Nothing will be solved in forum arguments. Everything, policy-wise, is made by money. The majority of people who have lots of money are concerned solely with making money in the very short-term, which falls on NOT reducing climate change.
Unfettered capitalism, the desire for more and more money, is causing climate change. I am sorry for my sisters and I am sorry for your daughters. While the fight is so necessary, forum arguments are, I worry, just a passion sink. Radicalize instead.
Thankyou laica for presenting one of the major failings of humanity, vanity. It fails so hard it overrides self preservation. You have kids too, which you care about. Vanity is hard. Good luck with it.
if you would have asked nicely instead of trying to scare me into thinking like you by attacking both my fear of being seen as ridicolous, stupid, dead and the fear of that something would happen to my kids maybe i would be less defensive...manipulation shouldnt be so obvious, a direct threath would be better on me, no i wont spread this video because it would make me seem stupid, but yes i think you are smart
Hydrogen fuel is the answer. I strive to be rich for the sole purpose of setting up hydrogen fuel & conversion stations (also to escape the enemies of Galileo, Copernicus, the Wrights, Curie, Tesla, Carver & Farnsworth -- all of those whom don't deserve the fruits of their labors). To escape the enemies of all mankind: The illogical, & irrational; driven by greed & the whims of their anus - is what want.
Hydrogen fuel is the answer. I strive to be rich for the sole purpose of setting up hydrogen fuel & conversion stations (also to escape the enemies of Galileo, Copernicus, the Wrights, Curie, Tesla, Carver & Farnsworth -- all of those whom don't deserve the fruits of their labors)
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007. Still, it is possible they are wrong. So what are the risks if they are? What if they are not? Google video, "How it all ends." It will be the first one. It is the first of a series of videos to help you understand the risks involved so you can make a cost/benefit analysis.
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007. Still, it is possible they are wrong. So what are the risks if they are? What if they are not? Google video, "How it all ends." It will be the first one. It is the first of a series of videos to help you understand the risks involved so you can make a cost/benefit analysis.
che, te comento, dese Argentina, estoy aplicando las mismas tecnicas de convencimiento y descubri que se puede usar sistemicamente para darme credito de hasta lo mas ilogico. Gracias. Ahora nunca pierdo una negociacion
we're not talking about turning off the focet while you brush
this is giving up transportation, electricity, heat, easy access to international goods, and living on a subsitance diet, and having no or just one kid
are you really ready to make that sacrifice AND forcibly force everyone else to also do it ?
even if you are, you probably wouldn't succeed, just try it for a week, then imagine forcing everyone to do that
Turning off the facet when you brush. Imagine if you can get 50% of the world's population to save, let's say 25% of water/electricity/whatever. That will decrease the amount of usage by 12.5%. 12.5% is a lot for a global movement.
I have created a simple, but useful page, which has all the links to this series of videos listed in the correct order.
The site name is of the standard format with the usual (US) extension after the dot. The site name is then followed by a forward slash and the name of the page, so the first word is my site name and the second bit is the page name (but you need to put D O T h t m on the end).
Dear wonderingmind42, I cannot offer enough thanks for the service you have provided humanity with these tapes,
I particularly like the fact that you outlined scientific method and necessity for critical thinking when interpreting evidence.
The potential of the Manpollo project, and its template is awesome, applied to other complex problems that require rational deductive reasoning, congratulations,
How we choose, extract and transform our environment's ressources appears even more critical now with GCC, and part of the solution, when in fact, reaching a rough dynamical equilibrium with nature was never an option ! Independently of climate issues ! So that the debate whether or not we should take action in relation to GCC is frightening in that it is absurd. We should change our way of life REGARDLESS !
In my opinion, using more efficiently the ressources of our planet, sadly, isn't or shouldn't be a global climate change issue. Even if the climate was predicted to be favorable for us for an infinite amount of time, blindingly consume and waste is simply not a sustainable way to live, even with 25°C all year round in every country.
What is your point? You are advertising a graph that shows there has already been a 1 degree Fahrenheit change, how is this an argument against climate change which I have been warned could dramatically shift after only a few more degrees increase. You do realise that with any warming through the action of greenhouse gasses the effect will lag behind current emmisions?
Excellent expansion pack! I had no idea whatsoever that GCC is such a huge threat to us and to all other life as well. The video on what melting ice really means for the ocean has changed my perception on rising sea levels for ever. I am an Animal Rights advocate and now I'm a GCC activist too because obviously I have to fight for a planet with suitable climatic and environmental conditions for the animals to live in...and that includes my beloved children as well! You are a very good human!!!
Fuck U Jewishist Jew Shit, filling us with Jewish Controlled Propaganda, Mankind is not Responsible nor is Able to Control Global Warming you insignificant meaningless Parasite, Global Warming is indeed a natural cycle, Instead: Let's spread the word that israeli jews are Parasites thriving on US taxpayer handouts
A fantastic sequence of videos that outline the issues well and provide well reasoned arguments for taking action. Dare I say it, but I'm contemplating re-watching the clips to formulate my own presentation to communicate your analysis to others. I love the approach that you've adopted and would like to see your analysis conveyed widely. Great to hear that you're writing a book and I wish you every success with that endeavour. Thanks for all your efforts in making these videos.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Want my Objective opinion?
You sound like a left-partisan school teacher that is trying to encourage a younger audience to "silence" and ignore the opinions of individuals who are against wasting billions of dollars on climate change. It frightens me to know that people like you are cunningly concealing your political agenda behind the face of science, and are talking to our children 5 days a week.
Your videos are not without opinion. Please keep your opinions to yourself.
of course the videos contain his opinion. he has dedicated a huge amout of time to these videos why shouldn't he voice his opinion. he is encouraging the exact opposite. have you bothered to watch his earlier videos?
"Please keep your opinions to yourself"? But if we all did that we wouldn't get to hear about how this guy is a "left-partisan school teacher".
I'm sorry to hear you're frightened. Nobody likes to lose money. I think if I had to lose all my money, but it would guaruntee me food and shelter, I'd do it. Money isn't too important in comparison to life, and I can always get more. Sorry, I'm saying opinions. That's very rude of me. :(
and one more thing as far as you people who are sceptic. I think it is just a matter of your lack of understanding and/or education (hmm same thing?) or maybe you are just EVIL! hmm who knows. but anyways point is if a man with a G.E.D can understand things like risk management and the dangers of not taking action as opposed to not taking action. then anyone can. wouldn't it be nice if everyone planted 10 trees every weekend. I mean they are nice to look at. I think i'll start doing that. =)
I could not agree more with you. I have a much better understanding of risk management now. one thing I always like to stress. this is a product of primative structures of society. government, monetary, education and energy management systems were thought up some.. (hmm.. ummm) 150-400 years ago? we are smarter then that now.. we have the intellagence and tecnology to fix these problems.. why don't we use it? (once again I am very sorry for my spelling as I only have a G.E.D due to poverty) =)
Hitler could not have silenced his critics any better than you have instructed others to kill those that disagree with you. PITA and ELF would be proud of you.
What? being civil, reasonable, rational, and using logical conversation does kill. It kills irrational thought, ignorance, and stupidity. HEY I FOUND A SKEPTIC!! I FOUND ONE!! GIMME MA SHOTGUN! ;)
I'm glad your comment was sarcastic. Thanks for clarifying. Hard (impossible?) to pick up on sarcasm with text only -- without in-person signs, cues, body language. Thanks again. :-)
This is my second time through watching all six hours of these (over the course of a few days). I can't wait for that book to come out. Then I could shut down the skeptics as I talk to them, without pointing them to youtube, a place they're likely never to go.
Whew! I just spent my day off viewing this entire series from start to finish, and I must say, it was time well spent. Your students must consider you the best teacher they have! If you don't have a doctorate, an injustice has been done. 5 stars on every part! (and I won't mention the energy drinks and the hat to your wife). My hat off to you sir, for your dedication, research and passion in this series.
When we are talking about the future of the world, our future as a civilization. I think this needs to be taken serious, so you need to make this video be seen more, like millions of people. Not just thousands.
its not a waste of time to have things explained. "Get to the point" is too much a warcry of psuedo-ADD people today who want fast results (which is what the world seems to desire more and more). The problem with fast results is that more often than not the process is not thorough! Lacking thoroughness = failure.
I assume you would accept that who is misinformed and misguided is simply a matter of perspective. I have no agenda whatsoever on this matter, but I am very curious about the matter and extremely concerned about leaving a desolate planet for my grandchildren. I have therefore embarked on extensive study of both sides of the argument - attempting wherever possible to determine the evidence based on peer-review and syllogistic reasoning.
Did you actually watch the 44 previous videos? They pretty much outline exactly where you can go to find the information, not to mention they tell you just how uniform the responses from scientist are.
I've watched dozens of videos and spoken with a number of qualified scientists. I try not to waste time on videos that rely on arguments based on generalisations, unproven assumptions, sensationalism, and speculation. The gentleman who posted this video states proudly how the NAS and AAAS all believe in Global Warming. However, many scientists within each org. disagree. Please provide me with just one piece of proof of anthropogenic climate change and I will show you exactly what I mean.
ok where is your evidence? provide us with the website or literature that shows what you are talking about as far as the " many scientists within each org. disagree" where is this infomation. mind you i would like to see them at the same level as the aaas or the nas. are they as credible?
Despite my concerns for the planet and the obvious prudence in preparing for the worst, I am simply unable to accept there is any evidence whatsoever that the present climate pattern is at all unusual following the last ice age. It is simply beyond me how anyone could be sucked in by the Global Warming Alarmists. Of course you will no doubt be certain that I am wrong, but as you stated yourself, "are you infallible?". Guess I better go build some Giant Space Hamster traps.
Humans are the proof and our industrialized world. Nowhere in the history of the planet has anything like "us" existed with our toxic ways. WE ARE THE PROOF.
We know that you are unable to accept the evidence, hence smothering you. Geez, you are the proof that some people really need to be beaten over the head to accept the truth.
The proof is the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These videos are not about proving that global climate change is occurring, they are about who you should believe, why you should believe them, and what you should do now.
If you want to understand climate change, go to college.
I really don't understand why there are so many skeptics, it really makes me so angry, and also when there are people that don't care, and narrow minded!
I show this documentation not to promote inaction, but to calm the fears of those who are decieved by this irresponsible notion of a "tipping point". The true tipping point will not be of the accumilation of co2 gases, but rather the accumilatiom of the wrath of God because of mans unrighteousness.
well i guess you do have a point, if some people are so bull-headed as to not act, on projections of esteemed organizations, and there are enough...they will ineveitably allow the projections of religion (in a sense end times) to come to fruition. Though, even your own claims say "there IS indeed a tipping point", regardless of its origin. If we are not our brothers keeper (be the info-warrior and help those ignorant to information) and only interested in what we do for ourselves, we are doomed.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Jeremiah 10:12 ...He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion. When he uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures. Every man is brutish in his knowledge:....
God controls the enviroment, even the vapours that ascend.
Once we stop the needless poluting, it will correct it's self over time...If it is not a seof correcting system, then our effects of trying to clean the planet, are fruitless, as it will never be clean if it is not self cleaning..which it is...the 'truth of divinity' is that the 'laws' of nature God has set befor us can not be changed.
Excellent job and I hope you get a PHD for this great video. I will do all I can to share this with other the both believe and dis-believe in GW. Thanks for all the hard work you put in to this and I hope for mankinds sake, we listen and make the needed changes to protect the only home we have, EARTH.
Congratulations Greg! You made an astonishingly thorough and entertaining series of videos. I will be passing this on to many friends. You are great person and deserve many many warm fuzzies
WM, I think you have little choice, considering your statements. The best shot at policy change that will work, is one that rapidly advanced clean energy with direct economic benefit. You are talking about a crisis. Yes? People that care about the planet are on your side, so they MUST be willing to:
Emergency removal all environmental and leagal roadblocks to nuclear plant construction.
It is the fastest/surest way to establish an electric baseline.
I wonder about the amplification effects of informal risk assessment... one of WM's basic assertions is that we can trust scietific orgs. Becasue the have a reputation at stake.
But if THEY are doing a basic "better safe than sorry" (risk assessment is a natural part of our brains) then they would easily say "to hell with our reputation, we have to scare the public into action."
Fear is a very very bad motivator. Strong, but bad.
Let me provide an example... environmentalists are the *largest* obstacle in addressing this. Amazing, I know. Consider, at EXACTLY the time when we needed to be building lots and lots of nuclear power plants, they used FEAR to ignore that the nuclear industry was saying: Nuclear is clean, and safe.
But they followed WM's style of advice, and hounded them... marginalizing the clean power producers at ever turn, till they lost interest.
Thank you, RealArchAngel, for providing a perfect example of misleading statements designed to reaffirm belief instead of reach the truth.
Every. Last. One. of your statements has been rebutted in other videos, and all you do is continue to repeat what sounds good. If what you say is correct, then you believe greenhouse gas behaviour, diffusion, radiative physics and basic thermodynamics are all wrong -- which either means you deserve a Nobel or a straitjacket.
**For instance: tinyurl com/22gfv5** Considering 1) Carbon Dioxide loves to mingle with water and water vapor and 2) A Light bulb can cook a cake in an easy bake oven let alone cause evaporation I would want to measure the resulting humidity diffference in the two jars. No doubt the Carbon Dioxide Jar's humidity went up faster cause of Carbon Dioxide's love to cling to water and water wapor...the real "heat Trapper" in the test...lol
Not only is this a spectacular example of moving the goalposts, it illustrates what I meant about you evidently not knowing anything about this.
First, you claim that CO2 can't mix with the air, but now you claim that it bonds to water vapor, which you've argued *does* mix with air. You can't have it both ways.
Second, the jars were *sealed* and had no liquid water in them. Humidity in a jar is constant with no water to draw upon. Where would it come from?
Ah, I think I understand your Question now. Carbon Dioxide rides up on Water Vapor otherwise it's too heavy. Carbon Dioxide infused water vapor has a harder time turning into clouds so result more water vapor and less clouds from dumping Carbon Dioxide in the Environment which leads to increased % of Humidity that can absorb 1-2 degrees more then past local tempatures. Carbon Dioxide fucks up the Percipitation/humidity cycles that absorb more heat,it doesn't directly absorb heat.
Sorry, for "babbling", but I usually come back here via links through my E-mail notification and maybe take 30 seconds to try to determine a question or state and respond...which some of it looks horrible considering my mind is usually somewhere else and unless you ask me the "right Question" I am going to drift...lol
oops, my bad. Pan of water is over jar as a "diffuser" instead of in the jar...lol. Still the Experiment is Dubious because with a pure carbon Dioxide Environment in a glass jar, Glass traps heat by the way..it's why your car comes hot on a sunny day, the difference in temperature is +5f degrees? They say 1.5F to 2F degrees in environment is caused by a .004% in volume change in 100 years,so that Pure Carbon dioxide environment should have proportionately have reached 2978F Degrees...lol
So the entire difference is due to the *glass* -- glass which is the same (control) on both chambers?
How does THAT work?
Also, CO2's forcing strength (that is, how much of an impact it has on incoming energy, which is what influences temperature) isn't linear. It's logarithmic. Each DOUBLING of CO2 concentration, not the absolute change, is what matters.
CO2 went from .0028% in 1750 to .0038% now. Although that's only +0.001% air concentration, it's actually (log2(38/28)=) +43% in FORCING.
No,I am just saying glass itself is a heat asorber. Yes,I am aware of what people like you are claiming about the sole effects of CO2increase from 300ppm to 380ppm causing a 1.5f Degree in average tempatures. Aside from Solar Maximus/Minimus,Earth axis changes,Wobble,volcanc/electromagnetic shifting,and plankton blooms and historic shifts of +8f Degrees 100,000 years ago to
+20F degrees 75 million years ago..Carbon Dioxide making a +1-2f degree in 160,000 years can easily be a"margin of Error"
If the glass absorbs heat (true), then it has the same impact on both jars. If it were the only factor, we wouldn't see a difference between them. It's called a "control".
The only difference between the jars is their CO2 concentration -- and the higher it is, the more heat was trapped.
You're trying to shift discussion away from your obvious lack of understanding of not only the greenhouse effect, but also basic experimental procedure.
Exactly what am I missing? You are claiming a pure Carbon dioxide enviroment in a jar showed a 5 degree difference from a Pure air Jar when subjected to light bulbs...and in fact this seems to be so. You are using this to prove a .004% increase of Carbon Dioxide over the last 200 years,from burning fossil fuels, raises the tempature exactly 1/2 of that pure carbon dioxide environment tempature. I'll be the first to admit I always sucked at math, but the volume v.s. effect isn't adding up.
When you replicate the experiment, vary the concentration of CO2 in the second jar from air-normal all the way up to 100% and see what happens.
I was using it to demonstrate that CO2 traps heat -- a claim you dispute. It does that.
I was not using it to "prove" the greenhouse effect as far as the Earth's concerned; there are far better discussions on that in the peer-reviewed literature.
Having been corrected, will you admit your mistake, or continue to argue to preserve your beliefs?
I don't dispute a pure CO2 enviromnet, which is 5x thicker then air, would asorb heat. It asorbed 5 degrees more then the Air enviroment.Problem here is first you are using corrolated data of CO2 rise and fall in relation to Global tempatures,then switching to this example of Gas Asorbtion to "prove" a .004% change in the Air's Volume in 200 years can increase global tempatures 1/2 of what a pure Co2 enviorment would absorb. It's like taking a ruler to bed to see how long you sleep. Wrong tools.
Dude, correlation + radiative physics gives us an explanation that is causal until proven otherwise. This is how science works -- if you dispute that finding, the burden of proof is on YOU to disprove it.
You are repeating your points -- and my response is the same (it was trying to illustrate that CO2 traps heat, which you have disputed. It was not trying to prove the global greenhouse effect).
How can we move forward if you just cling to your beliefs and don't respond to my arguments?
If you wish Video tape the experiment with both jars filled with air but with one scaled to 300ppm of carbon dioxide, and the other scaled to 380ppm of Carbon Dioxide.
If the one representing the .004% change is 1.5f Degrees hotter you will have proved Global warming is caused by the .004% change and I will admit I am wrong.
You seem to be a real smart person. I cant really bother to read all this, because i dont understand it. But if you would make something like "How it all ends", please send the links to me. I'd really like to hear that im wrong.
Hated Quantum Mechanics,loved Probability. The probability that Government will do something about Global Warming? Good. probability they'll tax,fine,and regulate? Good. That it will Stop Global Warming? Bad, Global Warming is caused by Plankton Boom not Co2 Probability it will make Consumers choose Electric car over gas? Bad That costs will be past to consumer making Gas $8 a Gallon by 2010 but still will be cheaper to buy a $17,000 gas car over $140,000 Electric car and give it gas? Good.
TheRealArchAngel uses a tactic known as the "Gish Gallop" - basically to spread more lies in 5 minutes than would be feasible to dispel in one hour.
When faced with a scientific question, trust the more than well established scientific concensus. TheRealArchAngel is just trying to waste your time - don't fall for it.
Carbon Dioxide is use in alternative Refrigeration because it expands rapidly in the presence of heat, so much so that from a pressurized tank to room tempature through a spigot it instantly turns to "dry Ice". In a air conditioning or Ice box constant pressuring and releasing of Carbon Dioxide through pipes make them cold. Shoot a spot light at "spooky fog" from Dry Ice & it runs away. Why? Cause Carbon Dioxide DOESN"T asorb heat,it moves away and expands away from it. THat is "Hard Science"
You can not know how much influence your words will ultimately carry. But your presentation of how to progress a calm, rational and logical debate I feel is hugely beneficial in our punch drunk sound bite culture. You are a tonic. Well done and thank you.
I predict that your daughters will hold you in proud regard as the global story unfolds over the rest of our life time...
u know this guy isnt just some babbling idiot he makes actual sense, from what i can tell hes a successful man with 2 daughters and a loving wife how can anyone say "oh this guy is just talking bs" when hes talking with that kind of level headed behavior i suggest we do what he says because really would u just sit do nothing and find out what happens when its to late or act and make a change now,lives???
It doent matter whether he agrees or not... he said that himself. Just watch any of these videos and you should understand.(Try watching without bias, it helps)
To be honest, he annoyed me when I watched the first video, as I didn't believe that global warming was something we were responsible for, nor did I believe it was a bad problem... but the longer I watch this, the more sense he makes. Honestly, I didn't quite realize the scope of the scientific evidence FOR global warming. And his comments about erring on the side of caution, I can believe that. These videos were actually quite effective despite (or perhaps because of) his hats. :)
Opinions by politically motivated organizations who's majority of peer reviews or authors of the reports weren't even actual Scientist in the fields of Ecology, Meteorology,or Climate History using correlated data specifically outlining Carbon Dioxide levels in relation to Temperature Changes does not 1)Prove cause & effect of carbon dioxide levels actually being responsible for making the temperature go up 2)Does not clarify how more of a gas % could absorb more heat then the heat source gives
Seriously, though, thank you wondering mind 42 for all this work you put into this. You may want to create a more specific index to narrow down what's in each video part, but otherwise, you're right.
Especially with how to the humble comes the truth. You doing this just for others, including your family...that's about as humble as you can get! Good job!
I later realized that you meant us to debate with skeptics until they had no arguments left, therefore winning the debate and discrediting them in the eyes of undecideds as irrationality ensued. I believe that on this point you were unclear and overly wordy. If you ever decide to redraft this video, I would consider that and maybe shorten it up and clarify things to avoid such misinterpretation. Again, let me thank you for making these videos, and apologize for being so long winded myself.
While I agree that when a debate degrades into name calling and irrationality, it's no longer worth debating, I've always been a strong supporter of free speech; just because YOU don't think someone is worth debating with, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to speak their mind, or that other people shouldn't have the right to hear what they have to say. At first I thought you advocated not only ignoring those who dissented but also disallowing them from speaking their opinions at all.
After spending my evening watching your videos, I would like to thank you for making them and throw in my two cents. I'll start out by saying that I've been a warmer since before I watched these, but I do always try to be well informed and view both sides in a debate, so am glad you addressed this concept throughout, supplying resources to help one continue to be informed on both sides of this topic. There is one thing, though, that I wish to bring up regarding this final video.
Started watching this whole series yesterday, after looking at a video about the original video listed on my ISP home page news (rarely my source for news) then the next story I looked at was that it snowed in Baghdad.
This whole series was great. All the carbon free warm fuzzies in the world to the guy in the funny hats.
"According to the Swedish Nobel Prize winner for economics, the sociologist Gunnar Myrdal, it is possible for a social project to prevail if it is purposefully and tirelessly pursued by a impassioned following of just 5 percent. These will then bring an additional 25 percent of the society in tow. continue reading....
That is sufficient, because the majority of people is habitually indifferent - but, in principle, they are ready to go along with movements and the forces behind them if these can offer the general public a persuasive prospect."
I just completed the expansion pack and here's the deal... I'm going to take your mammoth effort in this project as a personal challenge and see if I can match it! Time to get busy...
Well, shit... I wish my parents gave more of a damn about me than you do for your own...
I've argued to them about that general topic...
At 23, I'm now debating if I should have kids or not - ever.
With "end times" events happening and worsening throughout our days, as reality get's more and more bizarre and dangerous, I figure: in order to prevent my kids from suffering such a world, I'll do what I can to clear the path before conceiving them.
I have read your comments in the order they were intended.
I also find it amusing that you didn't actually watch the videos. The type of action you describe is one of the intermediate columns in How It All Ends: The Manpollo Project. By campaigning for a Manpollo Project, you also get the answer to your question.
You also accuse science of hunting for grants. This is evidently because you don't understand how peer review works.
The reason science gets grants *at all* is because they are trusted. If a scientist broke that trust through academic dishonesty, ALL scientists suffer. It's therefore in every scientist's best interst to look for cracks in everyone's theories (peer review) and publish only the best.
I'm setting aside the factual errors in your message (for instance, proxy data and ice cores go back farther than 300 years), because your final take-home message of "study more"... is firmly in column B.
You are advocating for no significant action, for more delays. We've been studying this problem for generations -- and no one's been listening. Every delay increases the likelyhood of it being "oops, too late".
How'd that old adage go? An ounce of prevention...
The only thing that I have a problem with is the fact that science has been taken over by politics. I have a problem with taking significant action against something while more and more scientists are dissenting from the "consensus" and saying that not only were they intimidated by their peers to withhold their beliefs or objections, they may also be in the majority with these beliefs.
. A business would not make a decision on something that was in question or where there was not a consensus. I am only asking that the world does the same.
If you're waiting for a consensus on any scientific issue, you'll wait forever.
Furthermore, there are situations where a business, a person, a government or ANY entity must make a choice in the face of uncertainty. (This is one of them.) There are entire schools of thought based around making rational decisions in the face of uncertainty -- decision theory and game theory, for instance. Applying those, such as here, allows you to be confident you still made the right choice.
You really haven't watched this have you? While a number of individual scientists have very vocally dissented on GCC, the consensus, as represented by NAS, AAAS, IPCC and many other well-respected scientific institutions, agree that the threat is real, severe, and imminent.
All I have to say before my comment gets slammed by bad reviews is that you and all of the unqualified people in this country are panicking over this whole "crisis". When you give your main argument with your chart, you ignore the third option, the middle road. By choosing to take action on improving the environment but not necessarily the overall climate, we would be improving the standard of living and health for everyone while buying ourselves more time to research the world climate
People say that the human body is complicated, but this is nothing compared to the complexity of the Earth and its climate. There are trillions of different factors that go into how the Earth behaves. At this moment we can't even begin to think that we understand it. I understand that most studies say that an increase in CO2 will increase the global temperatures and I believe this, but this statement can still be questioned because of the complexity of the earth and its climate.
So far, all of the climate research has been focused on the effects of global warming, but how can you predict the effects of something you cannot even begin to fully understand? People look back on the last 200 years and see that the global climate has gotten hotter. People look at that and say that this obviously correlates with the Industrial Revolution and the increased emissions from factories, cars, and other forms of technology
The only problem with this data, however, is that it is extremely limited. When we have reliable climate data dating back to only the 1700s, you can see that this argument is wrong. 300 years is merely a blip on the entire timeline of the earth's climate.
The scientific community is basing their facts off of their entire set of data, but this data is extremely limited. "Defecting" scientists have pointed this out before but have always been punished or ostracized for voicing their opinion. When science becomes a political issue, it ruins good science
Politicians are inherently hasty in making a conclusion because they are restrained by the length of their term. The scientific community is not trying to make a panic; it is the politicians that are creating that. The scientists a merely sticking by the only data that they had in order to make use of the huge amounts of money they used in research grants
. In the end, I believe that climate change should be put aside for the moment while the scientific community shifts focus to understand the climate before making predictions
. In the meantime, a moderate but sufficient environmental program should be put in place in order to increase the quality of life for everybody while slowing down the currently predicted global warming pattern if it were to exist. By slowing down the process, science will benefit and we will eventually be able to make a more informed and logical decision on whether radical action should be taken
"Smother numbskull comments and attitudes with fire a extinguisher of civil level headedness"
I'm making you an honorary Canadian. Civil discourse is really valued in this country and I think it's been hijacked by a bunch of loud mouths (mostly on fox) in the US. Buuuut...maybe that comment is racist. If it is I apologize...especially to Anne Coulter...no wait...I take that back.
I watched every single one of the videos (it took me 3 days!) but it was worth it. I got quite an education. I had no idea that the scientific community was so united in its' determination that AGW was real and occurring. All I kept hearing was that there was no 'consensus' among scientists. It seems I was misinformed. I thank you and wish you the best of luck. I'll do what I can to spread the word!
Consider passing links to Manpollo. org or Wonderingmind42. com, both of which were put together by like-minded individuals who want to get this word out. Both have the full videos available (Manpollo in particular has a great index right at the front page), plus links to assorted discussions from various sources (including most of what WM42 cites).
wow, its nice to see people discussing these things, but didn't we learn that armchair analysis on something like how to mitigate global warming is kinda ridiculous? Stop trying to spout economic/scientific figures here. Its not the place for this. Effective analysis requires siting your sources and being comprehensive, and that's not practically possible here.
If he didn't effectively cite all his sources, that does not mean those sources did not say what he said they did say. The fact he did not cite his sources should cause you to want to disprove him by looking it up. The only way to do that is to look the NAS and AAAS up, and prove that there is no record of those claims made by those organizations. Unitl you do, you have absolutely nothing you can say about his not-citing disproving that those organizations .
Can someone with the know how please make a Facebook group with the original "How it all ends" posted on it (that is part I don't know how to do). And then give them the link to the expansion pack?
It seems like the easiest way to reach a large portion of the population (more important a large generally non-voting part of the population that might decide it is time to do something after watch this.) Call it "How it all Ends" or "Manpollo" which ever you like (Just so we can all find it easily). Cheers.
On Facebook, there is now a group called the Manpollo Project, which has about 40 members. Just enter "manpollo" into the search box. Join and invite all of your friends as well!
thanks for putting so much time and effort into making these videos and im sorry to hear that it has caused you grief... At least the turnout was excellent!
The point of my calculation was not to say how much we impact global climate change with man made GHG emissions but to show that the gains for such enormous changes are minute.
I do however advocate eliminating our dependency on oil. Self sufficiency is always a welcomed progress, especially when the lack thereof results in large scale foreign entanglements. (But I'm skeptical of peak oil). But I don't see how it could be a problem if we took self sufficiency seriously.
If theres no peak to oil where does the infinite supply come from?
Watch the other videos on wonderingminds list. The math of exponentiation is trivial,
if your using a finite fixed resource exponectially(growth) peak oil behaviour is the natural and only result. peak coal, peak uranium, peak nickel, peak oil, ... all real.
Hers a differernt calculation. US emits 20% of the 7Gig Ton/yr. 1.4GT. If as you proposed the US alone reduced emissions by 50%. That would be 0.7GT. Remember also that of the 7GT/yr, 5 goes into masking/sinks and 2 stays in the air. Assuming the 5 goes into the sinks because the atmosphere has 20% more CO2 than it used to be. The treduction of 0.7 comes straight off the 2GT, leaving just 1.3GT/yr going into the atmosphere.
Thus atmospheric CO2 would go up 35% slower than it does now.
Hey! that numbers totaly different to yours.
BTW Im betting its wrong too, I just read about the carbon cycle and I oversimplified it heaps. However it ought to be much closer and more real than your number.
NOteI do not advocate the US doing all the reducing, just its share, remembering thats it is already a developed nation and that the other nations have real long term right to emit the same per capita levels the US does.
Nothing will be solved in forum arguments. Everything, policy-wise, is made by money. The majority of people who have lots of money are concerned solely with making money in the very short-term, which falls on NOT reducing climate change.
Unfettered capitalism, the desire for more and more money, is causing climate change. I am sorry for my sisters and I am sorry for your daughters. While the fight is so necessary, forum arguments are, I worry, just a passion sink. Radicalize instead.
aretia 6 months ago
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
Thankyou laica for presenting one of the major failings of humanity, vanity. It fails so hard it overrides self preservation. You have kids too, which you care about. Vanity is hard. Good luck with it.
veganlotus 8 months ago in playlist How It All Ends
if you would have asked nicely instead of trying to scare me into thinking like you by attacking both my fear of being seen as ridicolous, stupid, dead and the fear of that something would happen to my kids maybe i would be less defensive...manipulation shouldnt be so obvious, a direct threath would be better on me, no i wont spread this video because it would make me seem stupid, but yes i think you are smart
laica90 10 months ago
The culmination of these videos and arguments gave me goosebumps.
What a glorious example of reason, passion, and empathy.
itchynights 1 year ago
i'm not as smart as you are but i pray Jesus for the best
JoblessDerrick 1 year ago
Hydrogen fuel is the answer. I strive to be rich for the sole purpose of setting up hydrogen fuel & conversion stations (also to escape the enemies of Galileo, Copernicus, the Wrights, Curie, Tesla, Carver & Farnsworth -- all of those whom don't deserve the fruits of their labors). To escape the enemies of all mankind: The illogical, & irrational; driven by greed & the whims of their anus - is what want.
JuandrayM 1 year ago
Hydrogen fuel is the answer. I strive to be rich for the sole purpose of setting up hydrogen fuel & conversion stations (also to escape the enemies of Galileo, Copernicus, the Wrights, Curie, Tesla, Carver & Farnsworth -- all of those whom don't deserve the fruits of their labors)
JuandrayM 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007. Still, it is possible they are wrong. So what are the risks if they are? What if they are not? Google video, "How it all ends." It will be the first one. It is the first of a series of videos to help you understand the risks involved so you can make a cost/benefit analysis.
Staranand 1 year ago
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007. Still, it is possible they are wrong. So what are the risks if they are? What if they are not? Google video, "How it all ends." It will be the first one. It is the first of a series of videos to help you understand the risks involved so you can make a cost/benefit analysis.
Staranand 1 year ago
You deserve a Nobel peace prize.
McSnookerman 2 years ago 2
che, te comento, dese Argentina, estoy aplicando las mismas tecnicas de convencimiento y descubri que se puede usar sistemicamente para darme credito de hasta lo mas ilogico. Gracias. Ahora nunca pierdo una negociacion
rossjpg 2 years ago
thank you: 2 years already and still in actuallity
WE HAVE TO TAKE ACTION
CHANGE OUR COMPORTEMENT IS URGENT
EACH OF US MAKE THE GLOBAL WARMING
NOT ONLY THE POLITICIEN
THINKING-SPEACKEAKING-CHANGE OF COMPORTEMENT
"be the change that you want for the world"
ghandi
MrColinfrank 2 years ago 2
change of comportement ?
do you know what that really means ?
we're not talking about turning off the focet while you brush
this is giving up transportation, electricity, heat, easy access to international goods, and living on a subsitance diet, and having no or just one kid
are you really ready to make that sacrifice AND forcibly force everyone else to also do it ?
even if you are, you probably wouldn't succeed, just try it for a week, then imagine forcing everyone to do that
shodanxx 2 years ago
@shordanxx
Turning off the facet when you brush. Imagine if you can get 50% of the world's population to save, let's say 25% of water/electricity/whatever. That will decrease the amount of usage by 12.5%. 12.5% is a lot for a global movement.
TheSinglish 1 year ago
you have no sense of scale, turning off the faucet while you brush will not reduce you carbon footprint by even 0.1%
if you gave up electricity and running water you would still not save 50%
this is all simply a side-effect of overpopulation
but don't worry as soon as people start dying en masse from the impending famine population will start to decline dramatically
shodanxx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have created a simple, but useful page, which has all the links to this series of videos listed in the correct order.
The site name is of the standard format with the usual (US) extension after the dot. The site name is then followed by a forward slash and the name of the page, so the first word is my site name and the second bit is the page name (but you need to put D O T h t m on the end).
pharmgateway howitallends
PharmGateway 2 years ago
Dear wonderingmind42, I cannot offer enough thanks for the service you have provided humanity with these tapes,
I particularly like the fact that you outlined scientific method and necessity for critical thinking when interpreting evidence.
The potential of the Manpollo project, and its template is awesome, applied to other complex problems that require rational deductive reasoning, congratulations,
wellspoon 2 years ago 7
How we choose, extract and transform our environment's ressources appears even more critical now with GCC, and part of the solution, when in fact, reaching a rough dynamical equilibrium with nature was never an option ! Independently of climate issues ! So that the debate whether or not we should take action in relation to GCC is frightening in that it is absurd. We should change our way of life REGARDLESS !
Adri85204 2 years ago 2
In my opinion, using more efficiently the ressources of our planet, sadly, isn't or shouldn't be a global climate change issue. Even if the climate was predicted to be favorable for us for an infinite amount of time, blindingly consume and waste is simply not a sustainable way to live, even with 25°C all year round in every country.
Adri85204 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
prune this away:
Check out this graph:
live search this:
Is Global Warming on the Wane?
How Solar Goes Polar
found on farmers almanac page.
mean temp. increase over last centry:
about 1 deg
peterbourgon 2 years ago
What is your point? You are advertising a graph that shows there has already been a 1 degree Fahrenheit change, how is this an argument against climate change which I have been warned could dramatically shift after only a few more degrees increase. You do realise that with any warming through the action of greenhouse gasses the effect will lag behind current emmisions?
davereidis 2 years ago
Excellent expansion pack! I had no idea whatsoever that GCC is such a huge threat to us and to all other life as well. The video on what melting ice really means for the ocean has changed my perception on rising sea levels for ever. I am an Animal Rights advocate and now I'm a GCC activist too because obviously I have to fight for a planet with suitable climatic and environmental conditions for the animals to live in...and that includes my beloved children as well! You are a very good human!!!
fridaytieday 2 years ago
thaha technoviking ^^
you should get him to advertise the manpollo project, he has over 7 million hits now !
phlexonance 2 years ago
At last! Someone who gets the reference! You made my day. I award you a smiley prize: :-)
wonderingmind42 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fuck U Jewishist Jew Shit, filling us with Jewish Controlled Propaganda, Mankind is not Responsible nor is Able to Control Global Warming you insignificant meaningless Parasite, Global Warming is indeed a natural cycle, Instead: Let's spread the word that israeli jews are Parasites thriving on US taxpayer handouts
moaninglory 2 years ago
A fantastic sequence of videos that outline the issues well and provide well reasoned arguments for taking action. Dare I say it, but I'm contemplating re-watching the clips to formulate my own presentation to communicate your analysis to others. I love the approach that you've adopted and would like to see your analysis conveyed widely. Great to hear that you're writing a book and I wish you every success with that endeavour. Thanks for all your efforts in making these videos.
Shogenarian 2 years ago
I'm glad I made it through. I'm much wiser and motivated for it. Thanks so much for your excellent research and hard work!
DaveDaranjo 2 years ago
Thanks, man. I feel like giving some sort of award for everyone who makes it all the way through the videos. :-) Congratulations!
wonderingmind42 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Want my Objective opinion?
You sound like a left-partisan school teacher that is trying to encourage a younger audience to "silence" and ignore the opinions of individuals who are against wasting billions of dollars on climate change. It frightens me to know that people like you are cunningly concealing your political agenda behind the face of science, and are talking to our children 5 days a week.
Your videos are not without opinion. Please keep your opinions to yourself.
ahornbro 2 years ago
of course the videos contain his opinion. he has dedicated a huge amout of time to these videos why shouldn't he voice his opinion. he is encouraging the exact opposite. have you bothered to watch his earlier videos?
cag66 2 years ago
"Please keep your opinions to yourself"? But if we all did that we wouldn't get to hear about how this guy is a "left-partisan school teacher".
I'm sorry to hear you're frightened. Nobody likes to lose money. I think if I had to lose all my money, but it would guaruntee me food and shelter, I'd do it. Money isn't too important in comparison to life, and I can always get more. Sorry, I'm saying opinions. That's very rude of me. :(
dansummerfield 2 years ago
*Applause*
Hykon1234 2 years ago
wonderingmind42: Thank you very much!
milliongenerations 2 years ago
You are my hero.
gastrop0d 2 years ago
I think you can forward death treats to the FBI, I am not sure what happens, but hey, it might be funny.
hal970fx 2 years ago
and one more thing as far as you people who are sceptic. I think it is just a matter of your lack of understanding and/or education (hmm same thing?) or maybe you are just EVIL! hmm who knows. but anyways point is if a man with a G.E.D can understand things like risk management and the dangers of not taking action as opposed to not taking action. then anyone can. wouldn't it be nice if everyone planted 10 trees every weekend. I mean they are nice to look at. I think i'll start doing that. =)
Mysin171985 3 years ago
I could not agree more with you. I have a much better understanding of risk management now. one thing I always like to stress. this is a product of primative structures of society. government, monetary, education and energy management systems were thought up some.. (hmm.. ummm) 150-400 years ago? we are smarter then that now.. we have the intellagence and tecnology to fix these problems.. why don't we use it? (once again I am very sorry for my spelling as I only have a G.E.D due to poverty) =)
Mysin171985 3 years ago
Hitler could not have silenced his critics any better than you have instructed others to kill those that disagree with you. PITA and ELF would be proud of you.
iahscreener 3 years ago
What? being civil, reasonable, rational, and using logical conversation does kill. It kills irrational thought, ignorance, and stupidity. HEY I FOUND A SKEPTIC!! I FOUND ONE!! GIMME MA SHOTGUN! ;)
AdultBug 3 years ago 3
Yes, being reasonable and logical in order to create the best outcome for all of mankind is exactly like Hitler.
I'm surprised it took this long to invoke Godwin's Law..
mdiem 2 years ago
Oh Hitler, sure, that's a credible reach of a reference. (< that was sarcasm.)
Hitler wasn't logical or reasonable. I think even *you* would agree with that.
DJFreya 2 years ago
I guess I should have put [sarcasm] tags around my comment too.
Scary that someone would take me seriously...
mdiem 2 years ago
I'm glad your comment was sarcastic. Thanks for clarifying. Hard (impossible?) to pick up on sarcasm with text only -- without in-person signs, cues, body language. Thanks again. :-)
DJFreya 2 years ago
Hitler could have not instructed the silence of his critics any better than you have stated your desire to kill your critics.
iahscreener 3 years ago
Wow, what a great expansion pack, i do not see how anybody could still be a skeptic...
imsc69 3 years ago
"...i do not see how anybody could still be a skeptic... "
Do not underestimate the power of irrationality.
It cannot be reasoned with.
mdiem 2 years ago
This is my second time through watching all six hours of these (over the course of a few days). I can't wait for that book to come out. Then I could shut down the skeptics as I talk to them, without pointing them to youtube, a place they're likely never to go.
Kryton87 3 years ago 3
Whew! I just spent my day off viewing this entire series from start to finish, and I must say, it was time well spent. Your students must consider you the best teacher they have! If you don't have a doctorate, an injustice has been done. 5 stars on every part! (and I won't mention the energy drinks and the hat to your wife). My hat off to you sir, for your dedication, research and passion in this series.
cansurfer1 3 years ago
Wonderful. Thanks for the advice. Take a break. Warm and fuzzies...
beachcomber2008 3 years ago
I just want you to know that I'm totally in love with you, wonderingmind42.
TheShibo 3 years ago
He is married, you know
buggedmuta 3 years ago
I'm okay with that.
TheShibo 3 years ago
am i the only one who actually watched all the video's in the expension pack?
wonderinmind you rule ^^
song243 3 years ago
This video had less than 4000 views...
When we are talking about the future of the world, our future as a civilization. I think this needs to be taken serious, so you need to make this video be seen more, like millions of people. Not just thousands.
T0B0KKE 3 years ago
It's probably to with the quality of the content. ;p
1401JSC 2 years ago
What about it? He speaks the truth, global warming is a recent problem and can be life changing at least.
T0B0KKE 2 years ago 2
Do you suppose the ice ages are recent? Or that they were caused by human action and that they could have been avoided?
Truth? What he says is much more politic than scientific. He says his opinion is right. This does not signify absolute truth....
Have you listened to his violent language?
1401JSC 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Waste of time, you should just get to the point.
Twinblad3r 3 years ago
its not a waste of time to have things explained. "Get to the point" is too much a warcry of psuedo-ADD people today who want fast results (which is what the world seems to desire more and more). The problem with fast results is that more often than not the process is not thorough! Lacking thoroughness = failure.
hexusziggurat 3 years ago
I assume you would accept that who is misinformed and misguided is simply a matter of perspective. I have no agenda whatsoever on this matter, but I am very curious about the matter and extremely concerned about leaving a desolate planet for my grandchildren. I have therefore embarked on extensive study of both sides of the argument - attempting wherever possible to determine the evidence based on peer-review and syllogistic reasoning.
Mattzz1964 3 years ago
Did you actually watch the 44 previous videos? They pretty much outline exactly where you can go to find the information, not to mention they tell you just how uniform the responses from scientist are.
calamariaxo 3 years ago
I've watched dozens of videos and spoken with a number of qualified scientists. I try not to waste time on videos that rely on arguments based on generalisations, unproven assumptions, sensationalism, and speculation. The gentleman who posted this video states proudly how the NAS and AAAS all believe in Global Warming. However, many scientists within each org. disagree. Please provide me with just one piece of proof of anthropogenic climate change and I will show you exactly what I mean.
Mattzz1964 3 years ago
ok where is your evidence? provide us with the website or literature that shows what you are talking about as far as the " many scientists within each org. disagree" where is this infomation. mind you i would like to see them at the same level as the aaas or the nas. are they as credible?
shutemdwn 3 years ago 4
damnit, this was a reply to a comment on the last page, why was it put here?
shutemdwn 3 years ago
Provide just one piece of evidence that many scientists within each org. disagree?
One piece of proof of anthropogenic climate change is the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere begining with the industrial revolution.
wwickeddogg 3 years ago
Despite my concerns for the planet and the obvious prudence in preparing for the worst, I am simply unable to accept there is any evidence whatsoever that the present climate pattern is at all unusual following the last ice age. It is simply beyond me how anyone could be sucked in by the Global Warming Alarmists. Of course you will no doubt be certain that I am wrong, but as you stated yourself, "are you infallible?". Guess I better go build some Giant Space Hamster traps.
Mattzz1964 3 years ago
Humans are the proof and our industrialized world. Nowhere in the history of the planet has anything like "us" existed with our toxic ways. WE ARE THE PROOF.
hexusziggurat 3 years ago
Wow, how incredibly scientific and logical.
Mattzz1964 3 years ago
We know that you are unable to accept the evidence, hence smothering you. Geez, you are the proof that some people really need to be beaten over the head to accept the truth.
The proof is the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These videos are not about proving that global climate change is occurring, they are about who you should believe, why you should believe them, and what you should do now.
If you want to understand climate change, go to college.
wwickeddogg 3 years ago
I really don't understand why there are so many skeptics, it really makes me so angry, and also when there are people that don't care, and narrow minded!
ecofriendlyfuture92 3 years ago 7
i am also a fire extinguisher of CIVIL LEVEL HEADEDNESS
pazful 3 years ago
I show this documentation not to promote inaction, but to calm the fears of those who are decieved by this irresponsible notion of a "tipping point". The true tipping point will not be of the accumilation of co2 gases, but rather the accumilatiom of the wrath of God because of mans unrighteousness.
brn2jc 3 years ago
well i guess you do have a point, if some people are so bull-headed as to not act, on projections of esteemed organizations, and there are enough...they will ineveitably allow the projections of religion (in a sense end times) to come to fruition. Though, even your own claims say "there IS indeed a tipping point", regardless of its origin. If we are not our brothers keeper (be the info-warrior and help those ignorant to information) and only interested in what we do for ourselves, we are doomed.
hexusziggurat 3 years ago
Right because god never acts through natural disasters, lol.
wwickeddogg 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Jeremiah 10:12 ...He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion. When he uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures. Every man is brutish in his knowledge:....
God controls the enviroment, even the vapours that ascend.
brn2jc 3 years ago
The earth is a self correcting system.
Once we stop the needless poluting, it will correct it's self over time...If it is not a seof correcting system, then our effects of trying to clean the planet, are fruitless, as it will never be clean if it is not self cleaning..which it is...the 'truth of divinity' is that the 'laws' of nature God has set befor us can not be changed.
Samhains 3 years ago
Excellent job and I hope you get a PHD for this great video. I will do all I can to share this with other the both believe and dis-believe in GW. Thanks for all the hard work you put in to this and I hope for mankinds sake, we listen and make the needed changes to protect the only home we have, EARTH.
stevethul1 3 years ago 4
Yes, smother.... with a pillow. Haha!
mockingbird187 3 years ago
Congratulations Greg! You made an astonishingly thorough and entertaining series of videos. I will be passing this on to many friends. You are great person and deserve many many warm fuzzies
alexkar000 3 years ago 2
i loved it when he covered the doll in whipcream
supersimpleton 3 years ago
I think you're kind of missing the point of the video...
KID433321 3 years ago
WM, I think you have little choice, considering your statements. The best shot at policy change that will work, is one that rapidly advanced clean energy with direct economic benefit. You are talking about a crisis. Yes? People that care about the planet are on your side, so they MUST be willing to:
Emergency removal all environmental and leagal roadblocks to nuclear plant construction.
It is the fastest/surest way to establish an electric baseline.
Will you support this?
RyderSpearmann 3 years ago
We need to start using Thorium technology, NOW!
Liei 3 years ago
yeah, also validian densattions right?
KID433321 3 years ago
I wonder about the amplification effects of informal risk assessment... one of WM's basic assertions is that we can trust scietific orgs. Becasue the have a reputation at stake.
But if THEY are doing a basic "better safe than sorry" (risk assessment is a natural part of our brains) then they would easily say "to hell with our reputation, we have to scare the public into action."
Fear is a very very bad motivator. Strong, but bad.
RyderSpearmann 3 years ago
Let me provide an example... environmentalists are the *largest* obstacle in addressing this. Amazing, I know. Consider, at EXACTLY the time when we needed to be building lots and lots of nuclear power plants, they used FEAR to ignore that the nuclear industry was saying: Nuclear is clean, and safe.
But they followed WM's style of advice, and hounded them... marginalizing the clean power producers at ever turn, till they lost interest.
RyderSpearmann 3 years ago
Thank you, RealArchAngel, for providing a perfect example of misleading statements designed to reaffirm belief instead of reach the truth.
Every. Last. One. of your statements has been rebutted in other videos, and all you do is continue to repeat what sounds good. If what you say is correct, then you believe greenhouse gas behaviour, diffusion, radiative physics and basic thermodynamics are all wrong -- which either means you deserve a Nobel or a straitjacket.
For instance: tinyurl com/22gfv5
TempestStormwind 3 years ago 3
**For instance: tinyurl com/22gfv5** Considering 1) Carbon Dioxide loves to mingle with water and water vapor and 2) A Light bulb can cook a cake in an easy bake oven let alone cause evaporation I would want to measure the resulting humidity diffference in the two jars. No doubt the Carbon Dioxide Jar's humidity went up faster cause of Carbon Dioxide's love to cling to water and water wapor...the real "heat Trapper" in the test...lol
TheRealArchAngel 3 years ago
Not only is this a spectacular example of moving the goalposts, it illustrates what I meant about you evidently not knowing anything about this.
First, you claim that CO2 can't mix with the air, but now you claim that it bonds to water vapor, which you've argued *does* mix with air. You can't have it both ways.
Second, the jars were *sealed* and had no liquid water in them. Humidity in a jar is constant with no water to draw upon. Where would it come from?
But go ahead and run it yourself.
TempestStormwind 3 years ago
Ah, I think I understand your Question now. Carbon Dioxide rides up on Water Vapor otherwise it's too heavy. Carbon Dioxide infused water vapor has a harder time turning into clouds so result more water vapor and less clouds from dumping Carbon Dioxide in the Environment which leads to increased % of Humidity that can absorb 1-2 degrees more then past local tempatures. Carbon Dioxide fucks up the Percipitation/humidity cycles that absorb more heat,it doesn't directly absorb heat.
TheRealArchAngel 3 years ago
Sorry, for "babbling", but I usually come back here via links through my E-mail notification and maybe take 30 seconds to try to determine a question or state and respond...which some of it looks horrible considering my mind is usually somewhere else and unless you ask me the "right Question" I am going to drift...lol
TheRealArchAngel 3 years ago
This response is bizarre.
First, the jars were SEALED and have no liquid water. CO2 was the only variable. If water's responsible, where did it come from?
Second, your claim about CO2 impacting cloud cover is COMPLETELY unfounded in the scientific literature.
This means it is either a genius theory (in which case you should try to publish), or a crackpot's armchair analysis (which I think is more likely).
Where's your data supporting this sounds-good claim?
Try not to drift, I'm serious.
TempestStormwind 3 years ago
oops, my bad. Pan of water is over jar as a "diffuser" instead of in the jar...lol. Still the Experiment is Dubious because with a pure carbon Dioxide Environment in a glass jar, Glass traps heat by the way..it's why your car comes hot on a sunny day, the difference in temperature is +5f degrees? They say 1.5F to 2F degrees in environment is caused by a .004% in volume change in 100 years,so that Pure Carbon dioxide environment should have proportionately have reached 2978F Degrees...lol
TheRealArchAngel 3 years ago
So the entire difference is due to the *glass* -- glass which is the same (control) on both chambers?
How does THAT work?
Also, CO2's forcing strength (that is, how much of an impact it has on incoming energy, which is what influences temperature) isn't linear. It's logarithmic. Each DOUBLING of CO2 concentration, not the absolute change, is what matters.
CO2 went from .0028% in 1750 to .0038% now. Although that's only +0.001% air concentration, it's actually (log2(38/28)=) +43% in FORCING.
TempestStormwind 3 years ago
No,I am just saying glass itself is a heat asorber. Yes,I am aware of what people like you are claiming about the sole effects of CO2increase from 300ppm to 380ppm causing a 1.5f Degree in average tempatures. Aside from Solar Maximus/Minimus,Earth axis changes,Wobble,volcanc/electromagnetic shifting,and plankton blooms and historic shifts of +8f Degrees 100,000 years ago to
+20F degrees 75 million years ago..Carbon Dioxide making a +1-2f degree in 160,000 years can easily be a"margin of Error"
TheRealArchAngel 3 years ago
If the glass absorbs heat (true), then it has the same impact on both jars. If it were the only factor, we wouldn't see a difference between them. It's called a "control".
The only difference between the jars is their CO2 concentration -- and the higher it is, the more heat was trapped.
You're trying to shift discussion away from your obvious lack of understanding of not only the greenhouse effect, but also basic experimental procedure.
TempestStormwind 3 years ago
Exactly what am I missing? You are claiming a pure Carbon dioxide enviroment in a jar showed a 5 degree difference from a Pure air Jar when subjected to light bulbs...and in fact this seems to be so. You are using this to prove a .004% increase of Carbon Dioxide over the last 200 years,from burning fossil fuels, raises the tempature exactly 1/2 of that pure carbon dioxide environment tempature. I'll be the first to admit I always sucked at math, but the volume v.s. effect isn't adding up.
TheRealArchAngel 3 years ago
When you replicate the experiment, vary the concentration of CO2 in the second jar from air-normal all the way up to 100% and see what happens.
I was using it to demonstrate that CO2 traps heat -- a claim you dispute. It does that.
I was not using it to "prove" the greenhouse effect as far as the Earth's concerned; there are far better discussions on that in the peer-reviewed literature.
Having been corrected, will you admit your mistake, or continue to argue to preserve your beliefs?
TempestStormwind 3 years ago 2
I don't dispute a pure CO2 enviromnet, which is 5x thicker then air, would asorb heat. It asorbed 5 degrees more then the Air enviroment.Problem here is first you are using corrolated data of CO2 rise and fall in relation to Global tempatures,then switching to this example of Gas Asorbtion to "prove" a .004% change in the Air's Volume in 200 years can increase global tempatures 1/2 of what a pure Co2 enviorment would absorb. It's like taking a ruler to bed to see how long you sleep. Wrong tools.
TheRealArchAngel 3 years ago
Dude, correlation + radiative physics gives us an explanation that is causal until proven otherwise. This is how science works -- if you dispute that finding, the burden of proof is on YOU to disprove it.
You are repeating your points -- and my response is the same (it was trying to illustrate that CO2 traps heat, which you have disputed. It was not trying to prove the global greenhouse effect).
How can we move forward if you just cling to your beliefs and don't respond to my arguments?
TempestStormwind 3 years ago
Lets try to get very clear here
You say Corrolated data is "proof" that a .004% carbon Dioxide rise is causing Global warming
I am saying corrolated data does not prove cause and effect
The experiment with Pure carbon dioxide enviroment v.s. a AIr Enviroment shows that Carbon Dioxide asorbs heat
I am saying, yes as a Gas it would and am suprise that something that is 5x denser then air didn't absorb more then 5 degrees.
Also saying it doesn't prove a .004% change causes a 1.5f increase
TheRealArchAngel 3 years ago
If you wish Video tape the experiment with both jars filled with air but with one scaled to 300ppm of carbon dioxide, and the other scaled to 380ppm of Carbon Dioxide.
If the one representing the .004% change is 1.5f Degrees hotter you will have proved Global warming is caused by the .004% change and I will admit I am wrong.
TheRealArchAngel 3 years ago
You seem to be a real smart person. I cant really bother to read all this, because i dont understand it. But if you would make something like "How it all ends", please send the links to me. I'd really like to hear that im wrong.
mefano 3 years ago
tempest again.....aaaaaaalways having to be correct..... ''dude''
KID433321 3 years ago
Loved the association to Demolition Man and the whipped cream! :)
tobjai 4 years ago
Hated Quantum Mechanics,loved Probability. The probability that Government will do something about Global Warming? Good. probability they'll tax,fine,and regulate? Good. That it will Stop Global Warming? Bad, Global Warming is caused by Plankton Boom not Co2 Probability it will make Consumers choose Electric car over gas? Bad That costs will be past to consumer making Gas $8 a Gallon by 2010 but still will be cheaper to buy a $17,000 gas car over $140,000 Electric car and give it gas? Good.
TheRealArchAngel 4 years ago
TheRealArchAngel uses a tactic known as the "Gish Gallop" - basically to spread more lies in 5 minutes than would be feasible to dispel in one hour.
When faced with a scientific question, trust the more than well established scientific concensus. TheRealArchAngel is just trying to waste your time - don't fall for it.
petruciobr 4 years ago 3
Carbon Dioxide is use in alternative Refrigeration because it expands rapidly in the presence of heat, so much so that from a pressurized tank to room tempature through a spigot it instantly turns to "dry Ice". In a air conditioning or Ice box constant pressuring and releasing of Carbon Dioxide through pipes make them cold. Shoot a spot light at "spooky fog" from Dry Ice & it runs away. Why? Cause Carbon Dioxide DOESN"T asorb heat,it moves away and expands away from it. THat is "Hard Science"
TheRealArchAngel 3 years ago
wonderingmind42 for president 08
mskittychic79 4 years ago
It sure is hard to get people to listen, but hopefuly I infect a few out of the many who I simply annoy.
DeCapitator7 4 years ago
Amazing work... one of the only video series I can watch without falling asleep.
Passing on the message every day...
jroy375 4 years ago
Dear Rational Man in the Hat,
You can not know how much influence your words will ultimately carry. But your presentation of how to progress a calm, rational and logical debate I feel is hugely beneficial in our punch drunk sound bite culture. You are a tonic. Well done and thank you.
I predict that your daughters will hold you in proud regard as the global story unfolds over the rest of our life time...
Paul, Manchester. UK.
pcq19947 4 years ago 3
u know this guy isnt just some babbling idiot he makes actual sense, from what i can tell hes a successful man with 2 daughters and a loving wife how can anyone say "oh this guy is just talking bs" when hes talking with that kind of level headed behavior i suggest we do what he says because really would u just sit do nothing and find out what happens when its to late or act and make a change now,lives???
DaRiggMan 4 years ago
You only think he is level headed because he agrees with you. If he didn't believe in Global warming you would think he was a nut.
hammet1234 4 years ago
If you've seen all his videoes, you'll see that all he says makes perfectly sense. Especially, the part about source critic
MandreasW 4 years ago
It doent matter whether he agrees or not... he said that himself. Just watch any of these videos and you should understand.(Try watching without bias, it helps)
DeCapitator7 4 years ago
To be honest, he annoyed me when I watched the first video, as I didn't believe that global warming was something we were responsible for, nor did I believe it was a bad problem... but the longer I watch this, the more sense he makes. Honestly, I didn't quite realize the scope of the scientific evidence FOR global warming. And his comments about erring on the side of caution, I can believe that. These videos were actually quite effective despite (or perhaps because of) his hats. :)
deliriumzer0 4 years ago 2
Opinions by politically motivated organizations who's majority of peer reviews or authors of the reports weren't even actual Scientist in the fields of Ecology, Meteorology,or Climate History using correlated data specifically outlining Carbon Dioxide levels in relation to Temperature Changes does not 1)Prove cause & effect of carbon dioxide levels actually being responsible for making the temperature go up 2)Does not clarify how more of a gas % could absorb more heat then the heat source gives
TheRealArchAngel 3 years ago
I will join your fight!
maph12 4 years ago
Seriously, you're amazing!
edgarallanho 4 years ago 2
Seriously, though, thank you wondering mind 42 for all this work you put into this. You may want to create a more specific index to narrow down what's in each video part, but otherwise, you're right.
Especially with how to the humble comes the truth. You doing this just for others, including your family...that's about as humble as you can get! Good job!
shewantsrevenger22 4 years ago 4
There's a specific index in "How It All Ends: Index," where he basically breaks down all the parts.
edgarallanho 4 years ago
Additionally, the individual contents of each video are listed in How It All Ends: Menu.
He details each of his main points there and identifies which common criticisms each clip deals with.
The DVD we're working on has a bit more traditional navigation, but on YouTube, you work with what you've got.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Someone needs to make a youtube remix of 4:16 and make it viral. It'd be a hit.
shewantsrevenger22 4 years ago 2
I later realized that you meant us to debate with skeptics until they had no arguments left, therefore winning the debate and discrediting them in the eyes of undecideds as irrationality ensued. I believe that on this point you were unclear and overly wordy. If you ever decide to redraft this video, I would consider that and maybe shorten it up and clarify things to avoid such misinterpretation. Again, let me thank you for making these videos, and apologize for being so long winded myself.
jedioftheforce22 4 years ago 2
While I agree that when a debate degrades into name calling and irrationality, it's no longer worth debating, I've always been a strong supporter of free speech; just because YOU don't think someone is worth debating with, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to speak their mind, or that other people shouldn't have the right to hear what they have to say. At first I thought you advocated not only ignoring those who dissented but also disallowing them from speaking their opinions at all.
jedioftheforce22 4 years ago
After spending my evening watching your videos, I would like to thank you for making them and throw in my two cents. I'll start out by saying that I've been a warmer since before I watched these, but I do always try to be well informed and view both sides in a debate, so am glad you addressed this concept throughout, supplying resources to help one continue to be informed on both sides of this topic. There is one thing, though, that I wish to bring up regarding this final video.
jedioftheforce22 4 years ago
4:16
LOL!!
razorbladethorax 4 years ago
Started watching this whole series yesterday, after looking at a video about the original video listed on my ISP home page news (rarely my source for news) then the next story I looked at was that it snowed in Baghdad.
This whole series was great. All the carbon free warm fuzzies in the world to the guy in the funny hats.
rolleleven 4 years ago 2
"According to the Swedish Nobel Prize winner for economics, the sociologist Gunnar Myrdal, it is possible for a social project to prevail if it is purposefully and tirelessly pursued by a impassioned following of just 5 percent. These will then bring an additional 25 percent of the society in tow. continue reading....
captainhook516 4 years ago 2
That is sufficient, because the majority of people is habitually indifferent - but, in principle, they are ready to go along with movements and the forces behind them if these can offer the general public a persuasive prospect."
captainhook516 4 years ago
clap. clap. clap.
rockwell0 4 years ago
I just completed the expansion pack and here's the deal... I'm going to take your mammoth effort in this project as a personal challenge and see if I can match it! Time to get busy...
archadvance 4 years ago 6
Well, shit... I wish my parents gave more of a damn about me than you do for your own...
I've argued to them about that general topic...
At 23, I'm now debating if I should have kids or not - ever.
With "end times" events happening and worsening throughout our days, as reality get's more and more bizarre and dangerous, I figure: in order to prevent my kids from suffering such a world, I'll do what I can to clear the path before conceiving them.
dusteroo 4 years ago
...My parents - careless baby boomers - say, one should just procreate and give one's kids the opportunity to fight it off.
dusteroo 4 years ago
Read the comments from bottom to top.
P.S.: Sorry for the preaching but I feel I have a right to give a logical, conservative viewpoint on how we should deal with climate change.
phillyeagles5000 4 years ago
1 of 3
I have read your comments in the order they were intended.
I also find it amusing that you didn't actually watch the videos. The type of action you describe is one of the intermediate columns in How It All Ends: The Manpollo Project. By campaigning for a Manpollo Project, you also get the answer to your question.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
2 of 3
You also accuse science of hunting for grants. This is evidently because you don't understand how peer review works.
The reason science gets grants *at all* is because they are trusted. If a scientist broke that trust through academic dishonesty, ALL scientists suffer. It's therefore in every scientist's best interst to look for cracks in everyone's theories (peer review) and publish only the best.
And "only the best" are in complete agreement.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
3 of 3
I'm setting aside the factual errors in your message (for instance, proxy data and ice cores go back farther than 300 years), because your final take-home message of "study more"... is firmly in column B.
You are advocating for no significant action, for more delays. We've been studying this problem for generations -- and no one's been listening. Every delay increases the likelyhood of it being "oops, too late".
How'd that old adage go? An ounce of prevention...
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
The only thing that I have a problem with is the fact that science has been taken over by politics. I have a problem with taking significant action against something while more and more scientists are dissenting from the "consensus" and saying that not only were they intimidated by their peers to withhold their beliefs or objections, they may also be in the majority with these beliefs.
phillyeagles5000 4 years ago
. A business would not make a decision on something that was in question or where there was not a consensus. I am only asking that the world does the same.
phillyeagles5000 4 years ago
If you're waiting for a consensus on any scientific issue, you'll wait forever.
Furthermore, there are situations where a business, a person, a government or ANY entity must make a choice in the face of uncertainty. (This is one of them.) There are entire schools of thought based around making rational decisions in the face of uncertainty -- decision theory and game theory, for instance. Applying those, such as here, allows you to be confident you still made the right choice.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago 2
You really haven't watched this have you? While a number of individual scientists have very vocally dissented on GCC, the consensus, as represented by NAS, AAAS, IPCC and many other well-respected scientific institutions, agree that the threat is real, severe, and imminent.
turnernr 4 years ago
All I have to say before my comment gets slammed by bad reviews is that you and all of the unqualified people in this country are panicking over this whole "crisis". When you give your main argument with your chart, you ignore the third option, the middle road. By choosing to take action on improving the environment but not necessarily the overall climate, we would be improving the standard of living and health for everyone while buying ourselves more time to research the world climate
phillyeagles5000 4 years ago
People say that the human body is complicated, but this is nothing compared to the complexity of the Earth and its climate. There are trillions of different factors that go into how the Earth behaves. At this moment we can't even begin to think that we understand it. I understand that most studies say that an increase in CO2 will increase the global temperatures and I believe this, but this statement can still be questioned because of the complexity of the earth and its climate.
phillyeagles5000 4 years ago
So far, all of the climate research has been focused on the effects of global warming, but how can you predict the effects of something you cannot even begin to fully understand? People look back on the last 200 years and see that the global climate has gotten hotter. People look at that and say that this obviously correlates with the Industrial Revolution and the increased emissions from factories, cars, and other forms of technology
phillyeagles5000 4 years ago
The only problem with this data, however, is that it is extremely limited. When we have reliable climate data dating back to only the 1700s, you can see that this argument is wrong. 300 years is merely a blip on the entire timeline of the earth's climate.
phillyeagles5000 4 years ago
The scientific community is basing their facts off of their entire set of data, but this data is extremely limited. "Defecting" scientists have pointed this out before but have always been punished or ostracized for voicing their opinion. When science becomes a political issue, it ruins good science
phillyeagles5000 4 years ago
Politicians are inherently hasty in making a conclusion because they are restrained by the length of their term. The scientific community is not trying to make a panic; it is the politicians that are creating that. The scientists a merely sticking by the only data that they had in order to make use of the huge amounts of money they used in research grants
phillyeagles5000 4 years ago
. In the end, I believe that climate change should be put aside for the moment while the scientific community shifts focus to understand the climate before making predictions
phillyeagles5000 4 years ago
. In the meantime, a moderate but sufficient environmental program should be put in place in order to increase the quality of life for everybody while slowing down the currently predicted global warming pattern if it were to exist. By slowing down the process, science will benefit and we will eventually be able to make a more informed and logical decision on whether radical action should be taken
phillyeagles5000 4 years ago
"Smother numbskull comments and attitudes with fire a extinguisher of civil level headedness"
I'm making you an honorary Canadian. Civil discourse is really valued in this country and I think it's been hijacked by a bunch of loud mouths (mostly on fox) in the US. Buuuut...maybe that comment is racist. If it is I apologize...especially to Anne Coulter...no wait...I take that back.
Anyway..you're an inspiration.
Edukator99 4 years ago 2
I watched every single one of the videos (it took me 3 days!) but it was worth it. I got quite an education. I had no idea that the scientific community was so united in its' determination that AGW was real and occurring. All I kept hearing was that there was no 'consensus' among scientists. It seems I was misinformed. I thank you and wish you the best of luck. I'll do what I can to spread the word!
fixman88 4 years ago 6
Consider passing links to Manpollo. org or Wonderingmind42. com, both of which were put together by like-minded individuals who want to get this word out. Both have the full videos available (Manpollo in particular has a great index right at the front page), plus links to assorted discussions from various sources (including most of what WM42 cites).
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Just wanted to tell you how much all your videos helped me understand gcc. Just sending you some extremely well deserved "warm fuzzies".
eviltiki13 4 years ago 4
Hmm...I'm not sure that's how people get convinced. Reason gives out to pizzazz more often than not it seems.
Still, it's a start.
adambee32 4 years ago
Thanx for the video's, it was well worth the viewing, and will positively influence me. I'll put out the links on the net.
Blauweraaf 4 years ago 4
wow, its nice to see people discussing these things, but didn't we learn that armchair analysis on something like how to mitigate global warming is kinda ridiculous? Stop trying to spout economic/scientific figures here. Its not the place for this. Effective analysis requires siting your sources and being comprehensive, and that's not practically possible here.
spiderveloce 4 years ago
If he didn't effectively cite all his sources, that does not mean those sources did not say what he said they did say. The fact he did not cite his sources should cause you to want to disprove him by looking it up. The only way to do that is to look the NAS and AAAS up, and prove that there is no record of those claims made by those organizations. Unitl you do, you have absolutely nothing you can say about his not-citing disproving that those organizations .
nintentubeWii 4 years ago 2
Can someone with the know how please make a Facebook group with the original "How it all ends" posted on it (that is part I don't know how to do). And then give them the link to the expansion pack?
ckottcky 4 years ago
It seems like the easiest way to reach a large portion of the population (more important a large generally non-voting part of the population that might decide it is time to do something after watch this.) Call it "How it all Ends" or "Manpollo" which ever you like (Just so we can all find it easily). Cheers.
ckottcky 4 years ago
On Facebook, there is now a group called the Manpollo Project, which has about 40 members. Just enter "manpollo" into the search box. Join and invite all of your friends as well!
aurelia314159 4 years ago
thanks for putting so much time and effort into making these videos and im sorry to hear that it has caused you grief... At least the turnout was excellent!
Cheers, mate!
indiebobo07 4 years ago
thanks, your really making a difference
Zulu424 4 years ago
The point of my calculation was not to say how much we impact global climate change with man made GHG emissions but to show that the gains for such enormous changes are minute.
I do however advocate eliminating our dependency on oil. Self sufficiency is always a welcomed progress, especially when the lack thereof results in large scale foreign entanglements. (But I'm skeptical of peak oil). But I don't see how it could be a problem if we took self sufficiency seriously.
snipboy 4 years ago
Peak oil? skeptical? how can you be?
If theres no peak to oil where does the infinite supply come from?
Watch the other videos on wonderingminds list. The math of exponentiation is trivial,
if your using a finite fixed resource exponectially(growth) peak oil behaviour is the natural and only result. peak coal, peak uranium, peak nickel, peak oil, ... all real.
wanderingmind21 4 years ago
Hers a differernt calculation. US emits 20% of the 7Gig Ton/yr. 1.4GT. If as you proposed the US alone reduced emissions by 50%. That would be 0.7GT. Remember also that of the 7GT/yr, 5 goes into masking/sinks and 2 stays in the air. Assuming the 5 goes into the sinks because the atmosphere has 20% more CO2 than it used to be. The treduction of 0.7 comes straight off the 2GT, leaving just 1.3GT/yr going into the atmosphere.
wanderingmind21 4 years ago
Thus atmospheric CO2 would go up 35% slower than it does now.
Hey! that numbers totaly different to yours.
BTW Im betting its wrong too, I just read about the carbon cycle and I oversimplified it heaps. However it ought to be much closer and more real than your number.
NOteI do not advocate the US doing all the reducing, just its share, remembering thats it is already a developed nation and that the other nations have real long term right to emit the same per capita levels the US does.
wanderingmind21 4 years ago
where can we get high res of your videos?