This was always my argument...compare what happens if we do and don't do anything about "global cliate destabilization" with worst case scenarios. Then the choice doesn't look so hard. Assuming, of course, that you care about more than the next four years of your term.

Good teacher, had a similar chemistry teacher who inspired me.

Super cheesy ending there.

pretty damn good... needs another fireball or explosion at the end

How about, Take action (band-aid on the sucking chest-wound of cyclical planetary dynamics)
Not taking action (full disclosure of all agendas that stand to benefit monetarily from abusing the minds of the concerned)
The planet is changing and the powerful manipulators who rely on the construct of the global economy that they use against those who are slaves to it, don't give two bits about what monkeys do about it unless it involves spending the cash they have created on it. Cripple the elite, by denying your addictions to their construct, and watch how fast the cockroaches scurry.

The real kicker is, alternatives to oil used for anything but a lubricant, have been here for some time, kept under lock and key by our puppet masters....free, clean, non-wind and non-solar.

>> ^choggie:
The real kicker is, alternatives to oil used for anything but a lubricant, have been here for some time, kept under lock and key by our puppet masters....free, clean, non-wind and non-solar.


What exactly are those alternatives being kept away from us by conspiracy of the elite?

Here's MY Devil's Advocate:

What if we choose to act to the best of our ability (affording great costs in the process), the "Catastrophy" of Global Warming turns out to be true and yet we enact no appreciable difference. Then we are twice screwed, and have no pot to piss in. His arguement is clear, but that simplicity is too exclusionary.

First of all, very little (if anything at all) is abolute. We are defined by the variations of grey spaces around us. Secondly, I hold serious doubts as to whether we are >50% responsible for said mess, and/or can make a significant impact by our actions (also by >50% responsibility).

You remind me of Dale Harding.

I think you have completely missed his point; either you are too entrenched in your own ideals or you weren't paying attention. First, it is irrelevant whether or not man is the cause of global warming. Global Warming is happening, deal with it.


The point is we need to investigate the problem and start preparing for the consequences of global warming now, as apposed to sticking our head in the sand.

I should also make the point that you cannot get answers to the questions surrounding global warming(i.e. Do we need to double the height of our levies? Do we need to put a dike around Manhattan? etc.) unless you fund scientific research. To this affect, you should know scientific funding has not seen a major increase in 10 years.

I also credit the recent recession on the lack of pure science funding. But that is neither here nor there.

*promote


>> ^oblio70:
Here's MY Devil's Advocate:
What if we choose to act to the best of our ability (affording great costs in the process), the "Catastrophy" of Global Warming turns out to be true and yet we enact no appreciable difference. Then we are twice screwed, and have no pot to piss in. His arguement is clear, but that simplicity is too exclusionary.
First of all, very little (if anything at all) is abolute. We are defined by the variations of grey spaces around us. Secondly, I hold serious doubts as to whether we are >50% responsible for said mess, and/or can make a significant impact by our actions (also by >50% responsibility).

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, October 15th, 2007 3:59pm PDT - promote requested by MycroftHomlz.

Do you believe the earth's temperature rising one degree and the sea level rising about a foot during the next 100 years is a "crisis"?

When you remove the hysteria and junk science, that's what you're looking at.

It's a hell of a lot more likely some jihadidiot will try to detonate a suitcase nuke in a major world city in the next 50 years before the seas rise one foot and "drown the world" in a hundred.

"When you remove the hysteria and junk science, that's what you're looking at."
No. You are just making that up.

I am not sure what 'junk' science were are referring to. I try to base my opinions on published peer-reviewed research.

From what I have read, the numbers you are commenting on could be based on linear extrapolations of relatively short time scale satellite data. As of yet, I think more research needs to be done to answer definitively what we should do. In the mean time, not spending any money to figure out what should be done is just stupid.

Well QM though I think I see your simplified point, going back to the video you gotta weigh the risks and set priorities. The possibility of a suitcase nuke going off in a city compared to the possibility of complete global disaster. Both are catastrophes and both deserve action just in case they happen but if the latter happens the former will just seem like more shit thrown onto an already overloaded pile.

MycroftHomlz sez:

"You remind me of Dale Harding.

I think you have completely missed his point; either you are too entrenched in your own ideals or you weren't paying attention. First, it is irrelevant whether or not man is the cause of global warming. Global Warming is happening, deal with it."

I take exception to your "Dale Harding" reference. =P

I think you have completely missed MY point here. My point was not to argue whom is to blame but instead to point out the hole in his otherwise solid argument.

His point, unlike YOUR own point, was not to argue that Global Warming was a given (he concedes that there may still be a valid debate). Instead, he circumvents that issue and reframes the arguement as a matter of Risk Assesment, which are known/agreed-upon matters.

The flaw I point out is his oversimplification of those risks into black/white conclusions. He assumes that if we act, we can make a difference. He agrees that acting on preventative/reconstructive measures will cost us to some degree, but does not account for the effectiveness of the investment.

This means that his paradigm of "Act equals =( or =| " versus "No Act equals =) or The End Of The World" is flawed, becuase "the End Of The World" is still a factor in the "Act" column and we are still quantumly screwed.

In conclusion, His Devil's Advocate lacks the proper measure of cynicism for this arguement. Damn short-sighted optimists.

He essential says almost exactly what I said in the first 40 seconds.

So oblio70 just to clarify you said "He assumes that if we act, we can make a difference". There is no guarantee that we can change it so say the chances are very high that nothing we can do can change it are you suggesting that we do nothing? The simple fact that we never win a race means we shouldnt even try running? I mean you make it sound like if we try to stop it and have no effect then the damage is doubled, which I dont see at all because an attempt was made and the fact that if the worse case scenario (however unlikely) is true then its over anyway so there wont be anything left to double, but at least we tried.

I don't want to even delve into the issue of global warming, but just say his argument fails basic logic.

Watch me apply it to religion:

1 - God exists and we faithfully worship him - chance of acceptance into heaven
2 - God exists and we don't worship him - eternal damnation
3 - God doesn't exist and we do worship him - wasted time/money/effort
4 - God doesn't exist and we don't worship him - no change

Clearly as we have no way of knowing whether God really exists our only choice is whether to worship him or not. Here, clearly heaven/wasted time and effort is clearly preferred to eternal damnation/no change.

Grossly simplified? Damn right, because with no accounting for the probability it gives nonsense results. Not to mention the fact it takes him 10 minutes to say this is flabbergasting.

EDIT - Actually wait, yeah I shouldn't be so lazy and watch until the end.

I don't think you watched the video. He addresses your point at 4 min (e.g. Giant Mutant Space Hamsters).

The solution to our climate change issue is deceptively simple: stop using petroleum and start using hemp (along side a few other sources of energy, such as solar). No one needs to suffer. No one needs to commit to huge sacrifices. We just need to change how we do things, not what we do. The freedom of the people and the health of the environment must go hand in hand.