Bossnass

"The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See" is what it is titled, although I wish it was called something else. Its 9 and a half minutes, but I don't regret taking the time to watch it.

Basically a video of some guy that discusses Climate Change and basic options that we, as a global society have. He presents a very simple matrix of future possibilities and a compelling argument that we need to spend money to take action. He also asks for people to refute the logic he uses.

I can't refute it, but I'm coming from a perspective that I already agreed with him.

A basic presumption is that we can actually do something, if we invest enough money. I personally suspect that reducing greenhouse gasses is a critical step. I think greater efficiency of energy use is a critical step as well. Honestly, my question, assuming you buy the logic in the video, is what areas do the costs need to be incurred?

MexicanOnABike

nice video! I like the absolutes. I think that's important for people to see when it comes to this. Either you live happy or YOU FUCKING DIE!

__________________

- Movie Reviews - Ratings-

aceventura3

I saw a couple of flaws. In his column A options, his first assumption that if we are not the cause of global warming and we take action the worst case is global depression. Then his second assumption that if we are the cause and we take action there is no mention of global depression. If the costs of taking action will lead to a global depression, that will happen regardless of the cause. This scenerio exists in two of his boxes.

The worst case scenario of us taking no action also exists in two boxes. Again the cause is not material. If the globe is going to warm, the consequences are the same regardless of the cause.

The cause is not material to the question as it relates to his presentation of his argument.

The real questions are - Is the globe warming? Can we do something about it? If we do something are the consequences of taking action better or worse than not taking action?

reasonable people can come to the same conclusion as he did, but there are flaws in his use of logic.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Bossnass

The position as I understood it is: "Is GCC is going to occur withan effect on global economy/life as we know it" and "we try to make things better or don't"

GCC doesn't happen - we try to stop it - waste of money=depression
GCC happens - we try to stop it - money well spent, happy

and GCC doesn't happen, we don't try - no waste of money, happy
GCC happen, we don't try - apocalyptic reprecussions

I didn't interpret it as depression with costs, but depression with unnecessary costs. If money is wasted trying to stop something that isn't happening (or that we can't stop) then we could get a depression, but if the money is spent and GCC is 'stopped' (or we create an ecomony prepared for the future climate) then we are less likely to get a depression.



Exactly the point- the cause is not material; climate change will happen or it won't. Rational people will accept that a warming trend has been recently observed. Climate change takes place.

I'm not interested in this discussion becoming a debate on if or if not it is taking place and if or if not human activity is accelerating the (natural geological timeline scale) climate change.

The argument put forth in the video is that the risk of not taking action is extraordinary. Its a global prisoner's dilemma.

aceventura3

Yes. I see the mistake I made.

But another issue is the worst case scenario where we take no action. I guess people can debate what those consequences would be. We already experience many of the things he describes. And with global climate change and no action, he assumes everyone is harmed and the net is negative. Perhaps some people benefit. Certainly people currently owning ocean front property may be flooded out, but what about the people currently in higher elevations and in colder climates? Do they benefit? Perhaps some areas may experience more drought, but other areas will have more access to water. Perhaps we can't grow food in some places but will be able to grow food in other places. After all isn't change a constant?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

matthew330

When that goof looks at us with those dreamy, genuinely concerned eyes and says "take action", what's he asking?

a. After listening to my theory, please take action to prevent the possibility (even if you think it's slight) that hujmans are causing global warming,

Or...

b. Throw caution to the wind and let Al Gore tell you how to live your life (but please don't pay attention to what he does in his own).

Bossnass

Granted, the argument is presented in a worst case scenario for both the nonGCC with cost and the GCC- no cost.

I think that the net change could work out in the long run. But in the short term, I don't think it will. Things are getting warmer and sea levels are rising.
During the last 'interglacial period' where there were no remaining glaciers (in the neighborhood of 100,000 years ago) sea levels were 4-5 metres higher than they currently are. A high majority of global population lives in those areas. I'm not saying that those 5 billionish can't relocate further inland, or that coastal construction can't be revolutionized, but it isn't going to be cheap or easy in any scenario. If agricultural backbone areas enter extended drought before the then viable high altitude/latitude areas are developed, there will be shortages of staples.

Change is a constant. I'm of the belief that human activity has accelerated a natural long term cycle. But I want to emphasize that that is not the point. The point is discussing what we will have to do, the costs we will have to inccur, to slow the climate change and or adapt the planet to the future climate.

So what part of the argument that goof presents are you refuting? Throwing caution to the wind would be the 'spend nothing' not the 'let Al Gore tell you how to live your life'. Al Gore has little bearing on this discussion, will you?

Not to mention you seem to have misunderstood the basic premise of the video: not to get caught up on if or if not climate change is happening. 2/4 of the options are based on GCC not happening. Which of the four scenarios would you select?

matthew330

If I wanted to be a smart ass I would say - I would choose the one where nobody does anything and the world is perfect.

There's not 4 scenario's to select from, there's two. Action or not action. All nine minutes is convincing us of we must act, logic demands it. Now that you've got all this pent up energy cause he's 'splained it all for you, how you gonna act ?

Which was my point, what exactly do you think he wants his audience to do after watching this. It's pretty obvious to me. "There's nothing you can do, vote for the democrats, they'll take care of you".

Vote for democratic politicians who've proven over an over the only way they know how to make a law is to exaggerate its negative implications (e.g - smoking bans).

Bossnass

I'm Canadian. I won't be voting for democrats or republicans, and incidentally I voted for the Conservatives in our last federal election.

Ignore the democratic slant that you could apply. I honestly didn't observe his 'take action, inform' closing as a 'vote democrat' campaign. Granted, I'm not living in the same polarized political climate.

I took it as a sound argument that merits discussion. Try and make it non-partisan. If there are two choices; action or non-action, would you honestly select non-action?

I watched this video and tried to refute the logical argument selected, and I'm trying to spark discourse towards two ends. First, can someone poke a hole in the argument presented. Second, because I appreciate the way it is presented, to spread the word.


Edit-

http://www.youtube.com/user/wonderingmind42

Seems that he has videos that respond to various criticisms (including that posted by Ace). He tries to take it lightheartedly and as such is a little harder to take seriously. It looks like this has been dug a bunch already. Actually I'm finding I'm late to the party... has this been brought up before here?

If you take the time to watch, skip Patching Holes #1 and go directly to #2 and #3.


Edit the Third -

I'd really like someone to take the time to watch at least #3. I've read compelling remarks for and against human-caused climate change on these boards; this video presents an easy, light hearted, but complelling argument as well. I don't know if it is really that solid because I'm already biased towards his poistion. However if someone was on the fence it may pull them to one side or the other.

Also, granted to mathew330, I can see now how you perceived the video as political, but I'd still like to try to keep this non-partisan.

aceventura3

I think the value of alternatives a vastly underestimated in the worst case scenario, and there does not seem to be a consideration of the principle of diminishing returns as it may apply to CO2 emissions increasing the earths temperature.

For example: Cereal crop yields will decrease in some areas and increase in other areas. In some cases there are two planting cycles in a 12 month period. We are not going to have a period were area A produced cereal crops in one year and produces none in the next, while area B produced none in one year and produces some in the next. when it comes to staples, we have to look at yields per acre rather than all or nothing. Sure give the relative speed of global climate change, it is dramatic in the context of the planets history, but not in terms of our ability to produce food.

Another example would be perhaps an increased use of sea food as opposed to beef. If we consume more sea food while the beef industry shrinks that would actually cause less production of green house gases.

Another example: Cold weather related deaths may decrease off-setting an increase in heat related deaths.

I am not sure I can accept his worst case scenario as even a remote possibility.

Well, how different will the planet be? Current CO2 levels are at 380 ppm in the atmosphere, I saw one projection (October issue of National Geographic) taking us to 800 ppm by 2057 if no action is taken, with a projected average increase of 9 degrees F. When reading descriptions of the impact of that kind of a temperature increase, there are often contradictions. For example: Will there be more rain and less rain. Will there be higher humidity and be drier? Will there be less vegetation, under conditions where vegetation would thrive? Will our planet naturally respond to increased CO2 levels, mitigating increasing human output? My gut tells me that we should not do anything overly dramatic, but continue to make efforts to be better stewards of the planet.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Ustwo

The pop can shine behind him in the video reminds me of my youth.

Anyways, the problem is his extremes (plus he left out another scenario).

The extreme global warming crowd has pretty much all life on earth ending, so yes in a prisoners dilemma game, thats the one you want to avoid at all costs.

The box he didn't have was, what if global warming is real, and not human caused. In this scenario we will be broke and still all hell will break loose.

You could argue this for any problem.

Take GM foods.

The worst case scenario to some would be a complete breakdown of food production and millions starving. Therefore we shouldn't use GM foods.

Nuclear power.

The worst case scenario to some would be 100's of square miles contaminated and unfit for human life, therefore no nuclear power.

So whats the real question isn't his 'logic' but his costs, costs which might be a wee bit exaggerated.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Bossnass

I agree that the worst case scenario presented is extreme; but it is duly identified as a worst case scenario. In the original video he proposes that the view make a similar matrix with best case scenarios. When limited to the 4 options, the only case where where inaction is justified, in my opinion is would be selecting the best cases of non action and the worst cases of action.

As far as 'how bad it could be', I don't know. I don't know how much the world will change and I'll be one of the first to admit that I don't think I'm qualified to make accurate predictions. However, Ace, I'm familiar with the NG article you refer to, especially the 'map' insert. The real changes in temperature observed from 76?-2005 and the changes in the precipitation was one of the more alarming/effective graphical presentations that I've seen. I know that National Geographic is ecologically biased, but I still think it a credible source. I wasn't pleased with the emphasis of CO2, but it remains the most visible and effect-able variable.

I'm pretty certain that we'll hit the 1-2*C points, considering the current lack of action and the coal-fueled modernization of China and India. The decrease in standard crop yields and the corresponding increase in higher altitude/latitude crop yields is something we can adapt to on a global basis. I'm alarmed at the 30-40% of known species becoming extinct, the highly populated coastal areas being lost,and the decrease of fresh water supplies.

Further, changes in agricultural climates will be much more difficult to deal with intra-country. North America may do fine, assuming that Canada's future climate and water supply will be easily accessed by the US. The EU would be in a similar situation; but what would brazil do if it could no longer grow the critical sugarcane featured in the same article of National Geographic.

As noted in my previous post, there have been 3 followup videos. The first pretty much says nothing except that future videos will respond to critiques. The second and the third do so.

This includes a response to the selection of the issue (GM foods, Nuclear). And that the first matrix was oversimplified and didn't include options for non-human caused/unfixable global warming.

The third video in particular notes that there is a scientific 'consensus' (or as close as we are going to get) that climate change is real, very important, and that humans are contributing, and we should do something.

Ustwo, I know at one point I thought you were the resident 'human-related global warming denier". I honestly don't know if you are, were, or if I have you confused with someone else. The third video presents compelling quotes from peer reviewed publications. It does so in a manner aimed at the public, not the academic (I don't think he means to be condescending). That said, I would be very interested in reading your response to the video "Patching Holes #3"

Finally, I'm looking for real answers that the public could push for. I can't see us, as a global community, or even as a north American community, (or in particular, my oil and coal powered Albertan community) taking overly drastic measures. But what efforts can be taken to be 'better stewards' of the planet. Sure, I have high efficiency appliances and compact fluorescent lightbulbs and drive gutless low emission cars. But on my task list is the design for a large concrete pad for an oilsands railway loading platform.

Big ideas;practical ideas,etc. In theory, if I should ever join a lobby group pressuring my MP (member of parliament) for action, what action is there?

Ustwo

I prefer, evidence requiring only person on tfp with a degree in ecology

Seriously though this topic has grown very tiresome for me, I've been watching this debate develop for 25 years, and its all pretty much the same shit, different day. Its gone from interesting scientific inquiry to leftist political agenda.

I see the evidence, scant true evidence as no proof of human contributions making a significant difference. The climate models are ALL wrong, as demonstrated by their lack of 'predicting' past climates, yet I'm suppose to run around screaming the sky is falling while blaming 'big oil'.

Whats amusing is that the press has gone from ignoring people like me to trying to ridicule us instead. That can only mean we are gaining ground.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Bossnass

Indeed, as the evidence requiring TFPer with an ecology degree, what is your response to the

[Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change]
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742

and the [AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change]?
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/..._statement.pdf

Both are presented (in the videos) as evidence as a near consensus of the scientific community on global warming. Both are short and presented in a 'for public consumption' manner, but they do seem to say with authority that GCC is real and human activity is contributing.

The debate has been developing for a long time, but I think that is is starting to come to a head. I'm not suggesting that you run around like chicken little, I'm looking for input from the TFP.

A friend of mine, a 'climatologist' [post-doctorate earth and atmospheric science researcher] is the person who initially sent my a link to the video. He seems credible in the field. He agrees that past climate models were not accurate, but also notes the Scientific Process never starts out 100% right. I don't know if "ALL wrong" is fully applicable.

I also don't want to debate select points; I want to discuss the merits and dangers of taking action or not and what that action could be.

tecoyah

Actually, I think it means that the larger % of population that do see the links...are rather confused that someone of such an education does not.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

roachboy

personally, i would appreciate an actual explanation of why it is that folk who argue that there is nothing to be done regarding global warming--or even, in other context, whether there is such a phenomenon--are american conservatives and almost no-one else. the real question, then, is the linkages between more general political positions and positions relative to this matter.

it'd be nice to have such an explanation, preferably from one of the more conservative folk.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dc_dux

Leaving out the extremes, which I agree are counter-productive to a rational discussion.

In the US alone, we have at least 10 federal agencies that regulate genetically modified foods.

We have at least 5 federal agencies that regulate nuclear power generation and waste storage and transportation.

What is wrong with re-examining regulations that control the human induced emissions of C02 and attempting to minimize those emissions through tougher regulations that can be accomplished in an economically sustainable manner?

California is attempting to do it through legislation enacted last year that has a goal of reducing C02 emissions to 1990 levels in the next twenty years and considers the economic impact at the same time. CO2 emissions cross state lines and national borders...so why not at the federal level?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire