Now I'm going to say this first, I'm posting this because I wanted to share it with the community, and I hope that we can keep it nice and friendly and civil. The whole point of the video, the request is to share it, so if you have differing opinions, I hope you can express them calmly in a tone that is void of both aggression and arrogance. Similarly, I don't want any aggression or arrogance towards those who think that the whole Global Warming thing is a farce. We're all entitled to our opinions, and since nothing is 100% for sure, there's no reason for anyone to feel superior over, or belittle anyone whose opinion is different.

With that said, I hope you can keep an open mind while listening to this man, he's one of the best speakers I've ever heard. And to be honest, I hope he gets to make a documentary on it :-P

Here it is

Thanks for listening.

Wow! That guy is good! I think he's right, too. Just play it safe; good idea.

And you're right, SW4J. We all do have different views. I think Global Warming is out there. Just look at us, overfishing, pollution, overforesting, etc. Think about it: The by-products of gasoline are gasses. The law of conservation of mass states that matter can be changed, but not destroyed. So, those gasses that come out weigh the same as the gasoline that went in. This means that if three tons of gasoline are burned for your car, three tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere.

Okay, I need to stop myself now. I'm kind of passionate about this. If I keep going, I'm not gonna stop. :-/

But yes, I am open to anti-global warming posts- I'm flame-free! Besides, my opinion's as good as the next guy's.

Edited June 14, 200717 yr by Mr. Mandalorian

Besides, my opinion's as good as the next guy's.

I think global warming is a plot devised by the Martians to take over the earth in order to obtain the secret krabby patty recipe. We definitely should effectively stop global warming with a good ol' nuclear winter.

I think global warming is a plot devised by the Martians to take over the earth in order to obtain the secret krabby patty recipe. We definitely should effectively stop global warming with a good ol' nuclear winter.

AHAH! That explains EVERYTHING! So... this means the evolution is true, Oprah is Satan, Mega-bloks will one day try to control the plastic block industry with a nuclear war, and every religion is wrong on the creation of man, dosn't it? X-D

While I agree with the attitude, I can't say that I think this argument will persuade many. For one, simply look at the comments on the Break.com. But also, the argument of "The oil and coal will run out one day so we need to look now for other solutions", which is completly un-debatable, fails to persuade people that new solutions are needed. Too many people think "This will happen in 100 years or more, if ever, so who cares?", or worse still mention the G word. (That is god.) Until people are sure that this will affect them persanally and soon, nothing will change.

I'LL TAKE THE BLAME, you guys'll take the blow, I'm out to mars. Later!

-TD

As my geology professor taught me in college, at current gasoline consumption levels, there is enough natural gas and other gasses like propane to last the world's population for 10,000 years. That's right, 10,000.

And converting a gasoline engine to propane takes less than a day.

And propane burns cleaner than gasoline, producing nothing but heat, water, and carbon dioxide.

Not to mention that the United States is sitting on more coal than the middle east is sitting on oil, and there is such a thing as clean burning coal powered electrical plants. My good friend Paul works at one.

Look it up.

--Tony

As my geology professor taught me in college, at current gasoline consumption levels, there is enough natural gas and other gasses like propane to last the world's population for 10,000 years. That's right, 10,000.

And converting a gasoline engine to propane takes less than a day.

And propane burns cleaner than gasoline, producing nothing but heat, water, and carbon dioxide.

Not to mention that the United States is sitting on more coal than the middle east is sitting on oil, and there is such a thing as clean burning coal powered electrical plants. My good friend Paul works at one.

Look it up.

--Tony

Hm, a bit of attitude but alright. That doesn't really address his claims though, since he admitted it was entirely a possibility that nothing would happen. However you are going off the "10,000 years" as fact, when it's just an estimation from a college professor. The estimates range from it running out, to lasting 10,000 years. Also, how much of that gas isn't reachable by our means? How much is either hidden or buried so far down that we couldn't hope to reach it safely? How much of that amount can practically be used? How long ago were those estimates given to you, and have we learned or re-evaluated anything since then?

And while a clean-burning coal plant may be possible, that doesn't hold much practicality for what we currently use gasoline for. Coal takes up more space due to being a solid, and is generally difficult to use...I'm guessing that's why those clean-burning coal plants aren't very common.

It's questions and problems like these that say we need to really think about all scenarios, since well...we really can't say anything with 100% certainty. Just look at how many times we've retconned statistics and "facts"!

Hm, a bit of attitude but alright. That doesn't really address his claims though, since he admitted it was entirely a possibility that nothing would happen. However you are going off the "10,000 years" as fact, when it's just an estimation from a college professor. The estimates range from it running out, to lasting 10,000 years. Also, how much of that gas isn't reachable by our means? How much is either hidden or buried so far down that we couldn't hope to reach it safely? How much of that amount can practically be used? How long ago were those estimates given to you, and have we learned or re-evaluated anything since then?

And while a clean-burning coal plant may be possible, that doesn't hold much practicality for what we currently use gasoline for. Coal takes up more space due to being a solid, and is generally difficult to use...I'm guessing that's why those clean-burning coal plants aren't very common.

It's questions and problems like these that say we need to really think about all scenarios, since well...we really can't say anything with 100% certainty. Just look at how many times we've retconned statistics and "facts"!

a while back i spoke to one the emirs in the Middle East, the one from dubai, and he was very specific: they'll run out of oil in about 50 years. saudi arabia and Iraq still have decent supplies to last just a little bit longer, but most of it requires more investments. Seriously, it's not a coincidence that these Middle East statels like the UAE, Quatar,... are trying to get all sorts of other economic activities/events to their countries. They know the golden years of infite supply of oil is over.

Sure there may be more natural gas left, but essentially, there's a problem too: we keep extracting resources from our planet, and our planet isn't able to replace them. That said, there's something far worse than global warming: it's the parasitic way in which humans want to live on this planet. Soon we'll run out of wood and natural environments needed to keep us alive. Not to mention the huge numbers of people living on this planet. I live in Flanders, which has about 6.5 million spoiled, rich consumers on 12.000 km2. If you want to mesure the impact of human behavior on an environment, this is place. We get all sorts of warnings these days: a warning to not do too much between 12.00-15.00 due to high concentrates of ozon; we get warnings about very fine dust coming from our combustion engines of cars; we get all sorts of warnings from medical centers claiming the latter causes more deaths than classic crimes or deseases...

Okay, now that I've tad the time to watch it, I'll comment in seriousness.

First thing we need to know; this isn't something we will have to worry about for thousands of years, but it looks like it's always good to plan ahead.

The guy was alright, but I found several issues of questionable content. Firstly, he stated that we could fall into the "Lottery Ticket" on the right catagory if we are preoccupied arguing about the matter. Arguing about the validity of global warming for thousands of years? I think not. Also, he does prove that the left lottery ticket (both literally and figuratively) is less of a direct risk, but this reasoning is relatively useless considering he did not weigh fact into equation. Since one of them is more likely to happen than the other, that would definitely out way one side of the situation. I found that this chart was drawing out if it is happening right now, and whether we act or not. But what if it is happening currently but it is not us who are causing it? In that case we would get double depression, wouldn't we? He did mention that briefly but it didn't make it's way into his chart. When taking that into account, it becomes very complicated making a good possibility one side will out way another.

I also felt the beginning was very overblown, describing how he found this breathtaking revolutionary concept that "both the most hardened skeptic and the most panicked activist can agree on". That's making quite an assumption if you ask me. After all that's over, his theory really isn't that wondrous or even new to me. I was hoping it would be science, not probability.

But his biggest problem was that he ruined a true and respectable theory by mentioning Al Gore. Whether or not global warming is realistic, I believe Mr. Gore is not a good role model, under and standards.

If the sky

I haven't the time to listen to this, but I might listen later, so here are my views on global warming: It isn't man's fault. It's out there, but it isn't our fault. No matter how many hybrids, green shopping bags, or green this, green that, it won't affect global warming. There was a time when the people who lived in England could grow crops on green grass and fresh lawns. But since then nature has been cooling off. Now it's warming up! Mr. Mandalorian, how does fishing heat the atmosphere? How does cutting down trees heat the atmosphere? (not that I like the idea of cutting em' all down) Sure, pollution poisons the air. Pollution is wrong. But it doesen't cause global warming! Al Gore is just using a slight rise in temperature to get people to listen to him so they will believe him so he can run for president without having a snowball's chance in hell. So to speak.

Now for my summary: Global warming is out there. We can't stop it, we didn't make it, we shouldn't try to stop it.

this isn't something we will have to worry about for thousands of years...Arguing about the validity of global warming for thousands of years?

Well, I think that falls back on the idea mentioned earlier. We really have no idea if it's thousands of years, or 50 years. One of the things I really liked about him was his early statement that we don't know, and it's silly to think that we can know with an absolute certainty.

Since one of them is more likely to happen than the other, that would definitely out way one side of the situation.

Well, that also goes back to what he says, we can't know if it's going to happen or not! Surethere's reason to believe it will, but we've no way to say 100% that it's going to happen, at least that's the point of view of the people who think it's all a crock anyway :-D

I found that this chart was drawing out if it is happening right now, and whether we act or not. But what if it is happening currently but it is not us who are causing it? In that case we would get double depression, wouldn't we? He did mention that briefly but it didn't make it's way into his chart.

Well a depression is a depression :-D But also remember he said several times "There isn't enough time in the world to go over ALL scenarios, I urge you to make your own, and use less extreme examples if you want! This list isn't all-comprehensive", and part of the "extreme" was that if we act, we could prevent it (an extreme on the positive side).

I also felt the beginning was very overblown, describing how he found this breathtaking revolutionary concept that "both the most hardened skeptic and the most panicked activist can agree on". That's making quite an assumption if you ask me. After all that's over, his theory really isn't that wondrous or even new to me. I was hoping it would be science, not probability.

Well you have to remember, he isn't a scientist :-D And what he said was that he has put it into an argument that is hard to refute. If you believe there are holes, he urges you to contact him about them! Maybe you want to give it a try if you feel the way you do?

But his biggest problem was that he ruined a true and respectable theory by mentioning Al Gore. Whether or not global warming is realistic, I believe Mr. Gore is not a good role model, under and standards.

That's why he was mocking Gore...

How does cutting down trees heat the atmosphere? (not that I like the idea of cutting em' all down)

well actually it does. I'm sure you're familiar with the process of photosynthesis, and how they're necessary to maintain levels of oxygen in our atmosphere. Don't forget that they synthesize oxygen by taking in carbon dioxide to convert it to oxygen. And carbon dioxide is a large part of the greenhouse gasses that are talked about! So essentially they're air-purifiers ;-)

Edited June 14, 200717 yr by Starwars4J

Anybody watch last comic standing last night?

"I look at my weight gaining problem like I look at global warming. Ooohhh, that's reeaally bad. But what the hell can I do about it?"

-TD

EDIT:

^Yeah but did you know that slat water plants (ocean plants/sea weed) produce approximately 70% of our oxygen?

-TD

Edited June 14, 200717 yr by TwistedDreams

I'm not unsympathetic to the seeming fact global warming is happening, but I also believe that man's involvement is exaggerated. Volcanoes go off and spew more carbon dioxide than was projected for man to do, and little changes... although doomsday theorists state that far less of the emission from man should've sunk New York.

Fear and blame are both "businesses".

I'm not worried about us running out of gas and oil.

By the time we do, we'll be way more into new technologies.

Still though, it's like Steven Hawking has said (and this is from memory), "We NEEDS ta' get our assez inta SPACE!"

Space is the place.

Well, and nano technology...

It is so nice to see people thinking about on of the biggest problems, the global warming. I mean as long as people think about it, they propably think of how much energy and water they spend.

Plastick contains a lot of oil, and as long as we keep the LEGO as bricks, we "bind" a lot of CO2, making oil-prisses rice, and making sure that the CO2 do not get out in the air. Collecting LEGO is good for the inviroment.

Lets make sure we have a good climate for children to grow up in.

Morten

While I agree with the attitude, I can't say that I think this argument will persuade many. For one, simply look at the comments on the Break.com. But also, the argument of "The oil and coal will run out one day so we need to look now for other solutions", which is completly un-debatable, fails to persuade people that new solutions are needed. Too many people think "This will happen in 100 years or more, if ever, so who cares?", or worse still mention the G word. (That is god.) Until people are sure that this will affect them persanally and soon, nothing will change.

I'm a long-time Break.com veteran. I've been visiting them for over three years now - and thus put no stock in the Break.com commenters. Try it; if you so much as attempt to comment on a video, your IQ drops 50 points.

I'm not worried about us running out of gas and oil.

By the time we do, we'll be way more into new technologies.

The only problem with this, Jinzo, is that if pretty much everyone thinks and says that, we wont have new technologies ;) And for all our bashing on France, they're *FAR* ahead of us on developing alternative energy. They have trains that can outpace jetliners and run off nuclear energy; the emmisions are 0, theres no radiation threat, you can melt your nuclear weapons stockpiles down to run it, and a single 100-pound container of it is equivalent to over a hundred tons of Oil. Give me a while and I'll dig up a few news articles on this...

- Helden the "Frontier Psychiatrist"

Edited June 14, 200717 yr by Lord Admiral Helden Ravensdorn

(trooperdavinfelth @ Jun 14 2007, 09:27 AM)

How does cutting down trees heat the atmosphere? (not that I like the idea of cutting em' all down)

well actually it does. I'm sure you're familiar with the process of photosynthesis, and how they're necessary to maintain levels of oxygen in our atmosphere. Don't forget that they synthesize oxygen by taking in carbon dioxide to convert it to oxygen. And carbon dioxide is a large part of the greenhouse gasses that are talked about! So essentially they're air-purifiers

Zounds! I forgot. :-P You were right, SW4J. But I still wonder at the rest.

Still though, it's like Steven Hawking has said (and this is from memory), "We NEEDS ta' get our assez inta SPACE!"

Space is the place.

I fully agree with you here.... sooner or later.

The Sun does not have enough mass to explode as a supernova. Instead, in 4-5 billion years, it will enter a red giant phase, its outer layers expanding as the hydrogen fuel in the core is consumed and the core contracts and heats up. Helium fusion will begin when the core temperature reaches around 100 MK, and will produce carbon and oxygen. While it is likely that the expansion of the outer layers of the Sun will reach the current position of Earth's orbit, recent research suggests that mass lost from the Sun earlier in its red giant phase will cause the Earth's orbit to move further out, preventing it from being engulfed. However, Earth's water will be boiled away and most of its atmosphere will escape into space.

Although I wonder a little what kind of spirit we

Well, I think that falls back on the idea mentioned earlier. We really have no idea if it's thousands of years, or 50 years. One of the things I really liked about him was his early statement that we don't know, and it's silly to think that we can know with an absolute certainty.

Putting the science aside, if you just look through past earth history, no major climate shift has occurred in the all of one century, much less one decade, excluding events of celestial origin like meteor impacts. I think it's safe to say nothing as major as global depression caused by meteorological alteration is going to happen in our children's lifetime.

Well, that also goes back to what he says, we can't know if it's going to happen or not! Sure there's reason to believe it will, but we've no way to say 100% that it's going to happen, at least that's the point of view of the people who think it's all a crock anyway :-D

Yes, but it is possible for parts of his argument to seem moot because he didn't weigh in scientific variables.

Well a depression is a depression :-D But also remember he said several times "There isn't enough time in the world to go over ALL scenarios, I urge you to make your own, and use less extreme examples if you want! This list isn't all-comprehensive", and part of the "extreme" was that if we act, we could prevent it (an extreme on the positive side).

Yes, that's good if we make up our own explanations, but the accuracy of a list that's not all-comprehensive is very hard to discern.

Well you have to remember, he isn't a scientist :-D And what he said was that he has put it into an argument that is hard to refute. If you believe there are holes, he urges you to contact him about them! Maybe you want to give it a try if you feel the way you do?

Huh? That's not responding to my statement.....I just said he put way to much sensationalism in a supposedly scientific argument.

That's why he was mocking Gore...

Ah, sorry, my internet connection was being fairly choppy earlier. I didn't get to watch the very end. Now I see that he keeps altering the reason why he is putting his video online. :-D He isn't mocking Gore's ideals, he just says Gore made the truth in that situation much sound better than it could actually be. Now I observe in the beginning he states he wants to check if his reasoning is delusional, then he states not to take his word for it, but to formulate your own opinion, but then at that end sequence he says he put the video out there so people can watch it, become inspired, email it to all their friends and spread the word around the globe to convince others! Curious....

Putting the science aside, if you just look through past earth history, no major climate shift has occurred in the all of one century, much less one decade, excluding events of celestial origin like meteor impacts. I think it's safe to say nothing as major as global depression caused by meteorological alteration is going to happen in our children's lifetime.

Er...that's right. And it also didn't have humans ruining the environment in the history...

Yes, but it is possible for parts of his argument to seem moot because he didn't weigh in scientific variables.

Scientific varliables? Such as what?

Huh? That's not responding to my statement.....I just said he put way to much sensationalism in a supposedly scientific argument.

Where did he put sentimentalism?

Now I see that he keeps altering the reason why he is putting his video online. :-D He isn't mocking Gore's ideals, he just says Gore made the truth in that situation much sound better than it could actually be. Now I observe in the beginning he states he wants to check if his reasoning is delusional, then he states not to take his word for it, but to formulate your own opinion, but then at that end sequence he says he put the video out there so people can watch it, become inspired, email it to all their friends and spread the word around the globe to convince others! Curious....

I see absolutely no contradictions in there. He says he's putting this out there so you can think about it, weigh the variables yourself, and come to your own conclusion. He wants you to spread it so more people think about it (he actually says that verbatim near the end), not so more people listen and agree. In fact he goes out of his way to tell people to contact him if they find some flaws in his reasoning. So far I've heard none except "well he didn't take every single detail into account". However he doesn't have to, he dumbed it down so that it wouldn't last hours and hours, and left it in a way that you can reconsider it yourself with other variables he didn't have time for. Was there anything he actually said that was incorrect? If so, what?

X-D I'm always getting into these things with 4j........I did want to finish the other by the way, but I had no time. And recently I've developed some questions concerning fourth dimension continuity in Euclidean space-time. :-P

Er...that's right. And it also didn't have humans ruining the environment in the history...

Let's put it this way, I just have my doubts that world-wide apocalyptic disaster caused by weather is going to pounce upon us in all of a few years.

Scientific varliables? Such as what?

I have no time to write something void of loopholes you'll pick at. Go read about Michael Crichton's State of Fear.

Where did he put sentimentalism?

Sensationalism. :-D The argument was over-blown a little to much for me to appreciate. Mind you, I do like the theory, he just could have expressed it a little better.

I see absolutely no contradictions in there. He says he's putting this out there so you can think about it, weigh the variables yourself, and come to your own conclusion. He wants you to spread it so more people think about it (he actually says that verbatim near the end), not so more people listen and agree. In fact he goes out of his way to tell people to contact him if they find some flaws in his reasoning.

:-P Nah, he says he's being completely neutral, he is just stating facts, and don't believe him just because you watched a video, go forth to formulate your own opinion and believe in yourself. Later on, he wants you to spread the word, the word of enlightenment by column A. He orders you strait out to help to increase the public desire for column A; he really didn't need to do that at all. I liked it very much when he drew the graph and left you to decide on your own opinion. Not to 'enlighten the earth with his opinion' just because you've watched the video. Of course, some will agree with the video, and spread the word well in a unique matter, while others will not think it through for themselves because the video has already done that for them. They will just forward it by email to tons of people following the opinion of this stranger because they were not encouraged to make their own as the video initially mentioned....

So far I've heard none except "well he didn't take every single detail into account". However he doesn't have to, he dumbed it down so that it wouldn't last hours and hours, and left it in a way that you can reconsider it yourself with other variables he didn't have time for.

That's what I'm saying! Without taking hours and hours to combine all the variables, I believe one can not draw a full, accurate conclusion in this situation. Sure, you could be right by chance, but you have not sturdy foundation to support it while it's windows get smashed by skeptical others.

Was there anything he actually said that was incorrect? If so, what?

Nope, and I haven't implied that there was. I think a lack of fact is what's preventing the video from being pristinely perfect.

X-D I'm always getting into these things with 4j........I did want to finish the other by the way, but I had no time. And recently I've developed some questions concerning fourth dimension continuity in Euclidean space-time. :-P

So you had no time, but developed some questions relating to time? X-D

Let's put it this way, I just have my doubts that world-wide apocalyptic disaster caused by weather is going to pounce upon us in all of a few years.

Well that's your right. I believe he said something along the lines of 50 years IIRC though. Remember, he isn't saying this happens overnight. It's not like we suddenly get hit with a huge flood like in the movies. Rather it's the water level raising a few inches a year, etc. And I live on an island, it is happening :-P

I have no time to write something void of loopholes you'll pick at. Go read about Michael Crichton's State of Fear.

I'm too busy studying for an exam in my grad course in microbiology ;-) If you have the time though, I'd love to...er...pick

Sensationalism

:-$ Oops

:-P Nah, he says he's being completely neutral, he is just stating facts, and don't believe him just because you watched a video, go forth to formulate your own opinion and believe in yourself. Later on, he wants you to spread the word, the word of enlightenment by column A. He orders you strait out to help to increase the public desire for column A; he really didn't need to do that at all. I liked it very much when he drew the graph and left you to decide on your own opinion. Not to 'enlighten the earth with his opinion' just because you've watched the video. Of course, some will agree with the video, and spread the word well in a unique matter, while others will not think it through for themselves because the video has already done that for them. They will just forward it by email to tons of people following the opinion of this stranger because they were not encouraged to make their own as the video initially mentioned....

Er, but he didn't say "spread this and make them see that column A is right!" He's just confidant in his argument, but wants you to spread it so you get THEM thinking. He encourages throughout the video to do it yourself, make your own, add other variables, etc. He even said at one point that if nothing else, he just wants people to THINK about it. Why? Because if we don't think, we automatically choose column B. Is that sort of a push for column A? Absolutely, we know he chooses column A, but he isn't trying to force us to choose column A, he's trying to force us to make a choice period.

That's what I'm saying! Without taking hours and hours to combine all the variables, I believe one can not draw a full, accurate conclusion in this situation. Sure, you could be right by chance, but you have not sturdy foundation to support it while it's windows get smashed by skeptical others.

Do you really need to add in more variables though? Sure, you'd get a more accurate picture about how to handle it and what to do, but isn't that more valuable only after you've made the choice of whether or not you're going to act? You don't always need to make something hyper complex, sometimes nature is simplicity. Those are the four general possibilities. You might ask "What about if we act and still can't stop it!", well that would fall under the "column A, true" category, just with a less positive outcome. Each box has itself, a wide range of possibilities, each one is like a miniature rainbow. If you want to flush each one out yourself, by all means do it like he said! However those are the four base choices and outcomes.

The next thing you should do, 4J, is write the Compelling Argument for Illegal Immigration. I have a full agenda for that one! *sweet*

We're all entitled to our opinions, and since nothing is 100% for sure, there's no reason for anyone to feel superior over, or belittle anyone whose opinion is different.

In that case could you take the belittling and subjective 'compelling' out of the title X-D X-D ;-) ?

God Bless,

Nathan

Who does enjoy a good debate but isn't going to enter this one... ;-)