How It All Ends: A Simplified Yet Thorough Look at Climate Change

A

ananag112

CAGiversary!
Feedback
2 (100%)
Basically a High School Physics teacher posted a video on why people should take global warming/climate change seriously and he got attacked over some details. Here is the short video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=channel_page

So he made a revised version which can be seen here:

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

To further back his argument, he made a series of "expansion packs" which go into more detail.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=92EE5DBE2987982F

Its pretty long, but he keeps it entertaining. He simplifies the subject well and explains in detail why we should believe the claims scientists are making. Its good to watch if you are a skeptic that humans are the cause of climate change or if you are on the fence.

I am sorry if this has been posted before.
 
Thanks for the videos, interesting viewpoint. I do think he doesn't take into account the biggest costs to the action/false result, and overstates somewhat the negative results of the inaction/true scenario. Of course, this presupposes that we are not going to understand the climate well enough to determine if recent trends are something human-caused or not anytime soon, a position I'm very sympathetic to, although I hope to be proved wrong.
 
bologna.jpg
 
His whole argument assumes that any "action" taken at this point would make any difference if man really is changing the climate. There is little evidence to support that we can stop what his coming, even by the most optimistic pro-global warming crowd.

So I posit what I deem more realistic choices:

  • Radically alter global policy, ruin global economies, and magnify death and suffering in the third world -all in the bleak hope that we can still squeak out a different outcome with our so-called massive affect on the climate.

Or
  • Spend resources and take less risks to prepare for his "worst case" scenario in his column "No"; thereby saving as many lives as possible for the "imminent catastrophe".

Or, to put it in simpler terms - Let's say you own a house in an area where fire outbreaks are a big problem. Would you spend 5k a month to try and beef up the fire department and support community programs that fight fires, etc. Or would it be more wise to spend 20k on fireproofing your house?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It would make the most sense to sell the fucking house and move somewhere safer. :D[/QUOTE]

Sweet, it'll be just like Firefly.
 
I use to be really into the whole Peak Oil hysteria in the 90's.

After lots of reading on the subject I concluded that either A) It's a myth or B) it's happened already.

If society really needs a big frighning game-changer to stress about, there are better options. Like the orchestrated global economic collapse or the stuff in the book "Confessions of an economic hitman".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top