Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 40

Thread: An interesting take on the climate issue

  1. #1
    ahctlucabbuS's Avatar <
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Oslo
    Posts
    2,008
    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

  2. The Drawing Room   -   #2
    Busyman™'s Avatar Use Logic Or STFU!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,262
    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.

  3. The Drawing Room   -   #3
    ahctlucabbuS's Avatar <
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Oslo
    Posts
    2,008
    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?

  4. The Drawing Room   -   #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Busyman™ View Post
    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..
    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.

  5. The Drawing Room   -   #5
    ahctlucabbuS's Avatar <
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Oslo
    Posts
    2,008
    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.
    Last edited by ahctlucabbuS; 06-19-2007 at 09:25 PM.

  6. The Drawing Room   -   #6
    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.

  7. The Drawing Room   -   #7
    Busyman™'s Avatar Use Logic Or STFU!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,262
    Quote Originally Posted by tracydani3 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Busyman™ View Post
    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..
    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.

  8. The Drawing Room   -   #8
    Busyman™'s Avatar Use Logic Or STFU!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,262
    Quote Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS View Post
    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.
    You are busy trying to refute me and you missed my point....entirely.

    Apply what I said in accordance with the incomplete tic-tac-toe squares.

  9. The Drawing Room   -   #9
    Biggles's Avatar Looking for loopholes
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Scotland
    Age
    60
    Posts
    8,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Busyman™ View Post
    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.
    Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum


  10. The Drawing Room   -   #10
    Busyman™'s Avatar Use Logic Or STFU!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,262
    Quote Originally Posted by ilw View Post
    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.
    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.

    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.
    Last edited by Busyman™; 06-19-2007 at 11:28 PM.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •