Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See

  1. Sep 11, 2008 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 14, 2008 #2

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  4. Sep 14, 2008 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: YouTube Classics

    I agree and think everyone here should make a point of passing this one around.
     
  5. Sep 15, 2008 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  6. Sep 15, 2008 #5

    Art

    User Avatar

    Re: YouTube Classics

    Except the author doesn't agree though he says he has since updated his argument to plug a huge hole people found in it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=related

    Edit - A very quick look at his updated video shows another rather large hole; again based on a false assumption - his choices are lacking. He is assuming from the get go that if humans aren't causing global warming then there will not be any which is obviously false and so such an option has to be included in any decision matrix. I.e spend the money and still have a disaster.

    Personally I think the human race's biggest problem in 50 years time is what to do if there isn't a natural catastrophe thus allowing the population to rise to the UN's projected fig of 8.5 billion. (which seems optimistically low to me seeing as how we put on 0.5 billion in just the past 5 years??)
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2008
  7. Sep 15, 2008 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: YouTube Classics

    Sure, it isn't really bullet proof, but he still does a nice job of considering the major options. But your objection is not entirely valid either. Part of the action required is to anticipate the problems that climate change will bring, such as stronger and/or more frequent storms and coastal flooding. When your house is washing out to sea, I doubt if you care whether it was caused by humans or not. And either way we take action, if we choose column A.

    Nor does he consider that green-collar jobs can help to save the US ecnonomy. For example, by replacing fossil fuels with domestically produced alternatives, we can keep 700 billion dollars a year in the US economy and reduce the trade deficit by 70%. But I didn't see "saves the US economy" anywhere in column A.

    Personally, I would prefer that developing countries implement good birth control practices, rather than allowing global catastrophes to do the job.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2008
  8. Sep 15, 2008 #7

    Art

    User Avatar

    Re: YouTube Classics

    I'm not so sure your point is valid. Again his decision matrix and his talk is based on the avoidance of GW rather than the managing of it. Anyway I am sure if one looks in detail one could probably find dozens of similar holes in his 'conclusive' argument both in the credit and debit columns. My point is it most certainly isn't worthy of this treatment.
     
  9. Sep 16, 2008 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: YouTube Classics

    Oh well, I think it is.

    He makes it clear that no matter what we do, we have to weigh the risks and make a bet. The choice is clear no matter how you modify the chart: Either we risk it all through inaction, or we don't. The choice is simple.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2008
  10. Sep 16, 2008 #9
    Re: YouTube Classics

    WHAT? How about we quit causing more environmental damage to the planet than the rest of the world combined. How does 100,000 babies starving to death in Africa have any effect on the planet?
     
  11. Sep 16, 2008 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: YouTube Classics

    The implication was that since overpopulation is a key problem, it would be good to eliminate the "excess population" through global catastrophes.

    Merry Christmas!
     
  12. Sep 17, 2008 #11
    Re: YouTube Classics

    Unless it is unavoidable and we are unable to prevent it in which case we have gambled everything on prevention when perhaps adaptation would have been a better option.
     
  13. Sep 17, 2008 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The selection is action or inaction. We haven't specified what sort of action. Also, the desire to reduce GHG emissions often coincides with other motivations, such as national security. It is in our economic interest, as well as our national security interest, to end our reliance on foreign oil suppliers. And as T Boone Pickens makes clear: This is one problem that we can't solve by drilling. We have dug our hole as deeply as we can.

    Next, whether GCC is driven by human activity or not, adaptation is critical to a so called "soft landing" in any event. So this becomes a matter of warming or not, and action or not. And the odds of "not warming" = true are negligible at best.

    Note also that he specifies that one can add many more variables, and he suggests that you do so, but the result is the same: Choose a column; select a lottery ticket; place a bet on not only your future, but the future of all humanity, by throwing the dice. How lucky do you feel?
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2008
  14. Sep 17, 2008 #13
    I would choose column A, but for a different reason than he gives. However, his smiley in the bottom left box is incorrect. The bottom left box should be exactly the same as the top left box. The drawback to choosing column A is the 'Jonah effect'. Jonah predicted the fall of Nineveh unless they reformed. They reformed. The city didn't fall. The prophet was made to look an ass. If the world chooses column A, and saves the planet, science will take a hit. Oh well, it seems that can't be avoided. The good news is that the world is unlikely to choose column A until it is too late.
     
  15. Sep 17, 2008 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: YouTube Classics

    It's worse than that: Choosing action A does not eliminate the possibility of that outcome whether it is human-caused or not.

    Nor does choosing action B combined with the bottom row necessarily result in that outcome. The greenest country on the planet by leaps and bounds - France - got that way long before talk of global warming. I want our coal power plants eliminated and I too want a vast expansion of nuclear power - for reasons that have predate and have nothing to do with global warming.

    He also mentions that one can make a much more complicated matrix if they want and that people should.... has he?
    Agreed. It is far too simplistic to be useful as anything other than a propaganda piece..... wait, nevermind - that makes it perfect. It is exactly what some people are looking for!
     
  16. Sep 17, 2008 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: YouTube Classics

    Really? Could you post a picture of the other charts you made that give better treatment of the odds and other possibilities?
    The chart is simple and the options are simple. Therefore the choice is simple.
     
  17. Sep 17, 2008 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Heck, here's another scenario for you: selecting column "A" drives the world into depression (top-left box), which makes every fuel but coal and wood non-viable, thus causing the worst-case of the lower-right box, but with the added problem of society being already crippled and worse able to adapt.

    Sales of wood stoves are already skyrocketing...
     
  18. Dec 7, 2008 #17
    officially there is no global warming
    (NOAA ,October 8, 2008, National Weather Service
    JetStream - Online School for Weather)

    http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm

    quote
    It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures.

    In 1997, NASA reported global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites revealed no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. In fact, the trend appeared to be a decrease in actual temperature. In 2007, NASA data showed that one-half of the ten warmest years occurred in the 1930's with 1934 (tied with 2006) as the warmest years on record. (NASA data October 23, 2007 from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt)

    The 1930s through the 1950s were clearly warmer than the 1960s and 1970s. If carbon dioxide had been the cause then the warmest years would have understandably been in the most recent years. But that is not the case.

    The largest differences in the satellite temperature data were not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño.

    The behavior of the atmosphere is extremely complex. Therefore, discovering the validity of global warming is complex as well. How much effect will the increase in carbon dioxide will have is unclear or even if we recognize the effects of any increase.
    end-quote

    no comments.
     
  19. Dec 7, 2008 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q3
     
  20. Dec 7, 2008 #19

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: YouTube Classics

    The choice is simple - act or don't act. The best course of action is not a simple matter.

    Of course, our financial sector has proven to be the real monster. For the price of the 8 trillion now dedicated to the bailout, we could likely be energy independent and using carbon neutral fuels.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2008
  21. Dec 7, 2008 #20
    Re: YouTube Classics

    We reached that center square in the first video ( global economic crisis) without GCC even being envolved.:rolleyes:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See
Loading...