I wish i had the time to watch all thirty-something of his videos in order.
He brings up some good points though, but one interesting thing that is brought up.
According to him, all you need to understand is the basic risks of one choice over the other, but not why or how these risks are the case.
In other words, what he said could be argued to say that a person does NOT need to be educated in science at all, and can still make an informed decision on the issue of global warming. I don't happen to feel that way, but one could interpret the video to say such.
well. That's really the whole point of the video, to bring the issue down to a lowest common denominator so even the most skeptical of skeptics could say that perhaps taking action on the issue is worth-while. Waiting on ample proof of the issue could lead to our downfall, we have to put our faith in the organizations who have backed the reality of the scenario and take immediate action to prevent it. I realize the issue is not quite as black and white as he makes it seem but certainly the risk management approach is not to be blamed, in fact, it should be commended. The average American is not going to research global warming much more than a google search. Think about it, this is a viral video, one of the few ways possible to reach the American people on a grand scale. This video was posted amoung dogs chasing laser pointers and kids kicking eachother in the crotch, how sad is that? People don't want to make "informed decisions" they want to have things simplified, spelled out for them. Not everywhere is westchester county and not everyone has the time or drive to research a topic like global warming to make an "informed decision".
Ok this just pisses me off. Heres something to think about, the data which we base our "global warming THEORY" comes from what? It comes from temperature readings and readings of gas levels in our present day atmosphere. So how long have we had a reliable and accurate method of measuring temperature? I think Galileo had one of the first ones in 1593. Now when did we first start recording these temperatures? I dont know. But we notice the increase in temperature within the last 200 years or so. Now how do we know that the earth isnt doin it by itself? Well the earth has never increased this fast and to such a large degree (pun intended). How do we know that? Well those "guys" looks at ice and trees and rocks and it has never done this before. Ok but how far back are these "guys" lookin? Hundreds of Thousands of Years! To me that seems like a BIG scale, i wonder how accurate can it be? How can we be certain that this isnt just a blip, a little jump, how can we be sure that is hasnt already happened? 100,000 year vs 200 hmmm. The world is cyclical, life then death then more life. Rain then water then more rain. Ice age then warming then ice age. The facts are that we dont know, and throwing money at something that could not even be a problem is just stupid. Dont just tell me im doomed then make me give you money to solve it. Nothing pisses me off more than throwing money at a "problem." Global warming is just a tool used by politicians to fuel our fears, its the same as James Fox's 1995 prediction of a 15 percent increase in murder among teenagers. That was used to help Clinton's election and the rate dropped 50 percent within five years. You are all being tricked by power/money-hungry politicians like Al Gore, can someone tell me why he got the noble peace prize? ugh Glaz why do you post this? Im probably the only one who will present a counterpoint against this liberal garbage.
"Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers." -Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
well captainsxyboat i agree wit you on one thing, global warming is a theory. Do we know it is 100% human caused, no, but it’s way more likely that it is rather than it isn't. I've actually done research into the other side of the argument. Out of curiosity I viewed a film called The Great Global Warming Swindle. The movie tries to make the same argument that you do, only they actually state SOME legitimate science (such as the recent rise in temperature correlating to the recent increase in sunspots on the sun). Although at first look the movie is somewhat convincing, there are several problems with it. One is that the movie focuses on co2 and it repeatedly says that there is way more natural co2 than human caused co2 (which is true) so theres no way global warming is human caused. This is flawed, because the movie never mentions methane once. Methane traps over 20 times as muh heat as co2 and is mostly human caused (if you count the gasses that animals raised solely for human consumption). Another problem is that the movie never shows any evidence from the other side. The Great Global Warming Swindle (which can be easily downloaded off bittorrent) presents several Theories against human caused global warming supported by SOME scientists. Well 90% of the scientists at the un global climate summit said that global warming is mostly human caused, and that is based on years upon years of research and very accurate temperature and greenhouse gas readings from ice ores that date thousands of years back. So in conclusion, is there some legitimate science to backup the claim that global warming isn't human caused? yes, is there a lot? no. Is there massive amounts of evidence to show that global warming is human caused? yes, is there a small possibility that it isn't, sure. Basically the only people who will suffer at all if we take action to change the climate are large multinational corporations. Even if global warming is a complete scam by politicians to control us with fear, it will still benefit everyone to burn less fossil fuel and clean up the environment. Any logical person can see that it is worth taking action to stop climate change.
Oh and if you don't think the earth is getting warmer at all you're a complete idiot.
The rationale behind this video is somewhat misleading. I'm not a stern beliefer in the doomsday theories behind global warming (no, this does not mean i am making fun of you for your electric car, and am calling for direct blog retalliation), but it's always good to lower our dependences on limited (and costly) fuel sources. I find myself siding with the capt'n (at least in terms of the value of this video). Sure it's amusing and makes statistical sense, but It could also argue my becoming an evangelical christian. I cannot be sure that hell does not exist. Hell and jesus are both extremely popular beliefs held by an enormous amount of the population. there are written records to suggest the miracles of jesus, but nobody is still around from that time to assess their validity. So I can either accept jesus and go to church for an hour or two every once in a while, or risk (potentially) burning in hell for all of eternity. When the positives are weighed against the negatives, it seems like an obvious choice. Copernicus, glaileo, NEWTON, all believed in god (that seems like a trustworthy scientific lot). "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." (Albert Einstein). See you all at mass.
You should read some more about Newton – there is nothing trustworthy about him and, sorry for being a bit judgmental here, he certainly was not a person I would like to hang out with.
So, I guess the summary of your post is 1. Convert 2. Sell your Hummer
Do we know it is 100% human caused, no, but it’s way more likely that it is rather than it isn't.
Does it matter who caused it? When the train is running off a cliff, it’s not time to be putting train engineer on trial. Shouldn’t the more pressing issue be stopping the train?
Ok, let the physics teacher hate on on Newton. Once I look up Glazenburgian mechanics in my phys. text book, I will agree with you 100%. If it comes to trusting Al Gore over Newton, I'm afraid I'll have to go with the latter. i'll give Gore credit for inventing the internet and everything, but i don't like the slimy political feel i got off of him.
And if you agree with reasoning in this video glaz, i suggest you convert too (if you care for your mortal soul that is). Albeit, most of our great philosophers are in the first level of Dante's hell. When the ice caps melt and we all drown to death you can give them a good "I told you" speech while I party it up in heaven.
If it comes to trusting Al Gore over Newton, I'm afraid I'll have to go with the latter.
I don’t recall Newton saying anything about global climate change.
i suggest you convert too
I am an atheist – not an agnostic, not a theist, not undecided: a real atheist. One needs to have some belief in deity in order to qualify for conversion. I’ll just spend my time learning how to swim.
Capitansxyboat, I think you may be missing a very important piece of information
You say that we have been able to record temperature for only the past 200 years... well the thermometer and reliable documents may be just that old, but there are others ways of measuring temperature, sea levels, and CO2 levels.
By digging into the ice of Antarctica and taking out a several meter long core sample, we can accurately measure the average temperature of the earth as far back as FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND years.
You ask how far back we are looking? 400,000 years is your answer.
Info: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/stories/ Less reliable but more informative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
Copernicus, glaileo, NEWTON, all believed in god (that seems like a trustworthy scientific lot).
Going back to skeptical thinking and reasoning yet again, you are committing one of the most dangerous false argument crimes here: appeal to authority. Newton and Einstein being theists does not immediately make them right. Newton also believed in alchemy. Should this mean we should all jump onto the turning lead into gold bandwagon? And Einstein was strongly opposed to the theory (not hypothesis) of quantum mechanics. He was wrong... Does this fact invalidate his theory of relativity?
I don't think the religious argument is a very relevant one, because honestly. I don't know Hell or Jesus doesn't exist. But I also don't know that Zeus, Athena, Isis, Osiris, Buddha, don't exist also. I can't exactly join the millions of religions that have sprung up (without cloning myself anyway). Yet I can still worry about the global climate change, considering that ok. There could be a problem. There could be a problem with the one thing we can't replace (well one of the things.) that's our planet. I could see if we were screwing up maybe one country but jesus. If we lose the entire thing, well. I'll have to invest in a boat.
I'm sorry but I'm not going to become a Christian just because it's popular. Maybe if it didn't draw most of its facts from a certain book that contradicts itself every other page (and there are A LOT of pages) then I would find it to be factual. I AM going to try and fix something that could be very very bad for us.
This is kind of off-topic, but what would happen if there was an ice age?
I am personaly not very scared of global warming. This is becuase by the time that is would take to warm us up, we would have a much bigger problem to worry about, and this is global cooling, or to use the dreaded term AN ICE AGE! If you think that newyork becomeing a savanah wouldnt be fun, jsut imagine the pleasures offered by having your home under a mile and a half of ice.
THe problem wiht ice ages is that once they start, they generaly dont stop until another major climate shift occurs, the ice simply reflects sunlight and its potential for heating back into space.
The reason this could occur is that the northern reaches of teh atlantic are kept warm by northern flowing warm waters fromt the gulf of mexico. These go up to near greenland, warming england and the northeast in the process, and then sink once they cool and flow back down along the ocean floor to a world wide conveyor system, the thermo haline conveyor. The issue is that teh melting freshwater from the northern ice cap flows into this heavy salty water, dilutes it, and makes it to light to sink. This has potential to foul up the whole system, and as the north eventualy cools, the ice caps will expand, and the possibility for an ice age could become a reality.
I have a different question: where does an atheist (glaz) find such high moral standards that make him/her do stuff about climate change?
Everything you can do (or your not doing certain things and momentarily refraining from changing the planet) is absolutely negligible. The world is really, really big, and what goes round does not really come round. "Little things," "small parts": these won't do anything by themselves. You won't start a global movement. If there is a global movement, you won't help it to any significant degree.
Doing good things for people is good and natural. But doing good things for society? Unless you have OCD or exist as some sort of a political or corporate entity...
I don't think we should really ignore global warming (I'm not some schmuck), but it's a question I have trouble with. To an atheist, the world only exists from his/her perspective. If there's a global movement, that's fantastic. But why, exactly, inconvenience yourself?
Did you really just make a parallel between atheism and lack of morals? Does faith in god necessarily imbue one with strong ethics and morals and, subsequently, lack of faith in god fosters personalities lacking in ethics and compassion?
To an atheist, the world only exists from his/her perspective.
Consider an alternate view: to an atheist, there is no-one else who can fix the things going wrong with the word, but humanity…
In a related comment: I teach physics, not theology. Therefore, this discussion is headed away from science and therefore my official job description.
Whoa Glaz. If you're an atheist you get to define good, morals, and ethics for yourself. If you're religious (and in my view there are very, very few religious people who are not blatant hypocrites) it would seem that you would do what is right because you believe that god's going to kick some ass when you die. And I think my basic point is still valid. Everything you do is negligible. You don't control humanity.
I'm sorry I went so far astray of Physics here, but I think this stuff is relevant to acting on climate change, and that's what this page is about. In my view, people are reluctant to act because they understand that their actions are negligible. And I don't mean to be condescending here: I never said I was religious, and I never said I don't mean to do my part against global warming.
By the way, I'm a big fan of your work captainsxyboat.
Perhaps I simply get it about statistics: one small and insignificant action repeated a million times stops being small and becomes rather significant...
Here you go: this was a reply to another post, but...
I think if everyone thought like that, obviously nothing would change. But every change starts with the individual. Honestly, how much of an effort is it to turn off the lights when you leave a room. Small changes aren't really affecting us, maybe, but it definently affects the 3rd world that will suffer because we're not too lazy to turn of a lamp. I try to take shorter showers to use less hot water. To use a fan instead of an air conditioner and in the winder, keep the heat as low as bareable and use a lot of blankets. About thirty five industrialized countries have committed to reducing their output of greenhouse gasses to varying degrees... unfortunantly america isn't one of them.
But one person won't start or stop change. And if your taking action is a significant pain in the ass that has insignificant effects... I guess what I'm asking is how do you convince selfish individuals to take action?
come on glaz thats exactly what my original question was. Why do you (why does one, how do you convince mofos to) do stuff?
Humankind is structured in such a way that it seems unlikely that we will solve this problem. And I mentioned atheism because using people's religion might hypothetically be an approach to making people do stuff.
About enlightened self-interest: I might agree with you. But I hope I made the point that a smart but selfish person won't bother doing anything. So I don't know. Maybe it's a sort of intellectual compulsion that you're talking about: you determine what is right and act on it, because that's the way you live your life. The problem is, I don't think too many people are like that.
"you are committing one of the most dangerous false argument crimes here: appeal to authority. Newton and Einstein being theists does not immediately make them right."
I give credit to Glaz for making a working yet completely irrelevant point. This is how persuasive arguments work. The MOVIE legitimizes itself through the support of credible scientist who believe in global warming. THE MOVIE, not me. I know better. but by using the movies logic against it, I am creating an effective counter argument. Anything that you say bashing my hypothetical religious self, supports my argument (that this movie is bull).
"I don't think the religious argument is a very relevant one, because honestly. I don't know Hell or Jesus doesn't exist. But I also don't know that Zeus, Athena, Isis, Osiris, Buddha, don't exist also. I can't exactly join the millions of religions that have sprung up (without cloning myself anyway). Yet I can still worry about the global climate change, considering that ok. There could be a problem. There could be a problem with the one thing we can't replace (well one of the things.) that's our planet."
Ok, you got me. I aint religious. This is also a non-argument though. You state that there are conflicting religions. There are also conflicting arguments over the effects of global warming. Nothing being said here supports your opening statement. We can't replace our planet. I agree. But we also can't replace our mortal souls. And eternity is a very long time to burn. especially considering that all you have to do is go to church for an hour or two every week.
"I'm sorry but I'm not going to become a Christian just because it's popular. Maybe if it didn't draw most of its facts from a certain book that contradicts itself every other page (and there are A LOT of pages) then I would find it to be factual. I AM going to try and fix something that could be very very bad for us."
I only used the rationale of the video to support your becoming a christian. Therefore if you argue with me, you argue with the video. I am not actually saying you convert, but the video in a sense is. I'm not going to suport solving global warming just because a bunch of scientists (whom as glaz points out are in fact fallible) hold it as a popular belief. And speaking of contradiction, i recall scientists making a big stink about global cooling a while back. Talk about contradiction. And who says eternal hellfire isn't very very bad? You should check your priorities.
The only way to stop global warming is if we all accept the possibility that helping will make our world a better place. The only way to get the messiah to come is if every human accepts Jesus. Even if we are skeptical, it seems a good investment.The only way you could argue with me would be to agree with me. And by agreeing with me, you agree to become an evangelical (a fate I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy). So instead of just being unbelieveably anal retentive in an attempt to debunk religion, (something I am not asking you to do), accept the context of my statements and realize that this video is garbage. Captainsxyboat could steer my fleet to the ends of the earth.
*I know you hate this alter ego, I hate him too. but he makes some good points, which are important to consider when it comes to skeptical analysis.*
P.S. Something should really be done about this global warming.
I'm an agnostic atheist, I don't know which beliefs may be right or wrong, nor do I feel a need to know that. Though Christianity says that the apocalypse will be when Jesus returns to earth (and who knows when), I have know reason to believe that is more likely to cause the destruction of the earth or man kind than the green house effect and global warming. So why take the chance of risking our economy's current state? Because it's worth taking that risk over the risk that global warming may completely change the world, and why, just because some people who don't believe in global warming are afraid to admit that they're wrong? Good video by the way.
I think that religion is obviously a factor in what actions we take on anything, but we can also pick and choose when to let it matter. It all comes down to the individuals decision. I personally am athiest also, but I don't think that religion should matter anyway (whether you have one or not) when it comes to making a decision about making the world a better place to live in.
To go back to the video, of course it is painted in black and white to make a point. A little too extreme for me at some points (the classic world war II nazi germany reference), and I feel like anyone would be able to argue that the issue they feel most strongly about is the bottom line using such extremes. However, the overall message I take from it is that it is up to you to figure out what the issue is and make your own EDUCATED decision about it for yourself. No offence, but I think some people should do a little bit more research before they post.
Although this man was completely annoying and I agree with you Glaz i would never want to hang out with him, hes completely right. In the fourth box he talks about what would be affected if we didnt take any action and global warming turned out to be true. Every part of our being would collapse. There is a ton of BS going on in the world alright such as the war in iraq but who's going to stop global warming when it finally reaches us, Bush? A big problem we are facing today is the ignorce our society is facing today. We'll have no culture if our culture continues to be about Hummers and really expensive wasteful products. Once global warming reaches a point where it is unstopable, all of the floods and hurricanes and such will whip our population out as a whole, we wont be able to complain about abortion or war or drugs etc. We saw how much damage hurricane katrina did in the South and we are still trying to recover from that. We definetly don't want to have another disaster which will effect that many people times 100! Wake ip! Global warming will sneek up and bite us in the ass if we don't start to take action now. Sure money could be an issue on getting the message out there and spending extra money on new products which are more eco-friendly; but hey!- who's going to be spending money when you are busy running away from hurricanes and floods.
First, I do not feel bringing up religion is appropriate in a conversation of global warming because we are debating global warming and what we feel should be done about it. On the topic of the video and global warming, I feel that the video does simplify the crisis of global warming possibly too much, but this is done simply because for one, no one would watch a video over 45 minutes long (which is the bare minimum somebody could explain all the risks of global warming and all its possible outcomes), and secondly because he puts this whole subject of global warming in a very conservative and simplified perspective, as to let you make your own opinions and decisions, and tries to show you the probabilities of the outcomes of global warming in whether or not we choose to try and prevent it. Although I feel he makes a good case, and presents this video in a way as not to "ruffle any feathers" of skeptics, scientists, people who don't like science, etc. I beleive in what he is saying (or trying to say without offending anyone)in that global warming is happening and that we should try to prevent it, but in all reality people like routines and doing things there way, so until they are actually affected by global warming, the majority of people aren't going to do much to prevent it. Until that day people individually can try and prevent it, and scientists can look for new ways to prevent it or search to seen if it is even going to occur. After that day though, if our planet does become affected by global warming, Darwin's theory of evolution comes into play and the humans who can survive and prosper the most will become the dominant race.
Ok, let's see if I can do this with over 100 fever...
The MOVIE legitimizes itself through the support of credible scientist who believe in global warming. THE MOVIE, not me. I know better. but by using the movies logic against it, I am creating an effective counter argument.
All you are doing is creating a Reductio Ad Absurdum argument...
Additionally, credible scientist who believe in global warming. This is really where the root of the issue is. They don’t believe in climate change. They infer its reality based on all of currently available evidence. You are arguing apples and oranges here.
I only used the rationale of the video to support your becoming a christian. Therefore if you argue with me, you argue with the video.
1. I never stated that I either agreed or disagreed with the video. 2. You have to admit -- it is a great piece of polemic.
accept the context of my statements and realize that this video is garbage. Captainsxyboat could steer my fleet to the ends of the earth.
It all depends on who is the intended audience. Obviously it is not you – you can think for yourself. As for Captainsxyboat, steering and all… I really did not need this visual image – I am already sick.
*I know you hate this alter ego, I hate him too. but he makes some good points, which are important to consider when it comes to skeptical analysis.*
Actually I am beginning to prefer this alter-ego to the quiet student I get in class. At least this person has a lot to say.
First, I do not feel bringing up religion is appropriate in a conversation of global warming because we are debating global warming and what we feel should be done about it.
Dear the people's elbow- i very much agree with most of your statements- however, i dont think that this video is suggesting that people want things spelled out for them. i believe its quite the contrary- simplified yes. His theory of risk managment seems pretty clear cut to me, get rid of all the confusing science surrounding the issue, all the contradictions, inconclusive theories, and there we come to his chart- the heart of the problem. This does not spell out the problem on a silver platter. oh no. it just presents itself in a matter that the majority can interpret- you dont need to be highly educated to understand all the science, you just need to read a smiley or a frowney face, universal signs to the world. and to alphabetaparkinglot- i agree with your statement that a person does not need to be educated in science to make an issue on global warming, even though you yourself disagree with the statement. A scientific background again, not necessary to tell that a smiley face is better than total destruction of the world as listed in quadrant 4 of his chart.
I never thought that this matter could be as black and white as he portrays it to be. The skeptic in me is arguing that it’s a utube video- of course its not this black and white. But when it really comes down to it- is the issue this clear cut? If so, its really obvious then. Smiley over frowny any day of the week.
This guy is hilarious! But he brings up some excellent points. Denying that global warming exists and ignoring the fact that there is a problem won't make it go away. However, if we take action against global warming, and suffer a possible economic loss, and it works, then we won't really ever know if global warming would have destroyed the planet if we hadn't taken action. This option is still better, though, than not taking action at all and finding out that if we had taken action, we might not be under water. So, unless Bush has a time machine hidden away somewhere with those weapons of mass destruction we never found, I'd say we better do something now before Long Island becomes the new Atlantis.
This does not go out to everyone. Only the people who cant take a joke.
Ok. it's been fun, but it's time to end it all. I'm done. The overwhelming waves of attempted rhetoric, and means to eschew any hypothetical value from my statements; have made me unable to continue laughing. When you fit enough people into a room or a town who all hold similar beliefs, the reassurance of these beliefs gets pushed to the wall, beyond any tangible justification. For me to say that I believe or hold dear anyhing that I have actually said so far would be entirely fallacious. I would like to say that my motivations branch beyond, "wouldn't it be fun to dick with people's beliefs", but it would take Balzac the Jaws of Death to argue that, and he has been completely disheartened with humanity. I have seen people say objectionable things, i have seen people say flat out erroneous things ("Most republican representatives don't even see global warming as an issue, nor do they have plans to stop it"). My last hope would be that the rest of you are joking around a bit as well. If not, well, i know my comments are long and at times difficult to contemplate, but give it your best shot to truly appreciate them before regurgitating your propoganda. People hold tight to their beleifs, and would much sooner spend half an hour trying to think of ways to formulate an overly defensive response than to truly accept what another individual is saying. I would discuss the finer points of satire, but it would be like talking Tolstoy to McCarthyist adolescents.
As for you Glaz. Now I know how Prince Andrei felt once he discovered the true nature of Napoleon. The attempt to interpret things that make light of humanities attempts to interpret things, well, it has been amusing. If you think I'm anything like BtJoD, or the amorphous mass of sleep deprivation i am in school, then you're greatly mis-viewing me.
I hope all of the people me and my buddy captainsxyboat have pissed off can laugh off those aneurisms and appreciate the wealth of perspectives out there. And if the allegory annoys you, maybe read a few more books whilst you wonder what to do with your life between Michael Moore documentaries.
35 comments:
I wish i had the time to watch all thirty-something of his videos in order.
He brings up some good points though, but one interesting thing that is brought up.
According to him, all you need to understand is the basic risks of one choice over the other, but not why or how these risks are the case.
In other words, what he said could be argued to say that a person does NOT need to be educated in science at all, and can still make an informed decision on the issue of global warming.
I don't happen to feel that way, but one could interpret the video to say such.
well. That's really the whole point of the video, to
bring the issue down to a lowest common denominator so
even the most skeptical of skeptics could say that
perhaps taking action on the issue is worth-while.
Waiting on ample proof of the issue could lead to our
downfall, we have to put our faith in the
organizations who have backed the reality of the
scenario and take immediate action to prevent it. I
realize the issue is not quite as black and white as
he makes it seem but certainly the risk management
approach is not to be blamed, in fact, it should be
commended.
The average American is not going to research global
warming much more than a google search. Think about
it, this is a viral video, one of the few ways
possible to reach the American people on a grand
scale. This video was posted amoung dogs chasing laser
pointers and kids kicking eachother in the crotch, how
sad is that? People don't want to make "informed
decisions" they want to have things simplified,
spelled out for them. Not everywhere is westchester
county and not everyone has the time or drive to
research a topic like global warming to make an
"informed decision".
Ok this just pisses me off.
Heres something to think about, the data which we base our "global warming THEORY" comes from what? It comes from temperature readings and readings of gas levels in our present day atmosphere. So how long have we had a reliable and accurate method of measuring temperature? I think Galileo had one of the first ones in 1593. Now when did we first start recording these temperatures? I dont know. But we notice the increase in temperature within the last 200 years or so. Now how do we know that the earth isnt doin it by itself? Well the earth has never increased this fast and to such a large degree (pun intended). How do we know that? Well those "guys" looks at ice and trees and rocks and it has never done this before. Ok but how far back are these "guys" lookin? Hundreds of Thousands of Years! To me that seems like a BIG scale, i wonder how accurate can it be? How can we be certain that this isnt just a blip, a little jump, how can we be sure that is hasnt already happened? 100,000 year vs 200 hmmm.
The world is cyclical, life then death then more life. Rain then water then more rain. Ice age then warming then ice age. The facts are that we dont know, and throwing money at something that could not even be a problem is just stupid. Dont just tell me im doomed then make me give you money to solve it. Nothing pisses me off more than throwing money at a "problem." Global warming is just a tool used by politicians to fuel our fears, its the same as James Fox's 1995 prediction of a 15 percent increase in murder among teenagers. That was used to help Clinton's election and the rate dropped 50 percent within five years. You are all being tricked by power/money-hungry politicians like Al Gore, can someone tell me why he got the noble peace prize?
ugh Glaz why do you post this? Im probably the only one who will present a counterpoint against this liberal garbage.
"Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers." -Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
well captainsxyboat
i agree wit you on one thing, global warming is a theory. Do we know it is 100% human caused, no, but it’s way more likely that it is rather than it isn't. I've actually done research into the other side of the argument. Out of curiosity I viewed a film called The Great Global Warming Swindle. The movie tries to make the same argument that you do, only they actually state SOME legitimate science (such as the recent rise in temperature correlating to the recent increase in sunspots on the sun). Although at first look the movie is somewhat convincing, there are several problems with it. One is that the movie focuses on co2 and it repeatedly says that there is way more natural co2 than human caused co2 (which is true) so theres no way global warming is human caused. This is flawed, because the movie never mentions methane once. Methane traps over 20 times as muh heat as co2 and is mostly human caused (if you count the gasses that animals raised solely for human consumption). Another problem is that the movie never shows any evidence from the other side. The Great Global Warming Swindle (which can be easily downloaded off bittorrent) presents several Theories against human caused global warming supported by SOME scientists. Well 90% of the scientists at the un global climate summit said that global warming is mostly human caused, and that is based on years upon years of research and very accurate temperature and greenhouse gas readings from ice ores that date thousands of years back. So in conclusion, is there some legitimate science to backup the claim that global warming isn't human caused? yes, is there a lot? no. Is there massive amounts of evidence to show that global warming is human caused? yes, is there a small possibility that it isn't, sure. Basically the only people who will suffer at all if we take action to change the climate are large multinational corporations. Even if global warming is a complete scam by politicians to control us with fear, it will still benefit everyone to burn less fossil fuel and clean up the environment. Any logical person can see that it is worth taking action to stop climate change.
Oh and if you don't think the earth is getting warmer at all you're a complete idiot.
The rationale behind this video is somewhat misleading. I'm not a stern beliefer in the doomsday theories behind global warming (no, this does not mean i am making fun of you for your electric car, and am calling for direct blog retalliation), but it's always good to lower our dependences on limited (and costly) fuel sources. I find myself siding with the capt'n (at least in terms of the value of this video). Sure it's amusing and makes statistical sense, but It could also argue my becoming an evangelical christian. I cannot be sure that hell does not exist. Hell and jesus are both extremely popular beliefs held by an enormous amount of the population. there are written records to suggest the miracles of jesus, but nobody is still around from that time to assess their validity. So I can either accept jesus and go to church for an hour or two every once in a while, or risk (potentially) burning in hell for all of eternity. When the positives are weighed against the negatives, it seems like an obvious choice. Copernicus, glaileo, NEWTON, all believed in god (that seems like a trustworthy scientific lot).
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." (Albert Einstein). See you all at mass.
You should read some more about Newton – there is nothing trustworthy about him and, sorry for being a bit judgmental here, he certainly was not a person I would like to hang out with.
So, I guess the summary of your post is
1. Convert
2. Sell your Hummer
Do we know it is 100% human caused, no, but it’s way more likely that it is rather than it isn't.
Does it matter who caused it? When the train is running off a cliff, it’s not time to be putting train engineer on trial. Shouldn’t the more pressing issue be stopping the train?
Ok, let the physics teacher hate on on Newton. Once I look up Glazenburgian mechanics in my phys. text book, I will agree with you 100%. If it comes to trusting Al Gore over Newton, I'm afraid I'll have to go with the latter. i'll give Gore credit for inventing the internet and everything, but i don't like the slimy political feel i got off of him.
And if you agree with reasoning in this video glaz, i suggest you convert too (if you care for your mortal soul that is). Albeit, most of our great philosophers are in the first level of Dante's hell. When the ice caps melt and we all drown to death you can give them a good "I told you" speech while I party it up in heaven.
Ok, let the physics teacher hate on on Newton.
No reason to be conventional.
If it comes to trusting Al Gore over Newton, I'm afraid I'll have to go with the latter.
I don’t recall Newton saying anything about global climate change.
i suggest you convert too
I am an atheist – not an agnostic, not a theist, not undecided: a real atheist. One needs to have some belief in deity in order to qualify for conversion. I’ll just spend my time learning how to swim.
Capitansxyboat, I think you may be missing a very important piece of information
You say that we have been able to record temperature for only the past 200 years... well the thermometer and reliable documents may be just that old, but there are others ways of measuring temperature, sea levels, and CO2 levels.
By digging into the ice of Antarctica and taking out a several meter long core sample, we can accurately measure the average temperature of the earth as far back as FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND years.
You ask how far back we are looking?
400,000 years is your answer.
Info: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/stories/
Less reliable but more informative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
Copernicus, glaileo, NEWTON, all believed in god (that seems like a trustworthy scientific lot).
Going back to skeptical thinking and reasoning yet again, you are committing one of the most dangerous false argument crimes here: appeal to authority. Newton and Einstein being theists does not immediately make them right. Newton also believed in alchemy. Should this mean we should all jump onto the turning lead into gold bandwagon? And Einstein was strongly opposed to the theory (not hypothesis) of quantum mechanics. He was wrong... Does this fact invalidate his theory of relativity?
I don't think the religious argument is a very relevant one, because honestly. I don't know Hell or Jesus doesn't exist. But I also don't know that Zeus, Athena, Isis, Osiris, Buddha, don't exist also. I can't exactly join the millions of religions that have sprung up (without cloning myself anyway). Yet I can still worry about the global climate change, considering that ok. There could be a problem. There could be a problem with the one thing we can't replace (well one of the things.) that's our planet. I could see if we were screwing up maybe one country but jesus. If we lose the entire thing, well. I'll have to invest in a boat.
I'm sorry but I'm not going to become a Christian just because it's popular. Maybe if it didn't draw most of its facts from a certain book that contradicts itself every other page (and there are A LOT of pages) then I would find it to be factual. I AM going to try and fix something that could be very very bad for us.
This is kind of off-topic, but what would happen if there was an ice age?
I am personaly not very scared of global warming. This is becuase by the time that is would take to warm us up, we would have a much bigger problem to worry about, and this is global cooling, or to use the dreaded term AN ICE AGE!
If you think that newyork becomeing a savanah wouldnt be fun, jsut imagine the pleasures offered by having your home under a mile and a half of ice.
THe problem wiht ice ages is that once they start, they generaly dont stop until another major climate shift occurs, the ice simply reflects sunlight and its potential for heating back into space.
The reason this could occur is that the northern reaches of teh atlantic are kept warm by northern flowing warm waters fromt the gulf of mexico. These go up to near greenland, warming england and the northeast in the process, and then sink once they cool and flow back down along the ocean floor to a world wide conveyor system, the thermo haline conveyor. The issue is that teh melting freshwater from the northern ice cap flows into this heavy salty water, dilutes it, and makes it to light to sink. This has potential to foul up the whole system, and as the north eventualy cools, the ice caps will expand, and the possibility for an ice age could become a reality.
I have a different question: where does an atheist (glaz) find such high moral standards that make him/her do stuff about climate change?
Everything you can do (or your not doing certain things and momentarily refraining from changing the planet) is absolutely negligible. The world is really, really big, and what goes round does not really come round. "Little things," "small parts": these won't do anything by themselves. You won't start a global movement. If there is a global movement, you won't help it to any significant degree.
Doing good things for people is good and natural. But doing good things for society? Unless you have OCD or exist as some sort of a political or corporate entity...
I don't think we should really ignore global warming (I'm not some schmuck), but it's a question I have trouble with. To an atheist, the world only exists from his/her perspective. If there's a global movement, that's fantastic. But why, exactly, inconvenience yourself?
Even Richard Dawkins couldn't explain this stuff.
Clarification request:
Did you really just make a parallel between atheism and lack of morals? Does faith in god necessarily imbue one with strong ethics and morals and, subsequently, lack of faith in god fosters personalities lacking in ethics and compassion?
To an atheist, the world only exists from his/her perspective.
Consider an alternate view: to an atheist, there is no-one else who can fix the things going wrong with the word, but humanity…
In a related comment: I teach physics, not theology. Therefore, this discussion is headed away from science and therefore my official job description.
Speaking of teaching. Glaz you teach physics not APES. How about you post something physics-like.
I tried, but we seem to have fallen into the global warming black hole and due to its strong pull, can't get out
Whoa Glaz.
If you're an atheist you get to define good, morals, and ethics for yourself. If you're religious (and in my view there are very, very few religious people who are not blatant hypocrites) it would seem that you would do what is right because you believe that god's going to kick some ass when you die.
And I think my basic point is still valid. Everything you do is negligible. You don't control humanity.
I'm sorry I went so far astray of Physics here, but I think this stuff is relevant to acting on climate change, and that's what this page is about. In my view, people are reluctant to act because they understand that their actions are negligible. And I don't mean to be condescending here: I never said I was religious, and I never said I don't mean to do my part against global warming.
By the way, I'm a big fan of your work captainsxyboat.
Perhaps I simply get it about statistics: one small and insignificant action repeated a million times stops being small and becomes rather significant...
Here you go: this was a reply to another post, but...
I think if everyone thought like that, obviously nothing would change. But every change starts with the individual.
Honestly, how much of an effort is it to turn off the lights when you leave a room. Small changes aren't really affecting us, maybe, but it definently affects the 3rd world that will suffer because we're not too lazy to turn of a lamp.
I try to take shorter showers to use less hot water. To use a fan instead of an air conditioner and in the winder, keep the heat as low as bareable and use a lot of blankets.
About thirty five industrialized countries have committed to reducing their output of greenhouse gasses to varying degrees... unfortunantly america isn't one of them.
That's absolutely right.
But one person won't start or stop change. And if your taking action is a significant pain in the ass that has insignificant effects... I guess what I'm asking is how do you convince selfish individuals to take action?
It all comes down to what we call morals.
1. That is not what your original question was.
2. Enlightened self-interest.
come on glaz thats exactly what my original question was. Why do you (why does one, how do you convince mofos to) do stuff?
Humankind is structured in such a way that it seems unlikely that we will solve this problem. And I mentioned atheism because using people's religion might hypothetically be an approach to making people do stuff.
About enlightened self-interest: I might agree with you. But I hope I made the point that a smart but selfish person won't bother doing anything. So I don't know. Maybe it's a sort of intellectual compulsion that you're talking about: you determine what is right and act on it, because that's the way you live your life. The problem is, I don't think too many people are like that.
"you are committing one of the most dangerous false argument crimes here: appeal to authority. Newton and Einstein being theists does not immediately make them right."
I give credit to Glaz for making a working yet completely irrelevant point. This is how persuasive arguments work. The MOVIE legitimizes itself through the support of credible scientist who believe in global warming. THE MOVIE, not me. I know better. but by using the movies logic against it, I am creating an effective counter argument. Anything that you say bashing my hypothetical religious self, supports my argument (that this movie is bull).
"I don't think the religious argument is a very relevant one, because honestly. I don't know Hell or Jesus doesn't exist. But I also don't know that Zeus, Athena, Isis, Osiris, Buddha, don't exist also. I can't exactly join the millions of religions that have sprung up (without cloning myself anyway). Yet I can still worry about the global climate change, considering that ok. There could be a problem. There could be a problem with the one thing we can't replace (well one of the things.) that's our planet."
Ok, you got me. I aint religious. This is also a non-argument though. You state that there are conflicting religions. There are also conflicting arguments over the effects of global warming. Nothing being said here supports your opening statement. We can't replace our planet. I agree. But we also can't replace our mortal souls. And eternity is a very long time to burn. especially considering that all you have to do is go to church for an hour or two every week.
"I'm sorry but I'm not going to become a Christian just because it's popular. Maybe if it didn't draw most of its facts from a certain book that contradicts itself every other page (and there are A LOT of pages) then I would find it to be factual. I AM going to try and fix something that could be very very bad for us."
I only used the rationale of the video to support your becoming a christian. Therefore if you argue with me, you argue with the video. I am not actually saying you convert, but the video in a sense is. I'm not going to suport solving global warming just because a bunch of scientists (whom as glaz points out are in fact fallible) hold it as a popular belief. And speaking of contradiction, i recall scientists making a big stink about global cooling a while back. Talk about contradiction. And who says eternal hellfire isn't very very bad? You should check your priorities.
The only way to stop global warming is if we all accept the possibility that helping will make our world a better place. The only way to get the messiah to come is if every human accepts Jesus. Even if we are skeptical, it seems a good investment.The only way you could argue with me would be to agree with me. And by agreeing with me, you agree to become an evangelical (a fate I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy). So instead of just being unbelieveably anal retentive in an attempt to debunk religion, (something I am not asking you to do), accept the context of my statements and realize that this video is garbage. Captainsxyboat could steer my fleet to the ends of the earth.
*I know you hate this alter ego, I hate him too. but he makes some good points, which are important to consider when it comes to skeptical analysis.*
P.S. Something should really be done about this global warming.
I'm an agnostic atheist, I don't know which beliefs may be right or wrong, nor do I feel a need to know that. Though Christianity says that the apocalypse will be when Jesus returns to earth (and who knows when), I have know reason to believe that is more likely to cause the destruction of the earth or man kind than the green house effect and global warming. So why take the chance of risking our economy's current state? Because it's worth taking that risk over the risk that global warming may completely change the world, and why, just because some people who don't believe in global warming are afraid to admit that they're wrong? Good video by the way.
I think that religion is obviously a factor in what actions we take on anything, but we can also pick and choose when to let it matter.
It all comes down to the individuals decision.
I personally am athiest also, but I don't think that religion should matter anyway (whether you have one or not) when it comes to making a decision about making the world a better place to live in.
To go back to the video, of course it is painted in black and white to make a point. A little too extreme for me at some points (the classic world war II nazi germany reference), and I feel like anyone would be able to argue that the issue they feel most strongly about is the bottom line using such extremes. However, the overall message I take from it is that it is up to you to figure out what the issue is and make your own EDUCATED decision about it for yourself.
No offence, but I think some people should do a little bit more research before they post.
Although this man was completely annoying and I agree with you Glaz i would never want to hang out with him, hes completely right. In the fourth box he talks about what would be affected if we didnt take any action and global warming turned out to be true. Every part of our being would collapse. There is a ton of BS going on in the world alright such as the war in iraq but who's going to stop global warming when it finally reaches us, Bush? A big problem we are facing today is the ignorce our society is facing today. We'll have no culture if our culture continues to be about Hummers and really expensive wasteful products. Once global warming reaches a point where it is unstopable, all of the floods and hurricanes and such will whip our population out as a whole, we wont be able to complain about abortion or war or drugs etc. We saw how much damage hurricane katrina did in the South and we are still trying to recover from that. We definetly don't want to have another disaster which will effect that many people times 100! Wake ip! Global warming will sneek up and bite us in the ass if we don't start to take action now. Sure money could be an issue on getting the message out there and spending extra money on new products which are more eco-friendly; but hey!- who's going to be spending money when you are busy running away from hurricanes and floods.
First, I do not feel bringing up religion is appropriate in a conversation of global warming because we are debating global warming and what we feel should be done about it.
On the topic of the video and global warming, I feel that the video does simplify the crisis of global warming possibly too much, but this is done simply because for one, no one would watch a video over 45 minutes long (which is the bare minimum somebody could explain all the risks of global warming and all its possible outcomes), and secondly because he puts this whole subject of global warming in a very conservative and simplified perspective, as to let you make your own opinions and decisions, and tries to show you the probabilities of the outcomes of global warming in whether or not we choose to try and prevent it. Although I feel he makes a good case, and presents this video in a way as not to "ruffle any feathers" of skeptics, scientists, people who don't like science, etc. I beleive in what he is saying (or trying to say without offending anyone)in that global warming is happening and that we should try to prevent it, but in all reality people like routines and doing things there way, so until they are actually affected by global warming, the majority of people aren't going to do much to prevent it. Until that day people individually can try and prevent it, and scientists can look for new ways to prevent it or search to seen if it is even going to occur. After that day though, if our planet does become affected by global warming, Darwin's theory of evolution comes into play and the humans who can survive and prosper the most will become the dominant race.
Ok, let's see if I can do this with over 100 fever...
The MOVIE legitimizes itself through the support of credible scientist who believe in global warming. THE MOVIE, not me. I know better. but by using the movies logic against it, I am creating an effective counter argument.
All you are doing is creating a Reductio Ad Absurdum argument...
Additionally, credible scientist who believe in global warming. This is really where the root of the issue is. They don’t believe in climate change. They infer its reality based on all of currently available evidence. You are arguing apples and oranges here.
I only used the rationale of the video to support your becoming a christian. Therefore if you argue with me, you argue with the video.
1. I never stated that I either agreed or disagreed with the video.
2. You have to admit -- it is a great piece of polemic.
accept the context of my statements and realize that this video is garbage. Captainsxyboat could steer my fleet to the ends of the earth.
It all depends on who is the intended audience. Obviously it is not you – you can think for yourself. As for Captainsxyboat, steering and all… I really did not need this visual image – I am already sick.
*I know you hate this alter ego, I hate him too. but he makes some good points, which are important to consider when it comes to skeptical analysis.*
Actually I am beginning to prefer this alter-ego to the quiet student I get in class. At least this person has a lot to say.
First, I do not feel bringing up religion is appropriate in a conversation of global warming because we are debating global warming and what we feel should be done about it.
Thank you!
Although this man was completely annoying and I agree with you Glaz i would never want to hang out with him, hes completely right.
I was talking about Newton. Who are you talking about?
Dear the people's elbow-
i very much agree with most of your statements-
however, i dont think that this video is suggesting that people want things spelled out for them. i believe its quite the contrary- simplified yes. His theory of risk managment seems pretty clear cut to me, get rid of all the confusing science surrounding the issue, all the contradictions, inconclusive theories, and there we come to his chart- the heart of the problem. This does not spell out the problem on a silver platter. oh no. it just presents itself in a matter that the majority can interpret- you dont need to be highly educated to understand all the science, you just need to read a smiley or a frowney face, universal signs to the world.
and to alphabetaparkinglot- i agree with your statement that a person does not need to be educated in science to make an issue on global warming, even though you yourself disagree with the statement. A scientific background again, not necessary to tell that a smiley face is better than total destruction of the world as listed in quadrant 4 of his chart.
I never thought that this matter could be as black and white as he portrays it to be. The skeptic in me is arguing that it’s a utube video- of course its not this black and white.
But when it really comes down to it- is the issue this clear cut?
If so, its really obvious then. Smiley over frowny any day of the week.
This guy is hilarious! But he brings up some excellent points. Denying that global warming exists and ignoring the fact that there is a problem won't make it go away. However, if we take action against global warming, and suffer a possible economic loss, and it works, then we won't really ever know if global warming would have destroyed the planet if we hadn't taken action. This option is still better, though, than not taking action at all and finding out that if we had taken action, we might not be under water. So, unless Bush has a time machine hidden away somewhere with those weapons of mass destruction we never found, I'd say we better do something now before Long Island becomes the new Atlantis.
This does not go out to everyone. Only the people who cant take a joke.
Ok. it's been fun, but it's time to end it all. I'm done. The overwhelming waves of attempted rhetoric, and means to eschew any hypothetical value from my statements; have made me unable to continue laughing. When you fit enough people into a room or a town who all hold similar beliefs, the reassurance of these beliefs gets pushed to the wall, beyond any tangible justification. For me to say that I believe or hold dear anyhing that I have actually said so far would be entirely fallacious. I would like to say that my motivations branch beyond, "wouldn't it be fun to dick with people's beliefs", but it would take Balzac the Jaws of Death to argue that, and he has been completely disheartened with humanity. I have seen people say objectionable things, i have seen people say flat out erroneous things ("Most republican representatives don't even see global warming as an issue, nor do they have plans to stop it"). My last hope would be that the rest of you are joking around a bit as well. If not, well, i know my comments are long and at times difficult to contemplate, but give it your best shot to truly appreciate them before regurgitating your propoganda. People hold tight to their beleifs, and would much sooner spend half an hour trying to think of ways to formulate an overly defensive response than to truly accept what another individual is saying. I would discuss the finer points of satire, but it would be like talking Tolstoy to McCarthyist adolescents.
As for you Glaz. Now I know how Prince Andrei felt once he discovered the true nature of Napoleon. The attempt to interpret things that make light of humanities attempts to interpret things, well, it has been amusing. If you think I'm anything like BtJoD, or the amorphous mass of sleep deprivation i am in school, then you're greatly mis-viewing me.
I hope all of the people me and my buddy captainsxyboat have pissed off can laugh off those aneurisms and appreciate the wealth of perspectives out there. And if the allegory annoys you, maybe read a few more books whilst you wonder what to do with your life between Michael Moore documentaries.
Post a Comment