Could this be a solution to Global Warming?

smurfy · Jun 16, 2007

Watch this video.

It seems to be a bulletproof argument about what to do about Global Warming - no matter if you think its real or not.

sLux · Jun 16, 2007

Wow, just wow!

scooter · Jun 16, 2007

some of the comments on it:

This logic applies to ANY argument. Replace "Global Climate Change" with "Displeasing God and engendering his Holy Wrath", and the logic holds. Do we have any reason to believe "Engendering God's Wrath" is a reason to change our entire economic and political sytems, on a global scale? How about substituting the idea that "eating pasta makes the moon shrink"? The chart works the same way.

A worldwide economic depression could very likely have the following consequences: Economic (duh), political, social, environmental, and health catastrophes. Therefore, the columns should read; A, False: Worldwide economic depression with the death of the majority of mankind as a consequence. A, True: Worldwide economic recession. B, False: Continued prosperity of mankind and B, True: The death of the majority of mankind. So there's really only on smiley face o the chart. And it's in column B.

He admits in the beginning of the video that we don't all agree and that noone truly knows the whole picture. So, by trying to "fix" the problem make things worse because its a problem we don't understand. Perhaps tinkering with the environment will push things toward catastrophe as well. The two columns are essentially the same and both have unpredictable odds.

and this goes on and on for 92 pages of comments. (i only got up to page 10 b4 stopping)

Aptmunich · Jun 16, 2007

Whilst it really is fairly easy to poke holes in his argument, most people seem to focus on the fact that you could make the same argument for any arbitrary matter.

The difference is that "displeasing the magic spaghetti monster" is not a danger that a whole lot of scientists agree is a real problem facing humanity. Global warming is. Even if you don't believe in global warming per se, the measures that we would need to take to prevent it would improve the environment and the general public's health nonetheless...

Even if you don't believe in global warming, there's no denying the fact that we are seriously messing up the earth and need to stop.

baggss · Jun 16, 2007

Aptmunich said:
Whilst it really is fairly easy to poke holes in his argument, most people seem to focus on the fact that you could make the same argument for any arbitrary matter.

The difference is that "displeasing the magic spaghetti monster" is not a danger that a whole lot of scientists agree is a real problem facing humanity. Global warming is. Even if you don't believe in global warming per se, the measures that we would need to take to prevent it would improve the environment and the general public's health nonetheless...

Even if you don't believe in global warming, there's no denying the fact that we are seriously messing up the earth and need to stop.

I'm not as much concerned about "messing up the earth" as I am messing up ourselves. If some of the measures to clean things up, Global Warming aside, make us as a species healthier then I am all for them. If we enact them for purely political reasons, panic driven or based on potentially flawed science, then I am against them. The stance that reducing carbon emissions makes the air cleaner and less people sick works for me. The stance that reducing carbon emissions will stop Global Warming, doesn't. We KNOW it will make us healthier, we DON'T know it will have ANY impact whatsoever on Global Warming.

nukemm · Jun 16, 2007

What people fail to realize is that volcanoes spew more bad gases into the atmosphere in one eruption than all of humanity in a full year...

So do we put a ban on volcanic activity?

Gazmaz · Jun 16, 2007

Guys (and Gals) watch the Series Earth Story (with Aubrey Manning) it shows that even though we may have an impact the Planet goes through major changes and the Planet will survive we just may not be around to enjoy it, this program was put together in 98 it's worth a watch.

papercut · Jun 16, 2007

Oh Boy!! Another thread on Global Warming. And another chance for people to insult each other and give out negative rep just because they disagree with your opinion. This is neat.

I have one comment and one question for all of the folks interested in Global Warming on either side of the argument.

I believe most people who have done any reading on this subject will agree on at least these two things. 1. The earth's temperature has been going through changes for thousands of years, both warming and cooling. 2. We are currently in a phase where the earth is warming -- maybe because of carbon emissions, maybe not.

Here's the question... What is the CORRECT temperature for the earth and just how was this determined?

Without knowing the answer to the above (and I guarantee that I don't), I don't know if the earth is moving toward or away from the CORRECT temperature.

OK, let the insults begin and all you good people can give me negative rep, but I'll bet that you can't answer the question with science. Think about it.

scooter · Jun 16, 2007

papercut said:
I have one comment and one question for all of the folks interested in Global Warming on either side of the argument.

I believe most people who have done any reading on this subject will agree on at least these two things. 1. The earth's temperature has been going through changes for thousands of years, both warming and cooling. 2. We are currently in a phase where the earth is warming -- maybe because of carbon emissions, maybe not.

Here's the question... What is the CORRECT temperature for the earth and just how was this determined?

Without knowing the answer to the above (and I guarantee that I don't), I don't know if the earth is moving toward or away from the CORRECT temperature.

..... but I'll bet that you can't answer the question with science. Think about it.

very nicely said! repped!

D3v1L80Y · Jun 16, 2007

This video has the solution for global warming:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgE_mkR2oac

the8thark · Jun 17, 2007

Well the Earth lived ok for millions of years before people came around. There were hot times, ice ages, volcanic erruptions and the rest. But the earth eventually recovered from them to run smoothly again. It's designed to do that.

And sure the amount of gasses and stuff we pollute the Earth with is kinda tiny when compared tot he Earth's processes. But our contribution is ontop of what the Earth is designed to handle. And over time it'll cumulate to become a problem. I think the problem isn't whether people pollute the Earth or not, but can the Earth and people clean up all the mass made. Be it people with cars or the Earth with volcanoes. We have to work with the Earth, not against it.

Aptmunich · Jun 17, 2007

nukemm said:
What people fail to realize is that volcanoes spew more bad gases into the atmosphere in one eruption than all of humanity in a full year...

So do we put a ban on volcanic activity?

That's hardly an argument... the environment is a balanced ecosystem - adding even just a few percent of additional CO2 would overload that system. The result? The CO2 isn't absorbed, but lingers in the air we breathe causing all kinds of fun things (smog, lung disease, and possibly global warming).

Analogy: Your Macbook Pro runs at 70° all on its own. So what's the harm of adding another 20° by putting it on a stove?

Baggss said:
I'm not as much concerned about "messing up the earth" as I am messing up ourselves. If some of the measures to clean things up, Global Warming aside, make us as a species healthier then I am all for them. If we enact them for purely political reasons, panic driven or based on potentially flawed science, then I am against them. The stance that reducing carbon emissions makes the air cleaner and less people sick works for me. The stance that reducing carbon emissions will stop Global Warming, doesn't. We KNOW it will make us healthier, we DON'T know it will have ANY impact whatsoever on Global Warming.

Well, as the dominant species on this planet, I think it's fair to say that any damage we do to the ecosystem is hardly going to be beneficial to us as a species in the long run. If we KNOW that cutting back greenhouse gasses and reducing the amount we pollute the environment is going to improve the general ecosystem we live in - I think that's an investment that's worth making.

Brown Study · Jun 17, 2007

Aptmunich said:
Well, as the dominant species on this planet, I think it's fair to say that any damage we do to the ecosystem is hardly going to be beneficial to us as a species in the long run.

Humans, though, are not the dominant species — and neither is any mammal, reptile, fish or anything larger and more complicated than a virus or a microbe. This egocentrism colours all our thinking about the ecosystem.

There are more cockroaches than there are humans, and cockroaches are much harder to eradicate.

If we destroy the food chain, humans would discover soon enough they are not the dominant species, and never had been.

Aptmunich · Jun 17, 2007

Sorry, that was bad phrasing on my part. Remove the dominant and my point remains the same.

Well, as a species on this planet, I think it's fair to say that any damage we do to the ecosystem is hardly going to be beneficial to us as a species in the long run.

papercut · Jun 17, 2007

the8thark said:
...But our contribution is ontop of what the Earth is designed to handle. And over time it'll cumulate to become a problem.

How do you know this? This is purely speculation and opinion and nothing more. Please tell me how you can prove this?

I am 100% in favor of keeping the earth clean. I wish the government would stop giving money to all of the lazy people who choose not to work and all of the other handouts and fund some serious research into hydrogen fuel cells, solar energy, and all other forms of potential energy that could reduce or eliminate the burning of oil and other fossil fuels. The side benefit of being able to tell the middle-eastern countries to EAT THEIR OIL would also be kinda cool.

When I look at the folks who are pushing the global-warming-agenda I just get suspicious.

Brown Study · Jun 17, 2007

papercut said:
How do you know this? This is purely speculation and opinion and nothing more. Please tell me how you can prove this?

Easter Island.

baggss · Jun 17, 2007

Aptmunich said:
That's hardly an argument... the environment is a balanced ecosystem - addinIf we KNOW that cutting back greenhouse gasses and reducing the amount we pollute the environment is going to improve the general ecosystem we live in - I think that's an investment that's worth making.

That's my point. We DON'T know how much damage any of this is really doing to the ecosystem, if any. Everything from both sides of the argument is flawed, incomplete science or simply a "guess" at best. We DO know that many emissions and other forms of pollution are bad for our own health, that is a worthwhile reason to cut back. Cutting back reasonably and smartly in ways that are measurable to improve our own health as a species is good, cutting back in a knee jerk reaction to alarmist or politicians is silly, dangerous and potentially disastrous.

hclincha · Jun 17, 2007

CO2 is hardly bad for our health, and therefore reducing emissions of CO2 for human health isn't really an argument (CO2 may be bad in really big doses, but at current levels - approx 480 parts per million - it is not)

And I don't see how global warming cannot be at least in part be caused by human activity. We have a gas, carbon dioxide, which we know causes the earth to be warmer than it would be otherwise (20-something C on average instead of -5 or so on average). We then do stuff that dramatically increases the amount of this gas in the atmosphere. The result should be pretty obvious. What we don't have that much grasp on is how much the temperature will increase, and what the effects will be, and what our chances of at least stabilizing the earth's temperature are.

baggss · Jun 17, 2007

hclincha said:
which we know causes the earth to be warmer than it would be otherwise (20-something C on average instead of -5 or so on average).

Really? As someone else in this thread asked, what is the "normal" temperature for the earth supposed to be? What period time to you use to figure that out and how do you know that what you think you are observing is not part of a larger pattern that you don't yet understand? This is one of those very big guesses that everyone seems to assume is right, but no ones if it really is. When speaking of a system as complex as our planets atmosphere is and with as little as we actually know about it, much of this seems like mere speculation based on a small amount of data gathered vs the period of time the planet has been around.

hclincha · Jun 17, 2007

baggss said:
Really? As someone else in this thread asked, what is the "normal" temperature for the earth supposed to be? What period time to you use to figure that out and how do you know that what you think you are observing is not part of a larger pattern that you don't yet understand? This is one of those very big guesses that everyone seems to assume is right, but no ones if it really is. When speaking of a system as complex as our planets atmosphere is and with as little as we actually know about it, much of this seems like mere speculation based on a small amount of data gathered vs the period of time the planet has been around.

There's little need to know what the right temperature for earth is. What we have about now is right. This is what our civilization has adapted to, this is the sealevel we have and so forth. It doesn't matter what is correct, what matters is where people live, and people live overwhelmingly on coast lines. That is, areas with little elevation. If temperatures increase much, the ice caps will melt more and more, and hundreds of millions will loose their homes.