Hi everyone,
I just got sent this cool link, finally someone who can make sense on the arguments on Climate Change
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI"]YouTube - Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See[/ame]
Printable View
Hi everyone,
I just got sent this cool link, finally someone who can make sense on the arguments on Climate Change
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI"]YouTube - Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See[/ame]
A SWOT analysis on global warming:). very clever and very correct.
We are a clever species....too clever sadly :( and we will screw this up :cool:
he seems to have missed an entire outcome that is logicla and also a worse case scenario.
It has taken 100 yrs of growing co2 to raise the temp 0.6c, and in a lagging fashion. Current models worst case, put the current co2 levels as leading to the catastrophic change discussed. Thus prevention maybe no cure at all, and what is required is adaptation.
In that instance, to take action on prevention now and leading to a depression leaves us without economic might and resources to handle the adaptation, nor take poactive action. So that involves big spend big cost, no effect on outcome, still bad outcome, inability to cope with the outcome.
If the trend is irreversable ecconomic might is not going to help us adapt. Our economic health will be destroyed along with the environment - we might have plenty of money but without viable agriculture and water supply we will be stuffed. It is like saying dams are the solution to long term drought - if there is no water to fill the dams they are expensive holes. If we build dams when there is plenty of rain we might send ourselves broke on dams we do not need??!! We need to adapt now using our relative strength to adapt while we can. Adapting after the event is a poor option.
Pusser
Construction of dykes - any problem for austrlia - big problem for bangladesh - one has difficulty feeding its people, the other has difficulty deciding if LCD or plasma is the way to go.
the "event" is over 50 years to a century, and we manage to keep men surviving in space and km's under the ocean - dealing with an Baghdad climate doesnt really compare to what we are capable of.
load of b/s
While I agree with his sentiments (no, not PTC's, the narrator of the YouTube argument), It seems to me to be grounded in the American tradition of positive thinking and pop psychology.
You could run a counter argument using the same table. It's all in the delivery. But still, I'm all for reversing the degradation of the planet, so I'm not against him.
And pauline skips into the senate.......Quote:
Originally Posted by ptc
"Please explain........." :)
my brother in law is a geologist with heavy investments inmining, uranium etc.
funny that he is also a man made climate change sceptic.
he believes that any climate change is a natural phenomina and there is nothing we can do about it.
he also states that some people will be less comfortable (like dead?)
i try to argue that if it is anatural phenomina will not our rapacious use on fossil fuels make the phenomina worse
his answer "we'll be OK cos I have the economic reasources to cushion the effects for my family"
needless to say, I dont talk to him unless I have to
Astrid
This is a variation on the 17th century Pascal's Wager, and is just as valid.
Quote:
Is there anything of which one can say,
"Look! This is something new"?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
Ecc 1:10
could you summerise this please
astrid
Very simple: We do not know if God exists or not. We can chose to believe in God, or not to. Now, draw the same table:Quote:
Originally Posted by astrid
http://www.qwerty.co.il/table.png
And instead of looking at the rows, look at the columns - how do you guarantee you do not end up in hell?
In environmental terms it is called the "Precautionary Principle" Im not a Wiki fan but here is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
Essentially the burden of proof rests with the person/group who want to introduce a new element into a system. eg a new drug must be tested before it is allowed for general use. Similarly, lack of environmental harm must be proved before a major infrastructure project is undertaken. In terms of climate change it means that with the evidence continuing to emerge it is incumbent upon those wanting to continue to add to the CO2 load should prove that this is OK. Fat chance when the dollar rules.
Climate change is actually a moral issue, how much of our money, time, effort and care do we owe to those in distant countries or future generations? Even if it all turns out to be a scare what moral leanings do we show with our behaviour?. Are we no better than a carnivorous species that devours all before it? Or we more civilised that we have a regard for the wider society / environment?. Which Australian values will we practise?
Climate change is NOT a moral issue,
It is a fact of life that the climate is changing
Of course all the dodo's will bury their heads in the sand
until someone takes them by the hand and proves that climate change is happening.
Of course if you're brilliant at debate you may convince people its a fallacy but that won't stop it from happening.
Little Johnny poo-hooed it a few years ago but now even he accepts it
Echindna,
its a moral issue in that we have an obligation to those affected by it first even if we are still relatively unaffected. We are in drought but can still take a shower. Some Pacific Islands havent got water to drink, so do we help a mate in need?....thats what I meant.
it must be her hair.
absolutly we do
in times of crisis like ww2 and other catastrophes, civilised nations adjust their cultures to accommodate those in need and share what they have.
If this means adjusting our culture to make room, so be it.
this is what makes us human
astrid
This should be in the drivel forum
Interesting, considering Tas doesnt have enough water to runs all its hydro and needs to import power :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ernknot
nb: I aint no expert, but there was an "expert" on the ABC saying this last night :)
This is the way a lot decisions are made, like insuring your house.
You don't think it will burn down but there's a low probability that it might. Insuring it costs money, but only a fraction of the cost of a new house.
4 possibilities.
Pay for insurance premium, house burns down. Get payout.
Pay for insurance premium, house doesn't burn down. Lose premium.
Don't pay insurance premium. House doesn't burn down. Save premium.
Don't pay insurance premium. House burns down. Save premium, lose house.
So insuring your house is obviously a good idea even though it's very unlikely to burn down.
The difference with global warming is that the low-probability case is that it won't happen (although some people obviously won't believe it until there are camels grazing in Antarctica).
dazzler,Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzler
There is plenty of water. Hydro just built the dams in the wrong place. Importing power is a rort. Everyone is cutting back on power usage and Hydro has cashflow problems, so, we import power and up go the charges. The good old ABC ( All Bs Comments), they have their own agenda. People have to lighten up, listening and reading comments/ articles about the global warming issue scares the pants off a lot of people and in turn generates a lot of hysteria. We all know that there is changed weather pattern at this time but it is not the end of humanity. Even the doomsdayers are still running around in cars to get to their meetings etc. and using all of the prcessed goodies available to us. I personally would take advice from a body of scientists who had no conection with politicians, scare mongerers, greenies or glory seeking journalists/ commentators. Is there such a body?
In the meantime, keep making sawdust.
I can believe that the dams are in the wrong places, but we forget that the Hydro was a runaway bureaucratic dam-building monster. They would have eventually had dams in all the right places as well as all the wrong places except that they got stopped before they finished.
Interesting that the dam-supporting doom and gloom merchants of the time used very similar arguments regarding the future of Tasmania as those now supporting the old growth logging and the pulp mill. Now there are some real scare mongers for you.
woodbe.
yep, if the Greens get the balance of power we are all stuffed. No firewood, no hunting and no fishing. They will want us to sit around and smoke dope and look at gum trees, oh and occasionally protest when an old tree falls over.
Fair enough if the dams are in the wrong spot.
But
The blokes argument is hard to beat re warming.
Column A is wrong in that the conclusions drawn cannot be different. It does not matter whether global warming is true or false.
If you spend the money and it is false, he concludes that we will have a global depression. OK that's a reasonable conclusion.
If you spend the money and it is true, he concludes that everything is rosy. How on earth can that be right if the same amount of money is spent. Sure it was well spent, but still spent. You must logically still have a global depression, but you have saved the planet so to speak.
So if we act in accordance with column A, we will have a global depression and save the planet whether it is true or false. It's the safe approach as far as the environment is concerned. With column B you are gambling.
So he asks for a hole in his argument, I think I found one.