There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
I've just watched the original vid, and thought Pascal's wager while watching, so looked for it in the vid responses and here you are ;-) well done a good use of critical thinking skills
I am willing to give you 5$ for membership in the Church of Dan. Thanks for posting this. Pascal's wager crossed my mind when I saw the original video you are responding to. I am glad you took the time to make these points.
danni@ "If you give up on the concept of liberty, you may as well kill yourself."
I guess you're not familiar with various movements supporting this notion, i.e. communism. For the record, I personally believe freewill to exist only as an illusion, and for me, that gives me all the more reason to live. Question: How can a person conditioned to live the way they do be free? Is there anything you believe in that wasn't influenced by other people's beliefs & ideas? I don't you can honestly say so.
@th3g1vr Excuse me, Marx explicitly cited determinism - economic historicism and class consciousness - in forming his political ideology so if you want to accuse me of being akin to a communist then you ought to get your facts right first.
" Is there anything you believe in that wasn't influenced by other people's beliefs & ideas?"
have had many teachers and so on but that doesn't alter the fact that I am conscious and have the free will to reject or accept what I am taught.
@dannidandannikins first off, philosophy does not deal with "facts"-- when I say communism, I am referring to my interpretation of it, which is as good as any, regardless of whether you agree.
secondly, I'm not talking about Marxism, but about communism-in-the-real-world, e.g. China. Do you think the Chinese people have anything that *reasonably* resembles liberty? what I was referring to as far as freewill: even if you are "free", the self upon which that freedom is based was conditioned.
@th3g1vr " first off, philosophy does not deal with "facts""
Is that a fact? If yes then it contradicts your entire conception of what philosophy is; if not then I don't see why I should bother giving it any consideration. You are attempting to smuggle in metaphysical subjectivism, which is as contemptible an endeavor as any I can think of and an explicit rejection of logic as the standard of philosophical discourse. I won't pretend to debate anything with you while you deny objective reality.
@dannidandannikins I am not saying that you are wrong. I am saying that you are wrong for thinking that I am wrong. As a subjectivist I do not deny objective reality existing, but I think it should exist only so far as it is useful; to say that objective reality is the only reality is to deny the merits of more open-ended thinking. If Subjective = Potential, and Objective = actual, then the maximum amount of potential would be a balance between these two; this merits a degree of Subjectivism.
@dannidandannikins when did I accuse you of being a communist? There's no way I could mistake a person with such a dependence on "liberty" as being a communist. as I said in my previous posts, communism-in-the-real-world (China) renounces freewill (after all, it's detrimental to the collective goals-- i.e. individuality leads to societal disparity)
@th3g1vr The words you used equated my statement with communism; if that was your intent then I have refuted it by contrasting my statement with those of Marx; if that was not your intent then I will gently suggest that you research English grammar before commenting again.
@th3g1vr I don't care if your college professor thinks you use grammar well. The objective fact is that your comment was, at the very least, unclear.
btw, I can't be bolloxed to argue anything with someone who thinks that "[objective reality] should exist only so far as it is useful; to say that objective reality is the only reality is to deny the merits of more open-ended thinking." since such a person is claiming a merit to meaningless subjective assertion... you're blocked for being stupid.
it has everything to do with it. Problem is that danni does a shit job explaining it, so you aren't able to see the connection.
Basically, it goes like this: Regardless of whether global warming exists or not, it's better to believe it does and do something about it, *even if* it doesn't exist, *just in-case* it does.
Essentially, he's taking Pascal's wager and expanding it to global warming. Just like P's W, it's better to believe just-in-case, than the hellish alternative.
@dannidandannikins How uncanny. Only three hours ago I watched the video this is a response towards; thinking the exact same thing...."this has an eerie resemblance...wait...is this pascals wager?" lol >_<
Wonderingmind42 did use the same reasoning as in Pascal's Wager. And he did it very provocatively by not saying that that was what he was infact doing. I don't doubt his motives - he wanted to create debate - and he succeeded. Props to Wonderingmind42 and to you dannidandannikins
Oh, look what happens when you enter an argument by just swearing at someone and making a groundless assertion rather than making a structured argument like I did, it just turns into a swearing match. Tell you what, make an argument that attempts to refute the points I made in the video or just fuck off.
My bet is that you'll choose option 3 which is to swear at me without making any argument again and I'll have to just completely ignore you.
@dannidandannikins No it makes the assumption that we cant know that the temperature is increasing. This also dosent work if theres even potential reason that the temperatures increasing that we could control, espically considering any the solutions ive read about in "Science Illiustrated" May/June 2010 issue article "Rengineering Earth" would effect any kinds of global warming.
@sulthus 'It makes the assumption that we cant know that the temperature is increasing' Not true. I have never made any claims that humans are incapable of that kind of knowledge. On the contrary - I would point to the fact that temperatures have been observed to be falling since 1998.
Further, your comments about rengineering[sic] the earth are covered in the video - it requires a top down command economy, thus no freedom and a failed economy.
@sulthus Thats funny, if you actualy read the article, it would tell you that some of the suggested things things are GOING to be implimented. Payed for by scientists.
@sulthus if you send me a link to the article then i'll look at it.
If it really is just paid for by the scientists then fine, but where do the scientists get their money? many climate science researchers are government sponsored. That is the same thing as what i was saying before - top down command economy where the gov't spends our money.
Besides, you know damn well that the policy most desired by may environmentalists is carbon capping.
@dannidandannikins I actually have the magazine, so unfortunately I dont have a link. Im fairly certain that (although the article didnt elaborate) that the actual technology comes from universitys, but the gov't will implement it. (Which is a HUGE cost reduction...the tech part)
@sulthus So in other words: i was right. The proposals for countering climate change all involve the government taking over the economy and stripping people of their economic rights.
@dannidandannikins Hmm....Inexistent or economic rights...well in defense of evil, we cant be without some of our rights being stripped. Although I didnt elaborate, typically in computers as with all technology, developing it is what makes it cost money. Implementing it costs next nothing. The tech is free, so youre whole "The economy is destroyed" is stupid. A motherboard for your computer costs but a few cents to manufacture, but something in the order of 20 million to developed the first one.
@sulthus economic rights are basically private property rights. if you dispute the validity or importance of these rights then you are also disputing the right to life and the right to free speech. If you dispute them then i won't talk to you.
@dannidandannikins Im not certain where you are from. You definitely have an accent, but I cannot tell what it is specifically, but in America, if the government wants to buy your land. You dont have a choice, you have to sell ( Ive see this happen about 4 times). They have to pay you double for its worth. You also act as if taxes do not exists.
@sulthus It's called eminent domain and i deplore it completely. I understand that taxes exist, obviously, i hate them - I consider the initiation of force to be evil in all circumstances. I'm from England.
@dannidandannikins They have to pay you double for its worth. You also act as if taxes do not exists. As I said before, in defense of evil, evil only occurs where living beings are, and is necessary. Sorry if you dont like that but its true. Also the right to property is not the right to free speech OR the right to liberty. True liberty does not exist.
@sulthus Evil is not necessary. What might it be necessary for? 'Sorry we couldn't form a just society, we didn't have enough evil people to make it work!'
In another video ('On socialism and communism') i explain why property rights and speech rights are both necessary elements in the right to life. Basically, if some gov't official has power to take your property, are you free to say anything you like about that man?
If you give up on the concept of liberty, you may as well kill yourself.
with the religion option - remain agnostic and god would forgive you for being skeptical anyway. If God gave you the brain to be skeptical it is his fault... for you being agnostic... so he has to forgive you - win win situation. Also a question for religious people... why the fuck would god give atheists such big brains? why not give the christians big brains? how come highly educated or high iq people are agnostic?
you're honestly comparing a religion to AGW? there is no scientific proof for god, but there are some for AGW. If you don't consider them as proofs, you could at least regard them as a fairly possible indicator (from scientific point of view). a religion isn't even that.
so in my view, this comparison definitely doesn't work.
notice that they disabled the comments for "the most terrifyingly dumb video". I got something in the mail that says I won a million dollars. All I have to do is send in a $10 processing fee. Guess what course of action I would take if I followed the logic that a two collumn oddless chart gives.
I think we could make a similar linear argument that presupposes economic disaster and reduces it to an ideology as well. Might be an interesting thought experiment just to play devils advocate. I think ultimately, no one knows what the fuck will happen. The best we can do is not shout at each other in the meantime...
I'm glad my vid made you think twice. I guess I do sound biased - but the same could be said of almost any speaker who is passionate about his subject. Regarding the idea that a similar argument could be made for an economic doomsday, I think you are mistaken but I would be interested to see you try.
'The best we can do is not shout at each other in the meantime'
I disagree. Pushing economic controls is fatal - destroying money, as Gore and his ilk do, is the same as destroying life.
I am invested in the thinking that global climate change is a logical and scientifically evidenced situation, but I have to say, this video is the first that made be start to question it a bit. My only critique would be to not sound so biased throughout the video. Also I wonder if you could create a Pascal's wager that gave preference to the economic doomsday dichotomy?
My son, pay attention to my wisdom; Lend your ear to my understanding, That you may preserve discretion, And your lips may keep knowledge. For the lips of an immoral woman drip honey, And her mouth is smoother than oil; But in the end she is bitter as wormwood, Sharp as a two-edged sword. - Proverbs
Pray this - "Jesus, Lord of Nazareth, please come into my heart and take control of my life so that I may live my life through you"
Hey man, my friend showed me that "Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See" nonsense. That video is full of shit for this EXACT example. Stupid mainstream public, easily seduced with happy faces. COME ON...
I was about to make the same video with the same arguments. Good work man.
Unfortunately the argument presented here is invalid if you think it through. Despite all the swearwords and attempts to fun (philohophy isn't fun!). It's so easy to debunk pretty much every "counter-argument" presented here that i will not bother with a video reply. Every viewer should be able to do it himself.
Just because this moron is to uneducated to read and understand the IPCC report doesn't prove anything. Scientist tell you should trust them because the general public is scientifically illiterate. All of the science/information that has lead to the conclusion that climate change is occurring is in public domain. Perhaps people should educate themselves and look at the data and then draw their own conclusion. Ignorance is bliss is suppose.
' All of the science/information that has lead to the conclusion that climate change is occurring is in public domain.'
You can't possibly be stupid enough to not read the newspapers and have heard of 'climate gate' so this has got to be a deliberate lie. I suggest you take your own advice and go read something... starting with a newspaper.
Yes, not only have we heard of "climategate", those that are willing to dig a little deeper than newspaper headlines know that nothing in climategate does anything at all to challenge AGW theory.
I'm not going to respond to any more of your comments until you change your name to rat.
For anyone else who thinks there is credible science behind AGW i suggest you do a youtube search for 'Lord Monckton adresses a Greenpeace-campaigner on global warming'.
That's OK, because so far the only "response" you've given to me is to attack my user name. If that's your idea of rational, I'm glad I don't fit your definition.
Nearly every credible scientific organization in the world agrees that AGW is real and requires action. I've seen Lord Monckton many times. He isn't a climatologist and has been thoroughly debunked.
Good exposition of the problem with this line of reasoning.
Unfortunately people are historically susceptible to Pascal's wager, sometimes it may simply be case of going with the least evil crackpot ideology. I think religion is an incredibly important thing, because it avoids people believing in things like climate change.
To put it another way, you are never going to stop this way of thinking in people, but you can learn to mitigate the damage done by it if you recognize it early on.
Your rationalism of climate change being a false dichotomy is false. We can take measures against asteroids, diseases, wars, and the like, but can you really choose to be part of more than 1 religion?
@ReyAudentio way to pick one of the real essentials of the issue. Besides, you're wrong anyway. Economic controls make wars more likely and reduce our ability to respond to crises. Also some religions do admit of the existence of other gods - the romans used regularly to admit the gods of conquered territories into their religion.
The point of religions permitting the existence of other religions is a moot point I wont expound on greatly. For the most popular one here in the US, that isn't a choice so I'll leave it at that. And don't misconstrue my argument, you make yourself out to be a person that cannot be reasoned with. Take my statement for its face value and realize your comparison is flawed. Things we can control versus things we cannot.
Climate change can be controlled, as can asteroids, as can the economy. However you pose the stance that "as a people we cannot" but thats not whats being argued. Physically that climate is at the mercy of humans, that's readily apparent if you see what effect chemical factories have on China's ecosystems. Physical interaction and deterrence with asteroids is possible. You assume that if we combat the asteroids, we cannot have fix our climate (amongst other things). However that is whats false.
'Top Down Commands' generalizes my argument and streamlines it into the impossibility you want. As a whole, humans control the economy. Leave it at that. Then again, even mentioning the economy streamlines it further. Know this: Humans can control the climate through various means. We already affect it a great deal, that much is fact. Then you pose something thats false. Just because there are multiple threats to the human race, no one threat should ever be addressed. This is said at around 3:37
''Top Down Commands' generalizes my argument and streamlines it into the impossibility you want.'
So you acknowledge that a command economy cannot function and yet maintain that laws should be passed to tell people how much carbon they can consume? Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Incorrect again. Your usage of specific examples is another streamline attempt. In doing so you ignore the multiple other forms of pollution and ignore that regulation on consumption is nothing new. Ever heard of ration cards during WWI? The reason it would not work now is because we have no systems in place to ensure it works. The Gov't no longer controls the supply but the corporations do. However, reality doesn't disprove ability.
I can only assume that my assumption that you are being deliberately obtuse is incorrect and that you really are this stupid. I won't argue with you any longer, post whatever inane dribblings you like, you're a fool and I shan't waste my time on you.
balls to you fucknuts, I'm not deleting your comments, I'm just not going to pretend that it is possible to argue rationally with a person carrying such a mass of false premises as you. You admitted that command economies don't function while advocating a command economy... why should I bother to argue with someone who doesn't even listen to himself?
Please note: That is a rhetorical question, you are not required to answer it.
As humans, wen can choose to address multiple threats to the human race, but by religions standards. and lets just go with a prominent one, Christianity, you are locked into full belief in that on religion or else you can reap the rewards of the belief and true existence scenario. The correctness behind wondering minds model is that if it is right, it wont say asteroids is wrong, etc. It says that for the climate, the safest route is to care for it.
When you impose limitations such as money, that doesn't disprove his argument. You choose to make money a limitation, but when existence of the race is on the line, will that really matter? No it won't. Hes already admitted it can't be proven, but has given the 4 possible scenarios. You haven't introduced any alternate scenarios to discredit his 4 existing ones, so his reasoning that it would be in the human races best interest to spend the money and take care of the climate still stands.
More importantly, your last argument about climate change being anti-philosophical completely misses the point about why there is a scientific community to begin with. The reason why the bible is "unreadable" is because it was written at a different time and place and it takes some effort to understand what the authors were trying to say. The reason why technical reports like the IPCC are "unreadable" is because they require background knowledge in climatology, mathematics, and statistics.
You aren't required to take anything on faith with climatology, but it does take an investment in time. If you are unwilling to take the time to understand it, it is reasonable to defer to those who have. But to claim that it is both 'unreadable" and "bollocks" amounts to nothing more than intellectual laziness (I don't understand it so it must not be true.)
@RationalRat It doesn't miss the point at all. You just deliberately missed the point of what i was saying - I say deliberately because my explanation was too simple for your non-understanding to be down to idiocy. You haven't taken the word 'rational' out of your name yet. you really should, Rat.
But this is not true in the case of climate change. First, there is strong agreement among climatologists that AGW is true. (As an aside, it is irrelevant whether climate change is apocalyptic.) Second, action on climate change doesn't preclude action on other potential disastrous scenarios. No one in the climate change debate claims climate change is the only way that humans are threatened with disaster.
Take, for instance, the claim that climate change arguments, like Pascal's Wager, present a false dichotomy. The problems here are at least twofold: 1) the improbability of Christianity being true and 2) to believe in Christianity precludes belief in other religions that if true would result in extreme eternal pain for the unbeliever.
Additionally, in response to my own videos, I have noticed that many people base their arguments on altruism. I was complaining in one video about how the government's push for electric cars is reported to have the likely effect of overburdening electric grids. My city will be affected. The person was saying that in the name of the environment, my quality of life should suffer (though I have no car at all, let alone an electric one!)
Good point about unearned guilt. I was really interested in what propelled people into having their cars destroyed during the Cash for Clunkers program (besides pure economic incentives) and the answer had a lot to do with guilt. People were feeling guilty for driving around SUVs despite any use for them. One guy said his got him through a snowstorm when returning from a ski trip, yet he had it destroyed. Why? He felt GUILTY every time he filled it up!
Statists = theists. Always nice to see crap statist arguments getting templated away via the disassembling of the equivalent theistic argument. Good stuff...
The 2x2 grid is a gross oversimplification for why climate change requires action. But it is also wrong to claim that all climate change arguments boil down to a simplistic 2x2 grid.
That's true of any proposition. (Either you believe jumping out of an airplane without a parachute will kill you or you don't and either it will kill you or it won't.) The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it sidesteps probability assessment, ignores mutually exclusive equally disastrous outcomes, and minimizes cost.
I've posted it as a response but it hasn't yet been confirmed. the guy that made that video strikes me as the kind of guy who might object to swearing though...
Sorry for the delay--haven't been on YouTube for a while. I'm approving it now. I'll let the occasional "Fuck" through, mostly because I love your accent.
The guy that made that video admitted that it had a fatal flaw and has made revisions to his argument. A simplistic grid approach isn't going to cut it, however, his subsequent videos clarify his position and are much better supported.
Excellent video - though you omitted something I consider to be an enormous fallacy with Pascal's wager: the burden of proof. A wager could be created to justify any human action at all, since we are leaving proof out of the equation.
If I can make point #5. Any rationally selfish egoist realizes that there is no hell as well as there is no apocolypse because hell assumes some afterlife which is just as believable as any other fantasy. There is no apocolypse because even the most pessimistic climate change models don't predict complete ruin until any human currently alive will be long dead anyway.
The only way 'climate change' can scare anyone is if they are altruistic enough to care about the unborn.
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
2110kop 7 months ago
FINALLY! SOMEONE WHO SAW PASCAL'S WAGER WRITTEN ALL OVER THAT RIDICULOUS VIDEO!
Gothguy47 1 year ago
Comment removed
Gothguy47 1 year ago
I've just watched the original vid, and thought Pascal's wager while watching, so looked for it in the vid responses and here you are ;-) well done a good use of critical thinking skills
RevDevilin 1 year ago
I am willing to give you 5$ for membership in the Church of Dan. Thanks for posting this. Pascal's wager crossed my mind when I saw the original video you are responding to. I am glad you took the time to make these points.
GorterPoss 1 year ago
danni@ "If you give up on the concept of liberty, you may as well kill yourself."
I guess you're not familiar with various movements supporting this notion, i.e. communism. For the record, I personally believe freewill to exist only as an illusion, and for me, that gives me all the more reason to live. Question: How can a person conditioned to live the way they do be free? Is there anything you believe in that wasn't influenced by other people's beliefs & ideas? I don't you can honestly say so.
th3g1vr 1 year ago
@th3g1vr Excuse me, Marx explicitly cited determinism - economic historicism and class consciousness - in forming his political ideology so if you want to accuse me of being akin to a communist then you ought to get your facts right first.
" Is there anything you believe in that wasn't influenced by other people's beliefs & ideas?"
have had many teachers and so on but that doesn't alter the fact that I am conscious and have the free will to reject or accept what I am taught.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins first off, philosophy does not deal with "facts"-- when I say communism, I am referring to my interpretation of it, which is as good as any, regardless of whether you agree.
secondly, I'm not talking about Marxism, but about communism-in-the-real-world, e.g. China. Do you think the Chinese people have anything that *reasonably* resembles liberty? what I was referring to as far as freewill: even if you are "free", the self upon which that freedom is based was conditioned.
th3g1vr 1 year ago
@th3g1vr " first off, philosophy does not deal with "facts""
Is that a fact? If yes then it contradicts your entire conception of what philosophy is; if not then I don't see why I should bother giving it any consideration. You are attempting to smuggle in metaphysical subjectivism, which is as contemptible an endeavor as any I can think of and an explicit rejection of logic as the standard of philosophical discourse. I won't pretend to debate anything with you while you deny objective reality.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins I am not saying that you are wrong. I am saying that you are wrong for thinking that I am wrong. As a subjectivist I do not deny objective reality existing, but I think it should exist only so far as it is useful; to say that objective reality is the only reality is to deny the merits of more open-ended thinking. If Subjective = Potential, and Objective = actual, then the maximum amount of potential would be a balance between these two; this merits a degree of Subjectivism.
th3g1vr 1 year ago
Comment removed
th3g1vr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dannidandannikins when did I accuse you of being a communist? There's no way I could mistake a person with such a dependence on "liberty" as being a communist. as I said in my previous posts, communism-in-the-real-world (China) renounces freewill (after all, it's detrimental to the collective goals-- i.e. individuality leads to societal disparity)
th3g1vr 1 year ago
@th3g1vr The words you used equated my statement with communism; if that was your intent then I have refuted it by contrasting my statement with those of Marx; if that was not your intent then I will gently suggest that you research English grammar before commenting again.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins ad hominem. What does my grammar (which BTW is A+ according to my college professor) have to do with the price of tea in China?
th3g1vr 1 year ago
@th3g1vr I don't care if your college professor thinks you use grammar well. The objective fact is that your comment was, at the very least, unclear.
btw, I can't be bolloxed to argue anything with someone who thinks that "[objective reality] should exist only so far as it is useful; to say that objective reality is the only reality is to deny the merits of more open-ended thinking." since such a person is claiming a merit to meaningless subjective assertion... you're blocked for being stupid.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
it has everything to do with it. Problem is that danni does a shit job explaining it, so you aren't able to see the connection.
Basically, it goes like this: Regardless of whether global warming exists or not, it's better to believe it does and do something about it, *even if* it doesn't exist, *just in-case* it does.
Essentially, he's taking Pascal's wager and expanding it to global warming. Just like P's W, it's better to believe just-in-case, than the hellish alternative.
th3g1vr 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins How uncanny. Only three hours ago I watched the video this is a response towards; thinking the exact same thing...."this has an eerie resemblance...wait...is this pascals wager?" lol >_<
GodofCider 1 year ago
Wonderingmind42 did use the same reasoning as in Pascal's Wager. And he did it very provocatively by not saying that that was what he was infact doing. I don't doubt his motives - he wanted to create debate - and he succeeded. Props to Wonderingmind42 and to you dannidandannikins
ToshiroDK 1 year ago
pascal's wager doesn't have a damn thing to do with climate change. this is a BS vid to start with.
WisdomVendor 1 year ago
@WisdomVendor Yours is a BS comment all through.
Oh, look what happens when you enter an argument by just swearing at someone and making a groundless assertion rather than making a structured argument like I did, it just turns into a swearing match. Tell you what, make an argument that attempts to refute the points I made in the video or just fuck off.
My bet is that you'll choose option 3 which is to swear at me without making any argument again and I'll have to just completely ignore you.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
Comment removed
th3g1vr 1 year ago
All this shows is that climate change dosent work with pascals wager.
sulthus 1 year ago
@sulthus No. It shows that the philosophy driving the 'Climate Change' agenda is no better than the philosophy driving any other religious movement.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins No it makes the assumption that we cant know that the temperature is increasing. This also dosent work if theres even potential reason that the temperatures increasing that we could control, espically considering any the solutions ive read about in "Science Illiustrated" May/June 2010 issue article "Rengineering Earth" would effect any kinds of global warming.
sulthus 1 year ago
@sulthus 'It makes the assumption that we cant know that the temperature is increasing' Not true. I have never made any claims that humans are incapable of that kind of knowledge. On the contrary - I would point to the fact that temperatures have been observed to be falling since 1998.
Further, your comments about rengineering[sic] the earth are covered in the video - it requires a top down command economy, thus no freedom and a failed economy.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@sulthus Thats funny, if you actualy read the article, it would tell you that some of the suggested things things are GOING to be implimented. Payed for by scientists.
sulthus 1 year ago
@sulthus if you send me a link to the article then i'll look at it.
If it really is just paid for by the scientists then fine, but where do the scientists get their money? many climate science researchers are government sponsored. That is the same thing as what i was saying before - top down command economy where the gov't spends our money.
Besides, you know damn well that the policy most desired by may environmentalists is carbon capping.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins I actually have the magazine, so unfortunately I dont have a link. Im fairly certain that (although the article didnt elaborate) that the actual technology comes from universitys, but the gov't will implement it. (Which is a HUGE cost reduction...the tech part)
sulthus 1 year ago
@sulthus So in other words: i was right. The proposals for countering climate change all involve the government taking over the economy and stripping people of their economic rights.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins Hmm....Inexistent or economic rights...well in defense of evil, we cant be without some of our rights being stripped. Although I didnt elaborate, typically in computers as with all technology, developing it is what makes it cost money. Implementing it costs next nothing. The tech is free, so youre whole "The economy is destroyed" is stupid. A motherboard for your computer costs but a few cents to manufacture, but something in the order of 20 million to developed the first one.
sulthus 1 year ago
@sulthus economic rights are basically private property rights. if you dispute the validity or importance of these rights then you are also disputing the right to life and the right to free speech. If you dispute them then i won't talk to you.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins Im not certain where you are from. You definitely have an accent, but I cannot tell what it is specifically, but in America, if the government wants to buy your land. You dont have a choice, you have to sell ( Ive see this happen about 4 times). They have to pay you double for its worth. You also act as if taxes do not exists.
sulthus 1 year ago
@sulthus It's called eminent domain and i deplore it completely. I understand that taxes exist, obviously, i hate them - I consider the initiation of force to be evil in all circumstances. I'm from England.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins They have to pay you double for its worth. You also act as if taxes do not exists. As I said before, in defense of evil, evil only occurs where living beings are, and is necessary. Sorry if you dont like that but its true. Also the right to property is not the right to free speech OR the right to liberty. True liberty does not exist.
sulthus 1 year ago
@sulthus Evil is not necessary. What might it be necessary for? 'Sorry we couldn't form a just society, we didn't have enough evil people to make it work!'
In another video ('On socialism and communism') i explain why property rights and speech rights are both necessary elements in the right to life. Basically, if some gov't official has power to take your property, are you free to say anything you like about that man?
If you give up on the concept of liberty, you may as well kill yourself.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
The original video is nonsense, and this response is nonsense.
NathanielJamesP 1 year ago
with the religion option - remain agnostic and god would forgive you for being skeptical anyway. If God gave you the brain to be skeptical it is his fault... for you being agnostic... so he has to forgive you - win win situation. Also a question for religious people... why the fuck would god give atheists such big brains? why not give the christians big brains? how come highly educated or high iq people are agnostic?
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
you're honestly comparing a religion to AGW? there is no scientific proof for god, but there are some for AGW. If you don't consider them as proofs, you could at least regard them as a fairly possible indicator (from scientific point of view). a religion isn't even that.
so in my view, this comparison definitely doesn't work.
faerlinaz 1 year ago
notice that they disabled the comments for "the most terrifyingly dumb video". I got something in the mail that says I won a million dollars. All I have to do is send in a $10 processing fee. Guess what course of action I would take if I followed the logic that a two collumn oddless chart gives.
AFullRecovery88 1 year ago 2
Thank you for having some actual brains and posing a legitimate argument. Too bad 3 million people have watched "the most terrifying video".
AFullRecovery88 1 year ago
@AFullRecovery88 lol. i was one of those three million, I doubt i was the only one that saw it for the sack of shit it is.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
I think we could make a similar linear argument that presupposes economic disaster and reduces it to an ideology as well. Might be an interesting thought experiment just to play devils advocate. I think ultimately, no one knows what the fuck will happen. The best we can do is not shout at each other in the meantime...
cmeerdo 1 year ago
@cmeerdo
I'm glad my vid made you think twice. I guess I do sound biased - but the same could be said of almost any speaker who is passionate about his subject. Regarding the idea that a similar argument could be made for an economic doomsday, I think you are mistaken but I would be interested to see you try.
'The best we can do is not shout at each other in the meantime'
I disagree. Pushing economic controls is fatal - destroying money, as Gore and his ilk do, is the same as destroying life.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
I am invested in the thinking that global climate change is a logical and scientifically evidenced situation, but I have to say, this video is the first that made be start to question it a bit. My only critique would be to not sound so biased throughout the video. Also I wonder if you could create a Pascal's wager that gave preference to the economic doomsday dichotomy?
cmeerdo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My son, pay attention to my wisdom; Lend your ear to my understanding, That you may preserve discretion, And your lips may keep knowledge. For the lips of an immoral woman drip honey, And her mouth is smoother than oil; But in the end she is bitter as wormwood, Sharp as a two-edged sword. - Proverbs
Pray this - "Jesus, Lord of Nazareth, please come into my heart and take control of my life so that I may live my life through you"
You can see evil everywhere- why not the good?
See NWO Solution
Godisyoursolution 1 year ago
Hey man, my friend showed me that "Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See" nonsense. That video is full of shit for this EXACT example. Stupid mainstream public, easily seduced with happy faces. COME ON...
I was about to make the same video with the same arguments. Good work man.
thebradshaw 1 year ago
show your friend this video
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
Unfortunately the argument presented here is invalid if you think it through. Despite all the swearwords and attempts to fun (philohophy isn't fun!). It's so easy to debunk pretty much every "counter-argument" presented here that i will not bother with a video reply. Every viewer should be able to do it himself.
Samurailord 1 year ago
Just because this moron is to uneducated to read and understand the IPCC report doesn't prove anything. Scientist tell you should trust them because the general public is scientifically illiterate. All of the science/information that has lead to the conclusion that climate change is occurring is in public domain. Perhaps people should educate themselves and look at the data and then draw their own conclusion. Ignorance is bliss is suppose.
brent6773 1 year ago 2
' All of the science/information that has lead to the conclusion that climate change is occurring is in public domain.'
You can't possibly be stupid enough to not read the newspapers and have heard of 'climate gate' so this has got to be a deliberate lie. I suggest you take your own advice and go read something... starting with a newspaper.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
Yes, not only have we heard of "climategate", those that are willing to dig a little deeper than newspaper headlines know that nothing in climategate does anything at all to challenge AGW theory.
RationalRat 1 year ago
I'm not going to respond to any more of your comments until you change your name to rat.
For anyone else who thinks there is credible science behind AGW i suggest you do a youtube search for 'Lord Monckton adresses a Greenpeace-campaigner on global warming'.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
That's OK, because so far the only "response" you've given to me is to attack my user name. If that's your idea of rational, I'm glad I don't fit your definition.
Nearly every credible scientific organization in the world agrees that AGW is real and requires action. I've seen Lord Monckton many times. He isn't a climatologist and has been thoroughly debunked.
RationalRat 1 year ago
Good exposition of the problem with this line of reasoning.
Unfortunately people are historically susceptible to Pascal's wager, sometimes it may simply be case of going with the least evil crackpot ideology. I think religion is an incredibly important thing, because it avoids people believing in things like climate change.
To put it another way, you are never going to stop this way of thinking in people, but you can learn to mitigate the damage done by it if you recognize it early on.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
Your rationalism of climate change being a false dichotomy is false. We can take measures against asteroids, diseases, wars, and the like, but can you really choose to be part of more than 1 religion?
ReyAudentio 2 years ago
@ReyAudentio way to pick one of the real essentials of the issue. Besides, you're wrong anyway. Economic controls make wars more likely and reduce our ability to respond to crises. Also some religions do admit of the existence of other gods - the romans used regularly to admit the gods of conquered territories into their religion.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
The point of religions permitting the existence of other religions is a moot point I wont expound on greatly. For the most popular one here in the US, that isn't a choice so I'll leave it at that. And don't misconstrue my argument, you make yourself out to be a person that cannot be reasoned with. Take my statement for its face value and realize your comparison is flawed. Things we can control versus things we cannot.
ReyAudentio 2 years ago
'you make yourself out to be a person that cannot be reasoned with'
I can be reasoned with, but you have to be rational to get anywhere with me.
'Things we can control versus things we cannot.'
Can we, by means of top down commands, 'control' the economy?
How about asteroids? you realize Armageddon was fiction right, not a documentary.
My comparison is not flawed - or if it is then you've not yet shown how.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
Climate change can be controlled, as can asteroids, as can the economy. However you pose the stance that "as a people we cannot" but thats not whats being argued. Physically that climate is at the mercy of humans, that's readily apparent if you see what effect chemical factories have on China's ecosystems. Physical interaction and deterrence with asteroids is possible. You assume that if we combat the asteroids, we cannot have fix our climate (amongst other things). However that is whats false.
ReyAudentio 2 years ago
'Top Down Commands' generalizes my argument and streamlines it into the impossibility you want. As a whole, humans control the economy. Leave it at that. Then again, even mentioning the economy streamlines it further. Know this: Humans can control the climate through various means. We already affect it a great deal, that much is fact. Then you pose something thats false. Just because there are multiple threats to the human race, no one threat should ever be addressed. This is said at around 3:37
ReyAudentio 2 years ago
''Top Down Commands' generalizes my argument and streamlines it into the impossibility you want.'
So you acknowledge that a command economy cannot function and yet maintain that laws should be passed to tell people how much carbon they can consume? Are you being deliberately obtuse?
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
Incorrect again. Your usage of specific examples is another streamline attempt. In doing so you ignore the multiple other forms of pollution and ignore that regulation on consumption is nothing new. Ever heard of ration cards during WWI? The reason it would not work now is because we have no systems in place to ensure it works. The Gov't no longer controls the supply but the corporations do. However, reality doesn't disprove ability.
ReyAudentio 2 years ago
I can only assume that my assumption that you are being deliberately obtuse is incorrect and that you really are this stupid. I won't argue with you any longer, post whatever inane dribblings you like, you're a fool and I shan't waste my time on you.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
Fine then delete my comments. Insults sans refusal to reason doesn't make you correct. I suppose its a good thing you wont receive alot of views.
ReyAudentio 2 years ago
balls to you fucknuts, I'm not deleting your comments, I'm just not going to pretend that it is possible to argue rationally with a person carrying such a mass of false premises as you. You admitted that command economies don't function while advocating a command economy... why should I bother to argue with someone who doesn't even listen to himself?
Please note: That is a rhetorical question, you are not required to answer it.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
Because refusal to argue is the guise of inability to argue :3
ReyAudentio 2 years ago
As humans, wen can choose to address multiple threats to the human race, but by religions standards. and lets just go with a prominent one, Christianity, you are locked into full belief in that on religion or else you can reap the rewards of the belief and true existence scenario. The correctness behind wondering minds model is that if it is right, it wont say asteroids is wrong, etc. It says that for the climate, the safest route is to care for it.
ReyAudentio 2 years ago
When you impose limitations such as money, that doesn't disprove his argument. You choose to make money a limitation, but when existence of the race is on the line, will that really matter? No it won't. Hes already admitted it can't be proven, but has given the 4 possible scenarios. You haven't introduced any alternate scenarios to discredit his 4 existing ones, so his reasoning that it would be in the human races best interest to spend the money and take care of the climate still stands.
ReyAudentio 2 years ago
More importantly, your last argument about climate change being anti-philosophical completely misses the point about why there is a scientific community to begin with. The reason why the bible is "unreadable" is because it was written at a different time and place and it takes some effort to understand what the authors were trying to say. The reason why technical reports like the IPCC are "unreadable" is because they require background knowledge in climatology, mathematics, and statistics.
RationalRat 2 years ago
You aren't required to take anything on faith with climatology, but it does take an investment in time. If you are unwilling to take the time to understand it, it is reasonable to defer to those who have. But to claim that it is both 'unreadable" and "bollocks" amounts to nothing more than intellectual laziness (I don't understand it so it must not be true.)
RationalRat 2 years ago
@RationalRat It doesn't miss the point at all. You just deliberately missed the point of what i was saying - I say deliberately because my explanation was too simple for your non-understanding to be down to idiocy. You haven't taken the word 'rational' out of your name yet. you really should, Rat.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
But this is not true in the case of climate change. First, there is strong agreement among climatologists that AGW is true. (As an aside, it is irrelevant whether climate change is apocalyptic.) Second, action on climate change doesn't preclude action on other potential disastrous scenarios. No one in the climate change debate claims climate change is the only way that humans are threatened with disaster.
RationalRat 2 years ago
Take, for instance, the claim that climate change arguments, like Pascal's Wager, present a false dichotomy. The problems here are at least twofold: 1) the improbability of Christianity being true and 2) to believe in Christianity precludes belief in other religions that if true would result in extreme eternal pain for the unbeliever.
RationalRat 2 years ago
Additionally, in response to my own videos, I have noticed that many people base their arguments on altruism. I was complaining in one video about how the government's push for electric cars is reported to have the likely effect of overburdening electric grids. My city will be affected. The person was saying that in the name of the environment, my quality of life should suffer (though I have no car at all, let alone an electric one!)
jmelkis 2 years ago
yeah, altruism is at the root of the whole thing - which is to be expected since it is just another collectivist creed.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
Good point about unearned guilt. I was really interested in what propelled people into having their cars destroyed during the Cash for Clunkers program (besides pure economic incentives) and the answer had a lot to do with guilt. People were feeling guilty for driving around SUVs despite any use for them. One guy said his got him through a snowstorm when returning from a ski trip, yet he had it destroyed. Why? He felt GUILTY every time he filled it up!
jmelkis 2 years ago
This guy reminds me of the professor in Back to School....Sam Kinison played hi. Freakin hilarious.....but so true in a poignant way
tx80man 2 years ago
Statists = theists. Always nice to see crap statist arguments getting templated away via the disassembling of the equivalent theistic argument. Good stuff...
enotdetcelfer 2 years ago
The 2x2 grid is a gross oversimplification for why climate change requires action. But it is also wrong to claim that all climate change arguments boil down to a simplistic 2x2 grid.
RationalRat 2 years ago
It's not an oversimplification at all. the entire climate change movement boils down to this pascal's wager type of scare mongering.
btw, i think you should take the word 'rational' out of your screen name
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
"btw, i think you should take the word 'rational' out of your screen name"
but please keep the Rat part :D
PortfolioManager1987 2 years ago 3
@RationalRat It is that simple because 1) you either believe in it or you don't AND 2) it's either real or it's not.
jmelkis 2 years ago
That's true of any proposition. (Either you believe jumping out of an airplane without a parachute will kill you or you don't and either it will kill you or it won't.) The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it sidesteps probability assessment, ignores mutually exclusive equally disastrous outcomes, and minimizes cost.
RationalRat 2 years ago
Hooray! Someone laughed!
Bad as the joke was.....I am funny after all!
Ahh....you have validated my life.
81AmericanGirl 2 years ago
Wait, wait, wait.......are you saying you DON'T believe in God?!
81AmericanGirl 2 years ago
lol
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
I'm so glad to subscribe to videos like these.
ObjectivistAesthetic 2 years ago
I'm so glad to have subscribers like you.
Feel the love!
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
Dan, you should have made this video as a response video to "The most terrifying video you'll ever see"
He basically goes over Pascals wager and uses it as a "Reasoned argument" for why it is better to believe in Global Warming vs. not.
If you've never seen the vid, its worth a good laugh.
Might help you get more hits on this vid if you post it as a response vid!!
Good stuff btw
5 stars
Twiggy269 2 years ago
I've posted it as a response but it hasn't yet been confirmed. the guy that made that video strikes me as the kind of guy who might object to swearing though...
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
Sorry for the delay--haven't been on YouTube for a while. I'm approving it now. I'll let the occasional "Fuck" through, mostly because I love your accent.
wonderingmind42 2 years ago
thanks.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
The guy that made that video admitted that it had a fatal flaw and has made revisions to his argument. A simplistic grid approach isn't going to cut it, however, his subsequent videos clarify his position and are much better supported.
RationalRat 2 years ago
Excellent video - though you omitted something I consider to be an enormous fallacy with Pascal's wager: the burden of proof. A wager could be created to justify any human action at all, since we are leaving proof out of the equation.
tito2502 2 years ago
@tito2502 that's a good point, though i did touch on it i think in problem 4 with the final section
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
Al Fucking Gore! I think he should substitute his middle name for his first name.
qtronman 2 years ago
He'd have funny initials.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
:-)
qtronman 2 years ago
I totally agree.
If I can make point #5. Any rationally selfish egoist realizes that there is no hell as well as there is no apocolypse because hell assumes some afterlife which is just as believable as any other fantasy. There is no apocolypse because even the most pessimistic climate change models don't predict complete ruin until any human currently alive will be long dead anyway.
The only way 'climate change' can scare anyone is if they are altruistic enough to care about the unborn.
SBRslacker00 2 years ago
@SBRslacker00 The whole apocalyptic idea itself comes from Christianity (as well as Islam).
jmelkis 2 years ago
Another excellent video Dan. Thank you.
chopsky 2 years ago
my pleasure.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago