The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See (wonderingmind42)

[onemarktwoyou]

I feel good now. There is someone here who is a lot dumber than me. :)

[Zarrov]

Wow. He actually used prisoner dilemma to ilustrate something as complicated as choice behind change of CO2 to save Earth from global warming. This guy should be ASHAMED of himself. No one could find hole in this "argument"? Well, I have one: put different scenarios in you matrix, add complexity and depth, and most importantly: state correctly what will be the effects if pro-active policy is wrong-not only because it will humper economy, but will make us unprepared for the effects of warming.

[kyoglesage]

Love wonderingmind's presentation! The only way some of us can deal with such a serious topic is to deal with it with humour. I came to the same conclusions as WM, using the same sort of analysis, about three years ago. Cannot, for the life of me, understand those who think there's some 'saving grace' in seeing climate change as a natural process humans have no hand in. If that WERE true, we're totally stuff. GW is real. We can only turn things around if WE've cause the problem!

[beyondEV]

btw if you think that regulation is always bad suggest you compare switzerland to the US. switzerland has much thougher regulations (e.g. fuel is heavily taxed) but is doing much better economically.

corruption and lack of democracy are the reasons for the BAD regulations in the US.

[beyondEV]

the data about that global w is occouring is indisputable. what you missed is that 100% GCC is the best case scenario for us humans. besides GCC we also know that cycle in the earth orbit around the sun currently cause global w and will continue to do so. the effects of global w are devestating no matter the cause. but the more GCC is cause the less correction is requiered the have the same effect. e.g. GCC 100% sun 0 % 50%reduction in GCC = 50% gw, GCC 50% sun 50 % 50%r in GCC = 25% gw.

[beyondEV]

not a bad argument, assuming that the probability for GCC is significantly higher than 0. of course any person with any scientific knowledge knows this is the case. people often say that we know correlation but not causation. to any of the commentators doing so i suggest you do the experiment which molecules are creating global warming and wihich don't for yourself. isn't that hard just need some CO2, Methan and light and infrared. if it lets light trough and infrared not... bingo.

[shelleyhenderson1]

This guy is working off the totally WRONG premise. If you do ANY real research and talk to actual scientists (see the book "The Deniars") you will find that there is absolutely NO data that supports the fabrication of human caused global climate change. Global warming was a theory devised by the progressive movement to create the need for a global economy and global regulations. There isn't even a general concensus as to if the world is currently in a warming period or a cooling period.

[cmpresents]

Oh I forgot, this is not by any stretch of the imagination the most most terrifying video that you'll ever see.

[cmpresents]

I take column B, why, because all politicians are liars.

[HyperSpify]

And actually, if the probability of GCC is 0%, the obvious choice is option A, not option B. Do you suggest preparing for a UFO invasion where aliens capture all of humanity and perform cruel, torturous experiments on everyone? Why not? This scenario has the exact same outcome chart as global warming. It's because the chance of a UFO invasion is 0%. PROBABILITIES are EVERYTHING. That's why solid research to determine the probability of global warming occuring is essential.

[HyperSpify]

Also, the probabilities of GCC being true or not matter A LOT. If the probabilities are 50/50, sure, column A is the obvious choice. But if GCC has almost no chance of occurring, then column A might be reasonable. Option A: 99.99999% chance of being wrong and starting a global depression or 0.00001% of being right but starting a global depression too vs. Option 2 99.99999% chance of global prosperity or 0.00001% of doom? Option A might seem more reasonable then.

[HyperSpify]

@HyperSpify oops, meant to say "If the probabilities are 50/50, sure, column B is the obvious choice."

[HyperSpify]

Actually the bottom left box should have "Global Depression" in it too. Spending tons of money and resources to prepare for global warming will have economic consequences regardless of whether global warming is true or not. Global warming being true doesn't remove those consequences.

[buffysnell]

The cost of Global warming, if it's not true, is not just monetary. Every time we grant government license to take our money, for any reason, we lose freedom. The significant rate at which we are giving government power, historically, has ended in catastrophe. Hitler was voted in by 98% of the vote, because he offered to "save" the gullible masses. It took him 5 years to gain complete power. The cost was...PRICELESS.

[iphone6944]

ghu uoiuy ttdguu guytt liko guiy ggnigga

[firenearth78]

Pascal's Wager for the Neo-Cons, which is a nice turn around, since they like to use that on us non-believers all the time right before to preach, "YOUR GOING TO HELL."

[MrJotunheim]

one reasonable action to take is by re-planting all the trees that we cut down for two hundred years and then plant ten trees per inhabitant (all kind of trees)

[Edificationtube]

He says, "We do that by acknowledging that no one can know with absolute certainty what the physical world will do. All reasonable people should be able to admit to the possibility that they might have a mistaken understanding to reality."

However, then he supposes that money spent "allows us to counter-acting climate change, it still happened but we managed it."

What about the chance that we spend the money and we don't counter it?

[perltech]

Wow. I've always been a column B advocate. This has me thinking... hmmm. Very interesting and well thought out. Of course I'll probably get killed in the afterlife since column B just might happen and I haven't won the lottery yet.

[mrwright82468]

seemingly well constructed logic though wasnt it?

[antonio12390]

Sorry forgot to add that the idea is to have a taxation that is global, with the intent of making it almost impossible for the middle class to sustain a 'comfortable' living.

The end game is to have a ruling elite with the rest of us serving as slaves.

[antonio12390]

Column A Row 1 is what the global elite want. An economic depression achieved by rises and creation of new taxes under the pretext of climate change due co2 emissions.

The hypothesis don't even make sense anymore. Notice how it used to be called 'global warming'. The average person noticed that global temperatures actually started declining destroying the idea that the greenhouse effect was being worsened. Now it's called climate change? When have you ever known climate to be consistent?

[jluinstr]

Great point!

[upublic]

you need mental medication, go read before poisoning ppl's mind. Pascal's Wager all the way. AND it has failed from the moment it was conceived. LEARN

[falcon02012]

it is Pascal's Wager modified for global warming

[ginganz13]

Not strictly true - Pascals wager was based on at least one non tangeable outcome.

[wisdomuser]

wast of time

[bandaidmafia]

You could have just said, "Better safe than sorry". Thanks for wasting 9 minutes of my life...