Global Warming...
Konohas Perverted Hermit
Join Date: 2008-09-26 Member: 65075Members
Join Date: 2008-09-26 Member: 65075Members
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">A video to make you think...</div>Here is a video about Global Warming to make you think. It isn't partial to one side or the other in anyway just a sort of open your eyes, ears, and mind type video. Very simple and only ten minutes long, enjoy.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg</a>
P.S. Please do not spam or reply till you have indeed watched the hole video.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg</a>
P.S. Please do not spam or reply till you have indeed watched the hole video.
Comments
In this one he reponds to the critisism of his other video.
His initial theory/idea:
Instead of looking at risks, we look at consequenses.
-
case a: If we do something and global warming is a threat = money lost but good job! we live! GOOD
case b: If we do something and global warming is not a threat = money lost. SEMI BAD
case c: If we don't do something and global warming is a threat = floods, disaster, broken world. BAD
case d: If we don't do something and global warming is not a threat = No loss. GOOD
-
His idea is that if
we do something = GOOD + SEMI BAD
we don't do something = GOOD + BAD
GOOD + SEMI BAD > GOOD + BAD = Do something > Don't do something.
-
The critique is that you can apply that to any case.
Do I cross the road or stay here?
I am not looking at chance of risks, and the worst outcome will happen if I cross the road! (accident, perhaps getting run over)
So I don't cross the road.
-----------------
In this video he responds to the critique by (as I see it) reexplaining his theory unchanced, but adds to his case that AAAS and NAS is supporting doing something.
So it all, in the end, boils down to him saying: "you should trust these guys, these are the ones I support" which is nothing original and is done by everyone everywhere.
The video is eyecatching with the fireworks and he IS charismatic in a nerdy way - I don't see the big deal though.
I am not educated enough to answer for or against any opinion on climate change/global warming - I just analyse this guys video.
Well, I considered turning off the heat. But then I remembered that the winters here can get pretty damn cold, and dying of hypothermia is not an acceptable cost to me. Then I thought about turning off the comp-..
Anyway, as far as thinking goes, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljbI-363A2Q" target="_blank">Shift Happens</a> made me think more.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg</a>
P.S. Please do not spam or reply till you have indeed watched the hole video.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry mate- you're a year late when the buzz phrase was "carbon footprint".
This year it's "credit crunch".
Yea.
The only viable thing to do about it is to switch from oil to clean coal tech for Americans.
<!--quoteo(post=1693585:date=Nov 16 2008, 06:46 PM:name=sherpa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sherpa @ Nov 16 2008, 06:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693585"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sorry mate- you're a year late when the buzz phrase was "carbon footprint".
This year it's "credit crunch".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
^
Yea.
The only viable thing to do about it is to switch from oil to clean coal tech for Americans.
<!--quoteo(post=1693585:date=Nov 16 2008, 06:46 PM:name=sherpa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sherpa @ Nov 16 2008, 06:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693585"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sorry mate- you're a year late when the buzz phrase was "carbon footprint".
This year it's "credit crunch".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
^
<!--c1--><div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><!--ec1--> Action Inaction
Win VERY GOOD! I won the lottery!! Lost nothing. Break even.
Lose Lost 2 bucks. Little bad. Lost nothing. Break even.<!--c2--></div><!--ec2-->
By this map, while I could choose inaction and not gain or lose anything, if I played, i'd only lose 2 bucks if I lose. If I <i>won</i> though, I'd gain millions! So why doesn't everyone play the lottery? Anyone see the flaw in this logic?
The reality is that if I won the lottery half as often as I lost, I'd easily rob the company which sponsers the lottery of all their money. Of course that isn't true. The lottery company plays the rules of statistics which say that the amount of money I'd win from the lottery times the chance of winning is <i>lower</i> than the cost of a lottery ticket. Works exactly the same way in casinos. House always wins.
So if logic is flawed in this example, why isn't it flawed in his? It's the same thing. Only difference here is that we don't know the risks. The argument is not whether or not bad things would happen if we choose inaction and the world goes to hell, nor is the argument whether or not we can prevent these changes if we did try to stop it. The argument lies in the chance of these cases happening.
For me to worry about global warming, you not only have to prove to me that the problem exists, but you have to prove to me that we can in fact do something about it. I don't agree with this "try until your neck breaks" mentality on saving the planet. If the planet is indeed undergoing global warming, I could buy an air filter and leave it outside 24/7 and never do a single thing. Correct approach should be a smart one, not a "omggottadosomethingwereallgonnadie" one. Then, when has this ever not been true?
<!--c1--><div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><!--ec1--> Action Inaction
Win VERY GOOD! I won the lottery!! Lost nothing. Break even.
Lose Lost 2 bucks. Little bad. Lost nothing. Break even.<!--c2--></div><!--ec2-->
By this map, while I could choose inaction and not gain or lose anything, if I played, i'd only lose 2 bucks if I lose. If I <i>won</i> though, I'd gain millions! So why doesn't everyone play the lottery? Anyone see the flaw in this logic?
The reality is that if I won the lottery half as often as I lost, I'd easily rob the company which sponsers the lottery of all their money. Of course that isn't true. The lottery company plays the rules of statistics which say that the amount of money I'd win from the lottery times the chance of winning is <i>lower</i> than the cost of a lottery ticket. Works exactly the same way in casinos. House always wins.
So if logic is flawed in this example, why isn't it flawed in his? It's the same thing. Only difference here is that we don't know the risks. The argument is not whether or not bad things would happen if we choose inaction and the world goes to hell, nor is the argument whether or not we can prevent these changes if we did try to stop it. The argument lies in the chance of these cases happening.
For me to worry about global warming, you not only have to prove to me that the problem exists, but you have to prove to me that we can in fact do something about it. I don't agree with this "try until your neck breaks" mentality on saving the planet. If the planet is indeed undergoing global warming, I could buy an air filter and leave it outside 24/7 and never do a single thing. Correct approach should be a smart one, not a "omggottadosomethingwereallgonnadie" one. Then, when has this ever not been true?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you watch the video he takes into account percentages which helps his case. If you take percentages into account in your chart it's easy to see that the "little bad" outweighs the infinitesimally small chance of "big good".
Here's the big clincher, did you know most technologies having to do with combating global warming also benefit sustainability? OMIGOSH.
Out of interest, Hawkeye, could you give me an example of a "omggottadosomethingwereallgonnadie" approach to combating global warming?
Bravo. I think you pinpointed the heart of the argument. I argue that their percentages aren't accurate. Consider it is not exactly an unbiased source. If I asked a animal rights group what are the percentages of companies which do harmful testing on animals, I think you'd find it is remarkably different than the number of companies who claim to do harmful testing on animals. They're both biased sources for that matter, but my point is that if you're a scientist and have been given funding to prove that global warming is in fact occuring by an organization that would benefit from such evidence.. they're not asking if.. they're asking "how much evidence can you find?" You'd likely not see much continued funding if you simply told them you couldn't find significant evidence.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Out of interest, Hawkeye, could you give me an example of a "omggottadosomethingwereallgonnadie" approach to combating global warming?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thought you'd never ask. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
In my city, pollution is on the rise, no doubt due to the increased production and growth of our city in general. The mayor is against pollution, which ordinarily wouldn't be a bad thing except he's one of those "omggottadosomethingwereallgonnadie" activists. The section of the city we live in is the historical district and arguably the most trafficked location. The mayor decided to prevent any cars, busses, trams of any kind from moving from about a 5 kilometer radius area, including my residence, for a full work day.
Shame that I had to work that day. I had to wake up early so I could walk to a bus station about 5 kilometers away (only to wait another 10 minutes) so it could take me to work. I would have driven except my car was parked near our building, and therefore couldn't be driven in that area. I even considered driving anyway, but wouldn't you know it? There were police patrolling the area giving tickets on sight for people driving in this area.
This is not a solution to fix pollution. Not considering that I'm sure one day out of the week for a small area in a city will have ultimately very little impact on pollution output.
The mayor has demanded that new cars produced will be regulated by their pollution emissions and that cars which don't meet the minimal standards will get ticketed. I had one such car (deemed type 'Euro 0'), if not only because it was about 10 years old. So I bought a new car with the best emissions for pollution available at the time ('Euro 4'), and the mayor has since introduced two 'better' levels of pollution emission ('Euro 5' and 'Euro 6') since then and has decreased the tolerance. If he does this another two times, formerly the 'best' pollution emission rate when we bought it will soon be below the minimal tolerance level, and I'll have to buy yet another car.
Might be true that it helps against pollution, but why does the burden have to be on the people to buy new cars? Makes more sense to push car manufacturers to decrease the pollution emission sold. The theory is that it will boost the economy (though being forced to buy a car during a bad economy will only make people buy less in general in my opinion). The mayor 'coincidentally' has his hands in car stocks, which might be another reason why.
Point is that there are better alternatives, but yet those set on the "omggottadosomethingwereallgonnadie" mentality will choose the quickest and usually the most destructive manner of remedying the environment, and I think that approach is like digging a hole and throwing the dirt on your head rather than outside the hole.