How It All Ends: Scare Tactics (Pt 2 of 6)

[darkhairedguy]

Youre right about one thing: Science is not about beeing right all the time. Its about reaching the right conclusions, given the facts at hand. It is in this we do differ. Whereas your conclusiin is dead wrong, given tha facts collected, mine and the climate skeptics conclusion is the right one. If you don't agree, show undefutable evidence that CO2 causes temperature rise on any timescale, form 20 years up til half a billion years.

[darkhairedguy]

How many global warmers do we have to listen to before CO2 in the world doubles? Or triples. Doesn't matter. Temperature remains the same.

[darkhairedguy]

This man's energy combined with his total and terminal lack of logic makes me wonder what sort of people become techers. let alone physicists today.It's just ludicrus. Blow that pipe out your ear, man.Lose the hat and grow up. Will yea?

[anthurion1]

I can't take you seriously.

[lars008]

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,,,

[derfdead]

this guy just makes me terified that the world is gonna end lol

[communistpianist]

Just to make it clear, the amount of breathing all of us humans do has no real impact. It's cutting down the rainforests, coal-burning and many of the polluting factories in...China for example (I'm Chinese myself, so no need to razz me about racism) that causes global climate change. Also, the Earth's carrying capacity of humans is actually rather high. (I may be wrong) The Earth can carry up to twice its current human population if only we used our resources in a careful way.

[Iker888]

Common sense cannot be trusted, for it's not based on scientific logic; it's an extension of social preconceptions.

[myaangeline]

who cares about the weather we all end up in a casket anyway damn go get laid

[FLPman]

do you where funny hats when you teach?

[bribeanbabybopdelux]

Climate change did come to my house yesterday, ate my sodding lunch then puked it straight out into your mouth and you ate it all up!

Now you are spewing it back at me in some insane climate change - vomit based feedback loop.

What a complex system!

[TGQwerty]

in love all your videoes but: GOD DAMMIT HAVE A WARNING ON THIS ONE, I WAS WEARING HEADPHONES THAT SPEAKER DEMO IS PURE EAR PAIN!LOL!

[medicvet]

ditto..was it really necessary to have it go on THAT long???

[MaltyT]

That comment was warning enough for me. :-)

Thanks,

[ecordy75]

We must take action against global climate change with the same type of military action that the US used against Iraq by blowing up oil and coal companies and annihilating those who voted for the Democrat-Republican terrorist organization. Logical consistency demands that if one supports overthrowing a national government (Iraq) even though it is a crime punishable by death because the + > -, then one must support War for the Environment in cases where +>-.

[coprographia]

Who's 'we'? why don't you do it yourself, Chester?

[markmcopc]

The planned global shift in the structure of society is more deeply disturbing than rising oceans and massive grass fires.

The worst case scenario is not that we would fail to make this change, and suffer global natural catastrophes. The worst case is that: we are making these social changes, and the disasters will come anyway.

In that scenario, society will never stop becoming increasingly oppressive. The shift entails this premise: control is never total enough.

[sidsixpoint7]

Al Gore is a mockery to science.

Paying a tax and living like surfs will change nothing.

I stumbled on this and don't really know what the messages are here as I'm not watching the rest. Just addressing some of the comments.

Sure help your earth and do good things for the environment.

Just never fall for the idea you must succumb to oppressive nonsense to save anything. Remember you didn't create the situation you live in, the people in charge did.

[kuraiken]

Well, and who voted those people? It is easy to shift responsibility, but in this case, responsibility does not even matter.

How cares who is responsible? You have to live with the consequences of what occurs, not just the people who are the most responsible.

If you are out with your friends, and one of your friends says something stupid to another person and that person and his friends start to beat you and your friends up, are you going to try to ignore the punches?

[sidsixpoint7]

I didnt shift anything. I simply the common people are not to blame for it.

The fighting metaphor is correct that I could not ingore the punches.

The point though is that when that scenario is over, who caused it or started it, is what matters. Not simply that it was just happening and overcome and yay.

[kuraiken]

Why yes, surely that would have to be done in the aftermath.

If all the more pressing matters (such as building new homes, setteling in new regions, restructuring the social and political system, etc.) are done, that surely will be a decisive step in order to ensure the prevention of a future scenario of the same kind.

But that is, of course, only if people remain for that decision to be made.

And that, my young friend, is the thought I find troubling.

[ecordy75]

As long as felons in prison are all released and not held responsible for past things that they did that are done and over - and you are logically consistent with that - yes, I agree.

But, until that happens (and I support that), logical consistency demands we punish those most responsible: all those who vote for Republicans and Democrats.

Al Gore and John Kerry are terrorists for obstructing justice and intefering with Ralph Nader's workers during the US Presidential elections.

[sidsixpoint7]

Or you can think you're really ruining the world by breathing, creating waste when you had no control over in the decision making, and live like a serf.

Dont forget to pay carbon taxes, as though paying these Globalist frauds will somehow stop things.

[kuraiken]

But on one account, I have to disagree decisivly, as that statement always encourages people to clear their councense.

The truth is, that in a complicated system such as this world, everything is linked to everything and no action is an action in itself. And every action, no matter how small, influences the result. As such, everything is responsible for everything. This means that even not doing anything makes one partially responsibe. Because not doing anything is what we have done.

[oldbootz]

LINKED POST (2) if the population falls, all human related environmental problems shrink accordingly...

climate change will still increase with time however due to the higher power outputs demanded by new technology.

but then comes clean fusion power, but thats a whole other topic...

please poke holes in my logic !

thank you !

[oldbootz]

LINKED POST (1) i have an answer that (i think) will solve the vast majority of our human caused environmental problems...

it makes perfect sense to me but it may be flawed... and it is something that every human has the power to do...

here it is...

if every couple would restrict themselves to having only 1-2 children and never more, then the earths population would start falling...

[eteachout]

This guy reminds me of the guy that hosted "Good Eats" on Food Network... That is all.

[moonravi]

Alton Brown ftw.

[TTyranTT]

He uses Mathematica ^_^

Great calculation software.

[virago1776]

Lol!

The climate as an angry beast.

Is that like a scientific term or what?

Appeals to emotion, especially fear.

Personally I'm waiting for the flesh eating zombies to take us out.

Or for Al Gore to bore us to death.

[howardfine]

The National Academy of Sciences does support action to reduce anthropogenic global warming. However, from the 40's to the 70's the world entered into a slightly colder phase. Do you know what some of the scientists who wanted grant money started yelling? You guessed it. They started to claim that we were entering into another Ice Age. Its obvious that didn't happen. But guess who called for a quadrupling of funds, The National Academy of Sciences. There reputation should be greatly scared.

[howardfine]

Sorry, I meant to say "scarred" not "scared" and "Their" not "There."

[moonravi]

The actual report, had you taken the time to read it, made the conclusive statement that "it is only through the use of adequately calibrated numerical models that we can hope to acquire the information necessary for a quantitative assessment of the climatic impacts." No where in the NAS report is there a claim of an impending Ice Age. That claim was made by a 1975 Newsweek article which stupendously misconstrued the science report. Newsweek issued a correction for this in 2006.

[fireofenergy]

What is the feedback of an exponential growing of concentrated solar power?

[lejink]

trying to rush into fixing this is a dangerous way of going about this. ethanol was the solution to government and buisines wanting a quick fix to invest in for good P.R, because we didnt take our time to research and understand, we dug a bigger hole. what if hydrogen turns out the same? or cloud generators, or wind turbines. what if any of thoes makes more carbon to produce then it saves in the next 10-20 years. we dont have time to wait, but we dont have time to fail either.

[Raiker12321]

Kudos!

[starwarsgeek8]

This is incredible. Keep up the good work, and God bless people like you!

[AtaeDionysus]

i wonder if the butterfly effect can be induced with evolution, say a few organisms a species are separated from the rest and moved to a different place with an identical ecosystem, would the separated organisms evolve differently than the others? could this explain human races? maybe there was a core hominoid species that was divided and evolved separatly, how would you ever be able to distinguish the less evolved from the most evolved?

[xinlo]

thats called adaptive radiation, and yes, it has happened. thats why someone from nigeria is darker than someone from switzerland.

but, adaptive radiation occurs more evidently over millions of years. with humans, a species with long lifespans, it is barely evident. also, humans have managed to reestablish contact with themselves and effectively destroy the process. if we werent as smart as we are, we would be more than one species

[AtaeDionysus]

sweet, thanks. i never knew there was a name for the process, now i wonder if the effect can reverse, threw the combination of race, by sex and child birth. what will a child look like with a perfect balance of all races? or would that just be a new form of continued evolution? lol, i guess it is impossible to contain or stop change, awesome, i love change, even the negative, if everything is good, and you know no bad, then how do you know what you have is good? so, bad is good, and vice versa

[AtaeDionysus]

but then, if bad is good, and good is bad, then what is good or bad? do they even exist? or like matter and anti-matter, they cancel out. damn... that open's a whole new world of misjudged opinions!!! wow, i'll look into it further

[xinlo]

we have already "reversed" the process through the reestablishment of communication between cultures. there is no more room for the isolation of a single gene.

i do imagine that a combination of all cultures would be a really dark guy with slanted eyes...

[AtaeDionysus]

lmao! i know right?

[xvxGypsyxvx]

ow, my headphones

[213twism213]

that was boring

[ted77756]

You mention Feedback and show unstable behavior.

Again. Read Micheal Tabor. Add the cross product. You can solve that equation. It isn't difficult. For some reason Graduate Classes forget about the cross product from physics 101.

Then we can have some actual numbers and predictions. Depending if you are on track; then beg for money. Although, I like your discussion on the issues. On track except for the mathematical physics issues. And by the way cloud physics can give you e mass.

[ted77756]

You said, "Chaos. That's crazy. That's wild." Although a good discussion. Things have changed.

Read: Chaos and Integratability on Nonlinear Systems by Micheal Tabor. Chapter 2 has Integration by Quadrature. Basically this is a cross product and solves both graphs discussed.

Not even a big deal. Easy to solve. And it's a Graduate Physics Book. You may have hear of the word 'physics' since it is on your Tee Shirt.

[guffpot]

Regarding the organisations you consider to be credible.

The APS is launching a members' forum on AGW. It may be a response to some disquiet amongst its membership. The editor's comments include this:

"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

[manwihthat]

Computer modeling. LOL. Water vapor, negative feedback, the sun, how much CO2 will be add not just put in 1% per year.

[primalhunter2]

You remind me of Bill Nye

[gmoliveira814]

I can't believe you guys don't know global warming is a hoax.

[postpeakman]

I can't believe you don't know how much of an idiot you are.

[angrykitty101]

I can't believe it's not butter!

[000sexy1]

I can't believe how you are so stupid to not even back up your false statements. How about you try prove it smart arse?

[KID433321]

get this...soccer games are having to be stopped for hydration due to abnormally high temperatures...whats gonna happen in 50 years?

[gmoliveira814]

the sun is getting hotter and thusly the planet, not co2!!! also, as temps go up so does co2, not the other way around!!!! al gore is saying that co2 is increasing temps but it is the opposite..

watch "global warming hoax"... global warming is a hoax and the gov wants to put a co2 tax on people!!!!! why should we pay more taxes when the sun is warming the globe?

please do more research on how global warming is a hoax, dont let them put an extra tax on the people... its BS

[KID433321]

another ignorant gringo

[7Filipe7]

Damn, my ears :S...

[7Filipe7]

Damn, my ears :S...

[guffpot]

The point about chaos relates to numerical iteration. Small numercial and modelling errors will accumulate and total unpredictability is just a question of how far forward you try to project.

Ask yourself this - do you think entropy is increasing or decreasing in the universe? If decreasing (increasing order), maybe the future can be predicted. Maybe it's just a matter of the quality of analysis.

COMMON SENSE ALERT! Entropy is increasing. Is that not one example of "scientific fact"?

[guffpot]

WM42

... "Complex systems" ... OK, I know a thing or two about them ...

.... "Sometimes known as non-linear dynamical systems" .... bad whiff starting to circulate here ....

... "Or in the popualar parlance, chaotic systems" .... yep, no doubt about it, the smell of bullshit.

[zosmatix]

What are you talking about?

[guffpot]

zosmatix These are quotes from the video.

A branch of maths (complex analysis)can be used to solve equations of linear dynamical systems. The term "complex system" applies to this class of problems.

Saimilar techniques can often be used to get get useful approximate solutions to non liinear systems (NLS). Sometimes NLS are unpredicatable.

It is wrong to suggest a NLS is a chaotic system.

It sounds clever, but the vid is just throwing jargon around at this point.

[kkob]

a. Of or relating to a system of equations whose effects are not proportional to their causes. Such a set of equations can be chaotic.

[guffpot]

a. or just rely on superposition:

f(a+b) = f(a) + f(b)

A linear system respects the equality for all 'a' and 'b'. A non linear system does not.

[kkob]

I'm not a mathematician, so can't and won't argue math. But, as the dictionary said, you're wrong. REGARDLESS, even if we assume the usages were somewhat mixed, if affects the message not at all. He isn't talking to scientists, he's talking to lay people. To lay people, Chaos or chaos means simply that things are unpredictable and out of control. This is the case. You are attempting spin using an argument a lay person can't check or confirm. That's unethical. Non-linear AND chaotic events await.

[guffpot]

If you cannot argue math, perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to try. I gave you the better definition of linearity.

Ultimately, experts have to convince and influence by communicating in "lay terms". So nobody should be talking over anybody's head.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary standards of proof. Just as it is immoral to condemn someone for a crime they did not commit, it is immoral to incur the many personal tragedies that will ensue if you are wrong about climate.

[kkob]

Utter garbage. A better definition? A math statement that the lay person wouldn't be able to make head nor tails of? Hardly. Again, we are talking to lay people, which you state yourself. You are contradicting yourself.

Anyone who looks at the science of climate change and comes to the conclusion there is no anthropological forcing is an idiot or a paid mouthpiece. THAT is incontrovertible. There are no extraordinary "claims." There is science. The standards are exceeded by a wide margin.

[guffpot]

I gave you the better definition. I assumed you would understand because you raised a mathematical point. But you don't do math, so it was your mistake to have even tried.

The evidence for catastrophic climate change is virtually non existent. (NOT modest warming I should point out). You would not take medication on the same strength of evidence.

To explain that, you'd need to understand gathering data and something called a hypothesis test. It is science at the most basic level.

[wonderingmind42]

(1 of 2) Hey guffpot! I thought I blocked you for deliberate and egregious obfuscation of the debate. I must have changed my mind. Anyway, due to your established pattern of behavior, you're on a short leash. Unless you answer the following question first, further posts will result in being blocked from commenting.

[guffpot]

I recognise that you are onto "solve it".

In many ways I can kinda respect that WM42, so I have avoided your vids. Let you get on with what you are trying to do.

I have replied a couple of times to comments from others.

What I cannot respect is censorship. What was all that about freedom of expression? Might disagree with your views, but will fight for your right to express them?

Censorship means you have no better argument.

[guffpot]

I'm still waiting for your question WM42.

[wonderingmind42]

Crap! The posting got lost. Sorry. Here it is: "How do you justify your statement 'The evidence for catastrophic climate change is virtually non existent,' in light of the 2002 report 'Abrupt Climate Change' by the NRC (the ultimate in scientific credibility) and the findings that the temp in Greenland rose 20 degrees in 50 years in the past, accompanied by a 'climate flip?'" (see tinyurl com/479f8y) You'll need something better than "that's just incorrect science" given the sources.

[guffpot]

Opinions of the NRC et al should be supported by good basic science. So I need to see what really lies behind those opinions.

Here is a fundamental question: Over what time scale is 0.7dC rise in temperature a statistically discernable event?

Just good emprirical methods = data and proper application of statistical techniques. No GCMs or simulation.

References to published work will do.

A really good article could be your slam dunk.

[wonderingmind42]

guffpot: nice try, but I won't take the bait. You again fall back on your methods: dodge the question, and distract with another question. If your answer was "Opinions of the NRC et al should be supported by good basic science. So I need to see what really lies behind those opinions," that's not sufficient, because you made the extraordinary claim that the most well-respected scientific body on the planet issued a statement based on "virtually non-existent" evidence. Do better or retract.

[guffpot]

You asked for a test, and I gave you something to consider.

It is *not* meant to be question for you personally. My bad - should have said: "here is a fundamental test".

ANY opinion claiming a positive should be based on good basic science. Especially those from respected institutions.

Anybody with knowledge of the literature can show me that the above test has been addressed. Good references are all that is required.

*My method* is simple and reasonable: show me the evidence.

[wonderingmind42]

"Good references" have been given to you repeatedly. You've always ignored them and given another question. You are hereby blocked for your tar baby ways. If you want to cry "violation of my free speech rights," I'd just like to point out that society has already had that discussion, and agreed that there are all sorts of speech which are too dangerous to allow: yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, inciting a riot, libel, and advocating violent overthrow of the government, to name a few.

[guffpot]

"Changing your mind means getting closure to the truth."

Bad assumption. What about the communist ideal of the planned economy. Fairness guaranteed? The intent was good, but it failed to account for human behaviour. A good idea was proved wrong in practice.

Or if you don't like that example, what about immunity to DDT, or immunity to antibiotics. Did we really believe that we had an end to pestilence? What did Charlie Darwin tell us?

[duderseb]

With you saying that you keep on agreeing with these videos.

You're saying "what about that promising (Idea X)" followed by "Then we found out it (worked/failed)".

What these videos try to say is THE SAME THING.

"What about Global Warming?"

Some years from now we'll be able to say...

"Then we found out it (worked/failed)".

He's just trying to urge everyone to do some risk management and think for themselves, given the risks involved, is it better to wait and see, or try and do something?

[guffpot]

Can we predict everything?

The question is often associated with French mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1825). The clockwork universe - prediction is only a matter of the compleity of your model and getting the initial conditions right (the starting data). This is called "determinism".

There were some very uncomfortable lessons along the way, but the most recent thinking accepts that life is simply not predictable.

If in doubt, try predicting human behaviour.

[guffpot]

You will find agreement that the climate has changed very suddenly in the past - with no help from us.

Check out Bob Carter and David Archibald on YouTube. It happens naturally - it will happen again. We will not be able to stop it. So get used to the idea.

Only question is - are we causing it?

That comes back to my question to you: do you believe humans now control the climate?

[Masphorse]

i hate to nitpick but you spelt the word 'surprises' wrong on the first note card. Though I might not necessarily agree with your suggested means to take action to climate change through government, I definitely agree something dire needs to be done before it is indeed too late. Also, I'm loving your work so far and the logic is more or less undeniable. :-)

[treehuggerlsh101]

The way Pascal talks about skeptiks,it sounds like george bush had too many of them!

[treehuggerlsh101]

The way Pascal talks about skeptiks,it sounds like george bush had too many of them!

[m0ng0053]

Why wasnt my science teacher as cool as you :(

[Tastentier]

I had the same thought :) I'd have paid a lot more attention back then.

[tristbjorn]

"Common sense is easily fooled" So very true and sadning!

[vvoois]

yawn... yawn... yawn....

first do your homework about climate change over the past 5 to 6 million years instead of just looking at the past few thousands of years.

Not that we won't get another iceage (and maybe very soon) but humans were never capable of doing anything against this change except adapt to the situation instead.

[TempestStormwind]

It seems like he's done more homework than you. It's never wise to dismiss someone out of hand without backing that up with evidence.

And it's not the absolute change but the RATE of change that's scaring people.

[vvoois]

Google is good for a lot of things, there is enough evidence around to find.

Though, i give the guy kudo's for all his long works, but he admits in the end:it is probably too late to stop the thing from coming, though we might be able to delay it.

And i just say, over 6 billion people, its about time earth is going to execute some cleanup, in whatever area necessary.

Stop to try running away from it and just try to face it like a grown man and woman.

[TempestStormwind]

I think that humans have a problem dealing with "becomings" instead of "beginnings". We like clear definitions of things and dislike murk. This is why issues like abortion are so touchy: both sides look for a clear line that separates human from not-yet-human.

You're confusing climate change the same way. It won't come in one lump sum, it'll come gradually. It's probably too late to stop all of it -- but that doesn't mean we can't stop the worst of it. If we're quick about it.

[vvoois]

Listen buddy, if oilcompanies stop to be so greedy and seriously open up the consumer market for cars running on alternative fuels (not just hybrids running on fossil and electricity and biogasoline cars) then i won't hestitate to buy one or to convert my own car.(besides using alternatives i can, because that is what i am doing already for years).

[TempestStormwind]

Fair enough, but if you're waiting for market pressures to trigger this, you're committing yourself to inaction until the effects are visible enough -- which this makes clear is likely going to be past the point of no return, when it won't make much difference anyway. Until that happens, without some policy change, we'll just see business as usual.

tinyurl com/38adhq should interest you on the economics.

[vvoois]

try this link:

youtube com/watch ? v=e8utkoK2DhA

[ImperatorZor]

As the guy would say, what are your sources and are they credable.

[776281]

Maybe we can't stop the problem. But maybe we can make the difference between very bad and really really bad. The fate of half the worlds population may depend on the East Antarctic ice sheet, which unlike every other body of ice is actually growing. (But for how long)

[smarthandsomeguy]

wonderingmind: Your videos are among the best educational videos I've ever seen! Kudos for that. Keep it up.

PS: Yes, you are hilarious! The subtitles joke still makes me giggle!

PPS: The only sad thing is, that this clip had only 905 views at the time of this writing, whereas "guy catches glasses with face has 3,100,033... but maybe, if you had fancy CGI...

[MathematicalPI3]

You spelled suprises wrong, as supires. 00:07

[KingMucktoad]

Love your videos man you're very convincing. something you might want to try though is point out where you personally sit on the reliability scale, just to prove to the septics that your not a member of some secret underground conspirisy to get funding for climate research (see glen beck for full bullshit details).

Keep up the good work:)

[ReVoLynx]

He does, in How It All Ends: Risk Management. he states that he is just a random individual. He also keeps telling people not to just believe what he says, but do their own research.

[outlawtorn013]

I'm gonna try that "Global warming will come to your house personally and eat your lunch" thing. Brilliant!

[aspath]

Laughed out loud at "How's it going? Nice weather, huh?"

Ugh. So funny I'm ready to drive my car off a bridge!! Thanks for putting this out there.

[wonderingmind42]

Thanks. I think I'm hilarious. But no one ever gets my jokes. You just doubled my appreciative audience. ;-)

[bakafreaky]

oh wow, i laughed out loud at that one too.

thanks for making these videos by the way. this is the best compilation i have ever found. (and god knows im not able to put words on it all like you are)

keep the good work up!

[deathweaselx86]

Ow.