I like your video, being one of the more well-thought-out responses I've seen so far. However, I'd propose that your table is still incomplete. Your 3 of 4 possible futures each have 3 possible & unknown net outcomes: disaster, status quo, or positive for humans... therefore, the "try and fix it" column ALSO has 3 possible outcomes (not just two, "global depression" or :-) ... [MORE TO FOLLOW]
How on God's green earth can you know, "scientifically" what the co2 levels were 150,000,000 million years ago-oh, yeah carbon dating right? except you have no verifiable variable to know for sure that carbon dating works. Carbon dating is circular reasoning. They come up with a graph of co2 levels at different times-with no way to prove it-then use their graph to prove what the co2 rating was at that time? Help me here.
So you want a Manpollo project. That would include actual scientists making this graph of yours, with actual evidences, probabilities and error margins. I want it too, even if I am on the other side of the argument. The question is, that if the conclusion of the Manpollo project turned out against your favor,would you acknowledge it?I know I would.If fighting against GCC is not worth it, why do it? So what do you say to the idea of campaigning for a Manpollo project,huh? It's in everyone's favor
Attempting to fix Global Warming may NOT bring an economic slowdown... As new greener industries will develop leading to jobs etc etc... The only slowdown I see will be in the profits of BIG OIL. Offcourse these green industries must be sustainable tho. Add that to your columns. You cannot possibly think all the CO2 we pump into the sky would have no effect do you?
I need to check on whats happening in UK, but EU seems to be doing ok (and they are pretty green as well). So it might be a correlation not cause and effect (Greener tech = eco slowdown).
Regardless I believe there wouldnt be any drastic economic effects if EVERYONE would adopt greener tech. As all countries cost of production will simultaneously inc. then S/D would adjust etc etc
Better look caefully at the EU, I'm on an email list that has media reports on what's going on there. Companies are threatening to leave, people's taxes on untilities are making them poor, and their CO2 levels just keep rising. Gordon Brown's government is in serious trouble with their "green" taxes, it's killing the middle class.
Remember the additional burden of extra taxes vs a good percent chance of DOOM and GLOOM (Even at 40% of doom which is actually very conservative given the statements warning us about GCC)
Show me the calculation that gets that 40%. Realize that those "statements" are just predictions that are all over the map. Example, IPCC says sea level could rise 7-21 inches over the next 100 years, Gore claims it will be 30 feet in 100 years. The actual is about 4-5 inches at current rate. So why should I accapt any of these? Show me the EVIDENCE!!!
Is the present climate change deleterious to human societies? Are there beneficial aspects of climate change that have been overlooked? Do adverse impacts outweigh beneficial impacts? We do not have all the answers yet. There is a definite need to carefully analyze climate change impact on world-wide human societies. The IPCC assessment is far from objective and needs to be critically re-assessed.
1st off there are other ways to combat GCC than taxes. (I too am allegic to Big G)
2nd This just proves that the response to GCC should be world-wide. If only one country imposes taxes, companies will simply move to another country which is lax on these issues and nothing would change. In fact the country that adopted regulation would be worse off.
3rd It is already admitted that there would be cost to mitigate GCC. Think of those costs as risk premium. Kinda like insurance.
There has to be a risk in the first place to have insurance. Since the planet is not adhering to the predictions of AGW theory there is no risk from AGW.
Second, the UN has already stated that India and the rest of the developing world should not have to curb their co2 as it would hurt their economic growth!!! So there is the reality, Kyoto is nothing more than a ploy to curb the growth of the western world, has nothing to do with CO2 emissions.
Yes, there is no risk. The planet has been here before, no problems. If you are that scared that there is one iota of risk, then don't get out of bed in the morning, you might get hit by a car.
I've heard that cop-out before. If GCC are as bad as yu claim them NO ONE should be exempt. Whats the point in curbing our CO2 is China just emitts more than we do? You motives sound utterly communistic, kill the good guys!!
I said the motives of those so-called scientists at NASA and the IPCC have a socialistic/communistic agenda.
Since china is not going to change, then we had better just prepare. But there is nothing to prepare for as there is no one shred of evidence to show that the planet is in peril over our CO2 emissions. If anything your actions will put your way of life in peril, look what's happening in the EU and the UK, revolt is starting against these emission "solutions" it's killing the economy
a 90% chance of a recession (which happens every few years ANYWAY due to fluctuations in the Business cycle, is survivable, wont probably mean the extinction of life as we know it)
vs
a 40% chance of DOOM for the entire human race. This is most probably irreversible problem. Finally if this hits, the problems of economic recession would PALE in comparison as this dwarfs, all problems.
So from a risk management stand point which is the better choice?
Provde me evidence that the world will end for humans due to CO2 emissions. Not predictions, evidence. CO2 has been 3-4X higher in the geological past and if anything life flourished. The medeaval warm period was 2C warmer than now and lasted 500 years. That's when all the great cathederals were built because the Europeans could grow so much food.
The better choice is to follow the evidence, and there is NO evidence that we are at risk due to what is actually NORMAL climate changes.
I am not certain. Im just going by what a bunch of PhD and Nobel prize winners say
So lets say I give u a 60% nothing happens (which is waay conservative considering you probably dont have a PhD nor a Nobel prize) and 40% DOOM and GLOOM.
I'd still want to mitigate my risk.
Besides whats the big deal with requiring companies to go carbon -neutral anyway? Or drive smaller cars instead of big chunky SUVs? Or stop printing so much paper and keep soft copies. Its not too much to ask really
I'm going by the 400 PHD scientists and the 30,000 scientists who utterly reject for scientific reasons the very claim you are making. It's one thing to conserve, it;s another to go around claiming the world is going to die if we do not act. Show me the EVIDENCE the world is going to doom due to GCC.
Would you be able to correctly interpret the data better than the IPCC, NAS, NASA, NOAA etc?
There will always be opposing individual scientists. So i would always look at what the groups of scientists are saying as they would represent the MAJORITY thus have a higher % of being correct
Is your ARMCHAIR analysis so 100% CERTAIN that you would not give these guys, some of the biggest GEEKS in the planet even the benefit of the doubt?
Better have a look at todays' worldclimatereport too. Gee, so much is just not going your way. I have a question then. How long do things have to stay normal before you realize and have to fully reject AGW? Is there anything that would force you to reject AGW?
You have evidence to back that up? So far all you have done here is argue from authority and make claims with no backing evidence. Why not start as to why sea level rise has not changed. Start there and explain that one to me.
So when are you going to check those sites and the fact that the planet is not cooperating with the predictions. GLOBAL WARMING ISN'T HAPPENING any more, stopped in 1998 recent Nature paper by PhDs claims it won't continue for AT LEAST the next 10 years. Stop with the nonsence that we must act due to some imagined threat, deal with the FACTS! READ THOSE SITES, they are all PdH's too.
I assume tho that you are somehow a scientist with a PhD and a Nobel prize because you say these things with such certainty. Im no scientist, but pretty darn smart and credible people have come out and said yes there is climate change.
This guy is talking loads of shit about a subject he clearly hasn't got much information about. I'm just realy happy that the situation does not rest on his shoulders, because this time it won't be very fun to get the chance to say: I told you so.
I'm sure he knows more about this subject than you. He claims nothing, and brings up a very good point, that pretty much i thought of while watching the original video(however his was more in depth).
I'm unsure whether or not some of his facts are correct(although they sound very possible), but I am sure that the weather has been much hotter than it is today. We should not be worrying about the wether warming, rather we should worry about when it stops warming and gets COOLER.
By the logic presented in "The Most Terrifying Video..." we should always identify with the worst case scenario, act to avoid it (never mind the cost) and suspend all discussion of the probabilities involved. The worst case scenario for "action" could be 100%likely while the worst case scenario for "inaction" could be 1%. I say 1% because such an extreme scenario is presented and there can be no grading of risk because, we are told, the rows are not open for discussion.
If global warming does happen and the earth's habitability changes, then it's all up to the planet who survives and who doesnt. Earth's done it lots of times before. The dinosaurs was just one.
If it turns out we are f*ckin' up the planet to hell and it really is a bad thing, at least we don't have to worry about the earth going bye bye. It'll continue existing and simply adapt to the changes that occurred.
What happens to mankind, however, is a whole 'nother argument.
I am very familar with peak oil and with glogal warming both are issues and both need to be addressed. My suggestion to you jrwakefield is try to apply the technique of your to peak oil and I think you will be un plaesntly surprised.
1. You left out a row: global warming not caused by humans and IS fixable.
2. I agree with PhxFlyr: without basis, you assign equal probability to all cases.
3. The difference is between radical magical belief that all biz/tech is "progress" until proven otherwise, and a precautionary principle: conserve our current environment rather than blindly make changes we can't know won't be catastrophic.
4. Your "good for humans" case made me laugh, all that marvelous new diversity of life. That's an evolutionary timeframe, millions of years. A relative handful of humans may survive past the next century.
If it's not caused by us why fix it since it aint broke?
Precautionary Priniciple: careful, that has been used to justfity many nasty things by humans in the past. The PP by itself is meaningless unless it can be shown first to be justifiable.
OMG. There's a 30% chance that we'll all be in this humongous CATASTROPHE and you'll just ignore it?! Are you crazy? OMG. Why do you think your vid's rated so low?
I agree. You have no risk-analysis ability at all.
the global warming is exist, and it's caused by human... and we are going to fix it... adn we need to fix it as hard as possible but must be balanced with economic...
Yes it's likly happening from past data, but we dont know for sure onthe future. No way of REALLY knowing it will until it does. Humans causing is a theory, not fact. Fix is a guess only, not fact. Careful being dogmatic.
You first have to show that there is something at stake. So far there is little evidence that links any weather event to AGW, nor is sea level changed its rate of rise since measurments started 110 years ago. Besides, if it's natural, then we have to adapt.
To help further, you can say that there are an infinite number of possible responses we have to address the problem. Your model is very simple as is Wonderingmind's but he explains the limitations of his model and you do not.
You're playing into the hands of the MMGW catastrophists by using language like "into a cinder". 4 billion years of life support on earth shows that the climate is dominated by negative feedback.
It never ceases to amaze me how you radical left wing socialists stoop to attacking the messenger when the message does not fit your dogma. My car is not worth $5,000.
When you mention the percentages you assume all are equally probable. It is very deceiving and typical of conservative thinking which tends to ignore facts reverses their assumptions.
Humans are naturally conservative, we all have that trait. Science tries to lift the bias and assumptions that we all have to help us see the larger picture.
I meant it as no insult but rather to point out a flaw in your argument. But, like all conservative thinking, you would rather attack than listen.
Watch the video again. I never said they have the same probability. Each cell is just a possibility, the evidence is then added to each cell and the probabilities added. Then an evaluation can be done as to which cells get the wieght of decissions. But you can't a priori leave cells out as there is evidence for all cells, including that AGW is not happening (such as the rate of sea level rise)
That is not true. You mentioned the percentages simple as that. The percentages you come up with assume, incorrectly, that each result has an EQUAL chance of occurring. I agree that you can't ignore important evidence, but you have to weigh it in by figuring out a probability BEFORE you start rambling off percentages. To not do so is deceitful thus the flaw in your assumptions.
I never called you such names and I am not going to stoop to your level. My point is still valid. You are assuming equal probability for your outcomes.
If you don't agree, tell me exactly how you came up with the numbers (2:50), as you put, "Out of the 10 possibles, we have a 100% chance of going into global depression..." If you are not assuming an equal probability of each possible outcome? Run me through that math.
I see no need to e-mail, we can continue to have this discussion in an open forum. The math you're using is easily explained within the alloted 500 characters. Simple - you have 10 possibilities, 3 of them are X thus the 33%. But say CHANCE, which implies probability. I am trying to make your argument stronger - help you out as it were. Best to do the video again without rambling off a bunch of misleading probabilities.
I hope this will help you see. My state's lottery has several ways to win - 10 to be exact of those only 1 will get you the Jackpot. Since 1 out of 10 possible outcomes is winning the Jackpot, should we expect my state to start advertising that there is a 10% CHANCE of winning the Jackpot?
Wonderingmind never said CHANCE or gave any percentages at all. You do simple as that. Listen to your self from 2:50 on. Your argument would be stronger if you didn't mention percentages. It is deceiving and inaccurate.
1st flaw of many is you assume that the probabilities are equal. Scientific evidence weighs heavy in the idea that humans are causing increases in temperature global and that it will be a bad thing and we have got to do something about it. Please conduct more research - it is far from opinion, it is well researched and documented. But, like so many conservative minded individuals, is that if it it doesn't fit my model of thinking, I simply choose to "ignore it"
Interesting you assume I'm conservative as if that is someone who is a lesser of a human and more prone to stupidity. Politically I'm in the middle. You "liberals" only hear what you want a priori. I stated CLEARLY that you START with the all possibilities first and THEN put the evidence into the cells. Watch the video again and get it right this time.
Where do you get the idea that GW effects are "over 100 years" out?? We're experiencing them now, and sooner & more intensely than was predicted 5 years ago. Besides, the things we need to do to respond to peak oil are virtually the same.
What affects now? Show me one. Temps constant since 1989. No change in rate of seal level. No change in storms, no change in droughts. Got refs to back these up.
Solution to AGW is not the same solutions to PO. Carbon sequestering takes money and energy to do, the carbon trading system is a huge scam making middle men rich.
You think I make this all up? Check out worldclimatereport, CO2Science and the 400 scientists who are signing a petition calling the IPCC claims unwarrented. You are trying to shoot the messenger instead of dealing with the message. Classic dogma response.
You are trifling with trifles. As Mr. Craven points out, the two most highly esteemed scientific organizations on the globe unequivocally state that global warming is happening, it is accelerating, human activity is a major contributor and it threatens the survival of all life on earth.
We should be working flat out finding ways to minimize and even reverse our impacts on the earth. It is egregiously arrogant to continue our dumbass stewardship of this gift with which we're graced.
I did read it and it's filled with snide asides, unfounded assertions and is not, itself, "peer" reviewed because the AEI has few willing & rational peers. It should be obvious to anyone that in many major ways we are stealing from the futures of our children by consuming fossil fuels, reproducing like bacteria, and steadily ramping up our material consumption while at the same time becoming more joyless, fearful & depressed. Commerce should serve us, not consume us.
Then move your attention away from AGW as the effects, even if true, are 100 years or more away. If the true concern is as you note, which I fully agree on, then we need to focus on them. Check out peak oil. AGW is taking our attention away from the real issues.
I might have missed some critics, it's getting late, I don't want to search for it.
You seem to be using "all possibilities", as in a disaster might be positive for humans. Then why don't you use the "Not caused by humans, but fixable" line ?
Your video seems to be based on one mistake : that each probability has the same percentage of chances of happening.
You need to refer back to a key point that wonderingming42 made in Patching Holes #3. He said imagine if speculation that the German's had a nucleur weapon wasn't top secret-- that the speculation was public. Imagine if it was now.
We would do ANYTHING in our power to prevent even the POSSIBLITY of a nuke hitting us. Now think of the potential drastic effects of Global Warming. I don't know if you have children or a family, jrwakefield, but I would loooove to prepare myself for the most outrageous possible outcome if it meant protecting the quality of life for my children.
Now, I'm only 18, I have no children. But you need to realize...THAT is the big picture. That making graphs and percentages are fruitless when measured against what we would do and should be doing for the people we love. That's more important, right?
wow, you are an ignorant fool, jrwakefield. It's people like you and Bush that's stopping any progress on Bali. I'm sure your grand children will be proud.
Plus, many sources show that by trying to create solutions for fossil fuels (aka, stopping global warming) will create a better economy from new markets, new jobs, etc.
as i just said, many sources show that trying to find alternatives to fossil fuels will HELP the economy. Plus, why just totally give up and resign oneself to the terrible consequences of global warming?
oils and coal are going to run out anyway, starting to switch now could be the most economically sound thing to do. Plus, by doing it now we can try to avoid the extremely probable global climate change.
Don't expect to have a switch over from oil and coal and keep society as is functioning now. Won't happen. None of the alternatives can be scaled up, or scaled up in time. Read The Long Emergency.
It's called the Precautionary Principle, which has also been abused to include mass genocide in human history. You first have to justify the use of the principle in the first place. AGW doesn't have the evidence to justify it.
As stated before, both the AAAS and the NAS, two of the most respected scientific research groups, say its happening, its happening now, its our fault, and its can cause massive famine, flooding, and making storms like Katrina look like to norm.
Read WorldClimateReport. There has been no change in the number of or intensity of storms, including hurricanes. Sea levels have not changed their rate of rise. check out Tide and Currents. AAAS and NAS may soon be eating crow.
Just because they're not happening right NOW does not mean they're not going to happen. But since there is a possibility of these things happening and the definite shortage of oil, why not try to switch to alternate energy sources and cut back our CO2 emissions. The worst economic setback that is estimated to occur is a 3% decrease in GDP GROWTH. I think that small of a figure is well worth the catastrophes we might be avoiding. Don't you?
If the sea level was going to rise the amounts claimed, some are now saying 6 feet in 100 years, don't you think with all the melting going on that we would see SOME change in the rate? There's none.
To answer to your question about sea levels rising can be answered by the lag time between the tipping point of the climate and the results. Another reason is just because they say 6 feet in the next 100 years,it doesn't mean a slow creeping up, it means when the lag time is up, all hell will break loose.
That is a common excuse to the data. If the melting has been going on for 10-20 years we should have seen SOMETHING by now. Since we don't where has all that water gone? The change in rate required is 10x the current rate.
Yes we need to move to alternatives, but the problem is scale. None of the alternatives can either be scaled up at all, or the scope of the problem is too large to be changed over in time. We should have done these alternatives 50 years ago. Too late now. But still do them as much as possible.
as for doing as much as possible, I agree with you 100% except for he fact that its yo late. It is to late to STOP GCC but we can still lessen the effects greatly
Not according to some of the IPCC scientists who are now saying it is physically impossible to change our emissions, and too late to change the climate. What will be interesting is the sun's output is starting to drop a bit, if we go into decades of cooling with rising CO2, AGW theory is dead.
Have you seen the debt situtation lately? Predictions are that 2008 will be worse as more dodgy debt comes due and banks are on the hook for the money. Estimates are that there is 1.2 TRILLION in bad debt. Once that house of cards starts to fall, we won't be able to do squat about PO or GW. 1930's writ large, and perminant.
there is no such thing as a peak oil crisis. It's a lie to enslave. There were 1 trillion proven barrels untapped in 1996, now there are 1.7 trillion barrels of oil proven untapped.
oil does not come from dinosaur soup like they told you, it is not a FOSSIL fuel.
REALLY!!! Biotic MEANS it comes from fossils!! Abiotic is not from fossils. And I took geology at university. You're completely wrong, unless you have more knowledge than all the world's geologists.
Also, you don't understand growth. We've used 1 trillion barrels in the past 140 years, doubling every 20-25 years. If there is 1 trillion left that means there is only 20-25 years left of oil. That's what the mathematics of growth means.
your with the brainwahsed crowd, the oil companies are the ones that pay for, and give you, the oil research that you are aware of. It's all a sham to charge you outrageous prices for oil.
in some countries, in south america, it's 4 cents a gallon. not 3 dollars plus.
there is a lot you are not aware of, having been made in america's control yourself.
now slow down, and ask yourself, where we doubled the oil reserves, from the same reserverses that were countended 10 years ago.
How does abiotic oil work? What is the geological process for making oil? And the science understood on how oil is made (biotic) is not controled by oil companies. Get real. How do you explain that the 5 super fields are now in terminal decline?
proof of what I say, is simply, if the oil companies were concerned about supply, why did they press the car makers to push and push SUVs off the line.
fool, they lied to you about oil resereves to increase the price, then pushed cars out the yahoo, that consumed even more fuel... to increase their profits.
welcome to the world. your sciences have lied to you, funded by big corps, their studies are lies.
Lastly, even if oil was abiotic and produced by the earth (by what process?) it would not be created fast enough to compensate for our consumption. Watch the next 2-5 years, world oil output will start to drop. All of the 5 largest fields are in terminal decline, and we find 1 barrel for every 5 we consume now. So where is the rest of that oil?
I've read lots already on the subject over decades. Bottom line is the five super fields are all in terminal decline. North Sea is droping more than 10%/y and Mexico's more than 15%/y. Again, explain why we have not found a large field of oil in 40 years, and that we find 1 barrel for every 5 we consume.
Sentence in point three should read. There were no ideas of property ownership and trespass, no borders, or nations back then, preventing the free flow of migration.
I like your logic that if we can't stop global warming we will have spent money for nothing. What's the value of money if we've been made extinct?
Global warming will not make humanity extinct. Our species will live on well into the future. The number of us is up to question though. Most definitely not 6 billion without FF to feed us. Closer to 250 million to 500 million is the planet's natural carrying capacity.
yes it is a free world, but you need to consider whether your posts have a negative effect on others. What if people choose to believe your argument and do nothing about climate change? You are dealing with dangerous territory that your education does not give you the certitude to discuss. Leave it to the scientists.
How do you know I'm not a scientist? Or that I read the scientific literature? Trying to shut someone up because they don't happen to agree with your dogma makes me want to scream out more to IGNORE CLIMATE CHANGE!!! It's NOT a problem. There. I'm free to say what I want.
I think you need to go back to the drawing board with your "logic".
Given the choice of a livable planet and not being able to afford luxury items because of a depression, I'll take the latter over the former any day. Some things simply aren't worth the risk.
3. Maybe there were palm trees in Greenland, but we don't know what the prevailing weather conditions were globally. There was no ORGANISED SOCIETY back then, with populations in fixed positions and property rights. People would have migrated to where conditions were better. There where ideas of property ownership and trespass, no borders, or nations back then, preventing the free flow of migration. Further, the population back then would not have been anywhere near 6 billion.
It was 55mya and most of the planet was tropical forests. Great diversity of mammals formed during that time. Average mean temp was 8C more than today. That's the evidence.
so what. Man didn't exist 55 million years ago. The first hominids appeared 7 million years ago.
also 55 MYA the globe didn't look like it did now. Greenland may well have been near the equator. Most of the planet would have been rainforests because the human species wasn't felling them all to clear land for grazing.
Your arguments are tenuous at best. Leave the debate to the real scientists.
Greenland 55mya was at the same latitude, Atlantic Ocean half as wide. The point is the planet flourished then with higher temps, thus this current GW trend is not an extinction agent, far from it. Could spawn whole new species.
It's like saying that a car travelling at 60mph directly at a wall has a 50% chance of not hitting it because there are two possible outcomes, the car braking in time or not. What you don't know is whether the driver is able to stop the vehicle. He may be asleep. That changes the probability of the outcome substantially.
You start your presentation by saying that you apply logic. Its clear having listened all the way through that you are applying faulty logic.
1. You can't use percentages to determine the probability of the outcomes. Whether global warming exists as a phenomenon is not a matter of chance. No-one can flip a coin and determine whether it exists or not.
That's not my logic. All I was pointing out was that the two rowed grid that Gregg used was incomplete and too vague. The 10 rows is not the data, but where the data would reside. Each bit of evidence would fit in a cell, and there is evidence that GW is not happening due to us.
CO2 is a TINY fraction of the air, human's input of that fraction is a tiny fraction. Even if we somehow stopped ALL CO2 emission, ie we all died, would it really make any damn difference?
I like both videos, all extremely good points. However no one seems to look at the social/economic benefits and/or burdens of moving towards a more sustainable future. Be interesting to see. Regards.
What really matters is the probability of each of these situations. Plus, you're still not taking into account that acting on global warming will only cause as much economic impact as we choose - probably not a global depression. Whereas if we let the environment crumble, we can't control the impact on the economy. Another possibility is that global warming is not caused by humans, but is still fixable.
2 assumptions. 1) that the environment will crumble. It wont. Theres no evidence it will. 2) that we can actually "fix" something that is normally naturall occuring is a tad arrogant.
The truth is that the warming freaks don't care if it is happening or not, it is a matter of power and control. Notice AlGore doesn't change his lifestyle but expects the average Joe to change his.
I understand your point when you're saying that global warming isn't necessarily caused by humans but you can't miss the point that pollution sure doesn't help the situation of global warming. In fact what big sacrifice would it be to try and take energy from other ecologic ressources?...
...I think you made up this video by considering all the possibilities of situations that could happen but you didn't say how big would be the impact if we do nothing and if the global warming was really caused by humans in comparison to if we do something to reduce the emission of polluants and spend money for nothing. ...
...In fact it wouldn't be a complete lost of money because according to me, trying to 'clean the earth' and encouraging people to have better habits wouldn't be a waste of money at all.
--Sorry for the spelling mistakes, english is not my first language. --
No Problem, good your posting and getting involved. Depends what that money was being spent on. If sequestering CO2 and a carbon market then complete waste of billions.
Yes, yes, I know, just wanted to point out that the percentages are incorrect, because many automatically seems to take numbers as a fact without concidering their source.
At the end you said that if you ignore it there's only a 30% chance that it's going to be a disaster. Not true, because as evidence stacks up and more outcome simulations are done, one of the different outcomes will have a higher probability of happening than the others. As your 30% are based only on that disasterous outcomes represent 30% of the total amount of outcomes in that column, it is false.
Actually the evidence is more towards the problems, if any, will be minor, and if anything warmer times will be better, more moderated temperatures world wide. We've been there before many times.
The percentages are added later to the boxes. But the boxes have to be there first as POSSIBILITIES not probabilities. Once the probabilities are added, then if any boxes are empty, they can be removed for consideration.
1. Those boxes aren't equal, the only serious claims that messing with the system will be positive are oil/coal industry shills.
2. You're missing the likelihood that doing something about global warming will be beneficial econmically and socially.
"Do nothing" is not really your suggestion, rather "continue the experiment". Because it really is a big experiment we're running. Its irresponsible to continue when there's indications of global impact.
go where? What I care about is falsehoods propogated against the science in an effort to promote a political ideology. Specifically, a socialist ideology that is cloaking itself as the saviour of the world.
The world as we know it wont live long the warming is here already our oceans have risen polar caps a melting and we rely to much on old fashion fuel we need more solar energy 4 everything, because 2morrow may never come with the way things a going
That's just a bunch of crap. You have taken the alarmism hook line and sinker. Check the IPCC reports yourself, there is no Doom and Gloom predictions. Only the media and Gore are doing that.
While I don't quite agree with you on all the beneficial effects of global warming, I believe this is a good job pointing out the main flaw of the original video, which is the fact that it is a vast oversimplification of a complex problem.
I watched about 60 seconds of this video. "There is no global warming" is not a position held by any reputable scientist that is actively researching the topic. So really, there are only 3 rows instead of the 4 you suggest.
Then you missed the point I was making. The rows are POSSIBILITIES in which you place evidence. Maybe that row would have nothing in it, but that does not mean the row A Priori should be excluded.
that the average global temperature has increased in the last century is not a POSSIBILITY... it is a measured and known phenomenon. It has already occurred.
It has been observed in the surface temperature record and in satellite measurements. The ocean heat content has increased, global snow cover has declined, sea level is rising, species habitats are migrating northward. The arctic has experienced (this year) the lowest sea-ice coverage recorded. An ice shelf the size of Rhode Island, which had been in place for at least 8000 years, disintegrated a few years ago. Heat waves are not only more frequent, they last longer.
The number and severity of tropical cyclones has increased. Based on all those, I would again affirm that there is no possibility the globe is not warming. I still conclude that if you use a faulty set up for your analysis, the conclusion will be incorrect.
Comment removed
ngibson5 2 years ago
I like your video, being one of the more well-thought-out responses I've seen so far. However, I'd propose that your table is still incomplete. Your 3 of 4 possible futures each have 3 possible & unknown net outcomes: disaster, status quo, or positive for humans... therefore, the "try and fix it" column ALSO has 3 possible outcomes (not just two, "global depression" or :-) ... [MORE TO FOLLOW]
ngibson5 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(hope this isnt a double-post)
...in other words, there is a negative, neutral, AND positive possible outcome to "try to fix it".
The result of trying to fix GCC may not be global depression... it may be global prosperity, EVEN IF GCC is false.
Not trying to fix GCC might result in failing to achieve global prosperity.
Dont know how this affects the odds in the end, but it's certainly going to change the outlook.
All the best - N.
ngibson5 2 years ago
And how in the world can they know what the temperature was 55 million years ago?
think4myself1 2 years ago
Palmtrees were growing in Greenland, tropical forsests grew to the Arctic Circle and mammals and reptiles were numerous above the arctic circle.
jrwakefield 2 years ago
How on God's green earth can you know, "scientifically" what the co2 levels were 150,000,000 million years ago-oh, yeah carbon dating right? except you have no verifiable variable to know for sure that carbon dating works. Carbon dating is circular reasoning. They come up with a graph of co2 levels at different times-with no way to prove it-then use their graph to prove what the co2 rating was at that time? Help me here.
think4myself1 2 years ago
Software development. Everyone should be taught how to do it. It changes the way you think...actually, it MAKES you learn how to think!
irdial 3 years ago
So you want a Manpollo project. That would include actual scientists making this graph of yours, with actual evidences, probabilities and error margins. I want it too, even if I am on the other side of the argument. The question is, that if the conclusion of the Manpollo project turned out against your favor,would you acknowledge it?I know I would.If fighting against GCC is not worth it, why do it? So what do you say to the idea of campaigning for a Manpollo project,huh? It's in everyone's favor
ReVoLynx 3 years ago
Attempting to fix Global Warming may NOT bring an economic slowdown... As new greener industries will develop leading to jobs etc etc... The only slowdown I see will be in the profits of BIG OIL. Offcourse these green industries must be sustainable tho. Add that to your columns. You cannot possibly think all the CO2 we pump into the sky would have no effect do you?
woodenfootspa 3 years ago
Better check on what's happening the UK on "green" solutions, it's killing their economy, same with the EU.
And, yes all that CO2 does have an effect, like it did when it was 3-4 time more than today. Plant growth is higher. The bottom line is that:
1: the planet has not warmed since 1998, not expect to change for at least 10 years
2: sea level rate has not changed
3: arctic and antarctic ice largest in 50 years
4: no warming in oceans.
Thus AGW isnt happening.
jrwakefield 3 years ago
I need to check on whats happening in UK, but EU seems to be doing ok (and they are pretty green as well). So it might be a correlation not cause and effect (Greener tech = eco slowdown).
Regardless I believe there wouldnt be any drastic economic effects if EVERYONE would adopt greener tech. As all countries cost of production will simultaneously inc. then S/D would adjust etc etc
woodenfootspa 3 years ago
Better look caefully at the EU, I'm on an email list that has media reports on what's going on there. Companies are threatening to leave, people's taxes on untilities are making them poor, and their CO2 levels just keep rising. Gordon Brown's government is in serious trouble with their "green" taxes, it's killing the middle class.
jrwakefield 3 years ago
Remember the additional burden of extra taxes vs a good percent chance of DOOM and GLOOM (Even at 40% of doom which is actually very conservative given the statements warning us about GCC)
Isnt it worth it?
woodenfootspa 3 years ago
Show me the calculation that gets that 40%. Realize that those "statements" are just predictions that are all over the map. Example, IPCC says sea level could rise 7-21 inches over the next 100 years, Gore claims it will be 30 feet in 100 years. The actual is about 4-5 inches at current rate. So why should I accapt any of these? Show me the EVIDENCE!!!
jrwakefield 3 years ago
Part 2:
Is the present climate change deleterious to human societies? Are there beneficial aspects of climate change that have been overlooked? Do adverse impacts outweigh beneficial impacts? We do not have all the answers yet. There is a definite need to carefully analyze climate change impact on world-wide human societies. The IPCC assessment is far from objective and needs to be critically re-assessed.
jrwakefield 3 years ago
Here are some of those EU stories:
SEVEN EU COUNTRIES SEEK TO MOVE EMISSIONS GOAL POST Reuters, 27 May 2008
CLIMATE CAMPAIGNERS URGE BROWN TO STAND FIRM ON GREEN TAXES The Independent, 28 May 2008
OPINION: BROWN IS FACING A TAX REVOLT FROM THE CITY AND THE PUBLIC Matthew Elliott, City A.M. 28 May 2008
DOWN UNDER: NOW RUDD PAYS THE PRICE Phillip Coorey, Sydney Morning Herald, 28 May 2008
More...
jrwakefield 3 years ago
1st off there are other ways to combat GCC than taxes. (I too am allegic to Big G)
2nd This just proves that the response to GCC should be world-wide. If only one country imposes taxes, companies will simply move to another country which is lax on these issues and nothing would change. In fact the country that adopted regulation would be worse off.
3rd It is already admitted that there would be cost to mitigate GCC. Think of those costs as risk premium. Kinda like insurance.
woodenfootspa 3 years ago
There has to be a risk in the first place to have insurance. Since the planet is not adhering to the predictions of AGW theory there is no risk from AGW.
Second, the UN has already stated that India and the rest of the developing world should not have to curb their co2 as it would hurt their economic growth!!! So there is the reality, Kyoto is nothing more than a ploy to curb the growth of the western world, has nothing to do with CO2 emissions.
jrwakefield 3 years ago
Are you 100% certain that there is no risk from AGW? Absolutely certain?
This is a bit of a cop-out by UN. Everyone should do their part. Including the developing world.
However, I will defend their reasoning a bit.
1st The developed world has been polluting the air for years. They caused a big chunk of this problem in the 1st place.
2nd The developed world pollutes more on a per person basis
woodenfootspa 3 years ago
Yes, there is no risk. The planet has been here before, no problems. If you are that scared that there is one iota of risk, then don't get out of bed in the morning, you might get hit by a car.
I've heard that cop-out before. If GCC are as bad as yu claim them NO ONE should be exempt. Whats the point in curbing our CO2 is China just emitts more than we do? You motives sound utterly communistic, kill the good guys!!
jrwakefield 3 years ago
How does my motives sound communistic?
Its not the planet im worried about. Its preserving OUR current standard of living / way of life.
I just said everyone should reduce CO2 including China.
woodenfootspa 3 years ago
I said the motives of those so-called scientists at NASA and the IPCC have a socialistic/communistic agenda.
Since china is not going to change, then we had better just prepare. But there is nothing to prepare for as there is no one shred of evidence to show that the planet is in peril over our CO2 emissions. If anything your actions will put your way of life in peril, look what's happening in the EU and the UK, revolt is starting against these emission "solutions" it's killing the economy
jrwakefield 3 years ago
Fine lets re-work that a bit
a 90% chance of a recession (which happens every few years ANYWAY due to fluctuations in the Business cycle, is survivable, wont probably mean the extinction of life as we know it)
vs
a 40% chance of DOOM for the entire human race. This is most probably irreversible problem. Finally if this hits, the problems of economic recession would PALE in comparison as this dwarfs, all problems.
So from a risk management stand point which is the better choice?
woodenfootspa 3 years ago
Provde me evidence that the world will end for humans due to CO2 emissions. Not predictions, evidence. CO2 has been 3-4X higher in the geological past and if anything life flourished. The medeaval warm period was 2C warmer than now and lasted 500 years. That's when all the great cathederals were built because the Europeans could grow so much food.
The better choice is to follow the evidence, and there is NO evidence that we are at risk due to what is actually NORMAL climate changes.
jrwakefield 3 years ago
I am not certain. Im just going by what a bunch of PhD and Nobel prize winners say
So lets say I give u a 60% nothing happens (which is waay conservative considering you probably dont have a PhD nor a Nobel prize) and 40% DOOM and GLOOM.
I'd still want to mitigate my risk.
Besides whats the big deal with requiring companies to go carbon -neutral anyway? Or drive smaller cars instead of big chunky SUVs? Or stop printing so much paper and keep soft copies. Its not too much to ask really
woodenfootspa 3 years ago
I'm going by the 400 PHD scientists and the 30,000 scientists who utterly reject for scientific reasons the very claim you are making. It's one thing to conserve, it;s another to go around claiming the world is going to die if we do not act. Show me the EVIDENCE the world is going to doom due to GCC.
jrwakefield 3 years ago
Would you be able to correctly interpret the data better than the IPCC, NAS, NASA, NOAA etc?
There will always be opposing individual scientists. So i would always look at what the groups of scientists are saying as they would represent the MAJORITY thus have a higher % of being correct
Is your ARMCHAIR analysis so 100% CERTAIN that you would not give these guys, some of the biggest GEEKS in the planet even the benefit of the doubt?
woodenfootspa 3 years ago
Yes to the first paragraph, as those who are promoting this "theory" have a left/scocialist hidden agenda. Just have a closer look at NASA's Hensen.
But your group IS NOT the majority. They are a small set of scientists who have monitary gains at stake.
There is no such thing as benefit of the doubt in science, only EVIDENCE.
jrwakefield 3 years ago
Better have a look at todays' worldclimatereport too. Gee, so much is just not going your way. I have a question then. How long do things have to stay normal before you realize and have to fully reject AGW? Is there anything that would force you to reject AGW?
jrwakefield 3 years ago
The thing is things WILL stay normal UNTIL its too late to act
woodenfootspa 3 years ago
You have evidence to back that up? So far all you have done here is argue from authority and make claims with no backing evidence. Why not start as to why sea level rise has not changed. Start there and explain that one to me.
jrwakefield 3 years ago
So when are you going to check those sites and the fact that the planet is not cooperating with the predictions. GLOBAL WARMING ISN'T HAPPENING any more, stopped in 1998 recent Nature paper by PhDs claims it won't continue for AT LEAST the next 10 years. Stop with the nonsence that we must act due to some imagined threat, deal with the FACTS! READ THOSE SITES, they are all PdH's too.
jrwakefield 3 years ago
EUROPE IS BACKPADDLING ON EMISSION TARGETS, UN OFFICAL WARNS AFF, 24 May 2008
PUTTING ON THE BREAKS: GERMAN GOVERNMENT DELAYS CONTROVERSIAL CLIMATE TAX ON CARS Reuters, 23 May 2008
FORGET GLOBAL WARMING: CRISIS-HIT BROWN TOLD TO SCRAP CAR TAX RISES The Daily Telegraph 24 May 2008
BRITISH AIRWAYS WARNS CARBON TRADING WILL CRIPPLE EUROPE'S AIRLINES Alistair Osborne, The Daily Telegraph, 24 May 2008
jrwakefield 3 years ago
I assume tho that you are somehow a scientist with a PhD and a Nobel prize because you say these things with such certainty. Im no scientist, but pretty darn smart and credible people have come out and said yes there is climate change.
SO im more inclined to believe them than you
woodenfootspa 3 years ago
again. great vid. No doubt, the alarmists will dismiss basic statistical analysis and reason for misplaced emotion.
klim8hokes 3 years ago
This guy is talking loads of shit about a subject he clearly hasn't got much information about. I'm just realy happy that the situation does not rest on his shoulders, because this time it won't be very fun to get the chance to say: I told you so.
trondaldinho 3 years ago
I'm sure he knows more about this subject than you. He claims nothing, and brings up a very good point, that pretty much i thought of while watching the original video(however his was more in depth).
I'm unsure whether or not some of his facts are correct(although they sound very possible), but I am sure that the weather has been much hotter than it is today. We should not be worrying about the wether warming, rather we should worry about when it stops warming and gets COOLER.
mikeydoes 3 years ago
By the logic presented in "The Most Terrifying Video..." we should always identify with the worst case scenario, act to avoid it (never mind the cost) and suspend all discussion of the probabilities involved. The worst case scenario for "action" could be 100%likely while the worst case scenario for "inaction" could be 1%. I say 1% because such an extreme scenario is presented and there can be no grading of risk because, we are told, the rows are not open for discussion.
pete247 3 years ago
If global warming does happen and the earth's habitability changes, then it's all up to the planet who survives and who doesnt. Earth's done it lots of times before. The dinosaurs was just one.
If it turns out we are f*ckin' up the planet to hell and it really is a bad thing, at least we don't have to worry about the earth going bye bye. It'll continue existing and simply adapt to the changes that occurred.
What happens to mankind, however, is a whole 'nother argument.
TheWitnesserer 4 years ago
Read "gun germs and steel" and "collapse" Then read up about peak oil. That's our future.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
I know about peak oil. I'm in econ and bio right now. But I'm talking about something else: the topic of your video.
TheWitnesserer 4 years ago
I am very familar with peak oil and with glogal warming both are issues and both need to be addressed. My suggestion to you jrwakefield is try to apply the technique of your to peak oil and I think you will be un plaesntly surprised.
run this over that chart:
peak oil is fixable
Peak oil is not fixable
Peakoil does not exsit at all
see what happens
KingMucktoad 4 years ago
Easy, Peak oil is not fixable. Thus economic collapse, then social collapse, then population collapse.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
1. You left out a row: global warming not caused by humans and IS fixable.
2. I agree with PhxFlyr: without basis, you assign equal probability to all cases.
3. The difference is between radical magical belief that all biz/tech is "progress" until proven otherwise, and a precautionary principle: conserve our current environment rather than blindly make changes we can't know won't be catastrophic.
berkeleybernie 4 years ago
4. Your "good for humans" case made me laugh, all that marvelous new diversity of life. That's an evolutionary timeframe, millions of years. A relative handful of humans may survive past the next century.
berkeleybernie 4 years ago
Which in the long term of the planet will be good since throughout out 11,000 years of history we have managed to wipe out thousands of species.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
If it's not caused by us why fix it since it aint broke?
Precautionary Priniciple: careful, that has been used to justfity many nasty things by humans in the past. The PP by itself is meaningless unless it can be shown first to be justifiable.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
OMG. There's a 30% chance that we'll all be in this humongous CATASTROPHE and you'll just ignore it?! Are you crazy? OMG. Why do you think your vid's rated so low?
I agree. You have no risk-analysis ability at all.
mumu2016 4 years ago
the global warming is exist, and it's caused by human... and we are going to fix it... adn we need to fix it as hard as possible but must be balanced with economic...
Alextan168 4 years ago
Yes it's likly happening from past data, but we dont know for sure onthe future. No way of REALLY knowing it will until it does. Humans causing is a theory, not fact. Fix is a guess only, not fact. Careful being dogmatic.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
are you willing to take that risk considering whats at stake?
JayD2122 4 years ago
You first have to show that there is something at stake. So far there is little evidence that links any weather event to AGW, nor is sea level changed its rate of rise since measurments started 110 years ago. Besides, if it's natural, then we have to adapt.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
To help further, you can say that there are an infinite number of possible responses we have to address the problem. Your model is very simple as is Wonderingmind's but he explains the limitations of his model and you do not.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
You're playing into the hands of the MMGW catastrophists by using language like "into a cinder". 4 billion years of life support on earth shows that the climate is dominated by negative feedback.
SteveWrathall 4 years ago
your just a fag who likes his 100, 000$ car too much. no self sacrifice means no chance
musicandoutdoors 4 years ago
It never ceases to amaze me how you radical left wing socialists stoop to attacking the messenger when the message does not fit your dogma. My car is not worth $5,000.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
When you mention the percentages you assume all are equally probable. It is very deceiving and typical of conservative thinking which tends to ignore facts reverses their assumptions.
Humans are naturally conservative, we all have that trait. Science tries to lift the bias and assumptions that we all have to help us see the larger picture.
I meant it as no insult but rather to point out a flaw in your argument. But, like all conservative thinking, you would rather attack than listen.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Watch the video again. I never said they have the same probability. Each cell is just a possibility, the evidence is then added to each cell and the probabilities added. Then an evaluation can be done as to which cells get the wieght of decissions. But you can't a priori leave cells out as there is evidence for all cells, including that AGW is not happening (such as the rate of sea level rise)
jrwakefield 4 years ago
That is not true. You mentioned the percentages simple as that. The percentages you come up with assume, incorrectly, that each result has an EQUAL chance of occurring. I agree that you can't ignore important evidence, but you have to weigh it in by figuring out a probability BEFORE you start rambling off percentages. To not do so is deceitful thus the flaw in your assumptions.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Ass hole. I'm NOT DECIEVING ANYONE!!! Idiot, you missed the whole message.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
I never called you such names and I am not going to stoop to your level. My point is still valid. You are assuming equal probability for your outcomes.
If you don't agree, tell me exactly how you came up with the numbers (2:50), as you put, "Out of the 10 possibles, we have a 100% chance of going into global depression..." If you are not assuming an equal probability of each possible outcome? Run me through that math.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Email me directly though Youtube, this is way too short to explain.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
I see no need to e-mail, we can continue to have this discussion in an open forum. The math you're using is easily explained within the alloted 500 characters. Simple - you have 10 possibilities, 3 of them are X thus the 33%. But say CHANCE, which implies probability. I am trying to make your argument stronger - help you out as it were. Best to do the video again without rambling off a bunch of misleading probabilities.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Then you still do not understand. Guess I'll have to redo this. Telling me I'm deceiving people is hardly helping.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
I hope this will help you see. My state's lottery has several ways to win - 10 to be exact of those only 1 will get you the Jackpot. Since 1 out of 10 possible outcomes is winning the Jackpot, should we expect my state to start advertising that there is a 10% CHANCE of winning the Jackpot?
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
This shows that you still do not understand what I said in the video. Are you after Wonderingmind too for his 4 cell grid?
Watch this year, AGW will start to fall apart. Check out worldclimatereport for new papers. Sea level not changing, big broblem for AGW
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Wonderingmind never said CHANCE or gave any percentages at all. You do simple as that. Listen to your self from 2:50 on. Your argument would be stronger if you didn't mention percentages. It is deceiving and inaccurate.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
1st flaw of many is you assume that the probabilities are equal. Scientific evidence weighs heavy in the idea that humans are causing increases in temperature global and that it will be a bad thing and we have got to do something about it. Please conduct more research - it is far from opinion, it is well researched and documented. But, like so many conservative minded individuals, is that if it it doesn't fit my model of thinking, I simply choose to "ignore it"
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Interesting you assume I'm conservative as if that is someone who is a lesser of a human and more prone to stupidity. Politically I'm in the middle. You "liberals" only hear what you want a priori. I stated CLEARLY that you START with the all possibilities first and THEN put the evidence into the cells. Watch the video again and get it right this time.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Good Work, Common sense instead of nosense
PEC321 4 years ago
This guy does not know enything about risk analysis.
Would you use a medicine which can caused death as a side effect? No? Even if the chance is only 1 in 10?
Of course you would not. But he is happy with 33% risk. Argh.
PhotoGalleria 4 years ago
Where do you get the idea that GW effects are "over 100 years" out?? We're experiencing them now, and sooner & more intensely than was predicted 5 years ago. Besides, the things we need to do to respond to peak oil are virtually the same.
duellg 4 years ago
What affects now? Show me one. Temps constant since 1989. No change in rate of seal level. No change in storms, no change in droughts. Got refs to back these up.
Solution to AGW is not the same solutions to PO. Carbon sequestering takes money and energy to do, the carbon trading system is a huge scam making middle men rich.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
"Temps constant since 1989."
Good joke. +5oC in December at Arctic Circle second year in a row. Before that no record of that as long as the records go.
Yeah, take software engineers word of climate change - try to click you mouse when things go wrong.
PhotoGalleria 4 years ago
You think I make this all up? Check out worldclimatereport, CO2Science and the 400 scientists who are signing a petition calling the IPCC claims unwarrented. You are trying to shoot the messenger instead of dealing with the message. Classic dogma response.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
That is one hairy arm!
KingMucktoad 4 years ago
You are trifling with trifles. As Mr. Craven points out, the two most highly esteemed scientific organizations on the globe unequivocally state that global warming is happening, it is accelerating, human activity is a major contributor and it threatens the survival of all life on earth.
We should be working flat out finding ways to minimize and even reverse our impacts on the earth. It is egregiously arrogant to continue our dumbass stewardship of this gift with which we're graced.
duellg 4 years ago
google "Politics Posing as Science"
jrwakefield 4 years ago
If you're referring to
"A Preliminary Assessment of the IPCC's Latest Climate Change Report
By Kenneth P. Green, Joel M. Schwartz, Steven F. Hayward"
published by the American Enterprise Institute, the radical free-for-all market lacky of global corporate interests, so what & a big yawn.
duellg 4 years ago
Read it. Don't prejudge. means you have your own political agenda to ingore it.
Also
WorldClimateReport [dot] com
CO2Science [dot] org
They review peer reviewed papers that contradict AGW theory, get informed from all souces not just the ones that fit your world view.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
I did read it and it's filled with snide asides, unfounded assertions and is not, itself, "peer" reviewed because the AEI has few willing & rational peers. It should be obvious to anyone that in many major ways we are stealing from the futures of our children by consuming fossil fuels, reproducing like bacteria, and steadily ramping up our material consumption while at the same time becoming more joyless, fearful & depressed. Commerce should serve us, not consume us.
grduell 4 years ago
Then move your attention away from AGW as the effects, even if true, are 100 years or more away. If the true concern is as you note, which I fully agree on, then we need to focus on them. Check out peak oil. AGW is taking our attention away from the real issues.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
I might have missed some critics, it's getting late, I don't want to search for it.
You seem to be using "all possibilities", as in a disaster might be positive for humans. Then why don't you use the "Not caused by humans, but fixable" line ?
Your video seems to be based on one mistake : that each probability has the same percentage of chances of happening.
LeR00ster 4 years ago
No, I state quite clearly that you start equil, then assign probabilities.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
How can you state that a disaster have the same probability of being either desastrous or benefic ?
I'm sorry if you stated that you start equil in the post, but you do not state it in the video...
LeR00ster 4 years ago
You need to refer back to a key point that wonderingming42 made in Patching Holes #3. He said imagine if speculation that the German's had a nucleur weapon wasn't top secret-- that the speculation was public. Imagine if it was now.
hyoko99 4 years ago
We would do ANYTHING in our power to prevent even the POSSIBLITY of a nuke hitting us. Now think of the potential drastic effects of Global Warming. I don't know if you have children or a family, jrwakefield, but I would loooove to prepare myself for the most outrageous possible outcome if it meant protecting the quality of life for my children.
hyoko99 4 years ago
Now, I'm only 18, I have no children. But you need to realize...THAT is the big picture. That making graphs and percentages are fruitless when measured against what we would do and should be doing for the people we love. That's more important, right?
hyoko99 4 years ago
Google these
"New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears"
"Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN: Attempting To Control Climate Is 'Futile'"
"The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax"
jrwakefield 4 years ago
wow, you are an ignorant fool, jrwakefield. It's people like you and Bush that's stopping any progress on Bali. I'm sure your grand children will be proud.
krestenarup 4 years ago
Instead of attacking the person, deal with the evidence. Only people who hold undefendable dogmatic positions resort to attacking the messenger.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Evience??? open your eyes and look at the world!
krestenarup 4 years ago
trying to stop global warming will not cause a depression. Even the worst predictions show that there will be a 3% loss of GROWTH in GDP.
eviltiki13 4 years ago
Plus, many sources show that by trying to create solutions for fossil fuels (aka, stopping global warming) will create a better economy from new markets, new jobs, etc.
eviltiki13 4 years ago
That's assuming we can stop it. What if it can't? Then wasted money, wasted resources.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
as i just said, many sources show that trying to find alternatives to fossil fuels will HELP the economy. Plus, why just totally give up and resign oneself to the terrible consequences of global warming?
eviltiki13 4 years ago
plus, why take the chance of it not being true when both AAAS and NAS both agree that global warming is real and we're the cause of it.
eviltiki13 4 years ago
and one more thing...
oils and coal are going to run out anyway, starting to switch now could be the most economically sound thing to do. Plus, by doing it now we can try to avoid the extremely probable global climate change.
eviltiki13 4 years ago
Don't expect to have a switch over from oil and coal and keep society as is functioning now. Won't happen. None of the alternatives can be scaled up, or scaled up in time. Read The Long Emergency.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
It's called the Precautionary Principle, which has also been abused to include mass genocide in human history. You first have to justify the use of the principle in the first place. AGW doesn't have the evidence to justify it.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
There first has to be shown that there is a "terrible consequences of global warming". So far it's all been unsubstantiated alarmism.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
As stated before, both the AAAS and the NAS, two of the most respected scientific research groups, say its happening, its happening now, its our fault, and its can cause massive famine, flooding, and making storms like Katrina look like to norm.
eviltiki13 4 years ago
Read WorldClimateReport. There has been no change in the number of or intensity of storms, including hurricanes. Sea levels have not changed their rate of rise. check out Tide and Currents. AAAS and NAS may soon be eating crow.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Just because they're not happening right NOW does not mean they're not going to happen. But since there is a possibility of these things happening and the definite shortage of oil, why not try to switch to alternate energy sources and cut back our CO2 emissions. The worst economic setback that is estimated to occur is a 3% decrease in GDP GROWTH. I think that small of a figure is well worth the catastrophes we might be avoiding. Don't you?
eviltiki13 4 years ago
If the sea level was going to rise the amounts claimed, some are now saying 6 feet in 100 years, don't you think with all the melting going on that we would see SOME change in the rate? There's none.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
To answer to your question about sea levels rising can be answered by the lag time between the tipping point of the climate and the results. Another reason is just because they say 6 feet in the next 100 years,it doesn't mean a slow creeping up, it means when the lag time is up, all hell will break loose.
eviltiki13 4 years ago
That is a common excuse to the data. If the melting has been going on for 10-20 years we should have seen SOMETHING by now. Since we don't where has all that water gone? The change in rate required is 10x the current rate.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Yes we need to move to alternatives, but the problem is scale. None of the alternatives can either be scaled up at all, or the scope of the problem is too large to be changed over in time. We should have done these alternatives 50 years ago. Too late now. But still do them as much as possible.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
as for doing as much as possible, I agree with you 100% except for he fact that its yo late. It is to late to STOP GCC but we can still lessen the effects greatly
eviltiki13 4 years ago
Not according to some of the IPCC scientists who are now saying it is physically impossible to change our emissions, and too late to change the climate. What will be interesting is the sun's output is starting to drop a bit, if we go into decades of cooling with rising CO2, AGW theory is dead.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Have you seen the debt situtation lately? Predictions are that 2008 will be worse as more dodgy debt comes due and banks are on the hook for the money. Estimates are that there is 1.2 TRILLION in bad debt. Once that house of cards starts to fall, we won't be able to do squat about PO or GW. 1930's writ large, and perminant.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
you might want to study how economics work.
depression is just the scare tactic to keep the big oil companies buying time, so they can own the alternative fuels.
echoingword 4 years ago
I know how it works. Check this out:
canada[dot]theoildrum[dot]com/node/3249#more
Then check out peak oil. World wide terminal decline is just around the corner.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
there is no such thing as a peak oil crisis. It's a lie to enslave. There were 1 trillion proven barrels untapped in 1996, now there are 1.7 trillion barrels of oil proven untapped.
oil does not come from dinosaur soup like they told you, it is not a FOSSIL fuel.
It's actually biotic, the earth produces it.
echoingword 4 years ago
REALLY!!! Biotic MEANS it comes from fossils!! Abiotic is not from fossils. And I took geology at university. You're completely wrong, unless you have more knowledge than all the world's geologists.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
i can't spell, abiotic wasn't in firefox.
now, take your bitterness elsewhere, and yes, i know as much as many of the geologists, and many other people in the world.
I'm the guy from the center of america, who has accurately predicted the past 12 years of what's happening.
echoingword 4 years ago
Then please explain how the earth creates oil abioticly.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Also, you don't understand growth. We've used 1 trillion barrels in the past 140 years, doubling every 20-25 years. If there is 1 trillion left that means there is only 20-25 years left of oil. That's what the mathematics of growth means.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
your with the brainwahsed crowd, the oil companies are the ones that pay for, and give you, the oil research that you are aware of. It's all a sham to charge you outrageous prices for oil.
in some countries, in south america, it's 4 cents a gallon. not 3 dollars plus.
there is a lot you are not aware of, having been made in america's control yourself.
now slow down, and ask yourself, where we doubled the oil reserves, from the same reserverses that were countended 10 years ago.
echoingword 4 years ago
How does abiotic oil work? What is the geological process for making oil? And the science understood on how oil is made (biotic) is not controled by oil companies. Get real. How do you explain that the 5 super fields are now in terminal decline?
jrwakefield 4 years ago
proof of what I say, is simply, if the oil companies were concerned about supply, why did they press the car makers to push and push SUVs off the line.
fool, they lied to you about oil resereves to increase the price, then pushed cars out the yahoo, that consumed even more fuel... to increase their profits.
welcome to the world. your sciences have lied to you, funded by big corps, their studies are lies.
echoingword 4 years ago
Nonsence. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. abiotic oil, HAHAHA!!!
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Lastly, even if oil was abiotic and produced by the earth (by what process?) it would not be created fast enough to compensate for our consumption. Watch the next 2-5 years, world oil output will start to drop. All of the 5 largest fields are in terminal decline, and we find 1 barrel for every 5 we consume now. So where is the rest of that oil?
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Here is how the mathematics of growth works.
media[dot]globalpublicmedia[dot]com/RAM/2004/08/AlbertBartlett20040829[dot]ram
jrwakefield 4 years ago
you need to research these infos to proceed.
North American Union.
CFR, Bildabergs, Trilateral Commission, Fabian Society agenda.
Rothchild in the english buyout of napoleon's defeat.
then connect the dots with the oil companies, banks, goverment, and academia, which equates to who owns the oil research for what purpose.
conversation over, until you've learned what's happened to your world, and the truth, not the bullshit they pacify the masses with.
echoingword 4 years ago
I've read lots already on the subject over decades. Bottom line is the five super fields are all in terminal decline. North Sea is droping more than 10%/y and Mexico's more than 15%/y. Again, explain why we have not found a large field of oil in 40 years, and that we find 1 barrel for every 5 we consume.
Google "Abiogenic Oil Historical Overview"
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Sentence in point three should read. There were no ideas of property ownership and trespass, no borders, or nations back then, preventing the free flow of migration.
I like your logic that if we can't stop global warming we will have spent money for nothing. What's the value of money if we've been made extinct?
Jujufucka 4 years ago
Global warming will not make humanity extinct. Our species will live on well into the future. The number of us is up to question though. Most definitely not 6 billion without FF to feed us. Closer to 250 million to 500 million is the planet's natural carrying capacity.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Then why do you say there is a 20% chance the world will become a cinder.
Either get your argument straight, or don't post it at all.
Jujufucka 4 years ago
"Either get your argument straight, or don't post it at all."
Why get nasty? Free world to say what you want.
Actually it's 100% the world will be a cinder -- in 5 billion years.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
yes it is a free world, but you need to consider whether your posts have a negative effect on others. What if people choose to believe your argument and do nothing about climate change? You are dealing with dangerous territory that your education does not give you the certitude to discuss. Leave it to the scientists.
Jujufucka 4 years ago
How do you know I'm not a scientist? Or that I read the scientific literature? Trying to shut someone up because they don't happen to agree with your dogma makes me want to scream out more to IGNORE CLIMATE CHANGE!!! It's NOT a problem. There. I'm free to say what I want.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
I think you need to go back to the drawing board with your "logic".
Given the choice of a livable planet and not being able to afford luxury items because of a depression, I'll take the latter over the former any day. Some things simply aren't worth the risk.
Jujufucka 4 years ago
Better to research on peak oil then. Specifically The Oil Drum website. We are within a few years of society collapse due to resource depletion.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
If our resources run out, there are no more greenhouse emissions. Makes the whole GW argument disappear doesn't it.
Jujufucka 4 years ago
3. Maybe there were palm trees in Greenland, but we don't know what the prevailing weather conditions were globally. There was no ORGANISED SOCIETY back then, with populations in fixed positions and property rights. People would have migrated to where conditions were better. There where ideas of property ownership and trespass, no borders, or nations back then, preventing the free flow of migration. Further, the population back then would not have been anywhere near 6 billion.
Jujufucka 4 years ago
It was 55mya and most of the planet was tropical forests. Great diversity of mammals formed during that time. Average mean temp was 8C more than today. That's the evidence.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
so what. Man didn't exist 55 million years ago. The first hominids appeared 7 million years ago.
also 55 MYA the globe didn't look like it did now. Greenland may well have been near the equator. Most of the planet would have been rainforests because the human species wasn't felling them all to clear land for grazing.
Your arguments are tenuous at best. Leave the debate to the real scientists.
Jujufucka 4 years ago
Greenland 55mya was at the same latitude, Atlantic Ocean half as wide. The point is the planet flourished then with higher temps, thus this current GW trend is not an extinction agent, far from it. Could spawn whole new species.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
It's like saying that a car travelling at 60mph directly at a wall has a 50% chance of not hitting it because there are two possible outcomes, the car braking in time or not. What you don't know is whether the driver is able to stop the vehicle. He may be asleep. That changes the probability of the outcome substantially.
Jujufucka 4 years ago
I'm not applying any percent weight for any cell. That would be up to the evidence and subject to change as evidence comes forth.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
40% chance of disaster, 30% chance it would get better, 20% the world would become a cinder. That looks like the application of percent weight to me.
Jujufucka 4 years ago
You start your presentation by saying that you apply logic. Its clear having listened all the way through that you are applying faulty logic.
1. You can't use percentages to determine the probability of the outcomes. Whether global warming exists as a phenomenon is not a matter of chance. No-one can flip a coin and determine whether it exists or not.
Jujufucka 4 years ago
That's not my logic. All I was pointing out was that the two rowed grid that Gregg used was incomplete and too vague. The 10 rows is not the data, but where the data would reside. Each bit of evidence would fit in a cell, and there is evidence that GW is not happening due to us.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
CO2 is a TINY fraction of the air, human's input of that fraction is a tiny fraction. Even if we somehow stopped ALL CO2 emission, ie we all died, would it really make any damn difference?
Capnwabbit 4 years ago
No, and not even if we burn it all:
roperld[dot]com/science/GlobalWarmingprediction[dot]htm
jrwakefield 4 years ago
I like both videos, all extremely good points. However no one seems to look at the social/economic benefits and/or burdens of moving towards a more sustainable future. Be interesting to see. Regards.
camw81 4 years ago
What really matters is the probability of each of these situations. Plus, you're still not taking into account that acting on global warming will only cause as much economic impact as we choose - probably not a global depression. Whereas if we let the environment crumble, we can't control the impact on the economy. Another possibility is that global warming is not caused by humans, but is still fixable.
bistro39 4 years ago
2 assumptions. 1) that the environment will crumble. It wont. Theres no evidence it will. 2) that we can actually "fix" something that is normally naturall occuring is a tad arrogant.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
The truth is that the warming freaks don't care if it is happening or not, it is a matter of power and control. Notice AlGore doesn't change his lifestyle but expects the average Joe to change his.
kbrod666 4 years ago
there are extremists, but that's not an argument in itself.
bistro39 4 years ago
sorry my 3 comments are in the wrong order.
sunflag90 4 years ago
I understand your point when you're saying that global warming isn't necessarily caused by humans but you can't miss the point that pollution sure doesn't help the situation of global warming. In fact what big sacrifice would it be to try and take energy from other ecologic ressources?...
sunflag90 4 years ago
...I think you made up this video by considering all the possibilities of situations that could happen but you didn't say how big would be the impact if we do nothing and if the global warming was really caused by humans in comparison to if we do something to reduce the emission of polluants and spend money for nothing. ...
sunflag90 4 years ago
All I was doing in this video was pointing out that there should be 10 rows not 2.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
...In fact it wouldn't be a complete lost of money because according to me, trying to 'clean the earth' and encouraging people to have better habits wouldn't be a waste of money at all.
--Sorry for the spelling mistakes, english is not my first language. --
sunflag90 4 years ago
No Problem, good your posting and getting involved. Depends what that money was being spent on. If sequestering CO2 and a carbon market then complete waste of billions.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Yes, yes, I know, just wanted to point out that the percentages are incorrect, because many automatically seems to take numbers as a fact without concidering their source.
Amethana 4 years ago
At the end you said that if you ignore it there's only a 30% chance that it's going to be a disaster. Not true, because as evidence stacks up and more outcome simulations are done, one of the different outcomes will have a higher probability of happening than the others. As your 30% are based only on that disasterous outcomes represent 30% of the total amount of outcomes in that column, it is false.
Amethana 4 years ago
Actually the evidence is more towards the problems, if any, will be minor, and if anything warmer times will be better, more moderated temperatures world wide. We've been there before many times.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
A lot better than his, but the percentages are crap due to the different boxes not having equal probability of happening.
Amethana 4 years ago
The percentages are added later to the boxes. But the boxes have to be there first as POSSIBILITIES not probabilities. Once the probabilities are added, then if any boxes are empty, they can be removed for consideration.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Very poor analysis:
1. Those boxes aren't equal, the only serious claims that messing with the system will be positive are oil/coal industry shills.
2. You're missing the likelihood that doing something about global warming will be beneficial econmically and socially.
"Do nothing" is not really your suggestion, rather "continue the experiment". Because it really is a big experiment we're running. Its irresponsible to continue when there's indications of global impact.
smallduck1001001 4 years ago
What do you care... Canada's going to be the last place to go.
phishin648 4 years ago
go where? What I care about is falsehoods propogated against the science in an effort to promote a political ideology. Specifically, a socialist ideology that is cloaking itself as the saviour of the world.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
The world as we know it wont live long the warming is here already our oceans have risen polar caps a melting and we rely to much on old fashion fuel we need more solar energy 4 everything, because 2morrow may never come with the way things a going
magicalmoments2 4 years ago
That's just a bunch of crap. You have taken the alarmism hook line and sinker. Check the IPCC reports yourself, there is no Doom and Gloom predictions. Only the media and Gore are doing that.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
While I don't quite agree with you on all the beneficial effects of global warming, I believe this is a good job pointing out the main flaw of the original video, which is the fact that it is a vast oversimplification of a complex problem.
choupick 4 years ago
You have a point.
dragonwaregames 4 years ago
I watched about 60 seconds of this video. "There is no global warming" is not a position held by any reputable scientist that is actively researching the topic. So really, there are only 3 rows instead of the 4 you suggest.
Pozzi2003 4 years ago
Then you missed the point I was making. The rows are POSSIBILITIES in which you place evidence. Maybe that row would have nothing in it, but that does not mean the row A Priori should be excluded.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
that the average global temperature has increased in the last century is not a POSSIBILITY... it is a measured and known phenomenon. It has already occurred.
Pozzi2003 4 years ago
It has been observed in the surface temperature record and in satellite measurements. The ocean heat content has increased, global snow cover has declined, sea level is rising, species habitats are migrating northward. The arctic has experienced (this year) the lowest sea-ice coverage recorded. An ice shelf the size of Rhode Island, which had been in place for at least 8000 years, disintegrated a few years ago. Heat waves are not only more frequent, they last longer.
Pozzi2003 4 years ago
The number and severity of tropical cyclones has increased. Based on all those, I would again affirm that there is no possibility the globe is not warming. I still conclude that if you use a faulty set up for your analysis, the conclusion will be incorrect.
Pozzi2003 4 years ago