How It All Ends: Risk Management (pt 4 of 7)

[SSedmak]

We had a 3% reduction in GDP from freaking mortgage fraud, and many economists didn't predict it! It is certain that curtailing fossil fuels will curtail economic activity. Think about everything you do every day which relies one way or another on fossil fuels. Now imagine you can no longer do that. No heat in winter. Less shipped food. No car to drive to work and the store. The mathematical models may not be perfect, but that should not be used to not think about the problem.

[Desette]

I know your busy but you mention (1.5-2)3% of the GDP is that of the USA or Global? Thanks

[BloodTar]

So this guy thinks he's got the credibility to debunk 30,000 scientists & climatologists that have all stated that Al Gore & others of his ilk are wrong

in blaming humans for global warming, climate change or whatever the hell

they decide to refer to it as next or that it even exists at all?

I don't think so.

[Zeuts85]

@BloodTar

30,000 scientists? Who? Do their opinions override AAAS and NAS? If so, why? How much of the "How it All Ends" series have you seen? At what point did the author claim to have overuling credibility? At what point did he advocate anything more than thinking for oneself?

To quote your own profile page: "A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. . . . Condemnation without investigation, is the height of ignorance. --Albert Einstein "

[Harakuroi]

Can I make a small suggestion?

Repeat the last few seconds of your previous videos with the next one...

It's really hard to figure out what's going on...Especially when you have to wait for the video to load, and you forgot how the last video ended...

Thanks~

[alexkvaskov]

i have something else to add:

is it bad to conserve resources for future generations? even if global warming isn't real, why should we leave a polluted, resourceless hunk of rock for our kids? climate change is real, (and we have solid, real proof that we are causing it), so we should have some moral and ethical considerations to save the huge amount of species here on earth, BUT we should think about our own KIDS.

[Zeuts85]

@alexkvaskov Amen to that brotha'! Amen to that!

[gazmaticc]

you know the earth is warming when people living in the Caribbean start complaining about the heat. and people in new york are actually glad when it gets warmer. record breaking temperatures

[PharmGateway]

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

[CodyM]

he outright says it would. did you watch the video?

[Vynjira]

Not for nothing but the current growth in GDP is ~2.9% which would mean a total halt in economic growth.. During the Great Depression there was stagnant growth of around 1.7% (3% is $2.7 Trillion)

Also its no Jedi Mind Trick.. the columns represent the certainties... the rows are the variables.. which is why the economic harm is a certainty and global warming is still a variable.

You should know that.

[CodyM]

Both exist in columns and rows, not one or the other.

and yes it is.

[Vynjira]

The columns represents action or inaction.. the rows represent the uncertainty of the debate "Alarmists being right or skeptics being right."

Essentially Action is buying insurance, inaction opting out of insurance. Global Warming is the reason your making a choice to buy insurance or not..

The economic harm is the cost of the insurance.. The only Jedi Mind Trick is Greg implying that it wouldn't cost money for insurance.

[shadezofgrayfulness]

@Vynjira Hm. I thought I was being generous granting the possibility of serious consequences to continued unbridled resource exploitation being only slight and there being indeed some cost to an alternative! Meanwhile facing your unwillingness to budge from the rigid thesis that the danger is *zero* and the cost of prudence *so high* that it will cause more children to starve. I get it. Your position is set in osmium. Your certainty is total. Dunning-Kruger Effect renders further discourse moot.

[Vynjira]

@shadezofgrayfulness My certainty isn't total, but yours is.. You seem to think throwing money at the problem will get rid of it. IPCC has stated that all of their proposed changes, and the great expense of making those changes will not make any significant difference.

If you're going to use money that could save billions of lives now, you better be certain that there is a significant threat and that we can avoid it.

Not to mention that you're having the government set these long term goals.

[shadezofgrayfulness]

@Vynjira Yeah... no, we're so not on the same page, Vynjira. I'd respond but I simply wouldn't know where to begin. Never the twain shall meet. Sorry.

[Vynjira]

@shadezofgrayfulness That is what happens when you have an argument based on fear.

[shadezofgrayfulness]

@Vynjira Sure. That's fine.

[shadezofgrayfulness]

When I compare the rhetoric of Warmers vs. that of Skeptics, regrettably I can feel my mind closing against the skeptical view. I say regrettably because I think an open mind is essential to rationality. In the face of Glenn Beck and similarly aggressive proselytism, the timber of AGW skepticism is rationally unattractive when compared to the discourse one finds in the YouTube video, "A Conversation with James Hansen". Hansen is thoughtful, measured, and not very positional. No soap. No box.

[Vynjira]

@shadezofgrayfulness I always find it funny when someone claims to have an open mind and attacks skepticism.

[shadezofgrayfulness]

@Vynjira I've asked myself, "what if I were sitting in an electric chair and asked to choose between the certainty of having to spend some large percentage of my personal wealth to leave the chair, versus the mere possibility of receiving a fatal shock?" And would my choice be any different if the people at risk were friends and family? What about strangers? Obviously my question is rhetorical, since this post is pretty old, but I still think it's a useful question.

[Vynjira]

@shadezofgrayfulness Except in this case there are kids starving in Africa and the chair is in a remote area far from any power source and add to that the money isn't going to get you out of that chair.

The reality is your pissing your money away, with people dieing of poverty.

[hal970fx]

One example of people complaining about nobody listening is the TIME CUBE AHHHHH TIMEEEE CUBEEEEEE!

[DonQuixotedeKaw]

The influence of the Jedi mind trick appears to be waning.

[wonderingmind42]

Let's hope. And work for it.

[sniped101]

doood... GOOD STUFFFFFFFF!!!! ++++1111 me love it :)

[alexkvaskov]

so saving the climate will let us survive without having to do major ass adaption, a low carbon economy will create more jobs and help us get out of the recession and we will be leaving a healthier, more intact planet to future generations! is that bad?!

[shadezofgrayfulness]

@wonderingmind42 Greg, I very much admire how your approach to the problem tables the more arguable issues. How very Aikido of you! ;-)

Another reaction to AGW Deniers who ask, "What if climate change is all a big hoax," might be:

"What, and we create a better world for nothing? Yeah, I know! What to do with the energy independence, the preserved rainforests and biodiversity, the livable cities, the clean air, clean water, the healthy kids, not to mention the whole SUSTAINABILITY of it all!!!"

[shadezofgrayfulness]

@wonderingmind42 Wish there were a way to send you an MP3 of the Brazilian enviro anthem "Salve As Folhas" by Maria Bethânia, Greg. You can find a version on YouTube if you "Tooble" for it using "Salve As Folhas". In the song, Aroni, the forest god, warns: "Without leaves, there's no Dream, no celebration, no life, no nothing". Aroni is one of the Yoruban minor gods. Interestingly, he will devour those that run from him, but those that face him honestly without fear, he will protect and teach.

[swizzlecheeks]

$50 billion for global warming prevention. LOL! This was made in 2007'ish. Now look at our economy in the U.S.. $700 Billion just for Wall Street. Actually, over $3 Trillion!

[mjk4523]

that was a good cliffhanger

[akushiii]

that was adressed to guffpot *yea i am like 8 months behind here haha*

[stikkontakt4]

im learning more in 9,30 minutes on youtube than in a whole day of school.. remarkable

[guffpot]

"THE ONLY CATEGORY LESS CREDIBLE THAN THESE GUYS IS SOME RANDOM JERK ON YOUTUBE .."

This is the McIntyre who showed the issues with the Hockey Stick, identified the "Y2K" error in NASA GISS, is an IPCC reviewer and has recognised authority in paleo reconstructions.

OK, he's a thorn in the side for Hansen and Schmidt and some others. Things can get tetchy.

But McIntyre does a lot to improve the analysis. All in public with full disclosure.

Naming him and deriding his work is shameful.

[guffpot]

" ... the NAS AAAS and USCAP statements that *SEEMED* like such a slam dunk ..."

SEEMED LIKE?

You don't have a slam dunk do you? All there is on show here is appeal to authority.

What is there amongst these institutions to protects them from groupthink?

Here are two tests for evidence of groupthink:

1. No apparent disagrement.

2. Dismissal and isolation of anybody who tries to disagree.

It's all there in the first couple of minutes of this video.

[akushiii]

thanks for this comment, it shouldnt be ducked points, common people! its a good point!

ehh sheep... jk

also if this is related 'where the funds come from is very important in risk management.. Vvery important

[guffpot]

Sad to see that "name-em-and-shame-em" stuff is still in the vid.

What do you teach at your school about bullying? Do you encourage the crowd to persecute minorities? Because they are different? Because they have different views?

Consider dignity and standards. What does this say about the quality of your arguments?

I also said that you are better than this. Lack of action is proving me wrong.

[TempestStormwind]

*sigh*

Listen to what he's saying. There are no personal attacks on them.

Instead, he's saying to pay attention to your source, since you'll see these names again and again. If you don't pay attention to your source, you won't note they all come from the same names.

Nowhere is he insulting, bullying, or persecuting them.

You are seeing what you want to see.

Compare this to your Lord and Savior Steve MacIntyre, who openly insinuates fraud every chance he gets. THAT is an attack.

[guffpot]

"Here are names that come up again and again"

".. are all professionals, even scientists .."

".. but remember where people fall on OUR credibility spectrum .. "

" . they're MAYBE this is the origin of objection ... "

" . hopefully you now (AGREE) there is no debate . "

" . only scientists are qulaified to debate the evidence . "

[guffpot]

contd. (sorry typo "their")

" . the climate sceptics are so far out there that nobody will debate with them . "

" . they no longer have any credibility . "

" you will se quotes with guys with scientific sounding titles .. "

Excuse it if you want Tempest.

[guffpot]

I'll have another go (too hurried) ..

" . there MAYBE is the origin of objection . "

(my typing is phonic - I have to watch out for mistakes)

[stikkontakt4]

thank you

[guffpot]

... and please don't be afraid of counter arguments. Was that not among Stalin's failings (not to forget 20 million poor souls).

Let people hear the arguments and come to their onw conclusions. Democracy and freedom of speach. Science!

For other posters, check out the following on youtube:

Bob Carter

David Archibald

They are also great presenters and you will enjoy fantastic discussion. Science in action.

[TempestStormwind]

Except they are both also notoriously incorrect about fundamental points.

Bob Carter insists that it stopped warming in 1998. Basic statistics shows this claim to be demonstratably false, but he sticks to his guns (pulling graphs from 6km up in the atmosphere which CO2 theory predicts would be flat...).

As for Archibald, google the exact phrase "worst climate science paper ever of all time anywhere". I dislike the review's style, but the paper really is that bad.

See also: tinyurl com/243kgq

[guffpot]

The paper is published in a peer reviewed journal and subject to scientific procedure. Rather than the acerbic and defensive "worst paper" link, we should leave it to scientific review to sort out its quality and value ....

[TempestStormwind]

Energy & Environment doesn't have a peer review process suitable for climate science. They also published Khilyuk and Chilingar, known for concluding that since the earth has given off more CO2 in 4.5 billion years than humans have in 200, and the sun gives off more energy than human activity, humans can't be warming the earth. (I'm serious.)

A measure of impact in science is the number of citations. Google Scholar shows Archibald's paper in E&E has ONE citation -- himself. (tinyurl com/32b26f)

[guffpot]

It's a matter for E&E. M&M and Archibald have papers which are not really "deep climatology". M&M was more about technical statistics.

GW is multidisciplinary. Even economics comes into play. If those who choose to label themselves "climatologists" decide to ignore certain journals, should we really call it a "serious, hard science".

In reality, I think you are reaching out for the "good-peer-review/bad review" argument. I think it is a bad point.

[guffpot]

I would urge readers here to have a look at Archibald's paper to consider the issues.

The next Solar Cycle (no. 24) is very late. Some now ask whether it's in full swing and extremely shallow. Some expect cycles 24 and 25 to be very weak (the next 50 yrs)

Archibald tries to look at what happened for similar events in the past and suggests a possible scenario of temperature decline.

It is a worthy question, and deserves attention. Aggression is not justified and not dignified.

[TempestStormwind]

He looks at 'similar events in the past' by looking at just one observation station in the Netherlands, and he omits most of the sunspot data from that one site. Why no global data?

He also bases his temperature conclusions off of just five nearby stations in the continental US.

This is one of the most blatant examples of cherrypicking I have ever seen.

(The winner for that is Bob Carter, who decides whether to start with El Nino years or disregard them based on if it'll show warming or not.)

[guffpot]

I often wonder whether both sides should just blank out 1998. It was an exceptional year and we all agree that one year is not statistically significant.

If you are convinced by AGW, temptation is to include 1998 as evidence of warming. If you're not, temptation is to say "modest cooling trend in last 10 years".

How about "no significant warming this side of the 1998 event".

[guffpot]

If "you" ("A Scientist") believe Archibald's analysis is weak, it is constructive to reply and advise how to improve it. The onus is then on him to respond.

If he accepts your concerns and improves the analysis, his work will either move towards or against you (maybe no change). You can then both reconsider your positions.

If he doesn't agree with your concerns, you have the opportunity to challenge his work using your own analysis.

(Assumes disclosre of data and methods.)

[guffpot]

Really WM42, please take out that "name-em-and-shame-em" stuff.

Ask yourself this. Would you have joined the crowd at the burning of Bruno? If not, why not?

So why do you name individuals who you happen to disagree with? It is not easy for them because they are in the minority. Trying to join in the bullying leaves you with no dignity.

I ask you as a friend, please take it out. You are better than this.

[guffpot]

WM42.

Please take out the clip where you try to make pariahs out of 5 individuals. It is like an extract from the "burn-Bruno-burn" book of scientific etiquette.

They are entitled to express their views.

Your position should stand up without having to try to knock them down.

It doens't matter how worthy or noble you believe the cause to be, there is no justification for a witch hunt.

Please take it out. Admit fault, increase your cred, and give yourself a smiley face.

[guffpot]

Serious mis-characterisation of Steve McIntyre. Steve is at pains to avoid denying global warming. He says "trust the experts, they're probably right".

Steve scrutinises data and methods and is a statistician with some (recognised) authority on reconstructions. Why not visit climateaudit(dot)org to see this in action.

So we shouldn't give cred to armchair experts? Quite!

My rating for this guy just returned to zero.

[TempestStormwind]

Because ClimateAudit, specifically McIntyre, alleges fraud on the climatologists (who supposedly know what they're doing) every week, and then defends documented cases of fraud so long as they attack GW (i.e. at tinyurl com/38zf7k, he's defending Pat Michaels' deliberate misrepresentation of Hansen to the Senate in 1998).

WM42 is correct when he says that McIntyre is one of the (few) skeptics who you will hear quoted *everywhere*. This is true. That is all he is trying to say here.

[guffpot]

I understand that critical appraisal sometimes means being critical.

But allegations of fraud? A serious allegation in itself. Can you offer a reference?

[TempestStormwind]

ClimateAudit constantly insinuates fraud, but McIntyre's careful not to actually claim it. He's been asked directly if he thinks there is fraud, and he has carefully not answered the question.

The following are given as ClimateAudit posts; put them after "?p=" in a post URL.

216: Comparing UCAR to Bre-X, why?

505: Posting an editorial that serves no purpose except to insinuate fraud.

919: Insinuation of cherrypicking, which is a type of scientific fraud.

880: Accusation of academic misconduct.

[guffpot]

No answer then.

OK, you did not rfeally mean to accuse McIntyre of accusing others of fraud. You wan to insinuate that he insinuates fraud.

Tempest, that's a shame. You squandered some of your impact on a cheap shot.

[TempestStormwind]

My case was that McIntyre "alleges" fraud. I don't know about you, but implying someone else cooked the books, drawing analogies to corporate fraud, and accusation of cherrypicking are pretty much allegations of fraud in my book. If my choice of terms was unclear, I apologize.

A more direct claim would be based off of post 2793, where McI accuses Hansen of adjusting based on assumption, when he knows why it happened (urban reading are adjusted based on nearby rural stations).

tinyurl com/2so7nj

[orphmet]

Shit man, if you're going to generalize me as an "environut", then how about I generalize you as some arm chair analyst with no legitamate scientific training and only a vested interest in confounding the truth for personal gain.

Come back to me when you feel like addressing my points rather than those of some generalization that you're holding so sternly to.

[scholastica33]

It's always loaded as if he's being so reasonable. I will listen on because whats important is what he suggests the action should be. I am for free energy releasing mankind from pollutants which harm all life on the planet along with the bonds of development etc. I don't want world goverment bullying the people into more taxes and travel restrictions based on fear and the false CO2 arguement just to name a few propals.

[TempestStormwind]

skepticalscience . com/co2-lags-temperature . htm

Simplest explanation I can give. Look at the citations.

Plus, no one's saying anything like CO2 changing the ORBIT. The theory is that CO2 retains heat. Just like putting on a blanket isn't the same as adjusting the thermostat, but both make you feel warmer.

[TheRealArchAngel]

If to many people are thinking alike, then nobody is really thinking....lol

[TheRealArchAngel]

Oh and I didn't think paying $142 a year to be a part of AAAS or $1500 to be part of NAS would make me either "more credible" or "less credible" We are fucking up the planet by "pissing in the pool" but Inert Co2 being up,GHG CO2 being .004% and a 1 degree change in average temperature is data, While the "leap of faith" conclusion may as well be lack of Pirates causes global warming..lol

[waspbloke]

TheRealArchAngel:

CO2 is CO2.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Yes it is. My major points are that it doesn't matter cause we are "peeing in the pool" and need to reduce or eliminate Co2 emissions via demanding Industry change their fuel use, and the products they offer by simply not buying them if they don't rather then letting politicians and their tree huggers constituents fuck things up on unscientific speculation based on correlated data slanted to their beliefs rather then hard Science.

[TempestStormwind]

Okay, so let me see if I get this straight.

According to you, we need to reduce CO2 emissions like the scientists say, but they're all biased and can't be trusted, so we should go on your own analysis (which appears to be based in a different set of physical laws).

And the way to do this... is for you and I to continue to do what we're doing and let the omnipotent market solve everything on its own instead of taking collective action through government.

Am I misrepresenting you?

[TheRealArchAngel]

LOL. What bias? I am reading the same data and saying wasting and dumping all that CO2 is a bad thing and needs to be cleaned up and controlled. I am for alternative fuels, in fact it's one of my passions and I have converted my Avalanche to run pure gas to 85% Menthol, tweaked her to get 20-140 miles a gallon (depending on weather,fuel,still experimental) and next step is to make her Hydrogen powered using a "reactor on demand" method to avoid the "Hindenburg problem"

[TheRealArchAngel]

Continue doing what we do? Do you really think a few laws will make consumers choose alternative fuel technologies? NO. Government today tax,fine,and regulate and as a result there will be no sinificant change to alternative power technology but the cost of "government change" (via taxes,fines, and regulations) will be Gasoline going up to $8.00 a gallon in the next 10 years as "evil Oil" passes their cost of "change" to the Customers (Real World Econonics 101)

[TheRealArchAngel]

And as for my personal stance, Commercial power is comercial power so even if you change to Air cars,Electric cars, or Hydrogen Cars and you pull into a Station to "Quick Charge" it will still say Chevron etc, and "Evil Oil" will just come "Evil Air","Evil Electric" or "Evil Hydrogen". I am for "Personal power stations" Houses and vehicles that can trap and convert their own power. In fact I sell alternative power arrays for the Home...lol

[TheRealArchAngel]

To clarify on the agreeing with the Co2 is Co2 comment, Inert Co2 is increasing cause of human release, as is circulatory Co2 from the parcipitation cycle, but Inert Co2 doesn't magically nor instantly mix with Air to magically change the GHG properties or that lake that exploded Co2 in 1986 wouldn't have had a "blaket of death" cover up to 30 miles away and killing everything with it's concetration.

[orphmet]

WTF is inert CO2? WTF is circulatory CO2?

CO2 is CO2 is CO2.

[TheRealArchAngel]

**WTF is inert CO2? WTF is circulatory CO2?CO2 is CO2 is CO2**

Yes and No. When you use a Co2 Meter to sample the air in a Volcano,on Everest,in Montana,and at the Poles and at Sea level, 1000 feet,& 12000 feet the % of CO2 will change because "Air" is a composite gas with a small amount of CO2 blended into it 2) Some Co2 rides up with water vapor,the only way Inert Co2 can get way up there, and "rains" down to feed plants,& Inert Co2 is why we have vog and smog as Co2 is 5x heavier the "air"

[orphmet]

I'm sorry, but you are ridiculously wrong.

Smog and vog are very complicated matters entirely unrelated to CO2, chemically. However, they come from sources that tend to release CO2 (meaning that the burning of fossil fuels ids detrimental to the environment and our health in more ways than one.) Smog is because of the SOx (sulfur dioxides such as SO2 and SO3), soot, NOx (NO and NO2), and aerosols being released into the air.

So please, stop arguing with us and get your information straight.

[orphmet]

Edit: Meant as a reply to TheRealArchAngel.

[TheRealArchAngel]

"Duh",on the Smog statement.And I am not arguing,I am here cause I am having fun and enjoying the Videos. And Information, like truth, depends on your point of view and thoughts v.s. what you been told and what you been spoon fed. Just like any religious nut with faith in their Religious doctrine, it is pointless to argue with the believers of Environmentalist Gospel of "evil CO2" (the Satan of the religion) and eventual "Armageddon" if we don't have "Big Brother" strike down Big Oil..Halleullah

[vitamila]

If I'd been given the authority to spend 4 of your months, I couldn't have spent them more wisely...

I do hope your family has accepted you again as an integral part ;)

Good stuff, Greg!

[Kbasa11]

Thank you for the video's, I'll try to spread them around. If people don't get more out of these than just learning how to think critically than so be it, but you are helping out quite a bit.

[dirtybootsgirl]

Nice work, I'm hooked on the vids. Your arguments are pretty solid from my least credible individual layman point of view. ;)Loving the jokes too. How can we get more folks to find these videos, can you form a group on utube or something?

[TempestStormwind]

Spread the word!

There's a few websites set up at the moment such as Manpollo(dot)org, and a group on Facebook (look up "manpollo").

Also, watch the rest of the expansion pack videos; he provides several examples of what you can do, especially in the video Your Mission.

[RoelGeurtsen]

u,and the alarmists selling your cars ,preaching on u-tube thus not city-hopping from meeting to meeting would really make a different,And dont come telling that i cant say that they dont,If they were it would feature primetime!!it would only take a few to urn credibility!!walk the walk ,show us the way!

[TempestStormwind]

You seem to assume that all people who accept AGCC are Al Gore. We're not. Stop generalizing.

It's not like we claim that all denialists are George W. Bush or John Howard.

[homedogdigity]

keep at it...

[ShalomYal]

THANKS AGAIN FOR THESE VIDS. You sure have done your homework. Have you sent an e mail to GW with a link to your video's?

[Zulu424]

man these cliffhangers are killing me

[borris79]

thanks for these vids ;~}