Cool video about Global Climate Change

[eSDee]

Not sure if this should be in Entertainment or Off Topic. It's not quite political, but I guess it could be. Move it as your wish GAM.

http://break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html

[eSDee]

nobody has any comments?

[brainsmile]

nobody has any comments?

You're rad

[eSDee]

I'm so rad I kill my own threads. I'll take it.

[Kevster]

I have to admit, it's a decent logical argument. Nice find there EsD.

[zippyjuan]

I think the negative economic impacts of trying to clean up our environment are overstated. There will be economic benefit from the investment in and adoption of new technolgies. New industries will arise to replace older ones.

[TruckStuff]

nobody has any comments?

Maybe we are all just so beaten down by an endless arguement that nobody cares anymore?

[johnnymk]

Maybe we are all just so beaten down by an endless arguement that nobody cares anymore?

Or maybe if you hear enough propaganda day in and day out that you give in to it. Hitler was great at this trick.

[Houdini]

Maybe we are all just so beaten down by an endless arguement that nobody cares anymore?

That's what I'm thinking. Anyone see the thing on the history channel the other day about the natural causes/cycles we've been through before? Some are predicting another "mini-ice-age" within our lifetimes.

For example, a volcano erupted on the other side of the world, causing the world without a summer around the time Washington was in Valley Forge. Slammed the world. Nobody knew why at the time. The world was uncommonly cold until ~1840 - lasted a couple of decades. Lots of world famine, etc. Also, some prominent climatologists are convinced that variable solar radiation coupled with variances in the "heat conveyer" that runs through the Atlantic from southern Africa to the north Atlantic for heat exchange, etc. There's more to the story than human-released CO2.

[Houdini]

Looks like some other research is being done. Seems interesting and worthy of consideration.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...4068db11f4&p=4

[Napoleon54]

I didn't watch the video (sorry, dial-up), but I wanted to comment on the topic anyhoo.

Global Warming is such a politically charged issue, and there's such an abundance of evidence on either side, that I find it very hard to sort through all the info and decide what's legit and what isn't. I don't have the time or expertise I would need in order to look at the research that's been done and make a decision for myself. I think that's the problem that most of us have and, for the most part, anyone who takes a position on the issue is largely doing so based on what they'd like to believe rather than on a personal examination of the evidence. So, for the most part, this issue isn't worth debating for me because I don't think most people (myself included) are well-enough informed to make a wise decision for ourselves.

Maybe doomsday will come just as some people are predicting, or maybe Global Warming will be another anticlimactic Y2K (though we don't have a set date to wait for). Either way, I wish there was a conclusive answer, but right now I just don't see one, and that, I think, is exactly why this is such a hot issue (no pun intended). There's potentially a lot at stake, but not much solid info for the average person to go on.

[eSDee]

Napoleon, here is the jist. There are 4 plans of action, based on the 2 schools of though. The first is believing there is climate change and then determining if we do something about or don't do something about it. The other school of thought is that there is not a climate change, and then either doing something about it or not doing something about it. If you can understand what I described, then the person in this video shows the possible reprocussions (cheapie?) should we follow any of the 4 different paths. The conclusion he comes to is that that risks and costs associated with acknowleging global climate change and trying to make a change is far less than what what would happen should we decide that global climate change is BS, and then our climate changes in the way that it is projected. Basically, he is saying that the risk is too large to not take it seriously, and not try to make the change while we still have the chance.

[Napoleon54]

Napoleon, here is the jist. There are 4 plans of action, based on the 2 schools of though. The first is believing there is climate change and then determining if we do something about or don't do something about it. The other school of thought is that there is not a climate change, and then either doing something about it or not doing something about it. If you can understand what I described, then the person in this video shows the possible reprocussions (cheapie?) should we follow any of the 4 different paths. The conclusion he comes to is that that risks and costs associated with acknowleging global climate change and trying to make a change is far less than what what would happen should we decide that global climate change is BS, and then our climate changes in the way that it is projected. Basically, he is saying that the risk is too large to not take it seriously, and not try to make the change while we still have the chance.

Gotcha, thanks a bunch!