I kind of agree that wonderingmind42's argument isn't so great, but I one big objection to this video; we ARE certain that we're heading for a brick wall, there is no debate!
@MomSaysImCool "we're heading for a brick wall, there is no debate!"
Actually, there is a debate. If for no other reason, the fact that I'm willing to debate it means there is. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of people didn't have an Armageddon view of global warming so then what? Adapt!
@HiFiSmith I'm not talking about an Armageddon view of climate change; I do think Humanity will survive this crisis. But I think that there is going to be a lot of war and a lot of suffering if we don't try and cut emissions down fast. As for the debate point, no, it doesn't means diddly-squat that YOU are still interested in debate, you're not a climate scientist. The overwhelming scientific consensus is in; global warming is real, we're doing it, we could prevent it, but it's getting bad.
You're right that it would much less expensive to adapt to global warming than it would to prevent global warming, however, you have to ask a few questions. Could we adapt quick enough, could we adapt at all and if we choose to adapt to global warming opposed to preventing it how many would die and suffer in the adaptation period.
Cost is more than just a dollar amount, it indicates the resources devoted to a particular goal. The number of deaths related to global warming are probably minuscule compared to deaths caused by other phenomena. Therefore, diverting resources from cancer research or food production, to slowing or stopping global warming doesn't make sense. This is how the market allocates the best allocation of resources, and how a centrally planned government only focuses on "things seen" to quote Bastiat.
"Cost is more than just a dollar amount, it indicates the resources devoted to a particular goal." - Agree. However, how do you come to the conclusion that the number of deaths directly or indirectly related to GW is minuscule compared to other phenomena. Would you not agree that an overall warming of the earth would eventually result in the raising of sea levels thereby producing at least a billion refuges - that would cost alot. And the warming of the oceans would reult in greater stom -
Look, if there was a comet heading for earth of course I would devote as many resources as I could to stopping the collision. The consequences of global warming however are not only uncertain and slow coming (sea rising over centuries) but the adaptation to those consequences are far more cost effective (e.g. as the oceans rise, move away from them). Manhattan isn't going to wake up under water. I think I linked Lomborg's video in the side bar for more information
I aware that the latter in your comment will not occur, however, how are you so sure that it would take centuries as opposed to decades for the sea levels to rise - this still means billions of refuges.
There is uncertanity in GW, like there is in everything, however if you want to know how uncertian it is look at the ppm of CO2 preindustial, now and the last time a massive warming event occured - they corrleate very close. There's a few articles you could look up.
intensity. This would create overcrowding of already densely polulated areas. You would possibly have wars breaking out over resources and an increase iin infectious disease. Now this is the worst case sernario, but is that not a high cost. Just a small fraction of that is still a very high cost. Moreover, why would we have to divert resources from cancer research and food production to slowing or stopping GW. Wouldn't you think those already involved in energy prodution - oil companies
and others in that indusrty - would attempt to produce energy from alternative sources which do not emit green-house gases. I believe that preparing for the worst but hoping for the best is the best we can do.
Preparing for the worse is a good idea, but not if it means confiscation of private property and enslavement of citizens via taxation. I work closely with an oil company and I know they're doing work in alternative energies. These voluntary efforts are the only ones I will support.
I aboslutly do not condone confiscation of private property and enslavement of citizens via taxation. Im glad oil companies are doing work in alternative energies and I too support the voluntary efforts over the solialist efforts (government facilitated). We agree there. What I don't like is the misinformation on this topic. If this topic was less politicalized then more people would see the truth - whatever that may be. Then the consumer cold truly dictate development not special interest.
I see we agree on all of that. The problem with "the truth" is that a lot of the data on weather effects and currents don't make it to the populace. As I dig more, I become more and more skeptical of the threat and even far more skeptical of the proposed solutions.
I hated the politicizing of the issue too, and as a small-gov't person, I still supported the claims of GW alarmists. But like I said, the more I dig into the subject, the less I'm willing to identify it as a threat.
We sure do agree, you sound like a Ron Paul supporter. I agree that the agerave citizen needs to do alot of digging like yourself to uncover the thruth. I too am skeptical and have been since the start. However, there were a few pieces of info that really got me thinking. 1 - the correlation between CO2 and temperature over the past thousands of years. 2 - The CO2 ppm pre-industrial, now and during the last massive global warming event. 3 - What global models predict will happen without
However, I am still somewhat skeptical like youself. But I believe that swithcing to alternative non-poluting energy sources (i.e. Hydrogen, electric, cold fusion etc..) will serve a two fold prupose. 1 - Stop are dependence on forigen source of energy with unstable governments in control. 2 - If global warming is occuring (no matter the rate) then we will stop it from creating any disaster. The first I believe is more important right now.
I suppose u could adapt and provided that there is no....lets say "tipping point" where everything just doesnt all go to shit at the same time.......adapting would be easier not to mention cheaper....but i guess that is all speculation....i just hope whatever happens that we will be able to handle it well....i recently watched "Climate Change Future - Conversations from Penn State"...i found it to be interesting and i suggest any1 interested in this topic to watch it also
It all comes back to the facts that we have identified the problem. Some say we should prepare for the worst and some say we should not worry. Life will always send problems are way. What has made us survive so long is that we were able and still are able to find solutions to our problems. The fact still remains that we have not found a solution to this debate and we need to stop dwelling on the problem and start focusing on the solutions and pick one that makes sense to the majority.
Humans populate about 12.5% of the earths land mass. Much of the 87.5% is covered in ice. Even under the worse conditions of global warming adaptation is possible and there are even some benefits.
I see that some people like to feel challenged and want to seem intelligent by finding flaws in someones reasoning. the truth of the matter is are you going to really question that there is a problem based on your education and contribution to the enviroment. There isn't a study that claims with 100% certainty that Climate change is not caused by humans and there isn't one that claims with 100% certainty that it is. With all that uncertainty I still think we should use precautions.
I know with certainty that the sun is going to expand and envelop the earth. Should we start planning for it? Maybe. We certainly won't be prepared for it if we decide to go back a to hunter-gatherer style of living.
As much as the climate fanatics want to scare us, we are better off with technology and global warming than we are without technology and without global warming. I really don't like that statement, but it's all I can think of to fit into a YouTube comment right now.
I like your agrument i feel it has some good points but his argument was more focused on extremes....and it would be better to prepare for it now than to suffer through it later
@Earther See my comment response to Char1es. I'll add that we may very well run out of oil before CO2 is a problem. I don't believe it's a problem now since the other factors of climate change that you don't hear about (weather, ocean currents, anthropogenic humidity) are stronger forces than CO2
Remember that, since you mention you are a fan of MF, that capitalism is good for making people self-sufficient, but bad for making them do the "right" thing (whatever that is). In this case, destruction of the world (if its to happen - imagine it will hypothetically ;P) is irrelevant if its simply cheaper to destroy it. You're talking about the difference between survival and living in luxury. We simply cant skimp on survival of our species for anything.
Hah. The quesiton, kiddo, isnt whether or not people take minimize risks to themselves and choose a more cost effective solution, but rather, is that cost effective solution one of the reasons why the world is warming? Maybe? Maybe not? But adaptation to a globally warming world is irrelevant and a deflection to the original principle. Should humans, if we can help it, be changing the world period. What right do we have? Evolution? Hogwash...we give ourselves that right by arrogance.
@vidfreak. Where do we get that right? Where do lions get the right to eat antelope? Where do bugs get the right to destroy forests? Along with simply consuming, we're able to nurture far more than our lesser animal neighbors.
Consider the science fiction limit: we have no control over cosmic activity, if that activity threatens our existence we better hope that we've adapted technologically (which some may read: exploit Earth's resources) to eliminate that threat or to move off this planet.
We dont have the right to kill off other species knowingly. This isnt intrinsic to our nature. If this were true, then wed not have freedom to act like humans. The only rights you have are the rights you believe you have. Those that believe they have the right to destroy the planet, do so at the expense of those that dont. And "we" should have been "you" in that last comment, to clear that up.
And if we have no control over global warming and if humans are going to be wipped out, then that would fit under the category of, non-control. That is we dont have the ability to control whats going to happen in the world period. This of course is complete BS. Everyone of us has the ability to control the effect we have on eachother and the environment.
I believe in private property rights. I certainly don't believe that elected officials necessarily know how to handle the product of my labor better than I do. In the case of owning what you produce then the only solution to GW would be through voluntary education and voluntary changes of habit.
I know it's not that simple. The argument is that my actions are partly responsible for the demise of the world. I don't buy that any more than saying airplanes are causing me to have cancer.
Ah....if only voluntary changes would solve the crisis. And education is rarely voluntary. You cant volunteer to be educated in a society if you live in poverty. But I digress. You simply cant volunteer to not destroy the planet, because it will always be, as it always has, those that dont volunteer that tyrannize those that do. You cant have it both ways. The solution if there is to be one, has to come from a unified solution (that will take huge amounts of comprimise) from everyone.
But that's my point. Who's to say I'm guilty of the world's demise? As a chemical engineering graduate student I'm not convinced of the mechanisms proposed for global warming. Surely politicians don't have the expertise or the ability to understand the experts. What gives them the right to use force then? That's why I say adapt, I adapted from a temperature of 20 degrees over night. Of course climate is more than temperature, but the ocean currents will change the climate more than GW has.
But thats what im saying aswell. Who does know that we ARE causing it. My argument isnt this, but rather if it is true that we are contributing to it, that who gets to decide whats done about that? The apathists? Or the activitists? Inevitable adaptation (which im sure of) will be one thing. We will have to adapt as will our markets. But what if we could do something? What gives anyone the right to force change on me, if what they're doing is causing that change? Again assuming it is us.
world's oceans. Is it going to happen? I don't know - I'll leave that one for the philosophers. But I know that we can get started on that titanium-plasticine shield TODAY. No delays. Let's get on it. After all, if I'm wrong, the only thing we risk is a global depression.
For instance, perhaps building a flexible, permeable shield of titanium rods and plasticine webbing around the entire earth is the only way to protect our species in the long run from cosmic mosquitoes that will suck the magma from the earth's molten core and not only end gravity, earth's magnetic field and any chance you have of getting laid next Saturday, but create volcanic eruptions on a massive scale and a hole in the ozone layer the size of Antarctica while vaporizing most of the
I like the concept of "Column-based thinking" vs. "Row-based". Chicken Little was a column thinker. He didn't question what was happening, only what to do about it. This lends itself to all sorts of fun little examples since by removing "row-based" considerations from the equation you can literally justify anything your warped, twisted little mind can think up.
As a scientist/engineer myself, I have my own reasoning about the mechanisms and trends of global warming. I'm not sure the politicians are purposely lying but they are purposefully retarded for thinking they know anything about cooling and warming mechanisms.
I really think your argument is no more valid than the other. Saying that, my argument is no more valid but if we stop using so much hydrocarbon we will be owned by fewer arabs , corporations,and politicians. Going green makes sense from the perspective of being economic slaves. I would rather pay for something once and then have a renewable sustainable energy source. But the view is still out there that solar will never be more than 1% of our total energy. Germany is at 10% now and increasing.
That's all fine, as long as you don't give gov't the power to determine which source of energy is going to replace our fossil fuels. They obviously have no idea what they're doing (e.g. ethanol and hydrogen). This decision needs to be decide by the market, the first enrepreneur to make a new energy sorce feasible and profitable will have chosen for us and will have done so at a net benefit to society, unlike a politician's use of coercion (i.e. taxes).
I kind of agree that wonderingmind42's argument isn't so great, but I one big objection to this video; we ARE certain that we're heading for a brick wall, there is no debate!
MomSaysImCool 1 year ago
@MomSaysImCool "we're heading for a brick wall, there is no debate!"
Actually, there is a debate. If for no other reason, the fact that I'm willing to debate it means there is. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of people didn't have an Armageddon view of global warming so then what? Adapt!
HiFiSmith 1 year ago
@HiFiSmith I'm not talking about an Armageddon view of climate change; I do think Humanity will survive this crisis. But I think that there is going to be a lot of war and a lot of suffering if we don't try and cut emissions down fast. As for the debate point, no, it doesn't means diddly-squat that YOU are still interested in debate, you're not a climate scientist. The overwhelming scientific consensus is in; global warming is real, we're doing it, we could prevent it, but it's getting bad.
MomSaysImCool 1 year ago
love your argument
bamaedgecore 1 year ago
You're right that it would much less expensive to adapt to global warming than it would to prevent global warming, however, you have to ask a few questions. Could we adapt quick enough, could we adapt at all and if we choose to adapt to global warming opposed to preventing it how many would die and suffer in the adaptation period.
jgrimsl1 2 years ago
Cost is more than just a dollar amount, it indicates the resources devoted to a particular goal. The number of deaths related to global warming are probably minuscule compared to deaths caused by other phenomena. Therefore, diverting resources from cancer research or food production, to slowing or stopping global warming doesn't make sense. This is how the market allocates the best allocation of resources, and how a centrally planned government only focuses on "things seen" to quote Bastiat.
HiFiSmith 2 years ago
"Cost is more than just a dollar amount, it indicates the resources devoted to a particular goal." - Agree. However, how do you come to the conclusion that the number of deaths directly or indirectly related to GW is minuscule compared to other phenomena. Would you not agree that an overall warming of the earth would eventually result in the raising of sea levels thereby producing at least a billion refuges - that would cost alot. And the warming of the oceans would reult in greater stom -
jgrimsl1 2 years ago
Look, if there was a comet heading for earth of course I would devote as many resources as I could to stopping the collision. The consequences of global warming however are not only uncertain and slow coming (sea rising over centuries) but the adaptation to those consequences are far more cost effective (e.g. as the oceans rise, move away from them). Manhattan isn't going to wake up under water. I think I linked Lomborg's video in the side bar for more information
HiFiSmith 2 years ago
I aware that the latter in your comment will not occur, however, how are you so sure that it would take centuries as opposed to decades for the sea levels to rise - this still means billions of refuges.
There is uncertanity in GW, like there is in everything, however if you want to know how uncertian it is look at the ppm of CO2 preindustial, now and the last time a massive warming event occured - they corrleate very close. There's a few articles you could look up.
jgrimsl1 2 years ago
intensity. This would create overcrowding of already densely polulated areas. You would possibly have wars breaking out over resources and an increase iin infectious disease. Now this is the worst case sernario, but is that not a high cost. Just a small fraction of that is still a very high cost. Moreover, why would we have to divert resources from cancer research and food production to slowing or stopping GW. Wouldn't you think those already involved in energy prodution - oil companies
jgrimsl1 2 years ago
and others in that indusrty - would attempt to produce energy from alternative sources which do not emit green-house gases. I believe that preparing for the worst but hoping for the best is the best we can do.
jgrimsl1 2 years ago
Preparing for the worse is a good idea, but not if it means confiscation of private property and enslavement of citizens via taxation. I work closely with an oil company and I know they're doing work in alternative energies. These voluntary efforts are the only ones I will support.
HiFiSmith 2 years ago
I aboslutly do not condone confiscation of private property and enslavement of citizens via taxation. Im glad oil companies are doing work in alternative energies and I too support the voluntary efforts over the solialist efforts (government facilitated). We agree there. What I don't like is the misinformation on this topic. If this topic was less politicalized then more people would see the truth - whatever that may be. Then the consumer cold truly dictate development not special interest.
jgrimsl1 2 years ago
I see we agree on all of that. The problem with "the truth" is that a lot of the data on weather effects and currents don't make it to the populace. As I dig more, I become more and more skeptical of the threat and even far more skeptical of the proposed solutions.
I hated the politicizing of the issue too, and as a small-gov't person, I still supported the claims of GW alarmists. But like I said, the more I dig into the subject, the less I'm willing to identify it as a threat.
HiFiSmith 2 years ago
We sure do agree, you sound like a Ron Paul supporter. I agree that the agerave citizen needs to do alot of digging like yourself to uncover the thruth. I too am skeptical and have been since the start. However, there were a few pieces of info that really got me thinking. 1 - the correlation between CO2 and temperature over the past thousands of years. 2 - The CO2 ppm pre-industrial, now and during the last massive global warming event. 3 - What global models predict will happen without
jgrimsl1 2 years ago
the intervention of man vs what has happened.
However, I am still somewhat skeptical like youself. But I believe that swithcing to alternative non-poluting energy sources (i.e. Hydrogen, electric, cold fusion etc..) will serve a two fold prupose. 1 - Stop are dependence on forigen source of energy with unstable governments in control. 2 - If global warming is occuring (no matter the rate) then we will stop it from creating any disaster. The first I believe is more important right now.
jgrimsl1 2 years ago
Great argument, though, I always enjoy a good debate.
jgrimsl1 2 years ago
what if we can't adapt?
what if there is a bubble to our technological progress that will later threaten our evolution?
RamzGT 2 years ago
I suppose u could adapt and provided that there is no....lets say "tipping point" where everything just doesnt all go to shit at the same time.......adapting would be easier not to mention cheaper....but i guess that is all speculation....i just hope whatever happens that we will be able to handle it well....i recently watched "Climate Change Future - Conversations from Penn State"...i found it to be interesting and i suggest any1 interested in this topic to watch it also
Earther001 2 years ago
It all comes back to the facts that we have identified the problem. Some say we should prepare for the worst and some say we should not worry. Life will always send problems are way. What has made us survive so long is that we were able and still are able to find solutions to our problems. The fact still remains that we have not found a solution to this debate and we need to stop dwelling on the problem and start focusing on the solutions and pick one that makes sense to the majority.
Char1es316 2 years ago
What is a home when you may not even have a planet to live on?
Char1es316 2 years ago
Humans populate about 12.5% of the earths land mass. Much of the 87.5% is covered in ice. Even under the worse conditions of global warming adaptation is possible and there are even some benefits.
HiFiSmith 2 years ago
I see that some people like to feel challenged and want to seem intelligent by finding flaws in someones reasoning. the truth of the matter is are you going to really question that there is a problem based on your education and contribution to the enviroment. There isn't a study that claims with 100% certainty that Climate change is not caused by humans and there isn't one that claims with 100% certainty that it is. With all that uncertainty I still think we should use precautions.
Char1es316 2 years ago
I know with certainty that the sun is going to expand and envelop the earth. Should we start planning for it? Maybe. We certainly won't be prepared for it if we decide to go back a to hunter-gatherer style of living.
As much as the climate fanatics want to scare us, we are better off with technology and global warming than we are without technology and without global warming. I really don't like that statement, but it's all I can think of to fit into a YouTube comment right now.
HiFiSmith 2 years ago
I like your agrument i feel it has some good points but his argument was more focused on extremes....and it would be better to prepare for it now than to suffer through it later
Earther001 2 years ago
@Earther See my comment response to Char1es. I'll add that we may very well run out of oil before CO2 is a problem. I don't believe it's a problem now since the other factors of climate change that you don't hear about (weather, ocean currents, anthropogenic humidity) are stronger forces than CO2
HiFiSmith 2 years ago
Remember that, since you mention you are a fan of MF, that capitalism is good for making people self-sufficient, but bad for making them do the "right" thing (whatever that is). In this case, destruction of the world (if its to happen - imagine it will hypothetically ;P) is irrelevant if its simply cheaper to destroy it. You're talking about the difference between survival and living in luxury. We simply cant skimp on survival of our species for anything.
vidfreak56 2 years ago
Hah. The quesiton, kiddo, isnt whether or not people take minimize risks to themselves and choose a more cost effective solution, but rather, is that cost effective solution one of the reasons why the world is warming? Maybe? Maybe not? But adaptation to a globally warming world is irrelevant and a deflection to the original principle. Should humans, if we can help it, be changing the world period. What right do we have? Evolution? Hogwash...we give ourselves that right by arrogance.
vidfreak56 2 years ago
@vidfreak. Where do we get that right? Where do lions get the right to eat antelope? Where do bugs get the right to destroy forests? Along with simply consuming, we're able to nurture far more than our lesser animal neighbors.
Consider the science fiction limit: we have no control over cosmic activity, if that activity threatens our existence we better hope that we've adapted technologically (which some may read: exploit Earth's resources) to eliminate that threat or to move off this planet.
HiFiSmith 2 years ago
We dont have the right to kill off other species knowingly. This isnt intrinsic to our nature. If this were true, then wed not have freedom to act like humans. The only rights you have are the rights you believe you have. Those that believe they have the right to destroy the planet, do so at the expense of those that dont. And "we" should have been "you" in that last comment, to clear that up.
vidfreak56 2 years ago
And if we have no control over global warming and if humans are going to be wipped out, then that would fit under the category of, non-control. That is we dont have the ability to control whats going to happen in the world period. This of course is complete BS. Everyone of us has the ability to control the effect we have on eachother and the environment.
This is what seperates us from the animals dude.
vidfreak56 2 years ago
I believe in private property rights. I certainly don't believe that elected officials necessarily know how to handle the product of my labor better than I do. In the case of owning what you produce then the only solution to GW would be through voluntary education and voluntary changes of habit.
I know it's not that simple. The argument is that my actions are partly responsible for the demise of the world. I don't buy that any more than saying airplanes are causing me to have cancer.
HiFiSmith 2 years ago
Ah....if only voluntary changes would solve the crisis. And education is rarely voluntary. You cant volunteer to be educated in a society if you live in poverty. But I digress. You simply cant volunteer to not destroy the planet, because it will always be, as it always has, those that dont volunteer that tyrannize those that do. You cant have it both ways. The solution if there is to be one, has to come from a unified solution (that will take huge amounts of comprimise) from everyone.
vidfreak56 2 years ago
But that's my point. Who's to say I'm guilty of the world's demise? As a chemical engineering graduate student I'm not convinced of the mechanisms proposed for global warming. Surely politicians don't have the expertise or the ability to understand the experts. What gives them the right to use force then? That's why I say adapt, I adapted from a temperature of 20 degrees over night. Of course climate is more than temperature, but the ocean currents will change the climate more than GW has.
HiFiSmith 2 years ago
But thats what im saying aswell. Who does know that we ARE causing it. My argument isnt this, but rather if it is true that we are contributing to it, that who gets to decide whats done about that? The apathists? Or the activitists? Inevitable adaptation (which im sure of) will be one thing. We will have to adapt as will our markets. But what if we could do something? What gives anyone the right to force change on me, if what they're doing is causing that change? Again assuming it is us.
vidfreak56 2 years ago
world's oceans. Is it going to happen? I don't know - I'll leave that one for the philosophers. But I know that we can get started on that titanium-plasticine shield TODAY. No delays. Let's get on it. After all, if I'm wrong, the only thing we risk is a global depression.
suchasexyback 2 years ago
For instance, perhaps building a flexible, permeable shield of titanium rods and plasticine webbing around the entire earth is the only way to protect our species in the long run from cosmic mosquitoes that will suck the magma from the earth's molten core and not only end gravity, earth's magnetic field and any chance you have of getting laid next Saturday, but create volcanic eruptions on a massive scale and a hole in the ozone layer the size of Antarctica while vaporizing most of the
suchasexyback 2 years ago
I like the concept of "Column-based thinking" vs. "Row-based". Chicken Little was a column thinker. He didn't question what was happening, only what to do about it. This lends itself to all sorts of fun little examples since by removing "row-based" considerations from the equation you can literally justify anything your warped, twisted little mind can think up.
suchasexyback 2 years ago
As a scientist/engineer myself, I have my own reasoning about the mechanisms and trends of global warming. I'm not sure the politicians are purposely lying but they are purposefully retarded for thinking they know anything about cooling and warming mechanisms.
HiFiSmith 2 years ago
I really think your argument is no more valid than the other. Saying that, my argument is no more valid but if we stop using so much hydrocarbon we will be owned by fewer arabs , corporations,and politicians. Going green makes sense from the perspective of being economic slaves. I would rather pay for something once and then have a renewable sustainable energy source. But the view is still out there that solar will never be more than 1% of our total energy. Germany is at 10% now and increasing.
jobedied 2 years ago
That's all fine, as long as you don't give gov't the power to determine which source of energy is going to replace our fossil fuels. They obviously have no idea what they're doing (e.g. ethanol and hydrogen). This decision needs to be decide by the market, the first enrepreneur to make a new energy sorce feasible and profitable will have chosen for us and will have done so at a net benefit to society, unlike a politician's use of coercion (i.e. taxes).
HiFiSmith 2 years ago
Thanks for the correction.
HiFiSmith 2 years ago
it's "Bjorn Lomborg"
:p
But still, nice video.
:-)
stealthswimmer 2 years ago