How It All Ends: The Manpollo Project (Pt 2 of 2)

[committeesq]

How 'bout we all write to our policy-makers, US Senators for instance, and ask how we're coming along.

People in other countries can write to Leon Panetta too. I'm a huge fan of his when it comes to changing environmental policy. Smart guy.

[Bazanadu]

I think you, and we, need a good actuary. But they are paid A LOT...

[Thisawareness]

Choo Choo Charlie's Big Oil ties

Dr. Rajendra K Pachauri Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change, Director of the Oil &

Natural Gas Company of India; Director of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited; established by World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme; Member of the Oil Industry

Restructuring Group, for the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India; Member of the International Advisory Board of Toyota Motors.

[shodanxx]

efforts would be better spent on making "action" compatible with the current way of life of the population

first you will not get the population to agree on a vague "action" policy

you're not getting a political blank cheque, even to save the planet

the only action that will stop global warming now is complete cessation of use of fossil fuels

no more boats, no more trucks, no more power plants, no more cars, no more tractors

anything less will not affect AGW in a meaningful way

[profjaykay]

tea and peanut butter do not taste good together, dont try it

[WhiskeyJim59]

Anthropegenic global warming is the product of inept, irrational and even subversive science. There, I said it.

[WhiskeyJim59]

Your proposed calculation has already been done. It says don't do anything now. It's not difficult to do.

[nojyt]

LOL @ the comments below mine. It's funny how people start arguing about climate change and then go on tangents about catholic schools and government spending. STICK TO THE SCIENCE. It will guide you.

[Sanderson4030]

@nojyt That is why I belong to the Church of Scientology.

[nojyt]

@Sanderson4030 I hope that was not a serious comment. Having "science" in your cult's name does not make you literate in science. You guys are actually one of the biggest anti-science jokes of modern times.

[milkmn00]

i live in what people always call "a free country" so i should be able to choose what to do with my own life. So why do i have to give about 1/2 of my money to a govt that does almost nothing for me? I didnt get a public education, and neither will my kids.. I dont get insurance, health care, or any similar service taken care of by the govt... All i want is a national military, police, etc. But i end up paying 2% for that, and 98% for bullshit like "climate change reasearch" and Obama vacations

[BioBooster2001]

Well screw you I have an assault rifle, I don't need a military, I live on my own in the middle of nowhere so I don't need police, and my house will never catch on fire because its made of TITANIUM so I don't need a fire department. Why the hell should I pay for those services for you? /sarcasm

If your parents and yourself were wealthy enough to afford private education then why the shit are you complaining about paying a few thousand dollars a year to help the less fortunate?

[milkmn00]

you call wealthy politicians "the less fortunate" ??

they cost taxpayers many millions of dollars a year just for transportation. Why cant they do the decent thing and use a commercial airliner, or a train or taxi... instead of using private jets that cost more than my entire annual salary?

for the president, i can understand... but congress members and other officials should either pay for their own jets, or downgrade to something WE can afford.

And thats just ONE complaint

[milkmn00]

btw, my parents arent and never were wealthy. I got to go to a catholic school because they both had two jobs and worked 6 days a week, year-round, and didnt take vacations. They sacrificed so much just to get "a few thousand dollars a year" for me and my brothers' education, so "a few thousand dollars a year" is not something i am willing to throw to a bunch of greedy guys in Washington.

[milkmn00]

P.S. i am willing to bet my life that less than 50 % of our taxes goes to help the real "less fortunate"

[BioBooster2001]

Woah woah, catholic? Brothers? So because your parents believed in an out of date archaic belief system and made the irresponsible decision to have more than one or two children, and had to work their asses off as a result to put them all through a private religious school, you're angry?

Advice: Don't make your parents mistake. Make sure you can afford kids before you start popping them out, and if you want to work your ass off to put them into a religious school, don't take it out on me.

[milkmn00]

rofl lmao

GOOD ONE

And youre the better one...

First of all, my comment wasnt "angry." Second, i only have two brothers, so how is that too big a family? And how is it irresponsible? Third, the decision to send us to catholic schools had less to do with an "archaic belief system" and more to do with the fact that the private sector works better than the "public option." (Private school students get better grades, go to better colleges, and get better jobs than public school students (ave)

[milkmn00]

btw, thanks for simultaneously insulting about 20% of the world popultion. It shows how youre such a great guy...

[Zeuts85]

If that's all you believe this is--propaganda--then yes, I would have to agree. You clearly are stupid.

[lladnarluap]

If that's all you believe this is--Global Warming, ermmm, Cliamte change --then yes, I would have to agree. You clearly are stupid.

[lladnarluap]

AND WOOT! Propaganda it is! From the mouth of Professor Jones himself.

[KnightBiologist]

Excellent idea! Worth passing on to your friends to get more views and definitely worth asking your local politicians, industry & business leaders, and of course, scientists, to back it.

So simple and obvious!

[ctenophor]

it is a damn shame that you have only 8,101 views.

[cmoleon]

manpollo: man + pollo (span. 'chicken'), i.e. 'chickenman'...

(yes i remember those great cliffhanger episodes on the airwaves way back in the 80ies; so will chickenman be able to save the world? will he provide all the proper problems and solutions in time? will he find a hat to his taste yet? will we find out in the next episode?)

[thelocofocos]

we need a manpollo project omgosh !

let the people who are authorized to do determine the undetermined [for a simpler term] than the politicans. the politicans should do whats best for the people not the other way around.

Greg Craven you are too smart for the internet.

=]

[koreus7]

people are now selling thesse vids in one dvd for about 5 dollars. your wish has come true the manpollo project is everywere!

[snoski]

I hope you are paid well. I believe I will be forwarding your videos. Thanks!

[Akirilus]

actualy hes right about everything :D but we wil lall die in 2012 anyway so ..no worries ^^

[Nowekian]

2012 is not the end of the physical world (i don't think).... i think that year will bear great bursts of information, that will revolutionize the sight of man. As a nowekian, i'm happy to be in the intellectual trenches of our generation! H.N.M.

[DryBaboon]

Publish the grid in google spreadsheets and bring it on!

[007SubmissioN007]

he is smart, but the hat makes him look weird i think that, that is wy ppl won 't take him serieus..

[mdiem]

Taurine overdose?

[fireofenergy]

I think it would be next to impossible (for just one person) to finish that grid...

Thanks a lot for the help! Now I can go back to them anti GW topics and post. ie, the Volstic? ice cores show that temps preceded co2 rise. They use that to "prove" GW wrong. Yet you pointed that some other thing (like the sun) made temps rise and that the co2 in the ocean leaches out as it warms. Thus this ice core "cherry pick'n" was a stupid waste of my time as it almost led me to disbelieve also! Thanks !!!

[fireofenergy]

Stratslayer... I have a strat that you won't be a slay'n! Why, because not doing something will cause economies to not get better (wether or not GW is true, POST OIL DEATH IS!). Now, if we do something (like simple exponential solar, uh... with heat storage of course...) Then the economies play out to the better tune of my strat!

[Stratslayer]

I LOVE the way that this guy tries perceives himself as being so "logical" when in fact, he hasn't examined BOTH sides of the GW issue careful and completely. He simply "glides" right over the economic harm portion of human OVER reaction to a mostly MANUFACTURED "crisis". The fact is that OVER reaction to any possible GW WILL KILL MILLIONS. World economies are not just "playthings" that can so easily be swept under a carpet! People DIE due to injured economies. This guy is a moron.

[Foriya]

Do you have credible proof that you can use to back that up?

also if YOU watched the VIDEOS you'd uinderstand that HE's tried his very best to present both arguments. WATCH all the videos before passing judgment.

Also DID you SEE what i DID there?

[Terlin1466]

U know, I really, really wanted to see that grid.  You could of alteast filled it out with what you know.

[merginoch]

randomness ftw......

lol the things you can learn on youtube....

not a lot but much...

[Guitarstring187]

this guys pretty smart.

[fenderoflove]

Oh, btw. Some of the best minds in history were considered 'hack jobs.'

[fenderoflove]

Finish the grid. I had to in my formal logic training. Its not that hard, just time consuming. Or , to make it easier, Excel can be programmed to do this for you. Unfortunatley, I didn't have Excel back then...

Great videos though. Good job making people actually think and maybe ask a few questions, instead to blindly following. Thanks for not being lazy and blind, even though I do not agree. Logic and real life are not necessarily 1:1 linked. Cheers!!!

[undtektid]

Don't you think there is a group of qualified researchers out there that already have a really good idea of what is happening or will happen? I'm afraid things are just way deeper then acting or not acting... Our secret government labs are probably 50 years ahead of what we learn from them...or do you actually think the public is up to date on every issue...lol..

[mopkcop]

I'm glad you decided to follow your own credibility grid on yourself, and not complete the grid, it follows with your stressing on making sure you don't overstep your qualifications on what you tell us.

[Kryton87]

He's saying we should form a research project, one which would determine if action should be taken. You want to wait 20 years for us to form an opinion? If we do that, then there's a significant chance of it coming back that its too late to have any kind of impact. That may happen if we do it now, but if thats the case we're hosed either way. May as well find out. Then we can have another one in 20 years to make it that much more accurate.

[ted77756]

There is a mistake in reasoning here.

"The government should pay for the Manpollo Project".

1) We already have the EPA collecting the data

2) We need to correlate the data over time. Like another 20 years.

3) Then convince the public, we have done a valid test. !!-> Then beg for money for a research grant.

Seems like you are begging without a valid grant proposal. Those assertions of climate problems need to be accurately shown in this 'modern era'. Although it can be done.

[Caw9000]

1. so the government just collects the data and looks at it for shits and giggles?

whos responsibility should it be to stop global warming in a drastic way? each individual should take responsibility for themselves however...

2. we have data ranging back to 400,000 years ago. the process may become irreversible sometime in the next 20 years.

3. how do you propose we test it? we ARE the test. thats why its important that we take the most secure option.

[imifool]

This video is really pointless. Reason: the 1st video was over simplified, that model will have the same result when you plug in any scenario, such as alien invasion or spontaneous combustion; this video, by incorporating the probability of each possibility will happen was supposed to be a good move, but he showed no evidence at all for it (let the smart guys do it). So back to opinionated only speech countered what he tried to do in the 1st video.

[Apoc4lyps3]

please, don't call it the manpollo project. it sounds like a gay bar or something....

it's a good idea though, they should do this

[nikmindage]

dunno manpollo sounds like a laugh imo. go for it imo.

[Marth48]

Why would the Manpollo project cost more than the Manhattan and apollo pojects combined? It's just one chart, a big one, yes, but still.

[RyderSpearmann]

Too bad there it a strong likelihood that a warmer planet is a BETTER planet... meaning that we are below optimum termerature.

[jqbtube]

You're also wrong about the Manhattan Project. True that Szilard and Einstein were concerned that Hitler would develop the bomb (they knew Heisenberg was capable of it), but FDR wasn't aware the bomb was possible until Einstein's letter. The U.S. built the bomb because of its military advantage, and they would have regardless of whether Hitler was going to ... in fact, they continued the project after they learned he had abandoned it. And deployed it, twice, against civilians.

[jqbtube]

You're wrong that both sides want this equally. One side a) is satisfied with inaction and b) is extremely intellectually dishonest.

[SHMUJEW]

More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. -- including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties -- have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate

[then00bx0r]

sources? some names? some more evidence for your ridiculous claims?

[mccote]

Ive heard of that. That petition was FAKE, made by a few dummies who had something to gain by dismissing global warming. Many of the names on the petition were DEAD scientists, and many of the live names did not know their names were on the list, and they became very angry that they were included on this petition without being asked.

[SHMUJEW]

bullshit

[Korin145]

besides, any scientist that completely rejects it is delusional. How can you not see what is going on? How can one be so fucking ignorant that he rejects the environment's welfare around him? People like you, SHMUJEW, are the reason why wonderingmind42 has made all of these movies, to educate you to make you understand with certainty what is really going on, rather than believing what you first hear. Oh and btw, that petition is fake. go google it.

[Drudwinder]

I want this guy to be my teacher! Holy crap! He's amazing!

[vitriolicscott]

This guy is awesome. I don't see how anyone could come up with a valid counterargument to this, and his 4-square grid of action vs inaction. Wonderful video!

[RyderSpearmann]

I saw someone do a 4 square video on how earthquakes with a potential apocalyptic scenario if we DON'T add CO2 to the atmosphere as quickly as we can.

The valid counter argument is that there are MANY apocalyptic scenarios that if you use this method, *force* you do to different and sometimes opposing things.

Another is that apocalyptic cooling is in store for us... and therefore we need to add as much CO2 as we can. This has been the prevailing theory in the past as well.

So what now?

[DickMcPenis]

Credibility chart. Ring a bell?

[atm8162]

i put it on facebook watch it spread!!!

[djlife787]

jesus i wish there was more people watching these we need more people to know of this and to stand up...its not the fight against the planet that bothers me... its the fight against our "leaders"...are they on our side?????????? if EVER they deside to evacuate do you realy thing they will bring everyone? we need to take OUR own actions..talk to people try to convince the rich people that you know togeter WE can make a diference..IF 2012 event is REAL we realy need to step it up a notch!

[RyderSpearmann]

Well, as time goes by, and the more I think about his proposal and discuss it, the less impressed I am with it. He started with his first video, feeling certain it was solid... then almost instantly had to admit it was seriously flawed.... and now he has done hours of video trying to get it back on track.

I think all he has done is get it back to a standard risk assessment model, and failed to really do what he intended, which is to simplify down to two choices, and that's unravelled now

[Paulovitch]

Good, reasonable comment, although I don't agree with you. Why?

1. Look at it like a scientist (or a GOOD phsysics teacher) would. Like he said: Science doesn't have a 100% succes rate, and will never have.

2. (Nearly) all he is stating here are facts. Or at the very least, things the smartest, nerdiest guys on this planet accept as true!

3. The problem with statements is that it HAS to be VERY long, complicated and refined to be poke-proof.

I'll keep it at this, because of text limit :P

[RyderSpearmann]

Well, I think that "facts" are loose here. Simply stating that there is a low probability of the most apocalyptic outcome (which is a fact) does not suddenly make the apocalypse more probable.

Next, it is *all* based on global climate models, but as there has been no global warming at all for eight years or more, and NONE of the climate models predicted that, then it is foolish to place much more effort into all this based on the GCMs.

[tristbjorn]

The GCMs aren't meant to describe the temeprature in any given year. That is quite impossible, just like you can't have a sound weather forecast for next month. What they are meant to do is to describe a course which the climate are likely to follow.

Further more, even if nothing happens for a couple years, there are concepts like thresholds (sudden change from gradual build-up) & new equilibriums (will take great effort to revert to present state) that one have to take into account.

[RyderSpearmann]

If you learned to read, you would see that I don't say that GCMs failed to predict the temp in a year.

And if GCM's don't predict tempertatures *at all* then what is the basis for using them to predict global warming?

Hello, are you home?

[tristbjorn]

Well you say they fail to predict 8yrs without GW, that is pretty muchs the same as predicting temperature in a given year.

What they do is giving a expected mean, which a year or decade can differ from.

The IPCCs models have been very precise in predicting weather over long periods of time, and if we feed them the right input we should expect sound predictions for future climate.

[RyderSpearmann]

No, eight years is more like a decade. Basically, NO GCM has been accurate for the past decade. If I am wrong, SHOW ME.

Also, GCM's were used to predict the effects of the oil field fires at the onset of the Gulf War and of course they failed.

The GCMs have a horrific forecast record. Endless runs with tweaked GCMs can, after many trials, be made to somewhat fit previously known historical data, but show me a GCM from 20 yrs ago that predicted the last 20 years.

GCM validation anyone?

[RyderSpearmann]

WM, you ask "why aren't we doing [this analysis] for global climate change?"

Leading people to believe that it has not been done.

But it has, many times, and Global Warming policy imperitives come out at or near the bottom of the results.

(Gooogle: "Ted Talks" Lumborg)

[RyderSpearmann]

My bad... gooogle "Ted Talks" LOMBORG

[TempestStormwind]

Lomborg's conclusions notoriously only include people he selects (i.e. high subjectivity), and given his record on environmental details (i.e. tinyurl com/4y2vm4) I wouldn't hold him as authoritative here.

(For the record, Lomborg's 'Copenhagen Consensus' is mentioned by name no fewer than three separate times in How It All Ends. WM42's hardly hiding it.)

If you consider TED talks to be credible here, then your opinion on this one is bound to be interesting:

ted com/index php/talks/view/id/51

[RyderSpearmann]

So you are saying that WM mentioned that the Copenhagen Consensus' result placed GW at the bottom of the priority list? Three times?

Can you please tell me where he did that?

So are you saying that Lomborgs statement that the exercise was run many times is false because he said it at TED?

You may be confused. Citing TED was me citing my SOURCE that the excercise had been performed numerous times. If you can show that he lied and it was not done, then you might have a point.

[TempestStormwind]

Not at the bottom: He ranked it with think tanks, petitions, and so on. It shows up in Risk Management and No Holds Barred, and he explicitly mentions Lomborg had four Nobel laureates support it.

He also mentions a similar statement, the Economist's Statement on Climate Change, which had six Nobel laureates, and concluded that action on climate change would be a net benefit. In the end, he calls the matchup a wash.

See also the TED link I provided; Your thoughts on that would be appreciated.

[RyderSpearmann]

Then it seems that when WM42 wonders aloud why nobody is doing a risk assessment model with GW, knowing full well about the 'Consensus', that he is being rather untruthful, and contradicting himself.

[BeatlesRok76]

that was not necessary to say

[AltaMirage]

Wow. "Recursive" handwaving. That's rather an achiement. Let's form a committee to discuss it.

Funny how you generalise your audience in such a patronising way, at the same time. The silly hat is appropriate.

[nadahere]

Touché. The generalize, avoid inconvenient FACTS, falsify data, claim consensus, etc, etc. Seen too much BS by the Eco-waaackos. Humans are the scourge of the planet, etc, etc. Tired of their rhetoric and lies.

[jamesmorgandavies]

Agree, BUT.

First you need regime change.

The GOP is committed to downplaying any climate crisis. They probably won't win in '08 but very well may in '12 or '16.

You need a party with major conservative appeal that cares about this issue to replece them. Or your window for action is 8 yrs., max. Nature of the beast.

[TheRealArchAngel]

You mentions Carl Sagan at one pont and I am thinking you are breaking one of the fundamental rules of his "Baloney Detection Kit"  which is depending on a Centeral Authority to declare something is "true" or "right" or that we should divert to Authority to solve the problem...lol. He was cool and I was once part of his "Planatary Sociaty"..forgot to pay my dues...lol never joined those collective Science sociaities that claims Humans cause GW in "Borgish" collective Agreement

[manofoss]

Time approx 1:40. "Isn't that what government is for? -to bring to bare our collective time, expertise and recourses -to accomplish what you and I cannot accomplish individually?" No, actually what government is for is to protect our individual rights, no more, no less. In a civilised society we delegate our right to self defence to a neutral third party (government) - not our right to impose force (since there is no such right.

[TempestStormwind]

He's referring to things that don't impose force but still benefit the community. Road maintenance, waste treatment, police, disaster response, air traffic control, military defenses, and so on are all things that fit the definition of "government" he mentioned above.

For more information on the costs to liberty -- of BOTH action and inaction -- see How It All Ends: Get What You Want and How It All Ends: No Holds Barred.

[manofoss]

Any taxation is a violation of the right to property. so my response to you is: Road maintenance, no. Waste treatment, no. Disaster response, depends on what you mean more specifically. Air traffic control, depends on what you mean more specifically. Military defenses, yes. and I'll add: Police, yes. Courts of law, yes.

I have in fact just finished watching "Get What You Want" and still say no government action is legitimate nor needed in the case of climate change. Other legitimate means exist.

[TempestStormwind]

Um, wow. If taxation violates the right to property, then how would you propose funding military defenses, police, and law courts? Via the citizens' good will themselves as unpaid, untrained volunteers? How effective would that be at defending your liberties?

The market certainly will have a role in the solution; to say otherwise would be sheer stupidity. However, since the market's reactive, it is doomed to fail if it stands alone against climate change. See No Holds Barred for more.

[manofoss]

There are different ways of funding military, police and law courts. Examples (not exhaustive): Donations, national lottery, paying percentage on contracts, use your imagination. Would not you see the value of a government capable of protecting your rights and pay for such a value willingly what you can without it significantly reducing your standard of living?

[TempestStormwind]

You suggest an honor system? How well does *that* work out?

Really, aside from the voluntary aspect, how is that different from an income tax? You still pay according to your means.

Besides, a high tax rate is not dooming you to a low standard of living, even economically, nor does it doom you to socialism. Unless you think England's socialist.

I'm NOT advocating for big government. I'm advocating for *a* government. There is a difference.

[manofoss]

I'm also advocating for a government. All I'm saying is that no one has the right to violate rights. I didn't mention socialism or england. My point is just that no one has the right to violate rights.

When you asked me a question I answered it as best I could - I even added that the suggestions were not exhaustive.

Again: My argument is just that no one has the right to violate rights.

[jamesmorgandavies]

The argument is patently false.

Governments in times of extreme crisis have not only a right, but an obligation, to violate rights in order to maintain human life & restore order.

Choice: martial law & 1000 dead, or "liberty" & 100,000 dead. It's not abstract - it's a real-life situation.

[manofoss]

Ok. You say my argument is patently false. My argument rests on the fact that government cannot have any rights other than the rights of any individual. We delegate our right to self defense to the government (police, military, courts).

Now please present a logical argument as to how I can gain a right nobody else has if only I get enough people to vote for me (or get myself into government by any other means).

How can a group of individuals have a right none of the individuals has on their own?

[TempestStormwind]

Manofoss: I mentioned this on another vid but you didn't reply:

Just because we don't have the right to violate rights doesn't mean that people won't violate rights. It WILL happen (deliberately or by accident).So what do you do?

You buy car insurance because it's the law. Is that denying you your right to property? And how much of your property would it end up saving you if, through no fault of your own, someone else crashes into your car?

Prime example of risk mitigation through regulation.

[manofoss]

"Just because we don't have the right to violate rights doesn't mean that people won't violate rights... ...So what do you do?"

I defend my rights. Now, living in a civilized country I have delegated my right to self defense to a neutral third party to ensure objectivity. This is why it is so important to have objective laws and that those laws are designed to protect rights - the rights of every law-abiding (read: rights-respecting) individual citizen.

(continuing in next comment...)

[manofoss]

"You buy car insurance because it's the law. Is that denying you your right to property?"

The short answer is 'yes'. The principal on which i base this answer is that the right to property includes the right to do what i want with my property (as long as I don't use my property to violate rights). In the question at hand the government dictates how I use a portion of my money (my property) and that does violate my right to property.

(Continuing in next comment...)

[manofoss]

"...And how much of your property would it end up saving you if, through no fault of your own, someone else crashes into your car?"

This is why I'm all for car insurance (or any other kins of legitimate insurance), what I am against is forcing anyone to buy it.

Now, if someone crashes into my car through no fault of mine then, properly, I shouldn't need insurance for that particular incident as the one who was at fault, i.e. the responsible party, should, in justice, pay all damages

[TempestStormwind]

Now that we've established that accidents happen (rights are sometimes violated), what about related cases:

1) If the crash was totally accidental and unintentional on all sides (analagous to industrialization; no one knew this was going to happen then), who pays?

2) If you purposefully crashed into my car, would you pay? (analagous to today, where we know carbon emissions are part of the problem and some call for inaction.)

3) What if someone who should pay (in either of the above) refuses?

[manofoss]

Good points and analogies

1)If a crash was accidental would you petition your government for accident-quotas and special accident-taxes?

2)If I purposefully crashed into your car your case should be easy to prove - no need for special quotas and/or taxes.

3)If a guilty party refuses to pay damages after they have been found guilty by the supreme court of violating individual rights as set down in the 1st amendment then the proper action to take is to be decided by the supreme court.

(continuing)

[manofoss]

If you can prove that individual rights are being violated then take your case to court, why not?

My point here has been from the start, and still is, that no one has the rights to violate rights. What I hear when government action is being discussed is always about CO2-quotas and special taxes - never about taking anyone to court who has 'crashed their cars' What I hear is that people should be forced to buy special

(continuing)

[manofoss]

'crashing-into-people's-cars-q­uotas' and being forced to pay special 'car-crashing-taxes'

Perhaps when I say that no government action is needed it sounds like I'm against government as such - I'm not. However, I am very much opposed to politicians playing (or being asked to play) judge and jury.

(continuing)

[manofoss]

If what you mean/meant by "government action" was to make a case against someone, taking them to court, proving their guilt, and letting the judges decide the punishment for the guilty party (when proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt) , then it seems we have been in agreement from the start. But if by "government action" you mean/meant anything like quotas and/or taxes then I did understand you correctly from the start and my arguments stand.

(continuing)

[manofoss]

So my question to you is: Exactly what do you mean by "government action" in the case of climate change?

[TempestStormwind]

Thank you for your replies; I think I see where you're coming from.

However, you're stretching my analogy: A car crash is dealt with *after* it happens, while climate change is far easier to handle *before* (see How It All Ends: Scare Tactics). Therefore, the solutions are different: I wouldn't petition for quotas and taxes on car crashes, but mandatory insurance is completely different -- it proactively ensures that everyone involved has their property (rights) protected in case of a crash.

[TempestStormwind]

The problem comes when people insist it's someone else's problem instead of everyone's collective problem. You hear US industry pointing the finger at China, for instance, when the greenhouse effect doesn't care who put the gas up there in the first place (and the US per-capita production is absurdly high anyway).

In such a situation, you yourself argued for this to be taken to the courts.

Well, there's two points on this that you may be surprised at. (Continued.)

[TempestStormwind]

The first is: COURTS ARE A TYPE OF GOVERNMENT ACTION. There are three general branches of government: Legislative (write law), Executive (implement law), and Judicial (uphold law). That last one is the courts. You yourself have been arguing for government action.

The second is, we have already taken *everyone* to (analagous) court and made a convincing case -- that's the IPCC analyzing the science involved, saying with 90-95% certainty that anthropogenic CO2 is the problem.

[TempestStormwind]

And even with that, we end up with people arguing for inaction -- in the insurance analogy, that they don't need to pay or that there's no evidence of a crash.

You argued in this case that government (the courts) needs to take action -- here, the courts aren't in any one country (since it's a global problem), but we've started to see action anyway: Bali was a good first step.

This may surprise you, but I don't care what method ends up being used to enforce it, just so long as emissions drop.

[TempestStormwind]

I'm not a policymaker, so I am NOT qualified to come up with the laws needed to reduce those emissions. (And we do need the laws -- they are what gives the courts the means to do their job.)

What you and I *are* qualified to do is advocate for reduction of emissions and evaluate what the governments come up with.

This is really all that WM42 is calling for in his videos.

I hope that explains my position a bit better, and shows that you aren't as opposed to government action as you claim.

[manofoss]

"...and shows that you aren't as opposed to government action as you claim"

Just to clarify: I have stated that government is set to protect individual rights and that no one has the right to violate rights. Any government action that would involve initiation of the use of force (any degree of violation of individual rights) I am, have been, an will continue to be, as strongly opposed to as anyone could get.

[TempestStormwind]

And I would argue that force has already been initiated, by those who continue to ignore the science (the 'court verdict' in the car analogy) and say that no action's needed ('we don't need to pay') or that it's a hoax ('there's no evidence of a crash').

Unless you think that a court throwing an offender in jail is initiation of force, I don't see how you could argue that this would be. The closest it would come to in the end is mandatory insurance: hence my analogy.

[manofoss]

And as I have stated mandatory insurance is a violation of the right to property. The court verdict you refer to; is that an actual court verdict? Has this case been to trial (a real actual trial of law)?

Throwing an offender in jail is retaliatory use of force and is what the government is there for.

If force has been initiated as you would argue, then take the case to court - really, this is not meant as an analogy. Take the evidence presented by AAAC and file suit against the perpetrators.

[TempestStormwind]

Ah, now we get to the crux of the problem: Which court?

It's a global problem, so no single nation's court would be acceptable.

Also, the courts exist to uphold law -- law forms the basis of their guidelines for determining when and how hard to retaliate. The problem is, the evidence behind this is based on PHYSICAL laws (judicial laws on it don't exist because until recently people didn't think it was a problem.)

So it seems we'd need legislative action anyway, even if the science is clear.

[TempestStormwind]

That, right there, is related to THIS video, The Manpollo Project. It's designed to get down and dirty with the details of the science, economics, policy, and everything, and determine what the best course of action would be. It's designed to transcend international borders, and to provide the best case to the world to be implemented.

I don't see how petitioning the governments -- who control enough resources to do this -- for a Manpollo project could possibly work against your stated values.

[manofoss]

Because the resources the governments have are tax-money in various forms. Any taxation is a violation of individual rights - the right to property to be more specific, without which the right to life looses all meaning.

Who's stopping you from gathering investments from willing individuals and/or companies to finance a Manpollo-project?

[manofoss]

Look, what are you trying to do here? This seems to resemble a familiar method: If you ask me enough questions there will surely be one I can't answer - what will that prove? That governments have the right to initiate force?

My point is that no one has the right to initiate force - no one has the right to violate rights. If you agree then fine, if you disagree present a reasonable argument as to how anyone can have the right to violate rights.

(continuing)

[manofoss]

As to your question:

The court in which the perpetrator is a citizen. Americans tried in American courts, Swedes in Sweden, Poles in Poland and so forth.

Also; there is such a thing as an international court - I believe it is in Haag, though I might be mistaken about that.

Still, my whole point and argument is that no one has the right to violate rights - government or not. That is the argument.

[manofoss]

(I posted my last reply before I realized it continued)

Yes, I have been arguing for a type of government action (in a way) but in the interest of upholding individual rights, not violating them. I hear/read people clamoring for government action with no specifications as to the nature of that action.

Also, what I have seen various governments do is to impose a quota-system where people can continue to emit the same amounts of CO2 as long as they pay extra for it.

(continuing)

[manofoss]

That is what I find appalling (and I get the impression that a lot of people are saying that climate change is just some hoax the government has cooked up to gain more power because the latter part of this is exactly what they are doing in a lot of countries)

They (many governments) are seemingly doing very little to actually stop emissions of green house gases, but are very clearly stepping into markets and demanding payments for 'sinful activities'.

(continuing)

[manofoss]

That is the kind of government action I'm all against. The government action that you mentioned I'm advocating is protecting the individual rights of the citizens in the country it is set to govern, through police, military and courts - not to violate the rights of the citizens in the country it is set to govern for the sake of the welfare of anyone that is not a citizen of that country.

(continuing)

[manofoss]

But, again, as you (...don't care what method ends up being used to enforce it, just so long as emissions drop) it is very clear that we will not reach an agreement on this issue.

So I thank you again for an interesting debate, and ask you to agree with me to disagree.

[TempestStormwind]

Seeing as without a reduction in emissions, the emitters are violating my rights -- and your rights -- to a safer future?

You cite the military's job as protection. I would agree. That is why I find reports like this one terrifying:

tinyurl com/2zc57x

(There's also a 2003 Pentagon summary that claims the same thing; this one's more recent.)

The military is saying that cutting emissions is in the best interests of national security and defending the rights of its citizens. Interesting, that.

[manofoss]

I have not advocated for inaction. Go out and act to get anyone and everyone to reduce emissions of what ever you wish - just don't violate rights or petition the government to do so for you. That is my whole point.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Tariff Taxes supported the basic function of government in the Early Years of U.S.A. In reality the Income tax is unnecessary once all the Unconstitutional taxes and use of taxes such as Social Security, Welfare, and helping other nations financially were eliminated.(Constitution says taxes can only be used for defense and civil uses)

[TheRealArchAngel]

The "minute men" were volunteers, the "Forefathers" were volunteers and not paid politicians. Problem isn't something the government or Industry can actually change without cooporation or intervention of the people. If the people refuse to use "dirty technology" then to stay in business they need to provide the "clean" alternative.

[ImperatorZor]

This sort of thinking would have let Hitler march across Europe and Slaughter Jews with impunity. There is this thing called total war in which every possible resorce a nation has is dedicated to winning it. Libertarian Thinking is completely has no anwser to threats on the scale of total war. Global Warming, like Nazi hordes ripping across Europe, is a threat on the same level.

[TempestStormwind]

I should also add that while I agree, the reverse is true: Total authoritarianism has no answer to true peace unless people are willing to give up the self completely (as foolish an assumption as "there won't be threats on that scale").

One can argue for some government control (because it allows people to tackle tasks that no individual can do on their own) without arguing for authoritarianism. There *are* middle grounds, including middle grounds that are pretty close to true libertarianism.

[ffleen]

One way to solve the problem is simply to throw capitalism at it. This is what is already happening. Individuals and companies are vying for ways to make money on the climate change scare. I'm all for that. It helps the economy, builds jobs and reduces unemployment, advances us technologically, we enjoy spin-off technologies... and on and on. best of all, we reduce emissions and take care of the planet. Woof! Capitalism is the cure.

[TempestStormwind]

Capitalism on its own wouldn't be motivated to act until market pressure pushed it to work, and (as detailed in How It All Ends: Scare Tactics) that would probably be too late for climate change.

However, if it has sufficient motivation, I agree it can do a world of good, and undoubtedly will be a vital part of the solution. It just can't be the only part.

For a very interesting talk on how profitable moving away from oil can really be, see:

youtube com/watch?v=kMTCNOlozTA

[chidori808]

This does not address my initial concerns; it actually makes me worry more. I already agree that change needs to be implemented, but scientists and analysts should not be the ones to make the decisions on how it will be done. Stats and science are merely tools for making decisions on real-world matters that will be ultimately left up to "armchair" thinkers or policy makers. Stats and science cannot possibly account for all factors.

[plink03]

"Stats and science cannot possibly account for all factors." Where did you steal that line, Steven Colbert?

[chidori808]

Haha... I wish I knew who Steven Colbert is. Anyone who thinks about the extent of usefulness of empirical thought is bound to come to that conclusion.

[plink03]

Steven Colbert is a satirist television commentator who coined the word "truthiness".  Truthiness is used to describe those statments which deliberately mix truth with lies to give credibility to a false point of view. This is the favorite tactic of the Republican party and conservative commentators.

No one said stats and science could account for all factors. Your argument, although containing truthful statements is a false one.

[chidori808]

My point is there that there are implicit flaws in empiricism. Very few people recognize this. I am not really saying that the people Craven thinks are credible are not credible; I am criticizing empiricism, how its extreme form dominates popular thought, and how it is reflected in Craven's analysis.

[chidori808]

(CONT)

To conclude that one single committee should make recommendations on precisely how we will proceed is naïve. There will not be definite answers because it is impossible to empirically account for all factors; even in a supposed prestigious and reliable committee (which assembling would take precious time), there will be disagreement.

[TempestStormwind]

See How It All Ends: The Nature of Science.

Scientists are very aware we can't empirically account for all factors. We can, however, make statements of confidence based on what we do understand.

Then, see How It All Ends: Risk Management.

We don't need 100% certainty to be able to decide courses of action with confidence.

I may sound like I'm parroting him, but he really does a better job explaining it than I can in 500 characters.

[chidori808]

I am not criticizing science, only our applications of it. We only think we can make statements of confidence because of our faith in empiricism; that very faith leads to the inability to think outside of the natural limitations of it. Tell me this: how good is a strictly empirical study if there is no past experiment to reference? Such a study is what it seems most people are willing to leave their fates in the hands of. What a strange world we live in!

[TempestStormwind]

"how good is a strictly empirical study if there is no past experiment to reference?:

Again, see How It All Ends: The Nature of Science.

Statistical analysis and scientific training gives us the ability to determine how uncertain we are in our results. Pioneering experiments almost always have high uncertainty.

It's a complex and subtle topic that the media almost never report on, so many non-scientists don't even know it exists... but it's true.

[chidori808]

The hegemonic epistemology based on empiricism and capitalism which holds grasp over contemporary society prevents most people from ever considering any other epistemology as being valid.

For you, science is seems to equal thought. Thus, you want to solve the problem of climate change by messing with the branches, not through the roots.

But since science only is one form of thought, we need to change the very way we understand the nature of knowledge in order to surely get out of this mess.

[chidori808]

Furthermore, even you concede that pioneering experiments have high uncertainty. If we are uncertain with science, then there is no point in turning only to uncertainty to certainly fix a problem.

The media doesn't report on scientific uncertainty because they don't understand it. The hegemony runs deep. I'll check out that other video now even though I doubt it addresses the problems of empirical thought and how it got us here to begin with.

[TempestStormwind]

The thing is we've got a lot more than pioneering papers on climate change. Serious research on it has been going on for decades, and the uncertainties kept dropping as the results got refined.

As for the media's role in all of this, I agree. Still, WM42 addressed this AGAIN, this time in How It All Ends: Why There Is Still Debate.

Before you see that one, though, you should probably see Risk Management. WTISD makes more sense after that.

[TempestStormwind]

I'm not saying science is the only road to the truth (far from it!). I am, however, saying that it is the best one we have, hands down, when dealing with the physical world. And, like it or not, climate change is an issue with the physical world, and our impact in it.

The impact, however, is more than just physical; hence the focus on multidisciplinary action here.

[chidori808]

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

In this case especially, unlike in a business where similar situations often occur, we are dealing with particular circumstances that have not been dealt with before.

[chidori808]

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

I have always been concerned that as a people, we put too much faith in empirical studies (which, by the way, got us here in the first place) and not enough on spontaneous human creativity (which is what we need to get us out of this mess). A look at any ancient culture will re-teach us about how we should live in harmony with our environment and how in some cases, our human instinct should prevail over abstract numbers.

[razorbladethorax]

"Hampollo" LMAO!!

[xGhaastx]

Hey Wheresthegood, first its not christians fault that people have ****ed up the planet, and then try doing that decision grid for yourself, using if Jesus is the way, and the other if its bs.

If its bs what have you lost, a decent moral life, honored in memory? If its true and jesus is the way and you deny it what have you lost, everything.

[TempestStormwind]

Please, there's no need to throw mud or attack one another's spiritual beliefs.

Also, xGhaastx, you're referring to an argument known as Pascal's Wager, put forth in the 1600s. It's also has fundamental philosophical and mathematical flaws due to Pascal making several assumptions without the evidence to back them up and assigning infinite payoffs (infinity does funky things mathematically). Check out Wikipedia for a basic introduction before citing it.

[xGhaastx]

The only fear I have of this man's otherwise pristine thoughts on saving our asses, is that the anti-christ may use "the environment" to "unify" everyone.

I will not resist saving the environment, but I will never on pain of death, join the anti-christ, no matter what his campaign platform might be.

[Wheresthegood]

Too many religious groups are actively rooting for the global warming catastrophe as a sort of self fulfilling prophecy as told in the Bible. Many religious do resist saving the planet because they want nothing more than the eternal bliss promised to them by the Bible prophecies. Religion and literal belief in the Bible could be the main reason nothing is being done, as it will take all of us to want to live if we are to solve this problem.

[XXXXShockWaveXXXX]

Wow, I'm surprised that this was posted on YouTube and doesn't have a price tag attached. Hey Al, you sell enough of those videos to save enough cash to fund your energy guzzling mansion yet? WonderingMind42, this is excellent work. I'll do my best to spread the message, which is FREE. If this issue is so important, it should be an educational experience that everyone has access to, not just those willing to fork out money to Al the hypocrite.

[Wheresthegood]

There are enough hypocrites in the world but not enough people who care about our human lineage. Focus on the issue and not the hypocrites, that is if you want to contribute to the solution. We will run short of fossils before we ever run out of hypocrites to criticize.

[g699a]

The scientific method of "measured response" and prudent action based on empirical data as opposed to political fluff, I agree, is the best course of action. So why has the original argument evolved into a political infomercial? Perhaps because it wasn't a scientific argument, to begin with, but only a political.

[jackalopemonger]

It's evolved into a political "infomercial" because at some point us laypeople need to devote energy towards developing policies that will (hopefully) change our future outlook for the better.

[jackalopemonger]

The likelihood of global climate change is a scientific "argument", although as the previous videos show, there isn't really any actual scientific debate left in that regard. What's left is choosing appropriate policy based on the scientific information at hand, and that by definition requires political action.

[baley7]

lol some people expected you to fill the numbers! You would need a huge board to fill all the numbers and many sleepless nights. In the original risk management board if you change the row GCC True / false to GCC effects are good/neutral or bad effects you practically convert that 9x5 matrix to a 2x2. After all are we care about is the effects of GCC on us! That leads to the same inescapable conclusion we must act now!

[spiderveloce]

Also, henriatheist, "Seems pretty useless" sounds like a gut-feeling analysis to me... and other two boxes are "irrelevant", because the purpose of the grid is to illustrate the worst case scenarios of human action/inaction.

[spiderveloce]

Its a shame that the best thing you can hope for is silence when the logic of your argument prevails.

[henriatheist]

Damn! I was really looking forward you putting some numbers in the grid...

Becaurse the origional 2x2 grid seems pretty useless when you just asume 50/50 for both rows if you don't know better and skip LowerLeft & UpperRight as irrelevant.

(fortunately you have already addressed the likelyness of row1/row2)

[spiderveloce]

in the original grid, the rows were weighted by the evidence of professional organizations, and it fact, he moved the probability line way up, because of this (because there is in fact a lot of evidence support human affected climate change).

[jqbtube]

He didn't assume 50/50 or any other probability split. You don't understand his "look at columns, not rows" argument.

[JustinTwice]

"Communicating through home videos and derisive comments"

Thats the best description ever =D

Excellent work

[indiebobo07]

assume assume assume

...you assume that the majority of people DON'T want the end of the world...

tisk-tisk...

[Juxtaposed1Nmotion]

pwned, you pwn. Where do you teach?