The first thing I noticed, is that he says: Global Warming and Global Climate Change are the same.
The other thing I noticed was: whatever we do, we are screwed anyway. If we do a lot, it will cost a lot, we will get into a worldwide depression. Whether Global Warming and all he mentions really happens or not. If we do nothing, we won't go into a depression, but sealevels rise and land will overflow, well, you've heard him. Or that won't happen, and we all live happily everafter, but depressed and all... How happy is that?
Personally, I don't think mankind can do a lot. Not in the way we are organised now. We can't get along, let alone we can come up with a solution we all agree on.
Nature will take its course, no matter what we do or don't. Scary thought eh? Nature took its course for the past few millions of years. It made the dinosaurs go extinct. Nothing humans could do about it, nothing humans had to do with it. Are humans next to go extinct? Is there anything humans can do about it? Nature is bigger than we are. Much bigger...
Which doesn't mean we shouldn't take care of the planet we live on. But I don't think we should panic either.
Just my two cents...
dog77_1999
Forum Elite
Posts: 1239
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:59 pm
Yes major holes indeed. The biggest hole is what he addressed, the probalibility of climate change happening. He's basically acknowledging the critismisms at hand, but he says it's too complicated for him to explain and professionals should be left to do it.
In any case, I am in that box where this is going to happen regardless of what we do and that we just need to adapt to the new climate.
DerbyX
CKA Uber
Posts: 20757
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:13 pm
CanadianJeff wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI
Watch that first.
He kind of brings a new idea to the table...personally I don't really know what to think. Anyone see any major holes?
If the argument for Global warming is valid, then given it's premise is true it's conclusion MUST be true.
In his video, he says that the possibilities are that it could be true, or false. Since he has already acknowledged that, given the premise of global warming is true he can still have a conclusion that goes both ways, then he fits into the very definition of invalid.
Besides, since he doesn't establish the validity of Global Climate Change, he's basically advising that we chance it. Or buy a lottery ticket in his words.
Zipperfish
CKA Uber
Posts: 12647
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:17 pm
That guy is hilarious. A fresh take on things, wot.
He did miss one scenario--what if global warming is real and catastrophic--but humankind is NOT a significant contributor to it. Then, regardless of any action we take, we're buggered. If we spend billions cutting carbon emissions, then we'll be kicking ourselves because that money would have been better spent preparing for the climatic onslaught--refugees, war, perstilence, famine, etc. So from that point of view, Column A (spending billions to cut emissions adn invoking a global depression) is actually worse than column B (spending nothing on carbon emissions and enduring the full wrath of global warming). Because in either case we deal with the full impacts of climate change, but with column A we've also wasted billions in wealth in a feckless plan to reduce carbon emissions.
Taking this into account, the path of least risk then becomes to spend billions on adapting to climate change now, instead of spending it on the institution of regulatory regimes such as carbon caps.
Zipperfish
CKA Uber
Posts: 12647
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:22 pm
DerbyX wrote:
CanadianJeff wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI
Watch that first.
He kind of brings a new idea to the table...personally I don't really know what to think. Anyone see any major holes?
An interesting hypothesis is that even if global warming is completely natural then so what?
So is a metor strike that wipes us all out.
If global warming is natural yet it will still cause damge and hardship then why not "artificially alleviate" this?
I mean if the US knew that "global warming" would cause them drastic hardship they would fight against it as would we all.
Even if its totally natural can we not change this?
We would shoot down a "natural" meteror heading right for us right?
Zipperfish
CKA Uber
Posts: 12647
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:24 pm
DerbyX wrote:
An interesting hypothesis is that even if global warming is completely natural then so what?
So is a metor strike that wipes us all out.
If global warming is natural yet it will still cause damge and hardship then why not "artificially alleviate" this?
I mean if the US knew that "global warming" would cause them drastic hardship they would fight against it as would we all.
Even if its totally natural can we not change this?
We would shoot down a "natural" meteror heading right for us right?
Great minds think alike! (see my long post above)
Brenda
CKA Uber
Posts: 44543
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:28 pm
Zipperfish wrote:
DerbyX wrote:
An interesting hypothesis is that even if global warming is completely natural then so what?
So is a metor strike that wipes us all out.
If global warming is natural yet it will still cause damge and hardship then why not "artificially alleviate" this?
I mean if the US knew that "global warming" would cause them drastic hardship they would fight against it as would we all.
Even if its totally natural can we not change this?
We would shoot down a "natural" meteror heading right for us right?
Great minds think alike! (see my long post above)
That's what I said... But how would you fight Nature's course, and how would you be able to predict WHAT to fight exactly?
CanadianJeff
Forum Elite
Posts: 1391
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:30 pm
accually dog he's posted at this point hours and hours of video debating the finer points of his argument to cover his butt every single possible way he can.
Look up "how it all ends: index" for a base guide to what chapters cover what....scary...
Zipperfish
CKA Uber
Posts: 12647
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:32 pm
CanadianJeff wrote:
accually dog he's posted at this point hours and hours of video debating the finer points of his argument to cover his butt every single possible way he can.
Look up "how it all ends: index" for a base guide to what chapters cover what....scary...
Poor guy might be an engineer, by the sounds of it.
DerbyX
CKA Uber
Posts: 20757
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:35 pm
Zipperfish wrote:
DerbyX wrote:
An interesting hypothesis is that even if global warming is completely natural then so what?
So is a metor strike that wipes us all out.
If global warming is natural yet it will still cause damge and hardship then why not "artificially alleviate" this?
I mean if the US knew that "global warming" would cause them drastic hardship they would fight against it as would we all.
Even if its totally natural can we not change this?
We would shoot down a "natural" meteror heading right for us right?
Great minds think alike! (see my long post above)
I should read more before I post.
Zipperfish
CKA Uber
Posts: 12647
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:43 pm
Brenda wrote:
Zipperfish wrote:
DerbyX wrote:
An interesting hypothesis is that even if global warming is completely natural then so what?
So is a metor strike that wipes us all out.
If global warming is natural yet it will still cause damge and hardship then why not "artificially alleviate" this?
I mean if the US knew that "global warming" would cause them drastic hardship they would fight against it as would we all.
Even if its totally natural can we not change this?
We would shoot down a "natural" meteror heading right for us right?
Great minds think alike! (see my long post above)
That's what I said... But how would you fight Nature's course, and how would you be able to predict WHAT to fight exactly?
I'd call it adapting, not fighting. Regardless of anyone's best intentions, in my humble opinion we are not going to stop burning oil until we've reached the thermodynamic limit of extraction (that is, when it costs more than a barrel of oil's worth of energy to get a barrel out of the ground). Even then we might keep going (e.g. they want to use nuclear power in Alberta as energy to get at the oil sands).
So I think we'd be better off spending money on adapting (as opposed to cutting emissions). A portion of oil royalties should go to adaptation since at this point (arguably) odds are in favour oil combustion being a significant driver of global warming.
CanadianJeff
Forum Elite
Posts: 1391
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:48 pm
"If the argument for Global warming is valid, then given it's premise is true it's conclusion MUST be true."
I don't think you understood his argument. He's not arguing if it's true if the consequences follow or not. He's aruging if it's true did WE TAKE ACTION or not.
That and your sentence consists of two suborinate clauses. It's not even english.
CKA Uber 
