How It All Ends: No Holds Barred (Pt 3 of 6)

[maleman112]

I noticed you put the pentagon at the top of your list, I remember the weapons of mass distraction that was pushed by media and government...I still sit on the fence, although I see your side being a great solution....but if you want to convince your argument to the public that has been lied to by such institutions...then obviously it becomes confusing and less credible....what would your answer be to what is really credible and why? Thanks for your Vids they are great.

[JouninEnsio]

I just checked the copenhagen consensus center and it seems like they have long since declared GCC to be a threat. Way to go!

[bribeanbabybopdelux]

The hat suits you.

You really are a freekin joker.

Scientists are the new priests of truth. Nothing ever changes.

I dont need no misguided list of who I should trust given to me.

I have done my research. Lots of it. That includes hours of you showing how confused you are, though well intentioned I'm sure.

At the top of my list is me, my well connected left and right hemispheres of my brain and my gut instincts.

[todioliver]

freakin amazing. you are amazing.thank you!!!

[peterbourgon]

we more likely to nuke each other or an astroid could hit the planet.

risk management meants evaluating to see if the is a real or feasable threat. remember that polititions and CEO also have children and grandchildren

Check out this graph:

live search this:

Is Global Warming on the Wane?

How Solar Goes Polar

found on farmers almanac page.

mean temp. increase over last centry:

about 1 deg F

[mdiem]

dmeistar: ""Being green" is all the rage these days, and companies will say whatever it takes to move their product, so why should we believe them? "

Because "being green" doesn't move their product!

A company that sells fossil fuels is saying themselves that fossil fuels are damaging the environment - how is that good PR?

[nicholas93]

Okay, so im totally for action but, i cant remember where, i could be totally wrong on this, but arnt we slowly getting closer to the sun like on a vary gradual spiral inwards? so wouldn't us getting closer explain the heat going up?

[mdiem]

"but arnt we slowly getting closer to the sun like on a vary gradual spiral inwards? so wouldn't us getting closer explain the heat going up?"

Venus is hotter than Mercury. Which planet is closer to the sun?

[thesimulacre]

Ketchup is better with a grid?

[wonderingmind42]

You got me. Actually, that one is reversed.

[thesimulacre]

Yeah, I knew it was only a matter of time before I caught a flaw in your argument. ;) I'm working on a series of videos partially inspired here, mostly inspired by the lack of productive solutions available. I figure if at least the solutions (most of them, BTW) are out there, no one can tell me they don't know what to do on a personal level. Thanks for including some, but for the gov't skeptics out here, we need more.

PEACE

[wonderingmind42]

Post your videos as a response to this one (or to the more viewed "How It All Ends") when you get them done. I'm excited to see what you come up with!

[rarelibra]

The only thing I disagree with you is your casual mention of the 9/11 information as "conspiracy theory." You as a PHYSICS person should know that the buildings could NOT have fallen so perfectly, nor that jet fuel can melt steel (material science), or maybe you haven't seen the video of the Pentagon explosion WITHOUT an airplane coming down, or the photo of the hole that was round (no 'wing marks') - the list goes on and on. You, yourself said look at the EVIDENCE first BEFORE debunking it.

[ash4432]

good point

[themountainviewguy]

why do you have to wear a stupid hat if you are so smart?

the fact is that something non-linear better save us, like nuclear fusion, or aliens from space because I think we are determined to destroy ourselves.

there is no reasonable way to jettison all the idiots on the planet, there is no way to slow down the train before it goes off the cliff ... so why wear your brain out trying ... of course that assumes that my general perceptions are right too, who knows?

[wwickeddogg]

He is wearing the hat so that you remember not to just take his word for it, but to look at the information yourself.

You are going to die, so why even bother to breathe, eat, get out of the way of a bus, go to work...

[themountainviewguy]

I don't "bother" to breathe eat and get out of the way of a bus, I will it because I am alive, but that does not mean i or all of us are smart enough to will a solution to a problem that may not have an answer.

[wwickeddogg]

Well if you don't bother to breathe why are you still breathing?

I don't will anything I just act, and the way I act now is to support scientific research into alternative energy (space based solar power seems like the best bet), and I cut my own emissions by selling my car and turning down the heat in my house.

[themountainviewguy]

if you do not know how to comprehend, why do you read ... breathing to me is not a "bother" ... great that you do all that stuff, but a whole system that does do it needs to be overturned ... and scolding them about global warming doesn't seem to work.

[wwickeddogg]

Maybe you just don't use the same definitions for words as the rest of us. Willing something is not the same as actually doing it. If you will to breathe, that simply means that you desire to breathe, however, if you don't bother to actually breathe you will simply expire.

You are not going to "overturn" any system by willing it to overturn and I'm not sure who you believe is scolding "them" about global warming.

[themountainviewguy]

this is not so rigorous as it seems. don't mean to tear down this logical construction, it is a useful way of looking at things.

he talks about ranking credibility ... but that is impossible to do. It is just another way to guess. saying exxon is believable because they are going against their normal bias is absurd ... maybe they know they will be out of business shortly because they have no oil, so they are looking to develop nuclear. you cannot know these motivations, or if they are ok.

[quantumman042]

@Darvas73 and themountainviewguy:

I believe that you did not watch the videos because those rebuttals are covered in the course of the videos.

[Darvas73]

You shouldn't place corporations that high on your list. They only care about money and that means being on the side of the general opinion, no matter which side that is. Exxon has certainly given this careful consideration, but only economically, not scientifically.

[wwickeddogg]

You need to watch the other videos, the corporations statements about the problem are that credible because the statements go against their own interests. Statements by companies selling bio-diesel would be ranked lower.

[Darvas73]

My point is the statements seem to go against corporate interests at the surface. In reality the companies just calculate that the world has passed the point where you can sell more products with a greener image. The product could well be the same old oil but consumers feel better if they buy it from a greenish company.

The corporations are not going to use their owner's money for the "common good" altough they might want it to look that way.

[wwickeddogg]

Ok, assume that a corporation can pay a scientist to say anything. Now assume that the company has been making millions of dallars by having the scientist come down against a theory, then suddenly they switch to paying the scientist to be in favor of the theory.

The reasoning is that they were making more money disputing global warming and are only switching because they lost and now want to be on the correct side of the issue.

[Darvas73]

I mean the corporations don't know or care what is the scientifically correct side. They just want to be on the side that makes the most money for them. That's why you shouldn't have the corporations high on a list of authorities when debating the natural science of climate change and actions to be taken.

[wwickeddogg]

ah, but then they would not need to hire scientists to produce studies and report, they could simply use the reports already done. If they need to hire scientists to support a position that no one else agrees with, then they are clearly lying. If they then fire those scientists and instead rely on reports that were produced independently there is a clear difference.

[dmeistar]

one thing thats been bothering me is the weight you automatically give to the statements by USCAP and Exxon just because they are contradictory to their vested interests. It would be one thing if those organizations were undergoing massive action (because it would actually be at some cost), but simply releasing a statement could just be for PR reasons. "Being green" is all the rage these days, and companies will say whatever it takes to move their product, so why should we believe them?

[iwishiwasagenius]

Also for those skeptics out there, do some research and try to rebutt this guy's argument's If you have iron clad infallible evidence. Then great! Everyone wins and we're all happy. If not then we need to take action.

[iwishiwasagenius]

lol @ mad max world.

[KID433321]

??????

[KID433321]

has anyone here tried valium? if so i would appreciate some feedback as to its effects, etc. dankeshan >)

[josephdupont]

what if we spend all of this money.. and it does no good. we end up even worse. broke

and with a new shore line. check out polar cap thickness ..

[TempestStormwind]

Josephdupont:

The IPCC WG3 report -- based around strategies for mitigation and adaptation -- makes it abundantly clear that any preventative action taken now will reduce the impact *and* the cost of later adaptation.

Combine this with several other market-based studies (for instance: ted. com/index. php/talks/view/id/51) that indicate that getting off of fossil fuels could create massive waves of profit and new jobs, and you end up with action being win-win.

[KID433321]

excellent...

[TheNatealator]

Here's something for your intuition to try out: energy costs money. We spend some money now so that we save energy. The saved energy means saved money. People will try to save money by buying energy efficient products, so that the companies that do change and adapt (or invent energy-saving technologies) end up doing better. As long as the money goes into improving products and business practices, and not artificially inflating a company's value, the wealth is not lost, and we don't end up broke

[KID433321]

havent u been listening???? its worse if we dont act (what do u prefer: being broke but stil having earth...or being dead?) seems to me like fairly straight forward decision

[KID433321]

it's always about the money, isn't it

[themountainviewguy]

you are just contradicting me, we do not know, what you are proposing is like bush propsing an expensive war on terror by attacking iraq ... now we have wasted 2 trillion dollars and we may not be able to fight the real war on terror - get it now?

[TempestStormwind]

The difference is that unlike the war, which had all of its evidence supporting it essentially amounting to a few blurry photographs and a "We have more but it's classified", science operates transparently and publicly.

However, the whole point behind WM42's videos is that you and I don't need to understand the science -- we just need to be critical of our sources, and evaluate the rational course of action based on the evidence. Which, soundly, is in favor of action.

[KID433321]

well said tempest

[themountainviewguy]

the other point is that china will soon surpass us as the greatest carbon polluter, and india soon enough ... whatever we do for the planet has to be done on a planetary basis.

[themountainviewguy]

* we do not know what action to take. * we do not know if we have already ruined  the planet already. * we do know that nature and life will survive better with human industry separared from the environment. * state of fear sucks. * we are changing more than just co2 so we should rethink our entire human existence on the planet.

[TempestStormwind]

All already addressed. In your order:

* Mechanics of GCC, The Solution (we *do* know)

* Scare Tactics (you're right, but that's no reason to give up)

* Get What You Want (just watch it)

* Risk Managment (and this video); I agree, btw

* Mechanics of GCC

Alternatively, you could take a look at what we *do* know, starting with the IPCC reports (not just WG1's). The key to most of this lies in CO2 -- and the action we need to take will be almost entirely beneficial from nearly every perspective.

[themountainviewguy]

face it you are just saying you put your faith in ipcc reports. this is all just a gamble. what does make sense is to set a goal of separating man's effects from nature, and mandating government action to build a worldwide infrastructure that is clean and safe with the aim of protecting nature, then let the chips fall where they may, we know we have done our best for nature

[TempestStormwind]

Yes, it's a gamble. So's fire insurance. How likely is it that your house catches fire in the next year? Less than 90%, I'll say, but you still insure it.

I don't see what you're arguing for, though. Your goal is in line with the IPCC's reports (it's a bit more extreme than what probably will be adopted, but it's definitely in line with it). Why argue? Your suggestion doesn't conflict with theirs.

[themountainviewguy]

because basing any action on a possible fiction of global warming is just not going to ever work, it is more sensible to motivate people with a vision, and a combined secular, economic, religious and "values" based vision of conservation of the planet and life. in the same sense I support national health care because the vision is inline and motivated other concerns anti-smoking, anit-fast food, organic food, i guess i'n talking social engineering, glo. warm. may not be sustainable.

[Xlolita89X]

@ TMVG: Don't you think it's worth at least trying instead of not doing anything?

Let's say you have a disease and doctors aren't sure they can save you... Would you just let yourself die or at least try to survive? It's worth trying because you can't be 100% sure that it won't work.

The same can be said about global climate changes. Using the sources (scientific evidences) and logic, I'd rather grab the chance to live than risk to end up in a world where everything is turned into chaos.

[MandreasW]

Great stuff... but addictive ;)

It's so much, and those cliffhangers just make me want to know what comes next; and suddenly I've started waching a new video, all though I know it's bedtime ;)

[TheRealArchAngel]

I just heard "his is a Scientific Issue"...HAH,HAH,HAH,HAH. No, this is a political issue now that the Tree Huggers actually figured out that it is better to pose as Scientist and enter Politics rather then doing drugs and singing Kumbyah (Koom-Bye-Ya). Global Warming is actually going to get worst even if we reach Zero CO2 cause it's a 1/2 degree axis change and the Earths core's irregularities leading to fluxing in the EM field causing the rapid climate change and not Co2 natural or man made

[TempestStormwind]

Your lack of understanding of the issue at hand is utterly baffling.

For instance, if the atmosphere had no CO2, it wouldn't be able to keep humidity up, meaning we'd lose an incredible amount of the greenhouse effect -- making the Earth incredibly hot during the day and frozen solid during the night.

I would, however, VERY MUCH like to see your evidence supporting a change in the earth's axis + core + EM flux = modern climate change. You DO have evidence...?

[rolleleven]

I Googled "implied logic by arbitrary assertion", so there must not be such a thing.

[TheRealArchAngel]

CO2 is a refrigerant in concentration by Nature and even in the "Green House Gas" it helps the air not get too hot rather then magically absorbing the heat. The real reason why the Evironuts say Global warming is CO2 fault is because technology using Oil based products gives off CO2 as a byproduct and they are pushing for Alternative fuels if not going back to living in caves and being one with nature. Try shooting a spot light at a mist made from dropping Co2 in water

[TheRealArchAngel]

Not only will the area the spotlight is shining on the Co2 mist not get "molten' but Co2 will scurry away the hotter the light is. Likewise place 2 clear bottles over a mirror on a sunny day and fill one with regular water and 1 with Co2 water and after a few hours carefully take their temperature and you will see that there is no significant difference in temperature as Inert CO2 does not magically absorb heat or contribute to climate change

[TempestStormwind]

CO2 is used as a coolant in SOLID FORM ("dry ice"). Its heat-trapping properties AS A GAS have been understood for centuries. The simplest experiment to observe this is to toss dry ice in sealed boxes (it'll sublimate to gas very quickly) and place them in a freezer; the one with the most CO2 will cool slower than the others.

Unless you think you have a more solid understanding of the climate science than the climate scientists, then you have no reason to reject their conclusions.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Sorry but Human released CO2 doesn't magically mix with the 2% by Volume of Air "Green House Gas" and the 2% Co2 rain has nothing to do with Air's "warming" via it's "green House effect" component. Have You done the Experiment of filling One bottle with Air and another with Pure Co2 and then find out if CO2 ends up "lava hot" after having both bottle out in the sun? Wonder why Industrial Areas blowing Co2 Smoke isn't hotter then surrounding areas?

[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.

[TempestStormwind]

No one except the anti-AGW lobby is talking about world unification. None of the people proposing solutions are proposing world government. Just one single policy change.

Remember the CFC scare over the ozone? How multiple nations banned CFCs in order to address the problem? That didn't unify the world, and it was a global policy change. What's different now?

[macf13nd]

well thought out, well researched and almost (although [we know this!] not a possibility) infallible.

[macf13nd]

part 2 of 2

well thought out, well researched and almost (although [we know this!] not a possibility) infallible.

[macf13nd]

its faintly vicious to watch this when an agreement was reached between the author and viewer on the first viewing of "How it all ends" Watching someone press home (again and again) a view you now hold here feels like tautology and feels tedious.

but is so good.

apologies not to be able to pick holes in the argument and allow Mr. Joe "Trust me I'm a physics teacher" to feel slightly better about himself.

[Poki3]

New smiley face for the bottom-right box: X_X