How It All Ends: Get What You Want (Pt 2 of 3)

[bribeanbabybopdelux]

The economy has gone down the tubes my friend.

Its over!

They use global warming alarmism as a tool to implement laws and policy to suppress any meaningful uprising.

Same with terrorism.

The big companies you trust at the top of your list know the score too.

You are being used my friend.

This is all well orchestrated and controlled by the elite, and has been going on for many years.

The evidence for the NWO is much stronger than the evidence for global warming. It is also easier to predict.

[sniped101]

lol @ "by 2010 gas will be up as much as 1.91"...

funny how gas was up as much as 4 dollars last year!

[mdiem]

Ya' know, I just want to pause here to applaud how well this whole presentation is put together:

It's very simple - cheap really - just a webcam & some simple props, but it is very well-organized and flows quite well even with the rough editing.

So.. kudos.

Okay, back to the brain candy..

[wdalanw]

while they are movies and completely fictional the Stories behind them are a realistic and could happen "Lost In Space" and "The Day After Tomorrow" represent the kinds of things that could happen albiet in the extreme worst case end of the Spectrum. given the choice of "waiting to See "IF" they happen and then dealing with it as opposed to " Taking Actions" Now that Can't hurt and could with reasonable certainty actually correct and maybe even improve things .I'll take the latter of the two

[wdalanw]

To SevenPatch: while in the Short term.. alternative energy Sources may be More expensive to get started... the Benefits over time cannot be ignored... reason Number one is as Wwickeddogg pointed out ... while the fossil Fuels Will eventually but Most certainly run out and quite possibly within our lifetime... Since they can not Be renewed as fast as we use them, they will run out.(assuming you're in the 40 or younger Crowd that is)

[wdalanw]

wind and solar energy is Clean and will be around for quite Some time. (Our Sun isn't due to go poof for Several hundered million years or so) And reaason two is that other forms of alternative energies are just coming to light hydrogen is one of the newest but there are others such as methane and geothermal which are still viable resources which initially may be costly on start up but over time, may not only make the economy better but also may Improve the environment in which we live...

[wdalanw]

The Point to all this is as I See it why should we Wait to See if the theory is wrong or right .. wait for it to happen... the earth handled itself just fine before we were here .. and removing those things which can potentially be harmful wont hurt the environment in anyway ..and can actually improve our way of life without the continued risk of harming the planet on which we live ...

[wwickeddogg]

There is actually a very simple answer to your question about coal energy. There is finite amount of coal. Once the amount of coal remaining becomes less than the amount already used, the price will increase dramatically (20-40 years). By that time the energy needed to manufacture and work on building space based solar energy plants will be so expensive we will not be able to do it at all.

You gain jobs on those projects and electric bills are going to go up anyway.

[SevenPatch]

I find that you leave some important information out of your video's. I don't understand how eliminating cheap coal energy plants and replacing it with expensive solar and wind technology will not hurt the economy. 1) you lose jobs and 2) you raise the cost of everyone's electric bill thus further hurting the economy. Maybe after 50 to a 100 years when the economy catches up with the financial burden it might be beneficial but by then we will find out that AGW was wrong anyway. hmmm

[ted77756]

Because you are doing simpleton thinking. Like common sense, we could be in trouble.

What is the half life of aerosol in the ozone? Probably that has to be the focus.

What is the result of fixing things?

It may be that we can only cut aerosol. Remember a forest fire makes carbon too. So nature understands carbon, but not the aerosol.

Attack the correct part of the problem if you don't have an accurate mathematical model.

So the scare tactics and common sense cloud issues.

[wwickeddogg]

You should probably watch the rest of the videos because aerosol chemicals are not the problem.

[CityzenJane]

I think people also seem not to recognize that sure SOME people will lose money...those companies that insist on old ways, waste, and not adjusting to the reality...Those that DO adjust and in fact provide products and services that mitigate climate change, innovate, redesign... are going to make bank and will be THE economic giants in a post carbon economy.

You can chose to be a winner or a loser.

[borisbahr]

read this after my three others: Start thinking! Wake up! This discussion is less about the facts that most of us cannot fully grasped because we just aren´t properly trained in exactly this field -- this is all about common sense! Start acting now or at least stop slowing the rest of us who have grasped the danger down! Greetings from the country that is by now the technology leader in renewables!

[TempestStormwind]

Borisbahr, while I am 100% with you on the need for action, there's no reason to mount personal attacks on people, and definitely no reason to bring in war or religion into it here. ESPECIALLY on Get What You Want, which is all about the economic and political practicality of action on climate change.

You could have said all of that without the ad hominems, and it would have been stronger for it.

[borisbahr]

yes, you are absolutely right, i just got carried away a little .... it´s just that mounting frustration about people that don´t want to get it ... you know what i mean ... sorry! unfortunately too many out there (not you, not wanderingmind42, not plenty of others that we unfortunately don´t seem to hear as loud as others) mix all of these topics up and i just tried to shake that up a little bit.

[borisbahr]

wow, are there ever a whole bunch of brainless people in the world, to a large part unfortunately concentrated on the north american continent!  what "wonderingmind42" is talking about is just common sense, easily understandable for the layman! why don´t you dinialists start thinking instead of rallying behind your president??? he brought you a really neat war which did nothing but destabilize an entire world region - who made the big bucks?

[borisbahr]

you taxpayers definitely paid for it! who grants the big corp. the tax breaks? who is paying for that? who cut your civil rights and freedoms to avert more control over each and every individual? and now you are (again) standing behind that man repeating his opinion instead of thinking just because it sounds nice and easy!? who is making the most money developing oil and gas in your country?

[borisbahr]

who would therefore have the least interest in developing something new when the cash is floating this freely into his hands as it is now? Think!!! Which person of "devout faith" who believes the big invisible man is controlling everything should really care about the future? Funny though that exactly these people care oh so much about the will of the invisible man care even more about the cash in their pockets.

[freesk8]

Corporations have gotten on the AGW bandwagon for PR/marketing reasons. They know they can not fight it, so they go along in order to make money. If the people are irrational, and you can not change that, you make more money by going along with that irrationality. That is why corporations give to charities.

[freesk8]

Prof orgs are often biased. They also seek their own interested, which can be funding.

[TempestStormwind]

One organization might be. All of them, though?

Not a single scientific organization of national or international repute opposes AGCC. This is possibly one holy hell of a self-serving conspiracy, but it's far more likely to coincide with "having the right answer".

See also: How It All Ends: No Holds Barred.

[freesk8]

I am disagreeing with his credibility spectrum. It is an over-generalization, and it does not absolve us of the responsibility for thinking from ourselves. Instead of appealing to "source credibility" he should tell us the evidence and let us decide based on reason. The fact that he relies on these "credible" sources is suspect.

[TempestStormwind]

I agree with *everything* you just said, except for the last sentence.

In his mind, he ranks those sources as the most credible, the ones most likely to be correct.

Since he isn't qualified to do the work himself, and it isn't a logical issue, it's rational for him to conclude that they're the ones to listen to.

In your own evaluation of credibilty, you follow the *exact same process*!

[freesk8]

Not true. I look at the arguments, not the reputatons of the arguers. To do so is ad hominem. I think for myself.

[TempestStormwind]

You mean "appeal to authority", which is NOT fallacious when dealing with areas outside logic. When you want medical advice, you ask a doctor, and if there's legal trouble, you act on the advice of a lawyer. When dealing with the physical world, you look at the people who study the physical world: Scientists.

If you look only at arguments without considering sources, you might end up with a doctor saying you have TB, but your pal saying you have a cold. Which would you believe?

[freesk8]

My guess is that the doctor would show you test results, and your pal would give you a hunch, or tell you about his tea leaves.

Big difference, my friend.

Look, I'm glad there are experts, but we can't take what they say on faith. And the best foil to an expert is another expert. Let's let 'em fight it out for a while until things shake themselves out a bit more. A couple of degrees in 100 years and a few feet of sea rise probably won't kill anyone.

[TempestStormwind]

I'm honestly shocked that you teach the physical sciences if you don't understand the nature of complex systems. Your students deserve better.

As for the "test results"? You're accepting those on faith from the doctor. Do you understand the biochemical processes at work? Can you interpret lab results? Maybe he's showing you a false report! But you go and get antibiotics all the same, because the doctor is the medical expert here.

[TempestStormwind]

Now, if it's evidence you want from climate scientists, it *is* out there, and publicly available to boot. The issue is determining which ones are worth listening to (since we both agree there's a lot of bunk 'science' going on). Do we believe the Oregon Petition (claims no consensus), or the Joint Science Academies Statement (explicitly says consensus)?

That is the important part of evaluating your sources in terms of their critics and supporters.

[TempestStormwind]

In fact, I would contend that simply dismissing the source out of hand with no consideration whatsoever is exhibiting a distinct *lack* of critical thought.

I mean, where would *you*, as a physics teacher, look for information on the Higgs boson: CERN, or Wikipedia? (I had a condensed matter physics prof who was in the habit of editing Wikipedia around assignment dates with false constants, just so he could catch students who used it as their only resource.)

[freesk8]

All the more reason to think for yourself, and NOT accept what people tell you, just because they are experts.

Look, you are not going to persuade me that global warming is significantly anthropogenic. I'm not going to convince you to change your mind about the quality if the AGW science.

There is a lot we can agree on, like the value of scientific inquiry, and the importance of the environment to human life. Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree at this point, my windy friend! :)

[TempestStormwind]

I'm not accepting it because they're experts. I'm giving their statements more weight in my own evaluation than I would give to some yokel on YouTube. That's all.

I look for credible statements from respected professional organizations that support your viewpoint, and I simply can't find any. I view this as I would view a series of experiments: All the data point one way, and no contradicting evidence can be found. I am forced to conclude... what, then?

[freesk8]

Science is not about consensus. It is about repeatability, falsifiability, experiments and questioning. Consensus is not science. Most of the time, consensus is submerging minority views, peer pressure, and steam-rolling. I doubt that in a group of more than 50 people, true consensus is possible on any complex issue.

[TempestStormwind]

Entirely correct, which is why there isn't true "consensus" in the scientific community. I merely need a single scientist who doesn't believe it's happening (Dr. Richard Lindzen, say -- setting aside that he also denies the link between smoking and lung cancer, he protests AGCC), and boom, no consensus.

However, the scientific organizations also all agree that Newton's laws don't hold at speeds approaching c. Is that suppression of minority, peer pressure... or the right answer?

[freesk8]

All we can say is that science tends to get closer and closer to the truth as time goes on. The same can not be said about religion and mysticism. I'm sure you and I agree there. What we disagree on is whether GW is significantly anthropogenic. I'm afraid we may never know for sure.

[TempestStormwind]

You seem a reasonable fellow. However, you keep dodging the question (when did religion or mysticism ever factor into our discussion?).

What is your criteria for your claim being rejected, and therefore following the scientific method?

If your claim isn't falsifiable, then how can you begin to debate or apply science at all?

(Also, if you can't refute my points, then I must interpret that as a concession.)

[codehead1]

>Lindzen... setting aside that he also denies the link between smoking and lung cancer

Note: There is a difference between someone saying that links between second hand smoke and lung cancer are overstated, and what you said here...

[TheRealArchAngel]

You need to be more specific.Nobody is denying Global Climate Change, but how many individuals in each of the organizations actually believe the Environut version of Biosphere Dynamics where Co2 traps the heat in Air and more Co2 makes more heat v.s. Meteorology observance that Air is a composite gas that heats as a whole like when Baking Cookies in your oven? Not all Scientist are Equal thus Climatologist, Meterologist, the new "Enviromental Scientist" (environut) see "truth" and data different

[SevenPatch]

"Nobody is denying Global Climate Change, but how many individuals in each of the organizations actually believe the Environut version of Biosphere Dynamics where Co2 traps the heat in Air and more Co2 makes more heat v.s. Meteorology observance that Air is a composite gas that heats as a whole like when Baking Cookies in your oven? Not all Scientist are Equal thus Climatologist, Meterologist, the new "Enviromental Scientist" (environut) see "truth" and data different"6 negative votes on fact

[davidngo4415]

again. this is just as valid of an argument as one of a fanatical christian. "what is the risk of going to church everyday? the risk of not going is burning in hell for eternity!" Do you really want to take that chance? there are many peer-reviewed "articles" within the church (namely the bible) and even from seemingly "rational" people that believe in God. But it doesn't make it true. and it certainly doesn't convince me to go to church on sundays.

[cablefish]

So where do you place our chances?

As he explains there is a well documented reason for alarm.

[aurelia314159]

davidngo4415,

Unlike Pascal's Wager, which is what you are referring to, w42's argument is based on a well-researched threat whose existence is probable and consequences with finite expected values (Blaise Pascal spoke of infinite payoffs). Besides, if you watch the video "Manpollo Project", you will see that the decision grid actually has dozens, or maybe even hundreds, of boxes!