How It All Ends: Why There Is Still Debate (Pt 2 of 2)

[TrulyEvilBob]

And the Libertarian saying "I don't need to see it!"

[SSedmak]

@TrulyEvilBob No, Libertarians see the previous government efforts to micromanage society: Nazism, Communism, genocide, and World War 2. Those are not abstract concerns. They are VERY real, and yet I'm sure many people laugh at the murder of 50-100 million people depending on how you count it.

Libertarians very much support science and reason, but the bar for proof is very, very much higher when the proposed solution is basically global government regulation of the chemical we exhale: CO2.

[TrulyEvilBob]

@SSedmak Libertarians don't show it. They seem to have made up their mind, stuck fingers in their ears and shouted loudly until they drown out all other voices. Now YOU may be a Libertarian an YOU may have a different point of view, but LibertarianS don't. I know, I was one up until 4 years ago, and was a very good mouthpiece for the movement. Then I saw how naive I was, watching the near riots Ron Paul's supporters were causes and the havoc on the economy deregulation caused... and more.

[SSedmak]

@TrulyEvilBob I'd suggest taking a further look at the economic collapse. It's less a matter of the free market and more a matter of the world's largest organized crime ring with paid off law enforcement and politicians. Last I checked, if you or I commit fraud, we go to jail. That's not exactly what happened to the people who committed multi-billion dollar fraud... The "savior" government freaking bailed them out and never prosecuted. These are the people you trust??? Really???

[KrunchyJD]

I personally believe that the weight of evidence is for climate change. The difficulty is not the science the difficulty is in getting people to do what is required. What is required is more then people think. We should drive a lot less often. This would involve re- structuring our cities to promote more local transport, and walking, and cycling. It is not something that is easily done. People are resistant to change.

[kcjenner1]

I read something recently where the author felt that most scientists have a liberal bias and that they could not understand this. He went on to urge that somehow this imbalance should be corrected. I thought a bit and the answer seemed obvious to me because I view conservatives as being close minded and that does not make for a good scientific research - the need to revise as one finds their hypothesis is faulty.

[bluetwinky]

As has no doubt been said all to often. The point of the previous post is without merit. And would be so even if his larger point was with merit. As of this date (june 2009) the sun is in a relatively cool phase. The point of this comment is self evident.

[sniped101]

what about last year... it was in a relatively hot phase....

[bluetwinky]

You might find the you tube video:

"Climate Denial Crock of the Week: Party like its 1998" & from the same series "this years model"

of interest. The point being that global warming is evident through long term trends. The internal variability of the system (weather, el nino & el nina, volcanic events and so on) can in the short term mask a trend which is only evident over a longer period of time.

[NRA4ever333]

There is still a debate because people like you can't let go, and ignore the FACT that the global temperature hasnt risen in three years. Which means the "sun was just going through a hot phase" theory was right, and manmade global warming has been disproven.

[v1660]

i reccomend checking out dan gilberts videos here on youtube.

[Starstreamtracker]

Who signs your paycheck? And how has your lifestyle changed? From the looks of your office, your wardrobe, nothing has changed in your life. Climate change is real. By the time we can measure climate change, it's too late to change. Remember, we know a comet will hit the earth someday. Build a mile deep or the economy will be destroyed.

[mopkcop]

about the republicans, its unfair to group them together as all "little government" supporters in the area of global warming. It's too popular a subject amongst most voters for the GOP to denounce, for the GOP to not support, and since the GOP supports at least some greater government involvement in the GCC most republicans will as well support this expanse. Irrelevant? Possibly, but you did tell me to be picky... I think...

[boxturtle64]

...This is because human experience has conditioned us to be afraid of some things over others. This is another example of things that fail to trip the brains alarm. Just something I found interesting and felt like sharing I guess. I have to find my notes from that class to give any more detail, which I unfortunately didnt bring with me to college.

[boxturtle64]

Part of this segment reminded me of something I was told in AP Psych last year. My teacher said that if a snake were placed in the middle of the room that most people will try to get a good amount of distance between them and the animal and some may even leave the room. However, he continued, if the light switch were a bunch of exposed wires and were equally deadly if not more deadly than the snake people would not have the same reaction...

[facelessone86]

I like your videos, but I hate how you keep using the word skeptic.

Skeptics are people who look at the evidence and use logic to determin what is true and what is not.

Any real skeptic would acept that climate change is happening.

I think you should replace your use of the work skeptic for something more fitting. Like crackpot or conspiracy theorist.

[wonderingmind42]

Yeah, but on contentious issues, as a matter of principle, I long ago decided to refer to each side the way they refer to themselves. Hence, I say "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion" and "pro-life" instead of "anti-abortion." Hence, "warmers" instead of "alarmists" and "skeptics" instead of "denialists."

[Springtime916]

Instead of citing genuine arguments against global warming [Like the fact that c02 lags behind temperature, or that higher temperatures on earth coincide with much less fatality, or that Kyoto wouldn't actually reduce world wide emissions apreciably, or that in the 90's russia removed it's temperature probes, or that the hockey stick model was dismissed by ipcc but used by gore] Instead, you NEARLY argue that the only arguments against GW are philosophy and psychology, and i disagree with that

[wonderingmind42]

*sigh* No, I mostly argue (but apparently don't do a good job of conveying this) that to avoid the insidious trap of confirmation bias that we are all (myself included) susceptible to, you should actively go out and try to find contradictions to what you believe. That's what I tried to do, which is how I discovered that all the arguments you cite have already been discreditted. If you made the same effort (i.e. look for the rebuttals to what you cited), I think you'd see the same thing.

[MTGandP]

I'll give you some pointers about some of those points. But, in the spirit of this video series, I'll let you do your own research.

1. See what you can find about the "greenhouse gas feedback effect".

2. Think about global warming from a scientific perspective, and less of a political one. For example, don't use Al Gore as a source.

[jotunPIKK]

Yeah, for me personally. I think the people saying manmade GW is real is far more credible than those who say the opposite.

Others have it the other way around.

However, thats where this video comes in handy. Because it explains that we dont really need to know. You dont need to know your bicycle will get stolen tonight, in order to make an effort locking it.

Same with GW. We can afford to take action and be wrong. We cant afford not taking action, and be wrong.

:/

[jotunPIKK]

That is becase you have to know what your sources are, and how credible they are.

Lets say I study the causes of global warming, based on what the AAAS are saying.

Then I go on to study the causes of global warming acording to one of those anti-gw movies. And learn that the global warming is not caused by us at all, but by increased solar activity.

AND THEN give those two views EQUAL importance. I would be confused, however I should then try to fogure out wich one of those are credible.

[KARStarla]

I have changed my mind because of your videos, thank you

[iwishiwasagenius]

Like everyone says: do your own fucking research and don't believe everything in the mass media. I still think that we should take action, however.

[pgregston]

The Apollo project primed the economy and we were made more secure.

Same thing happened with the interstate highway system and the internet.

We spend $300 billion annually helping get foreign oil to this country. Does that infringe on your rights? Why shouldn't there be a national project for clean energy independence? That would provide a more secure nation, a more prosperous nation, and deal with the climate issue.

Make energy like salt- a cheap commodity we used to have wars over.

[manofoss]

In the video, time 03:39 "...and if global climate change is really caused by humans that strongly implies the need for more government action". That is something science can't tell you. Science can tell you if GW is real and/or man made - not if government action is implied by this or not. That question is for political philosophy to answer, not science! Right now many politicians are using GW as a justification to infringe our rights - and THAT is certainly still debatable!

[TempestStormwind]

He goes into the costs to liberty and political self-determination in How It All Ends: Get What You Want.

You will definitely find the conclusion interesting, but probably won't find it comforting.

[manofoss]

I have in fact just finished watching "Get What You Want" and still say that no government has any right to initiate the use of force. Any government's only legitimate job is to protect individual rights - to protect individuals against the initiation of force. I also say that no government action is needed. If enough people demand businesses to change and enforce these demands by way of boycotts, the businesses that don't change will go bankrupt and out of existence very quickly.

[TempestStormwind]

I would argue government action's needed, but not out of any virtue of government. It's out of a known characteristic of the market system: it's Reactive.

The market works really well when responding to pressure, but fails when the pressure comes without warning and can't be reversed afterward (a tipping point). With climate change, this is the case.

These tipping points are discussed in Scare Tactics, and they're discussed in the context of the market in No Holds Barred.

[manofoss]

"The market works really well when responding to pressure," A valid point to a large degree, but the pressure still does not HAVE to come from government legislation. All those who want businesses to change can spread the word, make demands on the businesses, threaten boycotts, and follow through if necessary.

[TempestStormwind]

The reason the market's reactive is because people are reactive in general. We can't count on it.

Also, you assume businesses change when people demand it, even if it threatens their profits. Some do this, but several do not, especially if they have a vested interest in the status quo. (I.e. Tobacco, which deliberately spread misinformation to keep sales up.)

Businesses exist to increase profits. If they believe that inaction will do that, then they will not act no matter what people demand.

[manofoss]

Hey, my whole point is that no one has the right to violate rights. The thing about boycotts was one suggestion. There seems to be a lot of people wishing for something to be done. Get together and use your imagination and I'm sure you'll think of lots of ways to do something that I would never come up with in a million years - just don't violate anyone's rights.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Lets see. All the regulations and fines and "sin taxes" imposed on Big Oil has not only not make the world use less Gasoline based Vehicles, but have raised Gasoline from $1.35 to $3.39 a gallon as Big Oil passes their costs to the consumers. Smart. Lets make the politicians make more policy and drive the fucken cost to $8.00 a gallon..which is all that is going to happen if nobody will introduce Alternative Technology using alternative fuel Sources and the Consumers won't buy it

[mdiem]

TRAA: "All the regulations and fines and "sin taxes" imposed on Big Oil has not only not make the world use less Gasoline based Vehicles, but have raised Gasoline from $1.35 to $3.39 a gallon as Big Oil passes their costs to the consumers. Smart."

Hmmm, it's a year later and demand for oil is down and so is the price. Your predictive powers are amazing... not.

[TheRealArchAngel]

As far as tobbaco, you do know that under the Media radar the States lawsuit has been overturned,yes? Likewise I have seen Phillip-Marlows pamplets about "speak to your children about not smoking (what the first think a child is going to do when rebeling, everything told not to do..duh). Likwise Big Beer knows Age limits causes demands but when they tried to pull the thing done to big Tobacco they tapped on the Constitution and the Politicians and "Puritians" backed down

[guffpot]

Business exists to survive.

Shareholders want profit. Employees want secure wages (as much as possible). Customers want ample goods supplied conveniently and at low prices. Government wants taxes. We're all in it up to our necks.

Rather than reactive, buiness can be a great source of innovation. All sorts of things would never have been invented without "business interest".

Selfishness (like inaction) needs to be a credible business strategy - probably only an option for monopoly.

[TheRealArchAngel]

People willing to sacrifice a little liberty for a little more security deserve neither liberty or security (Benjamin Franklin). Really..Ask yourself why Exxon, Chevron, and all these Mega Worldwide energy corporations are going along with the Politicians and Environuts with this "Crises". It isn't because of being "beat into submission" but because they will provide the Uranium,Hydrogen,Solar Panels,Windmills,Fuel cells,and "quick Charge Stations" anyway and the Age of Oil is almost over.;)

[manofoss]

"and if global climate change is really caused by humans that strongly implies the need for more government action". Nothing can give anyone the right to initiate use of force against others (see "government action"). Convince people to change by rational arguments, boycotts etc., don't force anyone. Almost everyone I've talked to (listened to) on this subject holds that either GW is man made and government action is needed or GW isn't man made and we keep our rights. It's a false alternative!

[manofoss]

"...and if global climate change is really caused by humans that strongly implies the need for more government action". Exactly this is why the debate should not be over. You're right: if the AAAC and all the rest of them tells me about how it IS man made, who am I to contradict the - BUT what I can argue against (and do) is the "government action" part. Nothing can give any government the right to force me to do anything.

[mdiem]

"Nothing can give any government the right to force me to do anything."

Okay, but you have the right to force your government to do something. What would you like your government to do about the possible loss of human habitats and threat of extinction of the human race? Anything?

[manofoss]

PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS!A government is a selection of individuals-let's not forget that.If you propose a moral system where someone-government or no-are entitled to force anyone who has forced no-one, then you are wrong.Force may only be used in retaliatory action. My life is mine, mine alone.You have no right to force me unless i use FORCE against you, and unless you can prove my use of force in a court of OBJECTIVE law, governed by OBJECTIVE standards.Feelings, wishes or whims will not do.

[mdiem]

So, do you believe you have the right to hurt others indirectly without using force, and the government has no authority to protect your fellow citizens from your actions?

[PassiveSmoking]

So, you're okay with grooming children for paedophilia? After all it's not using force par se, and by your argument that makes it perfectly acceptable.

[manofoss]

No. Being an accomplice is exactly that - being an accomplice.

If you are already decided in this question I'm not really interested in debating it further. If you are not decided and have legitimate questions I'll be happy to answer. But from this question the latter seems highly unlikely.

[darknes1124]

Love all the information. Something else to consider . . . Human population growth through time has also contributed to the global warning problem. We consume and emit gases. Funny but true.

[TempestStormwind]

He already does consider that. He mentions it in later videos (although only briefly), and holds a VERY nice talk from Dr. Al Bartlett on the subject in his account (it's the Arithmetic, Population, and Energy talk, but he labels it "The most IMPORTANT video you'll ever see").

I'd suggest checking it out on his account if you can find time.

[swiech44]

Sabre Tooth Tigers ... I love them!

[theangryocelot]

I'm surprised I didn't make the connections myself between Republicans more often dismissing climate change because that would mean bigger government to combat the problem. Nice one!

[mdiem]

angryocelot: "I didn't make the connections myself between Republicans more often dismissing climate change..." - N.B. also that Republicans now are heavily supported by evangelicals and fundamentalists who are actually in favor of Armageddon-like scenarios.

I repeat, the religiously devout *are in favor* of global destruction and human extinction.

(see: The Rapture, 2nd Coming, etc.)

[SSedmak]

@theangryocelot Previous government efforts to micromanage society: Nazism, Communism, genocide, and World War 2. Those are not abstract concerns. They are VERY real, and yet I'm sure many people laugh at the murder of 50-100 million people depending on how you count it.

Many small-government proponents very much support science and reason, but the bar for proof is very, very much higher when the proposed solution is basically global government regulation of the chemical we exhale: CO2.

[SSedmak]

@theangryocelot But given the number of wars fought mostly over oil, a strong argument could be made for investing in alternative energy instead of the military on that basis alone. If the government spent even 1/5 as much on alternative energy research as it does on the military, that could make a huge difference in many regards.

The best way to curtail CO2 is to develop an even better energy technology which is economically attractive.

[ShalomYal]

You might be interested in an essay by the Ehrlichs,"Why isn't everyone as scared as We are?"

From one teacher to another

[AAGWgladiator]

We are the first human generation to see such a global, urgent dire problem. This is truly different. Knucklescrape's impressions need to be updated. Please release your burden of Dogma and try. Confidence Levels are extremely high. One does not need Faith...one can measure this.

[knucklescrape]

Could it be that I am skeptical because the environmental movement has been deliberately misleading the world since "Silent Spring" and "The Population Bomb". We didn't run out of oil in 1990, lose all our forests to acid rain, or experience an new Ice Age. This means that the scientific stamp of approval of any agency (ie political body) is not enough for anyone my age who has been paying attention. Heck, even NASA got the climate data wrong!

[quathar]

Scepticism is good. But you need to learn to discriminate. All sources are not made equal. Everything that scientists say is not gospel (certainly not media spin). When NO scientific bodies of national or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate (even AAPG), do you still find room for doubt? If so, what ARE you convinced by?

[parallelepipete]

And when GISS corrected their data, they found... that the global warming trend was unchanged. You do remember that it was only a subset of US temperature data that was affected by the error?

[knucklescrape]

My point is that the environmentalists have predicted the end of the world several times in my lifetime, thus ruining their credibility. Unless I see compelling data proving their thesis (which I have yet to find), I assume that this is yet another attempt to seize power by declaring "do as we say or the world will be destroyed"!

[TempestStormwind]

Then don't listen to the environmentalists.

You can still find far more people saying that there's a problem than just environmentalists -- even people who you'd expect to say the opposite (the Pentagon, USCAP's companies, and more).

As for compelling data, I'd be happy to oblige. First, I'd need to know what you'd consider "compelling". If you just dismiss it all out of hand as scaremongering, though, then ask yourself if your claim is falsifiable and therefore worth debating.

[mdiem]

knuckles: ..."environmentalists have predicted the end of the world several times in my lifetime, thus ruining their credibility. Unless I see compelling data proving their thesis..." - What will it cost you to do something about it? What will it cost you to do nothing?

If the only compelling data you'd accept is the actual destruction of the world's habitability, is it worth it to wait for that data?