[Streaker]

I recently got wind of this gentleman's efforts to bring some intelligence and reason to the climate change debate. Good stuff, and he develops his ideas at length in numerous followup vids (see link below).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg[/youtube]

Direct link to YouTube page (click on "more" in the "About This Video" box for links to this guy's many fine videos).

[Sargasso]

Thanks Streaker,

The original version circulated around my office a few months ago and regardless of what side of the issue people were on they appreciated the distillation of the arguments to a simple choice.

I like the refinements he's added, hopefully it will help more people recognize we need action, that would be a big step in the right direction.

What specific action we should take is a more difficult issue. Personally I'd like to see an ambitious national strategy to promote alternate and clean sources of energy. That doesn't mean I'm against all development of oil in Alberta, just reinvest some of the cash flow thats creating in making Canada a leader in the technologies that follow peak oil.

Things like electric vehicles (sign the ZENN petition to get transport canada to approve them), battery technology and solar technology (where is industry Canada on promoting investment in these sectors?) wind and tidal power.

Canada's has a reputation as an resourceful and inventive nation. We should ensure public policy supports those trying to develop viable alternatives.

[Streaker]

Zenn Petition

[Joe_Stalin]

Clever rubbish.

1 minute in it it was shades of Suzuki unplugged.

Sea rising 21 feet ..... worst scenario etc etc etc.

Lets go whole hog and reduce the CO2 to 185PPM and kill off all life on the planet.

http://www.mypodcast.com/cached/splatto ... -35113.mp3

As more people refuse to bow to the fear mongers the modus operandi changes. It is not global warming anymore it is climate change. (Psst. The eath has cooled since 1998).

It is not that the sea will rise 21 feet it is "what if?"

The "What if" will give all the carbon credit fraudsters and charlatans time to get the cash deals in place and collecting.

Follow the money.

The planet was a better place when CO2 was 1000 PPM. More people die from cold than heat. Man made CO2 has a negligible effect on climate change.

Source: Mein Kampf.

Check this episode of climate change from the leftwing Economist.


http://www.economist.com/displayStory.c ... =nwlgafree

[ridenrain]

talk talk talk...
and in China right now:

Quote:

Beijing’s Olympic Quest: Turn Smoggy Sky Blue

NY Times

By JIM YARDLEY
BEIJING — Every day, monitoring stations across the city measure air pollution to determine if the skies above this national capital can officially be designated blue. It is not an act of whimsy: with Beijing preparing to play host to the 2008 Olympic Games, the official Blue Sky ratings are the city’s own measuring stick for how well it is cleaning up its polluted air.
Thursday did not bring good news. The gray, acrid skies rated an eye-reddening 421 on a scale of 500, with 500 being the worst. Friday rated 500. Both days far exceeded pollution levels deemed safe by the World Health Organization. In Beijing, officials warned residents to stay indoors until Saturday, but residents here are accustomed to breathing foul air. One man flew a kite in Tiananmen Square.
For Beijing officials, Thursday was especially depressing because the city was hoping to celebrate an environmental victory. In recent years, Beijing has steadily increased its Blue Sky days. The city needs one more, defined as scoring below 101, to reach its goal of 245 Blue Sky days this year. These improving ratings are how Beijing hopes to reassure the world that Olympic athletes will not be gasping for breath next August.
“We’re definitely hoping for the best,” said Jon Kolb, a member of the Canadian Olympic Committee, “but preparing for the worst.”
For the world’s Olympians, Beijing’s air is a performance issue. The concern is that respiratory problems could impede athletic performance and prevent records from being broken. For the city’s estimated 12 million residents, pollution is an inescapable health and quality-of-life issue. Skepticism about the validity of the Blue Sky ratings is common. Moreover, the concern is whether the city can clean itself up long after the Games are over.
Beijing has long ranked as one of the world’s most polluted cities. To win the Games, Beijing promised a “Green Olympics” and undertook environmental initiatives now considered models for the rest of the country. But greening Beijing has not meant slowing it down. Officials also have encouraged an astonishing urbanization boom that has made environmental gains seem modest, if not illusory.

but again, it's all our fault because we drive cars, use normal electric bulbs and we must be bad because we have a better standard of life than the rest of the world.
Sorry. Not buying it.

[N_Fiddledog]

I remember when that guy's first video was posted here. At that time I figured, why bother debating it. Contrary to what he was telling you it was an old argument when he posted it, and again contrary to what he was telling you far from being an unbeatable proposition.

However some are going to continue to insist this guy with the smug face is as smart as he thinks he is, so let's consider his proposal.

He's tweaked his argument here based on the two line posts underneath his first vid critiquing it. He announces he's destroyed the argument. He hasn't. The real argument takes a little time to produce, and that's why those of us who have seen it want to just walk on by. Why do we have to destroy this silliness over and over again? Why won't they just get it?

OK, so basically his argument goes if you consider the consequences of taking immediate action on global warming, against not doing so there's only one conclusion you can come to. We must act now.

The first argument he considers against the proposal is the one that goes. "Yeah there's doomsayers preaching doom, but that doesn't mean every time somebody says flying hamsters from outer space are coming to lay waste to the planet we have to invest a trillion dollars to guard against the threat."

His response - These aren't flying hamsters. Global warming is a real problem. The world's leading experts tell us so.

OK, so let's not use flying hamsters then. I can practically guarantee you that this guy swings left. Let's ask him if he thinks the war on Irag was a good idea. Experts were saying Iraq had WMDs, in fact they told us Irag was working on a nuclear program.

Turned out they were wrong. Maybe we weren't listening to the right experts. Contrary to what this guy is telling you there are many credible experts who aren't on board with the global warming scare.

He says this threat differs, because the possible consequences of a worst case scenario dwarf the consequences of any other possible catastrophe... Bullshit. If I have to choose between even the Science fiction catastrophe in Al Gore's prophecy, and all out nuclear war, I'll take the warming. (BTW even this guy says the possibility of a worst case catastrophic consequences scenario isn't likely)

Still he's going to tell you the warming threat is more credible, than the threat Bush and his advisers thought they saw of nuclear war. He's basing that again on his proposal of support for the theory from experts.

The history of the "consensus" theory goes like this. It began with "We got the consensus. All scientists agree". Turned out that wasn't true. I can show you list after list of scientists who don't agree. Any critique of those scientists also applies to the other side. We also heard, "Yeah but I'm talking about the 'peer-reviewed' science". This worked for a while, because really who's going to slog through that stuff to find out if the statement is true. It worked until one day someone did read the peer-reviewed literature who was willing to share what was in it with you and me Joe-average types. Turned out it wasn't as unanimous in prophecy of the global warming catastrophe as we were being told.

So what the current strategy is is they produce names of organizations. It's like this vague collection of policy statements from we don't know exactly who within different organizations supporting global warming dogma. It's a generality. How do you argue a generality. You either accept it, or you don't. Me personally I don't. The policy of an organization is not necessarily governed by the totality of it's members beliefs. It's more likely it is governed by other agendas such as money and politics.

And anyway the history of science tells us consensus doesn't really mean much. It's supposed to be about the support of facts, not the support of policy.

The actual critique of global warming science is credible. Personally I'm going to say we just don't know enough to come to any certain conclusions at this point. Sure that's just opinion. Feel free to prove it unsupported.

Also I think it's necessary to consider the grades of certainty even amongst pro-AGW experts for grades of catastrophe.

I think you're going to have a real hard time finding experts at even the organizations vid guy mentions who support the kind of climate catastrophe Al Gore describes. They're talking less, and slower coming.

Here's another one vid guy doesn't consider. What about the possibility the cure is worse than the disease. We're already seeing consequences to global warming cures. Apparently you create worse environmental damage creating Priuses than any actual healing effect which might take place from running them. I've heard peat bogs referred to as "the lungs of the planet", yet in Indonesia they're being dug up to plant palm trees for bio fuel. Agricultural land is being subsidized for corn for bio-fuel. That's land for food you can't eat. You have to put it in your car. The talk is as bio-fuel becomes more popular, the price of food goes up. The poor don't get it. To help the poor in undeveloped countries requires efficient, economically viable energy sources. Alternative energy sources we have right now won't get it done.

Some scientists, tell us climate change is natural, and what's more likely to expect at this point is global cooling. So what if we change the economic and political structure of the world to deal with warming, and cooling happens. The consequences of cooling are worse, and more immediate than warming.

In fact what if this present cooling we're experiencing continues. At some point even the mainstream media is going to have to notice. Eventually we're going to have to admit these GW scientists were wrong. Will we ever be able to take climate scientists seriously again? Will there be consequences to that?

Then there's the argument that goes even if you ignore all that, and act now it's unlikely any proposed cure would have much effect. Vid guy didn't give that one the attention it deserves.

I'm not a scienist, or a politician though, so ultimately I have to consider these propositions based on little real world lessons life has taught me. Every time somebody is trying to sell me something with a time limit attached I've learned it's best to walk out the door. In fact if they tell you "Buy now, or this terrible thing will happen", don't walk out the door, run some place safe, and consider the proposition.

[sasquatch2]

Funny you should mention your trees.

during the initial KYOTO negotiations the US proposed to plant trees and creat forests as Carbon Sinks.......which was rejected by the un/eurocrats as unsatisfactory......the problem was that the US planting trees would not achieve their desired goals----Carbon Credits would though.....CCs would transfer wealth from NA to the developing countries and destroy the economies of the develped nations(NA) which is real the goal of the UN/eurocrat GWers.

[Scape]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjqikCEzP7w&feature=related[/youtube]

http://manpollo.org/

http://wonderingmind42.com/

Index

The idea of the manpollo project is the cure to the whole debate over climate instability once and for all. No matter what side of the issue you fall on both sides should be supporting this as it will be the final word.

[sasquatch2]

If this wasn't just another attempt to further a sinister social engineering agenda this guy would be amusing. The one thing these freaks have in common is that they hate people. If they had their way thousands would die of hunger or exposure.

It has been speculated that we shall be subjected to more of this BS for about another decade.

[Streaker]

I like his idea for the Manpollo Project.

[Streaker]

And welcome back, Scape.

[Scape]

I like the bunny, very funny.

[Streaker]

Probably a bit of an internet cliché, as avatars go, but it gives me a giggle.

[ridenrain]

This reminds me of Avro, who was a huge proponent of F1 auto racing and a huge supporter of the Kyoto accord. He rounded that square by telling us that they planted trees that offset the emissions from the racing, but he didn't sound very convinced.
I bring this up as an example of the hypocrisy that is so evident.