Change the world!
- Thread starter Nanor
- Start date
Taffy
New Member
What I find most terrifying about this video is that all arguments against it posted as comments have been censored as 'spam' by those supporting it. Freedom of speech, eh?
I still don't buy it. The bottom left box, box "Yes True", isn't complete. Firstly, who says we could possibly alter the climate on the globe, especially in such a small time scale, and secondly, you've still spent the same amount of money as you have in the box above, which says Global Economic Depression. Just because climate change turns out to be true doesn't mean it's all sweet happiness. You still have a depression.
But this is the key point against this mans argument. A global economic depression would result in all the "catastrophes" (I liked the subtle propaganda he put in there btw) he mentions in the bottom right hand box, minus the environmental one.
Also, I practically ROFLed at the sea level rise of 20 feet he mentioned. The top rise would be about 34 centimetres. He said "It's like something out of science fiction". It's fiction alright. And how can he make the claims about the environmental impacts GL would have? US breadbasket would be turned to dust eh? I'd like to read the conclusive scientific evidence that he uses to back that up. Come to think of it, I'd like to see conclusive scientific evidence of the global warming theory. Hell, I'd like to see a global warming theory, because I haven't come across such a thing before.
The whole pro Global Warming thing is bad science at it's worst. No theory, no evidence, no conclusion. And forget the whole 'what about the polar bears?' thing, because polar bear populations are rising in the world as a whole (According to new research, the numbers of the giant predator have grown by between 15 and 25 per cent over the last decade. SOURCE)
I still don't buy it. The bottom left box, box "Yes True", isn't complete. Firstly, who says we could possibly alter the climate on the globe, especially in such a small time scale, and secondly, you've still spent the same amount of money as you have in the box above, which says Global Economic Depression. Just because climate change turns out to be true doesn't mean it's all sweet happiness. You still have a depression.
But this is the key point against this mans argument. A global economic depression would result in all the "catastrophes" (I liked the subtle propaganda he put in there btw) he mentions in the bottom right hand box, minus the environmental one.
Also, I practically ROFLed at the sea level rise of 20 feet he mentioned. The top rise would be about 34 centimetres. He said "It's like something out of science fiction". It's fiction alright. And how can he make the claims about the environmental impacts GL would have? US breadbasket would be turned to dust eh? I'd like to read the conclusive scientific evidence that he uses to back that up. Come to think of it, I'd like to see conclusive scientific evidence of the global warming theory. Hell, I'd like to see a global warming theory, because I haven't come across such a thing before.
The whole pro Global Warming thing is bad science at it's worst. No theory, no evidence, no conclusion. And forget the whole 'what about the polar bears?' thing, because polar bear populations are rising in the world as a whole (According to new research, the numbers of the giant predator have grown by between 15 and 25 per cent over the last decade. SOURCE)
Nanor
Well-Known Member
It hasn't been censored? It's been hidden. There's no violation of Freedom of Speech when someone disagrees with what you're saying.
I'm going to speak for the "pro" lobby because I've independently arrived at the same conclusion as the guy in that video: the risk of not acting outweighs the risk of acting. It becomes a straight-forward risk-mitigation exercise, as far as I'm concerned.
However, I do not arrive at the assessment of risk lightly.
I'd urge reading of Wikipedia's article on Global Warming, including following up on its references. I've read the full article and I intend to start chasing down the references when I get the chance. It does seem fairly coherent, though.
I've been paying attention to this issue for the past 15 years, though more lightly than I should have. To me, it seems to be pretty obvious that all is not well as far as our climate is concerned. The only question, as far as I'm concerned, is whether actions we can take can help mitigate the climate problems we're starting to and will continue to face in increasing hostility and frequency. If we can't, we're already in for trouble but I don't intend to give up without a fight whatever the case!
However, I do not arrive at the assessment of risk lightly.
I'd urge reading of Wikipedia's article on Global Warming, including following up on its references. I've read the full article and I intend to start chasing down the references when I get the chance. It does seem fairly coherent, though.
I've been paying attention to this issue for the past 15 years, though more lightly than I should have. To me, it seems to be pretty obvious that all is not well as far as our climate is concerned. The only question, as far as I'm concerned, is whether actions we can take can help mitigate the climate problems we're starting to and will continue to face in increasing hostility and frequency. If we can't, we're already in for trouble but I don't intend to give up without a fight whatever the case!
waterproofbob
Junior Administrator
I'd agree that I'd rather act than not. As most of the things that are involved in acting are generally beneficial to standard of life anyway I don't see why you wouldn't want to improve the way we live. Yes for some it may cause inconveniences but they'd be things you'd get used to quite quickly. The world has become fat and happy, the system currently allows us to be comfortable and live well so people are reluctant to change it.
Well, it's not so much cleaning up the mess as stopping creating it...
Sort of your "lets stop making land mines" thing, rather than "let's pick up the land mines". So while I'm sure spending money on picking up land mines are all good and well (I believe we spend quite a bit of our tax money here in Sweden on that), trying to prevent the humongous costs that will come of our messing up the climate is definitely important too. That being said, it's a bad comparison, since one is charity (there are no land mines in Sweden, although we have produced our fair share, so yes it's taking responsibility for one's actions as well) and the other is self-preservation.
edit: while we're on the subject of "things that are worse than global climate change", let me bring up nuclear weapons. Now there are numbers I could show you, but the bottom line is: there's enough nukes in the world to kill everyone on the planet numerous times. Due to the reluctance of certain countries to let go of their stack, or in some cases upgrading it, certain other countries won't let go of theirs. And those certain other countries don't necessarily have super good control over where their nukes are, or who they're sold to. And if you have a weapon that's supposed to discourage by fear of retaliation, what happens when someone fires one like those on you?
(I recently joined IPPNW, so I'm getting a bit worked up on this particular subject... sorry for thread hijack.)
Sort of your "lets stop making land mines" thing, rather than "let's pick up the land mines". So while I'm sure spending money on picking up land mines are all good and well (I believe we spend quite a bit of our tax money here in Sweden on that), trying to prevent the humongous costs that will come of our messing up the climate is definitely important too. That being said, it's a bad comparison, since one is charity (there are no land mines in Sweden, although we have produced our fair share, so yes it's taking responsibility for one's actions as well) and the other is self-preservation.
edit: while we're on the subject of "things that are worse than global climate change", let me bring up nuclear weapons. Now there are numbers I could show you, but the bottom line is: there's enough nukes in the world to kill everyone on the planet numerous times. Due to the reluctance of certain countries to let go of their stack, or in some cases upgrading it, certain other countries won't let go of theirs. And those certain other countries don't necessarily have super good control over where their nukes are, or who they're sold to. And if you have a weapon that's supposed to discourage by fear of retaliation, what happens when someone fires one like those on you?
(I recently joined IPPNW, so I'm getting a bit worked up on this particular subject... sorry for thread hijack.)