- #1
- 8,142
- 1,756
Long winded, but nicely done.
The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=related
The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=related
Ivan Seeking said:Long winded, but nicely done.
The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=related
Integral said:Ivan Seeking said:Long winded, but nicely done.
The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=related
HEAR! HEAR!
Should be required watching for the Anti Global warming crowd.
Except the author doesn't agree though he says he has since updated his argument to plug a huge hole people found in it.Ivan Seeking said:I agree and think everyone here should make a point of passing this one around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=relatedDON'T WATCH THIS VIDEO. I'm serious. This message isn't a hack (I'm the guy in the video), and it's not a ploy to get you to actually watch it (reverse psychology).
It's just that there's a hole in this argument big enough to drive a Hummer through because of an assumption I didn't realize I had (isn't that just the way with assumptions. . .), and the argument has been UPDATED to address that hole.
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.Ivan Seeking said: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.
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.
I agree and think everyone here should make a point of passing this one around.
Art said:My point is it most certainly isn't worthy of this treatment.
Ivan Seeking said:Personally, I would prefer that developing countries implement good birth control practices, rather than allowing global catastrophes to do the job.
tribdog said:How does 100,000 babies starving to death in Africa have any effect on the planet?
Ivan Seeking said: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.
It's worse than that: Choosing action A does not eliminate the possibility of that outcome whether it is human-caused or not.Art said: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.
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!My point is it most certainly isn't worthy of this treatment.
Really? Could you post a picture of the other charts you made that give better treatment of the odds and other possibilities?Ivan Seeking said:The choice is clear no matter how you modify the chart:
The chart is simple and the options are simple. Therefore the choice is simple.The choice is simple.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q3Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10warmest years have all occurred since 1995.
russ_watters said: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.
Ivan Seeking said:The choice is simple - act or don't act. The best course of action is not a simple matter.
Ivan Seeking said:Long winded, but nicely done.
The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=related
I agree with all of your analysis Mr Vanesch (post#23) and with Mr.Art(post#21)vanesch said:It is why the decision making, the policy making on AGW should be totally disjunct of the science, and it isn't. Science has one agenda: finding out what happens, and stating what we know, and what we don't know. Policy making should USE the science to make decisions. When scientists play decision makers, we loose both.
Ivan Seeking said:So, if we find one page that disagrees with a thousand others, it must be true.
Boy, that is real science.
btw, this guy is a high school teacher. It wasn't intended for a sophisticated audience. You people need to get a grip.
Art said:Given the recent admission from GISS that their recent global warming data was nonsense (btw only after independent investigators checked it and proved it was nonsense) I would not give the slightest bit of credence to anything at all they publish, past, present or future.
"The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See" is a popular video on the internet that discusses the potential consequences of human-induced climate change. It was created by environmental scientist, Greg Craven, and presents a thought-provoking argument for taking action to combat climate change.
The video is considered terrifying because it presents a bleak and realistic portrayal of the potential consequences of climate change, including extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and mass extinction. It also highlights the urgency of the issue and the potential for irreversible damage if action is not taken.
Yes, the information presented in the video is based on scientific research and data. Greg Craven is an environmental scientist and has carefully researched and fact-checked the information presented in the video. However, it is always important to do your own research and consult multiple sources.
The purpose of the video is to raise awareness about the issue of climate change and to encourage individuals to take action. It aims to educate and inform viewers about the potential consequences of inaction and to inspire them to make changes in their own lives and advocate for larger systemic changes.
After watching the video, you can make a difference by taking action to reduce your carbon footprint, such as using renewable energy, reducing your consumption, and supporting environmentally-friendly policies and businesses. You can also spread awareness by sharing the video and educating others about the issue of climate change.