An interesting take on the climate issue

[tracydani3]

Not for nothing. If we do it right, we will have clean alternative energy, and will be polluting our planet far less then we are currently. Then, when we finally pull out of the depression, our children will have water to drink, air to breath and clean land to farm with.

Money is something that comes and goes. The land, air and water we live off of is another story if we pollute it until we can no longer live with it.

Forget global warming. Worry about having an environment that can sustain us.

You are busy trying to refute me and you missed my point....entirely.

Actually, I am not trying to refute you.

Just saying if we are going to go into a depression, we may as well do it as a result of spending money that will benefit us rather then as a result of waiting and seeing.

[Busyman™]

Yeah that's nothing new. It's always been said, "What's the cost if we do nothing?"

Some idiots do need to see it on a graph to take notice though.

I noticed one flaw in his graph though - If we take action but we are wrong about GW being a threat, he has that we'll have a global depression due to the money spent. In essence we spent it for nothing.

With that in mind, we would still have a global depression if we are right about GW and took action. The money was still spent.

This is straight forward Bayes Theorem without the attendant probabilities - which is fair enough as it would then have been a much longer video clip.

Busy, I think his argument is that yes there would still be a depression but you would be so thankful that nuclear power stations were not filling up with flood water etc. that you would still consider it money well spent. If GW is proved correct then the current ball game stops and the rules change.

Of course the longer we leave off making a decision - waiting to see the whites of the eyes of the probabilities - the more dramatic the impact of the cost. If we had made a decision earlier to act then industries would have formed around the strategies and it would then be arguable that while some industries might experience recession others would boom. At the end of the day economic activity is economic activity.

Ffs, for the nth time I got it.

I only pointed out (since the guy presents stuff in a certain way) that there was a flaw. He should have global depression in 2 spots is all.

It all comes down to "What's the cost if we are wrong? Do we wanna risk it?"

I got it already.

[Busyman™]

You are busy trying to refute me and you missed my point....entirely.

Actually, I am not trying to refute you.

Just saying if we are going to go into a depression, we may as well do it as a result of spending money that will benefit us rather then as a result of waiting and seeing.

Ohhh gawd

edit: It's not a fact that it will benefit us. We hope it will.

[Biggles]

This is straight forward Bayes Theorem without the attendant probabilities - which is fair enough as it would then have been a much longer video clip.

Busy, I think his argument is that yes there would still be a depression but you would be so thankful that nuclear power stations were not filling up with flood water etc. that you would still consider it money well spent. If GW is proved correct then the current ball game stops and the rules change.

Of course the longer we leave off making a decision - waiting to see the whites of the eyes of the probabilities - the more dramatic the impact of the cost. If we had made a decision earlier to act then industries would have formed around the strategies and it would then be arguable that while some industries might experience recession others would boom. At the end of the day economic activity is economic activity.

Ffs, for the nth time I got it.

I only pointed out (since the guy presents stuff in a certain way) that there was a flaw. He should have global depression in 2 spots is all.

It all comes down to "What's the cost if we are wrong? Do we wanna risk it?"

I got it already.

I know but I couldn't resist it

Sorry

[Busyman™]

There is a lot of shit that can be done right now that businesses and consumers are fucking around with.

I don't know the drawbacks of CFL bulbs but if there are none (besides higher initial cost), everyone all over the fucking world should pop one in when their incandescents fail.

People don't do it cuz they are fooking lazy.

Do it now.

[Busyman™]

Ffs, for the nth time I got it.

I only pointed out (since the guy presents stuff in a certain way) that there was a flaw. He should have global depression in 2 spots is all.

It all comes down to "What's the cost if we are wrong? Do we wanna risk it?"

I got it already.

I know but I couldn't resist it

Sorry

The weight of everyone was making it hard to breath and then you pile-on. Not you too, Mr. Bigglesworth. Not youuuuuuu.....

[lynx]

The guy said it himself - don't take his word for it.

If you look more carefully at the possible consequences of his top left box, he overlooks the fact that economic depression was the primary cause of global conflict in the 20th century. Yet he admits that the depression likely to be caused would probably be far worse than anything ever experienced. The actual results are likely to be much like what he describes for the bottom right box.

People like this are dangerous. They present the false positive/true negative case as if they are equally likely, but skew the differences in the consequences of the outcomes. At the same time they completely ignore the background science.

I wonder how many people realise that the energy output by the sun in a week far exceeds the total energy produced by mankind EVER. When you consider what effect even a small rise in that sort of energy production would have, and it happens regularly, you soon realise that the idea that global warming is man-made is dreaming born of arrogance. We simply don't have the capability to do it.

If you look at it even deeper, then if the bottom right box proves to be correct, countries are likely to be so busy trying to recover from this that wars are probably unlikely.

On the other hand, if the top left box proves to be the outcome then global war is extremely likely, with a high probability that nuclear weapons could be deployed. That scenario would be one that would frighten me. How about you?

[tracydani3]

Actually, I am not trying to refute you.

Just saying if we are going to go into a depression, we may as well do it as a result of spending money that will benefit us rather then as a result of waiting and seeing.

Ohhh gawd

edit: It's not a fact that it will benefit us. We hope it will.

It is a fact that using clean energy will benefit us. Clean air and water never hurt anyone, and if we stop polluting it, we can only benefit.

And I do not believe we are causing global warming or anything so it's not as if I am trying to convince you of the benefits of preventing it or anything

[Busyman™]

Ohhh gawd

edit: It's not a fact that it will benefit us. We hope it will.

It is a fact that using clean energy will benefit us. Clean air and water never hurt anyone, and if we stop polluting it, we can only benefit.

And I do not believe we are causing global warming or anything so it's not as if I am trying to convince you of the benefits of preventing it or anything

You were either refuting me or trying to convince me of something.

And no I disagree. If it is proven that cleaner air is simply a benefit then one must look at the cost involved. Otherwise there is no urgency, is there?

As I said before, I like the GW talk since it lights a nice clean burning fire under people to stop waste. There's a push in Congress to have more fuel efficient cars which the automakers are balking. I remember when they balked at having air bags and I heard even seat belts.

All those costs trickled down to the consumer also.

I don't believe we are causing global warming and don't know if we exasperate it. If you aren't talking about GW but clean air and water in general then something else that perhaps requires different remedies and forecasts.

For instance, I doubt very seriously if global warming is caused by toxic waste dumped into the water. If we aren't talking GW then emissions from automobiles requires a different forecast since there is probably less urgency for smog.

Cost is involved.

One problem over here is that many times laws are not being abided by nor enforced properly that are on the books.

There are so many simple things that should be done that it's ridiculous. Anti-GW/anti-greenists could at least meet 1/3 of the way and knock out the simple stuff on the to-do list.

[tracydani3]

You were either refuting me or trying to convince me of something.

And no I disagree. If it is proven that cleaner air is simply a benefit then one must look at the cost involved. Otherwise there is no urgency, is there?

I wasn't refuting you and i wasn't trying to convince you of anything.

It was more of a general statement that I think people are focusing on the wrong problem and the problem we should be focusing on can benefit from many if not most of the things the GW people want us to do.

I also think that clean air, land and water is JUST as important as potentially preventing global warming. GW will not wipe us out, just drastically change things for us. Poisonous air and water will kill us.

I do agree we would shift focus on what we do a bit, but if we at least begin working on areas that can benefit the real problem as well as the potential problem, we can make a head start and some serious progress while learning more about possible GW.

I have read a lot lately about how we have ruined our planet through current farming techniques for example that are causing not only the death of our soil, but increasing desert areas throughout the world. This is not GW stuff, but real issues caused by the way we strip our land and then saturate it with chemicals instead of actually building up the soil.

It causes some similar problems as GW, but these are things we can fix if we stop futzing around now.