Are you unsure about the whole thing?
Maybe this guy can provide an answer.
http://i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=23875
Printable View
Are you unsure about the whole thing?
Maybe this guy can provide an answer.
http://i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=23875
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.
It may seem obvious, but then again what doesn't after beeing presented on a silver platter (in this case a simplistic diagram)...
It is simplistic, and I'd guess it's rather a matter of omission than beeing faulty, as that scenario is obvious...
But, never mind, the point is the rational presentation of the argument, and instead of brushing it off as idiot fooder, and further making obvious statements, look at it from a rational point of view, as that's the point of the argument...
If not, I'd assume you agree?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
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.
Absolutely. Busyman seems to be turning the argument on its head, making the whole issue about money spent, rather than the future of a habitable planet.
[edit]You didn't spend the money for nothing, that's the point of the argument, you spent it as an insurance policy should you be right about the rapid changes in the world stemming from human actions...
The UN had some figures in the air some months ago, where <5% (I think, if not less) of the BNP of the world were needed to save the planet...
Besides, using money to develop new technology could even turn out to be economically feasible in the long run.
busy has a point. The bottom left box should show the global depression because we will have spent the same quantity of money as in the top left box. The only smiley face should be in the top right.
However, if you really reduce a massively complex and chaotic scenario to 4 boxes then the whole scenario is a bit dumb, all you're choosing is which catastrophe you want or praying that the anthropogenic climate change consensus is wrong.
You are busy trying to refute me and you missed my point....entirely.:ermm:Quote:
Originally Posted by tracydani3Not 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
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.:ermm:Quote:
Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS
Apply what I said in accordance with the incomplete tic-tac-toe squares.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
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.
Right. Whether we are right or wrong, we still spent the money. You can't have global depression in one instance then say we won't have it in the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by ilw
Now whether we have a global depression or not is another story. I was talking about the chart as presented yet folks on here are getting all uppity about it.
I happen to agree with the point the fella was getting at (and figured that out sometime ago). I understand that there can good byproducts that come of going "green" such as less energy wasted in certain areas which could result in cost savings. However, there still are can be downsides.
For instance, if we switch to cleaner burning fuels there is a cost involved. If those cleaner burning fuels make no difference to GW then it's a net loss to business which translate to consumer (unless of course we have something outlandish like water fuel).
The upside is a consumer savings in some areas.
Compact fluorescent light-bulbs cost more initially but last longer and use less electricity. The fact they reduce greenhouse gases in comparison to incandescents would be moot if green advocates are wrong but that won't nullify the fact that less electricity is being used thus giving a savings to the consumer and less draw from the power company.
I happen to like the attention that GW is giving to the waste that we all partake in to our own detriment (in most cases). More people are getting low-flush toilets* which use less water and hopefully solar panels will come down in price so we all can take advantage. Some are taking public transportation more which helps relieve dangerous traffic congestion, can be a cost savings, and takes wear and tear off a commuters personal vehicle (if owned).
Keep in mind again that if the greenists are wrong about GW, this will be just a cost savings to the consumer due to these products and practices. This also may be offset by higher costs to business that tried to implement measures intrinsic to GW alone and then those costs passed on to the consumer.
In fact, it could be worse than an offset. It could be catastrophic.
*Do note that some low-flush toilets also have less flushing power, requiring multiple flushes thus making toilet moot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™You are busy trying to refute me and you missed my point....entirely.:ermm:Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Ffs, for the nth time I got it.:pinch:Quote:
Originally Posted by BigglesThis is straight forward Bayes Theorem without the attendant probabilities - which is fair enough as it would then have been a much longer video clip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
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.
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.
Ohhh gawd :slap:Quote:
Originally Posted by tracydani3Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
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.
edit: It's not a fact that it will benefit us. We hope it will.
:whistlingQuote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™Ffs, for the nth time I got it.:pinch:Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
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
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.
The weight of everyone was making it hard to breath and then you pile-on.:frusty: Not you too, Mr. Bigglesworth. Not youuuuuuu.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles:whistlingQuote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
I know but I couldn't resist it
Sorry
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™Ohhh gawd :slap:Quote:
Originally Posted by tracydani3
edit: It's not a fact that it will benefit us. We hope it will.
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.:dry:Quote:
Originally Posted by tracydani3It 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
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:)
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.
I wasn't refuting you and i wasn't trying to convince you of anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
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.
Dude (or dudette) you really need to pay attention how you start off posts then.Quote:
Originally Posted by tracydani3I wasn't refuting you and i wasn't trying to convince you of anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
If I say "spent the money for nothing" and you say "not for nothing" and then follow with back-up, that's refutation.
My statements were in context to the fellow on the vid. I pointed out such and you and atfdsdgdfdaS were still doing fuck-all. Jeez, it's like arguing with SnnY about whether basketball is a contact sport..:crazy:
LOL, so I see. It made perfect sense to me;) At any rate, reading back through, I was thinking the same as you when I watched this clip last week.
:happy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
=-=-
I'm still hung up on the whole "global depression"-bit myself.
I mean, if things go bad like people say we're fucked, sure, but in some areas of the world the climate and stuff will be just right :unsure:
energy output by sun reaching the earth's surface or what?Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
anyway regardless, surely some of the rest of your comment is in support of anthropogenic GW, no climate scientists are claiming we can produce enough energy to warm the earth, that would be daft. What they are claiming is that instead of the small percentage rise in solar energy production you mention, they are claiming a small but significant percentage rise in the amount of solar energy which doesn't get re-emitted by the earth.
The quantity of energy that humans create is neither here nor there, the argument is about:
whether greenhouse gases exist (pretty much proven),
how much impact various greenhouse gases have,
whether mankind is capable of having a significant impact on the quantities of greenhouse gases in particular CO2
Then if you accept the scientific information above you enter the quagmire that is how the earth's climate will react to the increased greenhouse gas and heat. Will it overall be negative feedback to maintain current temps, positive feedback which will screw us, or will it be neither (also will probably screw us)
It's not the energy that man puts out that is warming the earth. The sun is the heat source. It's the contributing effect our pollution has on the earth's "insulation" that is man's issueQuote:
Originally Posted by lynx
I'm well aware of the theories, trouble is that is all they are. There is not one iota of evidence that we are producing enough of the greenhouse gases to make a fraction of the difference being claimed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ilwenergy output by sun reaching the earth's surface or what?Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
anyway regardless, surely some of the rest of your comment is in support of anthropogenic GW, no climate scientists are claiming we can produce enough energy to warm the earth, that would be daft. What they are claiming is that instead of the small percentage rise in solar energy production you mention, they are claiming a small but significant percentage rise in the amount of solar energy which doesn't get re-emitted by the earth.
The quantity of energy that humans create is neither here nor there, the argument is about:
whether greenhouse gases exist (pretty much proven),
how much impact various greenhouse gases have,
whether mankind is capable of having a significant impact on the quantities of greenhouse gases in particular CO2
Then if you accept the scientific information above you enter the quagmire that is how the earth's climate will react to the increased greenhouse gas and heat. Will it overall be negative feedback to maintain current temps, positive feedback which will screw us, or will it be neither (also will probably screw us)
On the other hand there is an overwhelming mass of evidence that the output of the sun has varied in the past by much more than the amount necessary to cause the current rise, and there is evidence that it is doing so again.
The claim is that if we follow this course and it isn't caused by CO2 emissions then we've lost nothing, except a bit of money.
Absolute total bollocks.
If it isn't caused by CO2 emissions then the oceans are still going to rise, the deserts are still going to expand, and so on for all the rest of the potential horrors we are being warned about. And we will have done absolutely nothing to alleviate the results because we were concentrating on cutting CO2 production.
That's what the whole hoopla is about, lynx.:ermm:Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Nope, advocates of the CO2 theory state that there is no downside if they are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™That's what the whole hoopla is about, lynx.:ermm:Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
My point is that we are concentrating on something which even the most ardent advocates have to admit may be false, and even if they are right we may still not be able to do much about. In the meantime if everyone follows their advice to the fullest extent we will almost certainly see the world economy spiralling down into the deepest recession ever encountered the result of which would probably cause deaths on a far greater scale than GW.
Combine such a depression with the full effects of GW (which I believe would be the result of these futile attempts at attacking a non-cause) and we would see a global disaster which even the gloomiest of doom-sayers would have a hard time to portray.
If instead we concentrated on battling the effects of GW, we could do so without having to dramatically alter our lifestyle. At the same time the activities required would be positive rather than negative, thus stimulating the world economy and allowing more benefits to disseminate to areas currently suffering through poverty.
Global warming is probably taking place. Let's concentrate on things that we know will work, not on some wishy-washy unproven theory.
I'm not for immediate drastic changes either. However, as I said before, there is shit that isn't being enforced, small shit that the average joe and business aren't doing that is better for the environment, and it all costs very little to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynxNope, advocates of the CO2 theory state that there is no downside if they are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
My point is that we are concentrating on something which even the most ardent advocates have to admit may be false, and even if they are right we may still not be able to do much about. In the meantime if everyone follows their advice to the fullest extent we will almost certainly see the world economy spiralling down into the deepest recession ever encountered the result of which would probably cause deaths on a far greater scale than GW.
Combine such a depression with the full effects of GW (which I believe would be the result of these futile attempts at attacking a non-cause) and we would see a global disaster which even the gloomiest of doom-sayers would have a hard time to portray.
If instead we concentrated on battling the effects of GW, we could do so without having to dramatically alter our lifestyle. At the same time the activities required would be positive rather than negative, thus stimulating the world economy and allowing more benefits to disseminate to areas currently suffering through poverty.
Global warming is probably taking place. Let's concentrate on things that we know will work, not on some wishy-washy unproven theory.
What drastic changes are being proposed btw?
For GW sceptics, heres a website where you can pick your poison and see a precis why the climate scientists at the IPCC (who just might know a teeny tiny bit more than you about the subject) think you're wrong
Trouble is, most of the so called "climate scientists" at the IPCC have absolutely no grounding in the core subject - climatology.
What's more, many of those whose names are included in the IPCC's report who are qualified to comment had their names included because they had done some work on the subject, not because they agreed with the reports conclusions.
Some even submitted papers showing that the IPCC conclusions were nonsense, yet their names were included as if they indicated the opposite.
If the IPCC was so certain of its ground, why would it need to go to such lengths? Quite frankly the whole IPCC report stinks of corruption.
And you still haven't covered the basic question - what do we do when global warming occurs and it isn't caused by CO2 emissions?
sorry didn't realise you'd posed a question. i guess there are 3 main possibilities:
1) we'll realise in time that CO2 isn't the cause and switch focus having wasted time and money.
2) not realise in time and have to undertake some massive programmes either to adapt to the changes or to correct the problem in a radical way
3) Not realise in time and die in our thousands/millions depending on the severity of the problem
It seems to me that the solar theory which you seem to favour is the underdog in terms of scientific support and also supporting data wise, so my question to you is why do you favour it?
To your credit, you're willing to admit that there is a potential problem with following the CO2 herd. Unfortunately most advocates of this idea are dead against even considering that there could be any other scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by ilw
If the worst predictions about the rate of global warming are correct, then without a switch NOW option 1 is not going to be viable.
Have you really thought what you mean by option 2? How is that different from option 3? Are you suggesting that option 3 is that we realise that we've screwed up and decide to do nothing?
So 2 and 3 are the same - we have to undertake drastic action to try to rescue a situation which we should never have allowed to occur, and at the same time millions (possible billions) are going to die.
Why is it the underdog in terms of scientific support?Quote:
Originally Posted by ilw
That's easy to explain.
Try getting a research grant based on the idea that the most powerful energy source might be warming things up - impossible.
Try getting a research grant to back up the idea that a theory with virtually no background data support - watch the offers of money come flooding in.
In terms of supporting data?
Exactly where is the supporting data that greenhouse gases are responsible?
I'm serious when I tell you that there is NO data to support it, only supposition and what-ifs.
You should look at the so-called evidence advanced by your link with an open mind. Almost without exception the arguments are aimed at shooting down the opposition, there's hardly a single piece of positive evidence for the theory that CO2 is the cause of GW.
Anyone with a scientific background should be worried about the validity of an argument presented in that way.
The Sun is nearly at the end of it's grand cycle and will soon go into a prolonged period of Solar minimum bringing back a new Ice Age. This is not in his equation.
Back to the Lounge with ya.Quote:
Originally Posted by thewizeard
Sorry, wasn't clear, for 2 and 3 I meant we realise too late to save a world roughly as it is now and either we are able to do something to save ourselves from megadeaths or we aren't able.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx...
Have you really thought what you mean by option 2? How is that different from option 3? Are you suggesting that option 3 is that we realise that we've screwed up and decide to do nothing?
So 2 and 3 are the same - we have to undertake drastic action to try to rescue a situation which we should never have allowed to occur, and at the same time millions (possible billions) are going to die.
Why is it the underdog in terms of scientific support?Quote:
Originally Posted by ilw
That's easy to explain.
Try getting a research grant based on the idea that the most powerful energy source might be warming things up - impossible.
Try getting a research grant to back up the idea that a theory with virtually no background data support - watch the offers of money come flooding in.
In terms of supporting data?
Exactly where is the supporting data that greenhouse gases are responsible?
I'm serious when I tell you that there is NO data to support it, only supposition and what-ifs.
You should look at the so-called evidence advanced by your link with an open mind. Almost without exception the arguments are aimed at shooting down the opposition, there's hardly a single piece of positive evidence for the theory that CO2 is the cause of GW.
Anyone with a scientific background should be worried about the validity of an argument presented in that way.
On the other comments above:
1) the link is negative because it is specifically designed to point out the flaws in other arguments (webpage is called 'climate myths') so naturally the evidence presented isn't the full case for Anthropogenic GW (AGW), but is a case against the competing theories.
2) Proving stuff is hard, so science tends to work on a 'disprove it' basis, so perhaps i was wrong to ask about supporting evidence, the best you can say is that lots of evidence has been collected and it doesn't disagree with the AGW theory. (but the data does disagree with pretty much all the other theories around hence the web page).
3) The research grant argument isn't a good one imo. Essentially its an ad hominem attack on the worldwide grant authorisers (as well as some ad hom attacks on the IPCC). Also as i understand it scientists set out to collect data that might disprove a theory or is interesting in some other way. To claim that all scientists/research bodies are set on proving anthropogenic GW is i would think fairly slanderous and inaccurate. I think its a common/frequent claim which doesn't bear out in reality and the next normal argument (by people with an axe to grind) is that you won't get published if you do find data which doesn't fit the establishment view, but if you clearly detail your method in gathering data and there are no serious deficiencies in it then major journals will publish complete lies/bollocks like that bubble fusion thing.
By resorting to ad hominem attacks/attacks on funding systems you shift the battle away from the data and validity of the hypotheses. You may very well have a point that the existing funding arrangements are poorly suited to paradigm shifts/dislocations in scientific thinking, but then again those sorts of things are rare and overall it is not an argument against AGW.
Just noticed this. I don't think there are any things that we know will work, (short of travelling to another planet) can you suggest some?Quote:
Global warming is probably taking place. Let's concentrate on things that we know will work, not on some wishy-washy unproven theory.
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/1...pinionszu1.gif
The thing is, this is mostly driven by politicians.
They, as usual, don't have the faintest clue about science. They think that as long as they get the majority of people to agree with their viewpoint then everything will probably be ok. The fact that science doesn't work like that is of no interest to them.
Of course, when they realise that they've got it wrong, it won't be their fault. As usual it will be the fault of the advisers (in this case the scientists), and anyway you all believed it too so what are you griping about.
That scenario sound familiar?
As I said at the beginning of this piece the video person makes his point using a basic probabilities matrix. The difficult with the piece other than the fact that he has forgotten to mention the recession in the lower box is that he has effectively given all the outcomes equal probability. To do this correctly and make an informed decision the boxes need estimated probability of occurrence and accurate costs need to be associated with each decision.
Incidently, it may be that there is 100% probability that GW will occur in 10 years and the cost of countering it is 50 Brazillions - and we only have 1 Brazillion. His magic bullet might seem magic but the rabbit will stay firmly in the hat.
In effect what he has done is said that if GW happens it will be so awful that we cannot afford to take the chance of it not happening. However, there are many scenarios that are awful, including being eaten by a giant mutant star goat. Yet not all are probable. Using Bayes to determine the probabilities and attendant costs is a standard cost analysis tool. I would be most surprised if the US and other Governments do not already have costed models. My one worry is that the Brazillion scenario above has already been concluded.
Did you have to remind me of Stats?:cry: Thirty percent of stats are correct the other eighty percent are probability.:)
lol "moot". I love that word.