Interesting argument about Global Warming

A class of mine had a debate on this video's argument, and I'm sorry to say that this logic is full of holes so spacious that anyone proficient with a double-clutch could drive trucks through them. That said, you did a good job in that the argument here was straight forward and convincing. Few people would be willing to argue with you on this topic, and that skill (namely showmanship) will help you in whatever you choose to pursue in life. I do suggest that you revisit the skeptical argument.

Arguments aside, this was a great video. It made me think. Few videos do that on the web, so good job on wanting to be informed and ask questions.

other possibilities: coercion was excercised, and it did hardly make a dent. But it costed 3 trillion dollar for which world hunger could eliminated, everybody made literate, malaria and aids eradicated.
This is actually truth: expected temperature change in case of coercion is not even noticeable on a kitchen thermometer.
Downside of coercion is that in the past 100 years governments killed 262 million people, excluding wars. Want to take the bet that this time they can handle the coercion?

"global warming " is a croc what happens will not have anything to do with us. there is no proof of it.

Some actions we take can save the planet in more ways than just reducing global warming. Switching to renewable energy resources saves a lot of the natural environment that we are destorying at the moment. And is somethine we have to do to secure our future

This is Pascal's Wager reworked for the environment.

I don't think it's a bad argument. However, Most people want to do SOMETHING about the environment. Even people that don't believe there is a crisis still want cleaner air would love to eventually power there entire house with solar or wind energy.

The question isn't should we act, because most people want to. The question is how much should we spend and how many freedoms are we willing to give up?

Nice and convincing, but misleading. You state right out that we can't know for certain if GCC is true or false. Fine. But you must also admit then that we can't know for certain that whatever we do to try to fix it won't make the problem worse. You need to add all the problems from the "true/no" box into the "false/yes" box.

How would anticlimate change action create environmental and public heath disasters?

good arguement, i give give you a gold star.

BUT,
your entire arguement is unrealistic.

why?
its too late.
the goal of the united states future presidents(obama/mccain) is to reduce emissions by 60% by the year 2050. that means that we are going to still be effecting our enviornment for lots and lots of decades, if not a century.

sure if we shut down all power plants and stopped driving today. we would be in good a shape. but that senario is almost equal to no/true. if not worse

what do you think?