Debate and Discussion

Global Warming video
hat at 7:58PM, Oct. 10, 2007
(offline)
posts: 449
joined: 8-27-2006
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI - Maybe you've already seen it, what do you think about it?
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:45PM
subcultured at 8:22PM, Oct. 10, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:03PM
ozoneocean at 10:11PM, Oct. 10, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,085
joined: 1-2-2004
I'm not going to watch it, because I don't like watching Youtube vids all the time, but if it's going to be shifted into Debate and Discussion, there really needs to be some point of view put forth for us to start with; not just the vid. -(since following posts generally relate to the point of view on the subject as expressed by the initial poster).
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:28PM
bobhhh at 1:50AM, Oct. 11, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
His argument is simple. The question isn't whether global warming is the effect of humans or not. The question rather is whether our action or inaction is an acceptable risk factor.

The upside of action is that we save the planet from the eminent doom that was forecasted, and our world becomes a better place, even if the economy suffers in the short term at least.

The downside of action is that we go ahead and spend all these resources and tank the world economy for nothing, probably even causing more civil unrest and regional conflict too, on top of that our efforts are for naught because either we do nothing to stop GW because it wasn a natural part of the earth's cycle, or worse we just can't fix it and things get worse anyway.

The upside of inaction is we do nothing and nothing happens, everyone is happy.

The downside of inaction is that we do nothing and the doomsayers turn out to be right, and we blew the only chance to save our biosphere, and the only people to survive will do so tenuously and suffer greatly because we were too myopic to make sacrifices within our means to avert disaster when we had the chance. This leads to worse than a tanked global economy and regional strife for resources.

So his conclusion is that the downside of action is a better bet than the downside of inaction.

Fairly simple and well argued even if it is in a “you can understand this even if you are a simpleton” manner.

Of course any argument rests on suppositions, and he makes some whoppers, but I happen to agree with him, and I would also add that even if you spend the resources neccessary to fund research into green technologies, and it turns out that in fact GW is a natural cycle, chances are the types of industry to rise up around GW technology would the first to discover that fact and the first to alter the strategy from one of prevention to one of containment and adaptation to the changing environment, so I feel the down side of action is potentially not quite as bad as he paints it because the money will still have been well spent.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
mlai at 6:07AM, Oct. 11, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
We can all stop hearing about GW and other annoying disturbing things if we just give up Internet Neutrality.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
arteestx at 3:55PM, Oct. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 285
joined: 6-1-2007
I think that global warming is a problem, we need to address it, no one knows precisely what is going to happen but we should not wait around to find out, and I grow weary of skeptics who deny that humans have any role in the warming.

Having said that, I thought his argument was really weak.

It's a 10 min version of Pascal's wager (if I don't believe in God and I'm wrong, I end up in hell; if I believe in God and I'm right, I go to heaven; other combinations result in no impact). And the problem with the argument is that, by ignoring the argument of truth, whatever side is more catastrophic is the one that should be followed.

We should act as though global warming exists, even if it doesn't, to prevent the scarier of the alternatives. Similarly, we should believe in God, because if we don't and we're wrong, we go to hell. We should believe in Zeus, because if we don't and we're wrong, we go to hell. We should believe in astrology because the lost benefits of our future and our personality if it's true pale in comparison to the cost of time and effort in believing in an idea that wound up being untrue. Prevent the scariest alternative, irregardless of whether it's true. And I just don't buy it. I don't think that's a good way to decide things.

Deal with reality, with what is true. In science, nothing is absolute. But we have enough evidence to reasonably believe in the danger of global warming, and we should deal with it because of that evidence, not because we're simply scared irregardless of its truth.

Xolta is not intended for anyone under 18 years old.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:02AM
mlai at 7:16PM, Oct. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
arteestx
It's a 10 min version of Pascal's wager
Awesome, your 10 mins of discerning intelligence just blew his entire Youtube argument that he's so proud of out of the water.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
bobhhh at 3:47AM, Oct. 15, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
arteestx
I think that global warming is a problem, we need to address it, no one knows precisely what is going to happen but we should not wait around to find out, and I grow weary of skeptics who deny that humans have any role in the warming.

Having said that, I thought his argument was really weak.

It's a 10 min version of Pascal's wager (if I don't believe in God and I'm wrong, I end up in hell; if I believe in God and I'm right, I go to heaven; other combinations result in no impact). And the problem with the argument is that, by ignoring the argument of truth, whatever side is more catastrophic is the one that should be followed.

We should act as though global warming exists, even if it doesn't, to prevent the scarier of the alternatives. Similarly, we should believe in God, because if we don't and we're wrong, we go to hell. We should believe in Zeus, because if we don't and we're wrong, we go to hell. We should believe in astrology because the lost benefits of our future and our personality if it's true pale in comparison to the cost of time and effort in believing in an idea that wound up being untrue. Prevent the scariest alternative, irregardless of whether it's true. And I just don't buy it. I don't think that's a good way to decide things.

Deal with reality, with what is true. In science, nothing is absolute. But we have enough evidence to reasonably believe in the danger of global warming, and we should deal with it because of that evidence, not because we're simply scared irregardless of its truth.

Giving his argument a fancy name and claiming its been done before doesn't invalidate his points about the stakes in global warming.

And The God argument is nothing like GW. Climate change is real, god only may be real. The question is does our inaction affect it. There is ample science, as well as a majority of the science community, to backup the actual cause and effect of human greenhouse gas pollution happenning. Meanwhile there is little evidence that there is a down side in the “don't believe in god and go to hell” scenario.

Since there are real things happening to our planet, it stands to reason that acting on behalf of greener technologies is a safe bet. It's more like the seatbelt. Your driving may never cause an accident, but better to have seatbelts in the car and wear them just in case, because there is ample evidence that driving cars can kill people. It all comes down to a matter of degree and context.

Ultimately a little common sense goes a long way unless your only point is to burst this guy's bubble.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
bobhhh at 3:51AM, Oct. 15, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Afterthought: I realize you and I actuallt agree on GW, and in the end that is more important than this guy's youtube vid.

But I still believe his analysis is relevant. We make decisions based on risk and odds everyday, its not exact but it is a valid way of making decisions when cold hard facts are impossible to agree upon.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
arteestx at 6:32AM, Oct. 15, 2007
(online)
posts: 285
joined: 6-1-2007
bobhhh
But I still believe his analysis is relevant. We make decisions based on risk and odds everyday, its not exact but it is a valid way of making decisions when cold hard facts are impossible to agree upon.
You're absolutely right, nothing in life is absolute, so we make decsions based on risk and odds. My only problem is that he's arguing that we can ignore the risk/odds of the truth or facts and could arrive at a satisfactory conclusion focusing on the risk/odds of cost (which is essentially Pascal's Wager of god). And I don't think we can or should set aside the odds of truth. That's all. I've never liked Pascal's Wager for this reason, so that's my only gripe.

Xolta is not intended for anyone under 18 years old.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:02AM
subcultured at 12:53PM, Oct. 15, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
there's no such thing as GW, earth sometimes have temp shifts
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:03PM
mlai at 5:11PM, Oct. 15, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
LOL that boy is so ignorant his video just wasted x minutes of my life.

#1, I don't think he understands the definition of theory. Relativity is also a theory.

#2, “Global cooling”? He pulls that phrase out of his ass yet he doesn't know the historical truth/origin behind that “false scare by scientists.”

#3, Who care who the Greenpeach founder is? GW isn't researched by Greenpeace; it's by the entire global scientific community.

#4, Did this moron just imply that the hole in the ozone layer doesn't exist or something?

#5, LOL scientists of the world are stupid enough to measure temperature only in Manhattan and Paris. Moron.

Edit as response to video below:

OMG I didn't know inbreeding is legal in Pennsylvania. The guy above and the guy below must be cousins. They should get together and make babies. In Pennsylvania. In April.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
subcultured at 5:43PM, Oct. 15, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
this guy disproves that global warming is fake by driving around and showing snow
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:03PM
bobhhh at 2:34AM, Oct. 25, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
So there is no global warming eh? I guess I should just buy that from those guys when council after council of international climatologists say otherwise. I guess the vanisishing permafrost is a good thing, I mean who likes the cold right?

Thanks for sparing me all that hard thinking guys, I was really worried for a sec. Now I can just go ahead and pollute free from fear. Ahhh greenhouse gasses, so misunderstood. Greenhouse gasses made this country what it is today godaamit!!

Boy what a couple of yahoos those guys are.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
giadrosich at 9:32PM, Oct. 25, 2007
(offline)
posts: 68
joined: 9-7-2007
bobhhh
So there is no global warming eh? I guess I should just buy that from those guys when council after council of international climatologists say otherwise. I guess the vanisishing permafrost is a good thing, I mean who likes the cold right?

In the end, we believe what we want to belive. For many, fact yields to feeling…

Actually, the above climatologists may be driven more by agenda than anything else. Kinda like the Kyoto Agreement was more interested in damaging western economies than solving enviromental problems, as exhibited by excluding such countries as China and India, which are two of the biggest produces of CO2.

The myth of “man-made” global warming has taken on all the earmarks of bad religion, including calls for firing metorologists who don't “go along with the program” and ridicule from those who refuse to see the issue as anything but a fait accompli.

Look beyond what “council after council” has said, and find out who is funding the "international climatologists. That's the real story.

Btw, like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is actually gaining ice mass.

last edited on July 14, 2011 12:35PM
arteestx at 9:38PM, Oct. 25, 2007
(online)
posts: 285
joined: 6-1-2007
giadrosich
Btw, like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is actually gaining ice mass.
Glaciers advance and recede, gain mass in one area, lose it in another. The fact that the interior gains mass is in and of itself useless information. The real question is whether the overall mass is going up, down, or remaining the same. Do you know what the answer is?

Xolta is not intended for anyone under 18 years old.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:02AM
subcultured at 9:42PM, Oct. 25, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
i wish there really was horrible global warming, maybe people will learn to work together like in the movie “independence day”
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:03PM
giadrosich at 11:24PM, Oct. 25, 2007
(offline)
posts: 68
joined: 9-7-2007
arteestx
giadrosich
Btw, like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is actually gaining ice mass.
Glaciers advance and recede, gain mass in one area, lose it in another. The fact that the interior gains mass is in and of itself useless information. The real question is whether the overall mass is going up, down, or remaining the same. Do you know what the answer is?

I think the operative words are “gaining ice mass.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:35PM
arteestx at 5:09AM, Oct. 26, 2007
(online)
posts: 285
joined: 6-1-2007
giadrosich
arteestx
giadrosich
Btw, like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is actually gaining ice mass.
Glaciers advance and recede, gain mass in one area, lose it in another. The fact that the interior gains mass is in and of itself useless information. The real question is whether the overall mass is going up, down, or remaining the same. Do you know what the answer is?

I think the operative words are “gaining ice mass.”

No, the operative words are “the interior.” Yes, the interior is gaining ice mass, which is where glaciers always accumulate ice mass. And the edges are where ice loss typically occurs. So the questions is, is the gain of mass at the interior the same as the loss of mass at the edges? Again I ask, do you know what the overall masses of the Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets are doing?

Xolta is not intended for anyone under 18 years old.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:02AM
ozoneocean at 6:33AM, Oct. 26, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,085
joined: 1-2-2004
People that oppose “global warming” are sort of like those that oppose evolution, or the guys that say that celibacy is the answer to aids prevention… Yeah, most of the evidence points otherwise ;)

I suppose you'll just have to accept it, or do your own studies to see for yourself, because otherwise; all you're doing is being an advocate for a minority viewpoint that's mainly propped by ideology and vested interests, rather the science.

It's a very simple equation:
People saying that global warming is a problem –> A lot to lose and not much to gain.
People who say that it doesn't exist –> Everything to gain and nothing to lose.

Pretty easy to see why people say what they do, isn't it?
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:28PM
dueeast at 12:16PM, Oct. 26, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,093
joined: 5-6-2007
This really should go over to debate & discussion. It definitely qualifies as a debatable topic. :)

I find the GW debate very annoying personally, but I think it should be debated.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:17PM
bongotezz at 9:25AM, Oct. 27, 2007
(offline)
posts: 450
joined: 2-13-2007
he's missing a possibility in his argument.

global warming is happeneing but it's not our fault and we can't reverse the process. if we try we get the depression from column A and the disaster from column B.

global warming and cooling has happened in the past when humans weren't a major factor. it will happen again. doubtful it can be stopped.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:32AM
bongotezz at 10:36AM, Oct. 27, 2007
(offline)
posts: 450
joined: 2-13-2007
here's an interesting series of videos. they discuss observations of the distant past, recent past and what's happening now with the climate.


Part 1


part 2


part 3


part 4


part 5
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:32AM
mlai at 3:07PM, Oct. 27, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
Well that was an interesting documentary. Much better argued than most of the crap slung at the GW theory that are on the level of Intelligent Design. This one avoids all of the low-IQ-level anti-GW talking points so that the average well-informed layman doesn't tune it out immediately. It features mild-mannered scientists with foreign accents shown shuffling massive stacks of papers and sitting in front of mainframes. LOL it even ends with a scientist jogging to show how much of an individualist he is.

I took notes of its main points:
Mann hockeystick
troposphere temp
heat island
Moldives sea level
Antarctic ice mass
climate models

Its proponents with most face time:
Baliuna
Soon
Christy
Morner
Legates

Then I went to a site I like to go to for GW Q&A: http://www.realclimate.org
This is a site that's been cited in Congressional discussions.

With some searching, you can find discussions on all of the above things. Minus Dr. Morner and his Moldives sea level discussion, which is understandable since in the show Dr. Morner was ironically advocating the validity of GW.

And most of the ppl I listed above are criticized (in a civil scientific manner of course), citing repeated use of wrong data sets.

In conclusion, this show is a good step up. But it's NOT something pro-GW climatologists desperately try to obfuscate and hide from you because it's some sort of truth that the pro-GW conspiracy cannot refute scientifically. That's a tactic anti-GWers use.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
bongotezz at 5:32PM, Oct. 27, 2007
(offline)
posts: 450
joined: 2-13-2007
someone has a global warming blog and people read it? lol. it's not organized very well and i dont have time to read through it. while i don't doubt that global warming is happening right now i just don't buy it that people are the cause. the only way to 100% prove that people are causing it is to have two identical earths. one with people and one without. since it's not possible it will be hard to say for sure what impact people have on the climate. and the reason i know global warming is happening is from my own personal experience through out my life. when i was a kid it would almost always snow before halloween. now it rarly snows before december. and the snow melts march instead of april.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:32AM
mlai at 5:51PM, Oct. 27, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
bongotezz
someone has a global warming blog and people read it? lol.
It's not one person and it's not “some blog.” Did you miss the part where I said it's mentioned in Congressional talks?

Someone
it's not organized very well and i dont have time to read through it.
Funny. I watched that entire TV show, took notes, and browsed this site at the same time. And I found all the topics mentioned on the show discussed in this site, all with multiple reference links and pdfs of actual science papers. And all the names of the scientists from the show as well.
But I guess you just don't have the time so you'll just take a CBS show at face value.

Someone
the only way to 100% prove that people are causing it is to have two identical earths.
You're correct. Even if Hawaii is covered by the sea, there will still be ppl going “LOL it's natural Earth cycle!!1” It's very nice being on a side that can't lose.

Someone
and the reason i know global warming is happening is from my own personal experience through out my life. when i was a kid it would almost always snow before halloween. now it rarly snows before december. and the snow melts march instead of april.
OMG sir you did not just type this while sober.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
Poke Alster at 12:48PM, Oct. 29, 2007
(offline)
posts: 650
joined: 7-2-2007
I dont believe that global warming is happening so i didnt watch it
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:46PM
crocty at 1:20PM, Nov. 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 6,673
joined: 8-16-2007
Poke Alster
I dont believe that global warming is happening so i didnt watch it
Nice contribution.

Personally, I don't think the climate can rise enough to melt the north pole. I mean, it's a LOT of ice! And where I am, it's FREEZING. So, if I get global warming. I'll be warmer. WHAT THE HELL HAVE I GOT TO LOSE!?
THIS NEW SITE SUCKS I'M LEAVING FOREVER I PROMISE, GUYS.
NOT BLUFFING, I'M GONE IF YOU DON'T FIX IT.
Oh god I'm so alone someone pay attention to me
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:49AM
subcultured at 2:01PM, Nov. 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
your land?
rising sea levels would kill off a lot of land
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:03PM
mlai at 8:40PM, Nov. 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
I think crocty was just pretending to be ignorant.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:06PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved