Should we act on climate change, to prevent it from happening? No. We do not stand a chance in that battle. Should we act on climate change, in order to adapt to it? Yes, that's the only thing we can do to safeguard the existence of our species.
Should we act on climate change: n Did this movie change your opinion? n
Climate is always changing and I don't feel humans can do a lot about that. Also we don't know what climate change is, I don't think the problem is rising CO2 levels but the real problem is the rising garbage all over the world, we are just poisoning ourselves.
I really don't care if the sea level is 1 meter or 10 meter above the normal level, like MarcelG says, it's much easier to adapt to this circumstances like the human always did, than to try to hold this. Who are we to control the climate if we don't even know how it works!?!
Exactly! We should not waste our efforts in trying to keep the climate the way it is, because it's a battle we will not win. Instead, focus our effort on adapting.
I'm not saying we should stop our efforts with respect to cutting CO2 emissions, minimizing ecological waste, etc. We just should accept the fact that we do not control the climate.
Almost everyone chuckles when you look at an Indian doing the raindance, because we know for certain that the raindance does not really make it rain.
I also chuckle when I see the believers of the new raindance (ergo: all the actions to cut CO2 emissions, painting rooftops white, going "green"). There's virtually no chance that it has any effect on the climate change.... It does have an effect on the environment, yes, but it does not affect the climate.
I am watching all of the guys videos as I am still at home ill. Anyway, i would recommend watching the other videos as they address some of the issues you address as well. Watch them and we'll discuss
Originally posted by MarcelG on 02/11/09 @ 13:13 I'll check them tonight, and perhaps it'll change the way I'm thinking about it. Perhaps...
I doubt it
The only thing we can do that will have any lasting effect would be to stop breeding, if we don't the planet will always find ways of killing us off in large quantities in order to keep us in check be it through climate change or other natural disasters.
What we should all be doing is respecting the environment in which we live, we can't even determine for sure whether or not we have had an impact on the climate so how the hell can we even assume we can change it back, it is just ludicrous to even think it.
Should we act on climate change: y Did this movie change your opinion? n
The premise of "Global Warming" is wrong. But the threat is a good motivation to reduce carbon emissions.
Carbon emissions are indeed changing the ph level of the planets oceans. We may have already cut ourselves off at the ankles. We just haven't started to topple yet.
by MarcelG
02/11/09 @ 20:39
(Edited 02/11/09 @ 20:59)
@Yosh, did you notice the false logic he uses in the first video ? He gives us 4 options, and makes us think they make sense. But in fact they do not make sense.
Here's his list of options: (for the sake of this post I'll abbreviate global warming/climate change to GWCC.)
We caused GWCC, and we fixed it: $$$
We did not cause GWCC, and we still tried to fix it: $$$
We caused GWCC, and did nothing to fix it: total crisis
We did not cause GWCC, and did nothing:
Let's examine these statements.
We caused GWCC, and we fixed it. $$$ Okay, it assumed we caused it. Fair enough. It also assumed we had the power to fix it. (Slim chance, but ok). The result is that we still live, but we have a huge economic crisis.
We did not cause GWCC, and we still tried to fix it: $$$ Okay, he assumes that we didn't cause it, and still try to fix it. If we didn't cause it, does it mean it didn't happen?! No, it sure doesn't! It's not the question if we caused it, it's the question whether or not it's really happening. But if we thought we caused it (while we did not) we focussed our effort on reversing our own impact on the climate (which was zilch) so yes, we did do something but our efforts were futile.... Not only will we be bankrupt in this scenario, but we'll also be in the same sh*t we're in in scenario 3....hey, this one looks even worse than number 3, because we had the chance to do something, but we did the wrong thing....how stupid.
We caused GWCC, and did nothing to fix it: total crisis, armageddon. Fair enough. If we fucked up, and did nothing to fix it, it'll be a total crisis. But wait...what if we didn't try to fix it (because that's the mission impossible as we finally understood), but did everything in our power to adapt to the situation? Hey, that would mean that even though we caused it, we are still alive and did what humans do best: adapt to the circumstances. We saved a LOT of effort (not just money like this bloke likes us to think) and invested that in the better plan.
We did not cause GWCC, and did nothing: Okay so we didn't cause it...but as with number 2 the fact that we didn't cause it doesn't mean it didn't happen. I didn't cause the weather to be bad, but I still got wet. So, the outcome of 4 will not be but most likely it'll be
The false logic in fact is hidden in one simple thing ; it's not the question if we caused it or not. The question is in the first place: is it really happening. If the answer is yes, then the next question is: can we easily fix it, or is it easier to adapt ? The answer to that question in my humble opinion is no, we cannot easily fix this.
It really does not come down to doing nothing or doing something, it comes down to doing the right thing. Just an example to make my point clear : if you were playing with matches and set your house on fire, what should you do: a - Get your wife and yourself in safety, and call the firebrigade. b - Try to put the fire out....and if you find the time get your wife and yourself in safety, and call the firebrigade.
The only correct answer is A. The ones that chose B most likely perished in the fire, while also losing their wives and their houses.
-edit- Another thing: he also keeps telling us that the choice for 'No action' means that we do nothing to undo the climate change, because of the economic impact that would have if we were not the ones causing it. He just thinks in "Action" and "No action", and doesn't even consider the option that "Action" also consists of two options being "The wrong action" and "The right action".... Thát's my point. What if trying to undo the climate change is the wrong action?! That "what if" is really not far fetched. Just look at the little ice age and the medieval warm period as an example of where we sure did not have any influence on the climate...it just happened to be like that.
Yes, we should do something, but come on guys...do the correct thing, and that's simply to accept the fact that we do not control the climate, so all we can do is adapt. If we do that we'll be in a Win-win situation:
lot's of work, building dams, dykes etc., so great for the economy!
everyone will move to a better spot, on higher ground, in a new home!
we can put our energy in something positive!
if it all turns out to be for no reason, we'll still have a good economy and a nice house to live in!
@MarcelG: I agree with you that his first video is overly simplified to a fault. In fact, in his other videos he tried to address this point. He acknowledges the fact that there should be much more factors in the consideration (what if we did not cause it, and it still happens, for instance).
I also agree with the fact that the chance that we as humans can reverse the upcoming Armageddon (if it happens) is very small. Is it not for the technical issues of changing the climate, then our complex politics simply make swift action impossible. Indeed, changing the way we live so we can cope with the change makes a lot of sense.
I do agree with one very important point he makes: is is very dangerous to use armchair science to try to either explain or dismiss the predicted climatic change. We are no experts in this field, and it is just way to complicated for us to grasp what is going on, and make a well rounded juddgement. Instead, we should leave interpreting the facts to experts, and make the decisions based upon their conclusions. (see his video, the nature of science).
I don't expect to understand how an airplane flies, but I can still use it knowing I will be ok.
Apparently, the scientific community is close to fully acknowledging the climatic change, and the significant role of human added CO2 in it. There are a few scientists who don't agree, but the majority does. Most notably, the large scientific organizations like NAS and AAAS seem to be quite unified in their statements.
Originally posted by Yosh on 03/11/09 @ 20:28 Hmm, maybe starting my own company in this field could lead me to $$$$$ If anything is the future demand, this is it!
I already work for the uk's largest consultancy on the environment we aren't making big bucks, the recession is hitting us just as hard as everyone else, big companies will not spend money to do this stuff unless they are forced to, which just proves one thing really and that is we are screwed if we wait around for things to change
even the scientists are not experts in this stuff and they still wildly disagree, even with the science we have we are at best taking a guess based on a very small snapshot of time in the planet's existance.
I think it should be looked at in an honest, (ie not political $$$ making) light even if it means starting over.
I believe the earth has been cooling or at least flat in the last years.
Sun spots (or lack thereof) has a WHOLE lot to do with it. All energy, power, magnetism, electricity, rain, winds, and life itself, comes from the sun....
What do the scientists really know about how it works and WHY?
And the truth is, they cannot predict the weather very well, so why is this to be assumed gospel?
It should at least be looked at in an honest, non-political, way. But how do we determine which party is truly impartial? Do we trust large scientific organizations like AAAS?
Not being able to predict the weather does not indicate that climate models are incorrect. Apparently, current climate models, fed with data until the 60s, have proven to be very accurate predictors of climate from the 60s until now. But again, this is just me claiming it. Who will say it is true?
Apparently, current climate models, fed with data until the 60s, have proven to be very accurate predictors of climate from the 60s until now. But again, this is just me claiming it. Who will say it is true?
How do "they" explain the predictions for a cooling or even ICE age that we were bombarded with in the early 70's??? (look it up!)
I have to keep out of this discussion, even though my tongue is aching....Yosh knows my opinion in this case, as we've had many heated debate about it already at the bar...I'll keep quiet...
I was in college when the term "Global Warming" was introduced. This was before many of you were born. Our professor warned that it was only a theory.
"Global Warming" research grant applications were quickly accepted and became the best way to obtain a grant. From that point on, academia stampeded to the topic of global warming. They follow the money.
The research results produce mountains of "evidence" and now here we are.
Exactly!!! It's all a big hoax, carefully designed to make a lot of money from. A lot of researchers are simply people who can make statistics into anything they want....as soon as they notice that they can make money on a global cooling scenario, their figures will tell you there's a global cooling going on.....
Good one golfman. . .I missed that article but I'm not surprised by it. Science requires the testing of a theory. Because we cannot test "global warming" and observe results, we cannot say that it conforms to the scientific method.
I don't have to jump off a 30 story building to know that I would die - even though that is not scientific - I'm pretty sure of the results.
