to be shown that global climate change, or whatever you call it, is bad. The global climate is constantly fluctuating and always has. How cavalier of us, as a young species on an old planet, to now think that the best solution for the planet is to freeze the climate at the exact position it is now.

[therealspacejunkie]

Ok, you are right that it is cavalier to think it is best for the planet. But it is likely that homoeostasis - maintaining the currently comfortable climate - is best for us. Enviromental protection, is to some degree a selfish act of attempting to limit our impact on the earth, with the hope of keeping the earth at the state it is in now - which for humans in general is pretty good.

[therealspacejunkie]

The concept that these are bat seem to be also corroborated by the NAS and AAS. So far, your speculation may be interesting, but you are simply a bloke on Youtube. Care to cite some sources?

[bullslawdan]

Sources? Speculation? You fail to understand what is going on here.

The global warming believers are the ones suggesting that global warming, or climate change, or whatever they're calling it this week when last week's data is proven false, is BAD.

THEY are the ones who need to prove their point because they are positing a theory.

[therealspacejunkie]

Try rising sea levels. It's likely we'll all be adversely affected by this. If you dont believe in this, ask a venetian, who I'm sure will have plenty to say on the matter. Since the majority of the scientific community agree on this, it wouldn't be hard for you to google around and find documentation on it.

It is the dissenting view (with less credibility) that has the greater onus of proof. Your credibility has not yet at all been established. The NAS and AAS clearly have.

[bullslawdan]

Worst case scenario says the sea levels will rise by a few feet over a matter of centuries.

How does that affect anyone who lives more than a few feet above sea level in an industrialized nation capable of absorbing the difference?

And how is it people think that there won't be solutions for the major population centers? See also: Holland.

You're grasping at straws. I live 500 feet above sea level and you expect me to be worried that the beach might be a few inches shorter next time I go?

[therealspacejunkie]

What about less industrialised nations? What about the population of coastal regions who now need other homes? What about the reductions in arable land for growing food? The Netherlands (as they are correctly named) are only just about coping with its problems, if they were any worse, it would be in real trouble. I've spent considerable time on business there.

[bullslawdan]

Well apparently you haven't been to the ocean, because a rise in sea level of a foot - the most predicted - wouldn't even come up the beach in most places.

And I don't live there. So far you've been able to tell me that I'll be closer to the beach, my weather will be more temperate (I currently get over 100" of snow a year), my local growing season will be longer, and developing nations will have less ability to suck up all the resources. Were you getting to a downside any time soon?

[therealspacejunkie]

It is when I am so obviously baited to fulfilling Godwins law that I realise I have been daft enough to feed a troll. My well honed ex-slashdotter skills are clearly fading.

[bullslawdan]

I'll take that as a "No, I can't get to a downside anytime soon, because the truth is I never considered the stuff you've been saying, I've just been spouting off hysterics force fed to me by the environmentalist special interest groups like a goose being fattened for fois gras."

And the only application of Godwin's Law i can see here is if you were about to associate me that way, which again goes to your toe-the-enviro-line: When all else fails, attack skeptics with ad hominem B.S.... Typical.

[therealspacejunkie]

Im talking specifically about the part where you basically say "well they may be screwed, but I don't care as long as Im ok". "less ability to suck up" sounds a lot like "fewer mouths to feed". That is a cavalier Malthusian attitude if ever I heard one. Im not quite sure how you took my reply to get you to your "No, I can get..." line. You assume that in your part of the world (I know not where) it would be warmer, which may simply not be true. Consider the gulf stream and jet stream.

[StarongBahd]

I'm not quite sure what would happen where you live as I don't know where you do live but in other places in the world there would be so many natural disasters it would be nearly uncontrollable, and trying to deal with these disasters would, more than likely, cause economic collapse for many countries. Then people start to run out of resources they will go to the lucky few who still do have resources to try to take theirs either violently or economically.

[stevfusion]

I'm not sure if my reply thing works, cause the comment keeps appearing on top, but in response to StarongBahd, I agree. The situation, no matter where you live, i believe, would be a lot more apocalyptic than he's letting on... I have a hard time believing GDP would only drop 20%. For a lot of areas, like the coast, it could collapse completely, which I would assume (ya i know leave me alone) would have a domino effect on everybody else... but thats me assuming based on past experience

[doctorsamadams]

sounds like it will be almost as bad as Y2K!!

[stikkontakt4]

great.. its pretty late so cant find anything more intelligent than ``great´´ to say

[flamingdog76]

Why is it not confirmation bias to take the statement of the six nobel laureates over the other one?

[therealspacejunkie]

I do not know that it was "taking over" so much as cancelling out. They both have reasonably similar credibility and took broadly opposing views. The point he was making (I think) was citing one without considering the other did not really make sense.

[boredouttamymind123]

Why the hats? That's my only complaint.

[TempestStormwind]

Boredouttamymind:

See the Index for the reason why.

[boredouttamymind123]

i already know why, but i just don't like them

[KeltGS]

Well, watching as far as I've gotten. I have to say i'm on your side. thing is, I think a lot of the stuff you say is a bit, well, murky. it kind of has the opposite effect of what you are trying to do

[Reproductivist]

Climate change would be good for the economy in the long run. In the long run, intervention is very costly and climate change cheap and gives new opportunities. More organic matter growth, less heating and clothing costs. Disasters would destroy wealth, not hurt GDP. GDP goes up when you rebuild stuff f ex.

[guffpot]

An interesting snippet from Keynsian economics. S'ppose that meant Europeans felt better-off after the catastrophe of WWII. Nah!

[jjpash]

i would love to pay 1.91 a gallon for gas, here in cali it's like 3.50 a gallon

[guffpot]

Here in UK it's over £1 per litre. That's about £5.50 or $11 per gallon.

[McCole227]

yeah, but you guys don't really have to drive as much. ;)

[guffpot]

Nice comment McCole - I like your style!

Personally, I don't drive much (but I could do even less).

On a more serious point, fuel costs are quite political. There are plenty who cry "unfair" because they live in rural settings.

The roads in the UK are totally clogged, especially around the big population centres. It raises the question of how much prices would have to rise to change behaviour.

I know somebody who drives a big SUV. They spend £140 per week on gas/petrol ($280).

[Unwardil]

Seriously. The people that come up with this crap have to STOP MAKING PREDICTIONS! (I use caps not to shout but because there is no italics function.)

[TheNatealator]

Why? Because one of their predictions might be right? How would the world be better off without them?

[Unwardil]

This was supposed to be attatched to a comment about how the people in the think tanks who predicted the positive results to the Iraq invasion are the same people predicting ecconomic disaster from action on climate change. They are the ones who need to stop predicting stuff, just like Youtube needs to fix how it puts these posts in order...

[TheNatealator]

I'm sorry. My misunderstanding. Without the context, I assumed you meant the scientists that predict climate destabilization. Yes, those that you speak of should be sacked, and then those that hired them, sacked.

I totally agree with you about bad comment ordering.

[guffpot]

Those "economic" changes put money into pockets. Money to spend on things like cars and holidays. CO2 emissions switch from over here to over there.

There is a limit to what governments can get away with before being challenged by the electorate. The UK has had vehicle fuel duty protests, concerns about rising energy costs and complaints about fuel poverty. People let government get away with it, so long as they don't notice.

[miaangel345]

I'm sorry but what is mroe important...

Having a terrible enviroment or tons of money?

hmmm....

(I put this in Layman's terms obvously...)

[TempestStormwind]

Actually, it's not even an "or". The solutions involved are pretty much win-win: you can have the environment and *make* lots of money doing so.

For example:

ted. com/index. php/talks/view/id/51

[TheRealArchAngel]

pffft. Hey as someone that sells Alternative power grids for $4000-$500,000 a pop I should be happy that the Environuts are trying to drive up the price of Oil and Coal by causing regulation,taxation, bans, and fining by government (which is all they are really good for) But the problem here is that Plastics, nylon, polyester, carbon fiber, Acrylics, synthetic rubbers, paint,cosmetics, medicines, etc are made from Oil/Coal so it will cause inflation for all products and services that need them

[TheRealArchAngel]

Likewise figuring out a method to sequester Co2 more cheaply will make money to the seller/owner of the technology as would figuring out a way to turn Co2 into a usable substance like building block replacement for oil/coal based products or even a fuel source in itself. Before the "Greeners" got into politics they barely was funded, now "Global Warming" R&D is a 2 billion a year industry,so we can make money saving the Enviroment & those thinking there is more money staying with oil are idiots

[TheRealArchAngel]

I am a Optimist and a Realist (I know,I know,How the fuck is that possible?). With the fact that Manhattan is a artificial Island and parts of Venice being "jacked up" for years any coastal cities worth saving will be "raised and Saved". As far as Bread baskets, it is more efficient cheaper and takes less space to make Hydroponic Farms then waste land. And maximum Meltdown is 20 feet worldwide so we may lose costals but we won't go "extinct"

[holon67]

funny how the moron count drops by this time. by moron, i mean "the general public" and their attention span. not much

[iiopen]

More disheartening than funny.

[bullslawdan]

Your videos focus only on the ECONOMIC consequences of these changes, and only on those consequences to the U.S.

How do we get places like China and India on board? Are they just going to give up their industrialization? Of course not, it will require force.

What happens when the middle east economy collapses because we're not buying their oil and they start lobbing nukes at each other?

Good luck, you alarmist hack.

[TempestStormwind]

I find it hilarious that one who uses language like "economy collapses" and "lobbing nukes" accuses someone else of being alarmist.

Provide evidence to support your point, or to refute his point. Gut reactions don't convince anyone.

[joyoust]

Gut reactions convince the person who has them and they're usually on the mark. If you must depend on others to provide evidence or refute a point I pity you. Who fucking died and made you god of opinions?

[TempestStormwind]

Gut reactions are only usually on the mark when they fall within our past experience. Move out of that experience, and what your gut tells you and what the world tells you can diverge quite a bit.

For a rather fun example of this, see How It All Ends: The Nature of Science on WM42's account, which demonstrates this dramatically. To see a slightly more telling example of the conflict, see How It All Ends: God's Will (which asks a useful question no matter what your faith (or lack thereof) is).

[TempestStormwind]

And for the record, I don't need someone else to provide me evidence -- I can find discussions showing what he claims in the blogosphere and from the right-wing think tanks just fine.

However, I can't find anything from *credible* sources. And if Bullslawsan happened to find some -- which I presume he has, given his certainty -- I was curious as to what it was.

On the flipside, if he was just screaming his own armchair analysis, I'd prefer he admit it, lest he mislead others.

[Kbasa11]

As for focusing on only economic consequences this is only one part of his several part video series, I haven't watched everyone of them yet. However I'm positive he addresses more problems than only economic ones.

China and India don't have to give up their economies in order to displace their greenhouse gas output. If you had watched his other videos you would see that in fact China is on-board with gcc.

[TempestStormwind]

Yu Qingtai from the Chinese delegation told Reuters news agency that richer countries were "dodging their moral responsibility" to provide the developing world with clean technologies.

"They either view this as a gesture of charity or generosity, not as a moral or political obligation," he said."

(Continued, source in reply)

[TempestStormwind]

"They always try to shift the focus to the market, ignoring the fact that for developing countries, we know the technologies are out there but these are the most expensive technologies and we cannot afford them."

--news. bbc. co. uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7141660. stm

In other words, the Chinese delegation to Bali is suggesting exactly what WM42 suggests: Wealthy nations develop economically-sound green technology and sell it to the developing countries!

[JimmytheWalrus]

I think talk of "lobbing nukes around" by middle east countries that don't seem able to afford them, since their economy apparently seems to rely entirely on our consumption of their oil, qualifies you, bullslawdan, as an alarmist.

As for China and India, if you've actually been paying an ounce of attention you would recall that they don't have to give up any industrialization, but in fact save money on renewable energy sources that are cheaper than oil, which they are already doing.

[danmarkedman]

love this guy. i wanted someone to do just this, break down every argument, one at a time.

[TempestStormwind]

For more technical-related questions, gristmill. grist. org/skeptics is a better resource. How It All Ends is a better argument for action, though.

[aanimad]

Don't get me wrong. I'm on the side of taking action. But to consistently focus on only two out of four quadrants is to ignore a large part of your model.

[TempestStormwind]

Completely valid concerns. And also already addressed.

This is covered in later parts of Risk Management, and is also addressed (implicitly) in How It All Ends: The Manpollo Project. Keep going and you'll see why he focuses on those quadrants.

[aanimad]

Yes. You also start to mention them in Risk Mgt. 7 of 7. I'm just thinking that leaving half of your model to video # 10 or 11 in your series does not necessarily help your (our) cause.

The smiling and frowning faces do much to simplify your quadrant when it is introduced, but it is unfair to leave them there when the other two quadrants get more serious content.

I will continue to watch...

[TempestStormwind]

Put simply, the UL/DR quadrants are the ones with the lower cost-to-benefit ratio, and the ones with the most damage. Therefore, the net risk associated with each column is dominated by its respective "mistake" quadrant.

The people who aren't convinced by that sort of argument are either A) never going to be convinced and/or never going to watch the expansion pack anyway, or B) intelligent enough to keep the question in mind as they go through the entire argument.

[aanimad]

Why do you constantly refer to just upper left (UL) & lower right (LR) quadrants? The LL quadrant gets a flat-mouth face only!?

The 'costs' in UL are NOT confined to UL. They're also present in LL. This is important, despite the fact that in LL we're happier about spending them.

The costs are a FACT of the L column, not based on the uncertainty of the U versus L rows.

You say LR has all the problems of the UL and WORSE. Well UR has all of the good parts of the LR and NO COSTS.

[ThreeGringos]

What is the latest news about Michael Mann's "hockey stick"? I have read that Mckitrick and McIntyre had some problems to reconstruct that "hockey stick". Could someone point me in direction where I can find more information about this? I have tried Wikipedia but it does not seem to provide me with much information of that kind.

[TempestStormwind]

gristmill. grist. org/story/2006/12/14/01828/236

That page has a decent enough summary of what happened with that, and why it's irrelevant in the long run (there were problems, but replicated experiments demonstrate the same general results, meaning complaints against Mann's graph don't nullify the claim).

[guffpot]

Go to climateaudit(dot)org. You'll find a lot more than just the HS there.

Enjoy the recent collaboration with Anthony Watts audit of US surface stations. Examples like measurement stations in parking lots and (surprise surprise) temperature readings going up!

[kostnadseffektiv]

How much is a gallon of gas in the US?

[TempestStormwind]

Depends where you are in the nation. There are websites that help you find cheap gas prices in given locations; for instance, in Chicago, today, it appears to range between $2.94 and $3.59 per gallon.

[duffster17]

I might have found the hole in your assertion (or at least what I think is a hole). You say that we would have time to decide how to spend our money efficiently, and for debate and skepticism. However, you've said before that climate destabilization would occur quickly and without warning. So according to your own words, we DON'T have the time to talk about how to spend our money.

[TempestStormwind]

"Quickly" in that context means within the span of a decade.

Watch Australia right now, specifically what scientists are saying about the drought there. (note: Climate models *do* predict *exactly* this as the temperature rises. There's a reason deserts are where they are on the globe right now.) That's just the start.

If we're planning, we'd better do so quick, because if we don't, we're going to have to plan *while* dealing with concerns like that on top of it.

That's all that he means.

[RoelGeurtsen]

Now your really oversimplifying ,without any nobleprizewinner you can conclude that if the growing world pop. of 6.000.000.000 would drive only 1 car all ur good behaviour would be in vain So good morals starts with <2 cars and very few air-miles walk the walk and win some souls!!

[anticarrrot]

4 of 4

Effectively we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot. Of course in column B we might decide (as we have) that a sensible $10B cheap launch vehicle is not a good idea, and hence NASA is wasting $60B on Orion. (But I'm just a lowly bloger...) Still. It's a possible flaw in the argument. An economy that isn't restricted by the 3% hit might have superior resources, of scope or type, and hence might be in a better position to solve global warming in a better way.

[anticarrrot]

(4 of 4)

Effectively we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot. Of course in column B we might decide (as we have) that a sensible $10B cheap launch vehicle is not a good idea, and hence NASA is wasting $60B on Orion. (But I'm just a lowly bloger...) Still. It's a possible flaw in the argument. An economy that isn't restricted by the 3% hit might have superior resources, of scope or type, and hence might be in a better position to solve global warming in a better way.

[anticarrrot]

(4 of 4)

Effectively we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot. Of course in column B we might decide (as we have) that a sensible $10B cheap launch vehicle is not a good idea, and hence NASA is wasting $60B on Orion. (But I'm just a lowly bloger...) Still. It's a possible flaw in the argument. An economy that isn't restricted by the 3% hit might have superior resources, of scope or type, and hence might be in a better position to solve global warming in a better way.

[quathar]

The hole in the assertion: You don't know for certain that the economic consequences that are included in the right hand lower box are made worse, necessarily.

Of course, it is probable that they are made worse.

Or is there another hole? ;)

[tygmy]

Im along the same lines with you. When dealing with uncertainty in the upper-left box you can throw infinite amount of money at the problem to minimize the predicted negative effects. After catastrophe has hit you don't really have to predict anymore, only adapt. This seems like an alternative that only exists in theory if you go overboard with the "yes" solution.

[Saintlyghost]

I like Mad max always wanted to live in a post apolyptic world which i assume all this will lead too and seriously thatcreepcanroll makes it seem like that is the only thing that is gonna happen

[thatcreepcanroll]

In this video at 6:31 you say "because our coastal cities are flooded!".

IIRC, according to the IPCC report, the worst case scenario is about a 30" rise in sea level over the next 100 years. That's a very long time to adapt, yet you talk of a "panic" which I don't think is an honest way to present it.

[wonderingmind42]

Thanks for the critique. Watch "How It All Ends: Scare Tactics" for where that worst-case scenario comes from, and why IPCC projections are now starting to be considered too optimistic. Bad news.

[thatcreepcanroll]

Nevertheless, whatever you believe the worst case scenario is for sea level change, it will occur gradually over many, many, many decades. We will adapt along the way. There isn't going to be a "panic" over it.

[triscope]

How can you be so sure? Are you a scientist and can you explain where you got those projections? We can predict to a fair amount of precision how much will melt in how long a period, but you forget about the possible feedback effects this might cause. For example, about 1 foot in the coming decade has to potential to flood areas by much more than a foot given that it is below sea level. Also you fail to understand that as the level rises, it goes through an exponential rise over the years.

[thatcreepcanroll]

triscope, the projections come from some of the experts wonderingmind42 spent many videos imploring us to listen to. Well, he wants us to listen to them until what they are saying isn't sufficiently scary enough. ;-)

Just google "IPCC" and read the report for yourself.

[wanderingmind21]

What are you saying? because you find 6 words not supported by the IPCC that hes disingenuous? Yes his descriptions in this part of this video include and perhaps are primarily the worst case scenarios put by anyone credible. (sos the 3% number) What he said is not just smoke and mirrors, there is enough water in ice caps to be serious aka flood cities, if they melt.

[wanderingmind21]

The basic premise that the cost of going renewable will either be born

right now to avoid/mitgate very likely(IPCC) AGCC

fairly soon while we simultaneously pay for the results of AGCC

not quite as soon when oil then coal runs out

does precisely what he said effect the obvious conclusion for you or are you arguing for arguings sake.

[triscope]

Also I think your way of thinking, is because you are acustomed to having a solution to a problem when you have time to react to it. But when you dont have time to react, you're in much much more trouble and oyu have to do lots of damage control. The "adaption" period will not be a very smooth one in my opinion.