The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See

[shropshire 0]

Climate Change Argument ..... interesting

P.S Hey repost police .. find someone who cares....

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[airdvr 200]

I wish it was that simple.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[CornishChris 5]

Why isn't it?

Either there is man made GCC or there isn't. Yes there are shades of grey but the risks posed by doing nothing outweigh the risks posed by doing something. Yes there are countries that will not look at it the same way but we need to start working towards a solution rather than burying our heads in the sand and ignoring it.

Think of a simple car analogy. On any journey you are either going to not have an accident or have an accident. You wear your seatbelt because the risk of the results from not wearing it if you have an accident far outweigh the inconvenience of wearing it.

Why shouldn't we assume that man made GCC is real and do what we can to minimise the effects rather than spend all our time arguing about whether it is or it isn't?

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people

[shropshire 0]

airdvr

I wish it was that simple.

I think that it is.
As he suggests, you can always try to split his rows and columns to add more variables, but he's covered the Biggest Picture.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[shropshire 0]

BTW .. it's not the answer that I wanted (mine was do nothing and certainly don't give money to folks who are going to make a fortune from the rest of us!!) ... but I accept his answer .... bugger

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[lawrocket 3]

In the first couple of minutes he puts on the square the cost of action is we do something and it isn't true. He limits his cost to onlly the economic costs. He doesn't even consider the human cost. The lives that will be lost. The human suffering that will occur.

That's not the horror story they want us to hear. Inherent in his argument is that "No matter what the cost, we must do something in case it IS anthropogenic."

There is but one happy face. That is if we do nothing and humans are not the cause. In every other scenario, people suffer. The guy doesn't seem to recognize that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

CornishChris

Why shouldn't we assume that man made GCC is real and do what we can to minimise the effects rather than spend all our time arguing about whether it is or it isn't?

"what we can" - that's the real problem

as an individual, I can live in an efficient way and try not to muck up my environment. Even take the time to learn about some things that are bad that aren't obvious (for some, it's battery disposal, mercury handling, light bulb disposal and use, etc) and act accordingly too - I think most people feel that way regardless of their position on GW. no problems with this, and it's self motivating as it's 'most of the time' also the most effective in terms of self interest too



on the other hand -

some people think "what we can" is to invoke extremely harsh and expensive laws on the rest of the population (while living extravagent lifestyles themselves disregarding the very thing they are preaching)

some people think 'what we can' is to establish a governing body that penalizes entire countries and transfers power to power hungry groups that don't do anything other than gather power

some people think we should demonize entire cultures that do a good job, and ignore other countries that are devastating the very air we breath

some people think we should use it to leverage crazy political agendas that aren't related to better environment at all

some people think we should use it as an excuse to subsidize dead end technologies so that their buddies can score quick riches

etc etc ad nauseum

it's not that simple - once you get beyond each individual voluntarily doing what they can, it gets out of control and intrusive and exploitative

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[brenthutch 388]

There are additional possibilitys that were not enumerated such as:

Climate change is real, humans are the cause, but the economic devastation wrought by efforts to reduce CO2 levels, backfires, resulting in an explosion in CO2 rates as small,illegal, third world, cottage factories replace large, efficient, western ones. And the planets ability to up-take CO2 is greatly reduced as the world turns to burning wood due to the high rates of electricity. (If you want to see what this looks like see Haiti)

[winsor 187]

shropshire

Climate Change Argument ..... interesting

P.S Hey repost police .. find someone who cares....

I got about halfway into the table he was populating and concluded that the guy is an idiot. I am not curious regarding where he went with it.

[airdvr 200]

Why?...first off how about you stepping up and quit wasting fossil fuels jumping from airplanes. Or driving your car. And even if we did everything we possibly could to reduce emissions, China and India need to come along for the ride or it won't amount to a popcorn fart in a windstorm. And we'll be looking up at them from the bottom of a deep economic well.

I want to know what will power all of those semi trucks that bring you the things you want on a daily basis. It's a nice thought and all but maybe you guys should stick to solving world hunger or something you have a better chance of accomplishing.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[quade 3]

winsor

***Climate Change Argument ..... interesting

P.S Hey repost police .. find someone who cares....

I got about halfway into the table he was populating and concluded that the guy is an idiot. I am not curious regarding where he went with it.

Basic game theory like you'd get in a 101 class.

Essentially, regardless of other potential outcomes, you first eliminate the strictly dominated ones (ones you absolutely can not "win" with). In this case, it makes sense to eliminate the potential consequences of catastrophic global warming since virtually any other outcome is better than that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[RonD1120 58]

shropshire

Climate Change Argument ..... interesting

P.S Hey repost police .. find someone who cares....

Did you forward his message to the leaders of China, India, Pakistan or Russia?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[lawrocket 3]

Absolutely, Paul. Because we are all about doing everything necessary to eliminate any and all possible problems regardless of the probability that they will actually occur. This isn't "game theory." It's risk assessment and risk management. For that we better have a decent identification of the risks.

What are these problems that anything is better than? Sure, the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic Icecaps will be devastating to coastal areas. For that to happen all we need is a few hundred thousand years and a 30 degree Celsius increase in temperature at the poles and, yes, they'll melt. So this is by absolutely NO means an immediate problem.

What else? Increase in hurricanes? No - probably a decrease due to the decrease in wind shear. Increase in world temperatures? Thus meaning that there's more arable land. They'll grow oranges in Georgia and peaches in the Carolinas and bananas in Florida?

What are the devastating problems that are LIKELY to occur in, say, the next century? Let's plot forward the trends and see what is likely to happen and go from there. Because it looks like the predictions are that the climate will be so good we'll be adding a few billion more people.

Here's where I'm surprised. Maybe even shocked. Why is the AGW crowd so busy denying what the data is showing instead of saying, "Look! What we've done to combat climate change is effective. It's managed to stabilize but that's not good enough. We need to reverse it to lead to a better climate for everybody."

That will happen. It the climate cools of remains the same, they'll say this is proof that what they've been doing worked. If it warms, then they were right all along.

Here's another thought: we've had two massive tsunamis in the last decade that killed hundreds of thousands of people. Why not put up a 90 foot concrete wall from Eureka to Vancouver, BC? And then fortify Juneau and Ketchikan and Sitka? The Cascadia fault WILL rupture and a massive tsunami WILL hit. Not may. It will. And hundreds of thousands of lives are at risk.

Is it because such protection would be so expensive and disruptive to quality of life as to make such a thing pretty much unworthy of serious consideration? Yes. Is it that we have no grave decular sin to blame for Gaia being Gaia? We can't blame the petrochemical for earthquakes or tsunamis (but we'll blame fracking when it happens, anyay) because earthquakes and tsunamis happen just like blizzards and heat waves and tornadoes used to. But they don't just happen, any more. The Koch brothers now control all of those.

What we do is we have tsunami alarms, tell people to seek high ground, put up signs on how to get there and get video. We don't relocate every village and city along the Northern Pacific coast. We don't fortify. We adapt and plan for it.

Why is climate change different from earthquakes and tsunamis? Why don't we move Key West? New Orleans is sinking and we can't stop it. We just accept it.

Climate change is different. Why is it so damned unique among the problems that nature presents?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

Dude. Chill.

I was simply explaining the game theory logic in the video.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[brenthutch 388]

quade

Dude. Chill.

I was simply explaining the game theory logic in the video.

Ass handed, tail tucked.

[quade 3]

brenthutch

***Dude. Chill.
I was simply explaining the game theory logic in the video.

Ass handed, tail tucked.

Oh puleeze . . . I'm actually more concerned about the danger of lawrocket busting a vein. As it is, he failed to address the logical fallacies of the video (yes, there are a couple). I'm not entirely certain he even watched it though, he simply reflexively barked like a toy poodle.

Lawrocket said, "This isn't "game theory." It's risk assessment and risk management. For that we better have a decent identification of the risks."

Uh . . . dude . . . that's what game theory is.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mistercwood 287]

RonD1120

***Climate Change Argument ..... interesting

P.S Hey repost police .. find someone who cares....

Did you forward his message to the leaders of China, India, Pakistan or Russia?

Can't speak for the last three, but last I checked China had directly approached our government for assistance in drafting their own emmissions reduction plans after seeing the work we'd done so far...

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[brenthutch 388]

I'm sorry I thought "game theory" was more sophisticated than two, dumbed down binary choices.

[quade 3]

brenthutch

I'm sorry I thought "game theory" was more sophisticated than two, dumbed down binary choices.

Again, go back to what I initially said, "...like you'd get in a 101 class." The 2x2 matrix is day one even at some place like Yale School of Economics.

http://oyc.yale.edu/economics/econ-159/lecture-1

BTW, this is a terrific lecture series.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver