The Most Terrifying Guy You've Ever Seen Starring In The Most Terrifying Video You've Never Seen

Couldn’t this methodology be applied to nearly any doomsday type scenario, to scare people into action? Does this fail to factor in one’s faith in his or her creator (God)? The worst that could happen in that scenario is that those of us who know Christ are in a much better place, regardless of the outcome. Perhaps we should each have the freedom to choose our own fate.

So are you saying that you believe God will sort this all out for us, without any of us having to mend our ways and act responsibly? Or are you saying it doesn’t matter what happens to the earth, because if you have faith, you will find paradise anyway? I don’t think Jesus would be particularly impressed with your mindset here…as it is this kind of cop out, smug, “Im better than you” attitude that makes the world the corrupt and hideous place it is today. Sorry to piss on your fire mate, but you need open your eyes.

If the cost causes global depression in the one box what makes it not cause global depression in the other box. Where is all this money going to come from if we do have global warming. Sorry, I think this guy is a moron pushing his own agenda.

stick with high school science.

@Cliff. You make a valid point in your first statement. (despite than falling into insane religious nonsense — because you have faith in Jesus saving you and some after-life paradise — NO you do not have the freedom to tell all of us we don’t need to act because of your Mythology)nnBUT — the first part is correct — we can say the same for any doomsday — and to honestly assess action you cannot use such a simple approach without first addressing the likelihood of the doomsday.nnHowever — in this case. Even if you said that the science community is wrong (it’s like 90+% that agree with GCC with dire consequences in the next century) — the line is still where we need to act.nnEven it was only a 1% chance the GCC supporters are correct — 1% chance of global catastrophe is too large to ignore. nnFor instance if there was a comet that had a 1 in a billion chance of hitting Earth in 6 months when it is scheduled to pass near by — would it be wise for Earth to invest every resource into stopping that Comet, even if it meant crippling the Global economy? What if it was 1 in a Million, 1 in thousand, 1 in a hundred — etc,…nnClearly there is a line that we would decide on. I would say 1 in a Million chance of total extinction might be enough — 1 in a billion probably not.nnnWith GCC — it is not total extinction. So 1 in a million would not be enough to risk action. But it is more look likes we are talking 50/50 — or even in the most GCC-denier-friendly number, at least a 1% chance that all teh scientists are right. nnEven 1% is way to high a chance to risk it.n

NO — It does not and should not factor in faith.nnPublic Policy decisions should have nothing to do with what Mythology you choose to subscribe to!!

There are some flaws in this. 2 more outcomes based on these decisions are missing. nn1. We take action and problem doesn’t exist: Yes there is increased cost but, there is also increased savings, Further there is a better quality of life as pollution takes more of a toll on us than it does the planet anyway. nn2 We take action, but we have already passed the point of no return. If the scientists were right, we may already be too late to reverse it. The heat built up in the crust at this point may be too much to overcome and the decay would continue anyway.nnNow with the expansion of those 2 premises I must state I do not believe we are the cause of global warming. These scientists are the same group that called for another Ice Age in the 70s. The science is flawed and is not taking into account the heating of every other planet in the solar system including the melting ice caps on Mars. nnHowever, We used to drink water from the tap when I was a kid and the notion that someday a person could make a living selling water was ludicrous. We have created a world where we live in corporate funded squaller. Further, the cuts proposed to education and tax breaks to the biggest polluters prove the ill intent and the lack of desire for an educated free thinking society.nnn

The money, as stated in the video, would be money well spent, as it would essentially save us from the destruction of the world as we know it. The guy is actually a genius as he’s able to simplify a complex disagreement into a very simplistic model (as a good scientist should strive to do). He’s not pushing an agenda – he’s looking at the situation logically.

Your statement makes no sense.nnBesides, you don’t thing the Senators trumpeting the safety of nuclear power the other day don’t have an agenda that’s directly traceable back to those that gave them money? nnWhose agenda do you really trust?

The thing that virtually every global warming denier fails to address is the very basic issue of cause and effect. They typically focus on stuff like historical trends, claims of sun activity, etc., etc., but all of that is irrelevant.nnIt all comes down to one basic fact. Carbon Dioxide and various other compounds emitted by industrial processes are greenhouse gases. Period.nnUnless those supposed facts can be disproved, then there is no case to be made against anthropogenic global warming.nnIf carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, then the only logical conclusion can be that human activity is in fact contributing to global warming, or “climate change”. We know for a fact that we are digging up billions of tons of sequestered carbon every year and taking it out of the earth and burning it and releasing it into the atmosphere (plus a bunch of other stuff), there is no question about that fact whatsoever.nnAnd to address the premise of this guys claims, it’s not really true that if global warming isn’t real or isn’t caused by human activity that taking action to prevent it would lead to a global depression. Many of the actions we need to take against it have a net benefit on their own.nnMost of the actions we need to take are essentially increasing energy efficiency, conservation or resources, and moving away from carbon based fuels, which are all finite and on track to be depleted within 100 years anyway.nnIf we were really serious about combating global warming what would we do?nn1) Put an end to major supply chain globalization. Our production systems are hugely energy and resource inefficient due to corporations chasing all over the planet for cheap labor. If we were serious about global warming we would force an economic system of domestic and regional production. There would be a lot of social and economic benefits to this anyway. It would be bad for international corporations and good for individuals.nn2) Significantly increase research and development of renewable and non-greenhouse gas emitting energy technologies. This will pay off in the long-term anyway, and it will be cheaper to develop these technologies now while oil is still cheap and available than to wait until it runs out.nn3) Significantly increase the adoption of non-greenhouse emitting energy technologies. Even if oil and coal remain cheaper right now, if we were serious about combating global warming we would tax the hell out of fossil fuels and subsidize other energy sources, like wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, and even nuclear. In the end, we would just end up better prepared for the time that oil runs out and we would have a cleaner environment (presumably) and it would also actually extend the life of oil and allow us to reserve more oil for the creation of stuff like plastics.nn4) Adopt policies that, at the very least, don’t encourage population growth. Yes, that means putting an end to stuff like child tax credits, etc. To date, the fact is that China has done more to avert global warming and pollution than any country on earth simply through its “1 child” policy. In the end, slowing population growth is a good thing anyway, since this would reduce pressure on other resources as well, and in fact it will lead to lower rates of real inflation.nnSo anyway, those are just a few things, but most of this stuff has net positive effects regardless. It’s just that in many cases the positive effects would be felt by the poor and middle class and come at a cost to the current ruling elite, who are heavily invested in the current paradigm.

Cliff – When I was a little girl I heard a pastor tell a story about a man standing in a place that was about to be washed away in a flood. He didn’t make any effort to get himself to safe ground because he knew God was watching out for him. Several people offered him a lift, and he declined because he knew God was watching out for him. When the water got higher, someone on a boat offered to rescue him, but he declined, knowing God would save him. The man died and went to Heaven and asked God: Why didn’t you rescue me. God said “I did! I provided higher ground near by for you to take refuge and I sent people to rescue you.” I think this story answers your faith question. God has already given us everything we need to address climate change, and he also has given us free will. nn”Perhaps we should each have the freedom to choose our own fate.” We already have that freedom, but if humans are causing climate change, we’re taking that freedom away from all life on this planet by doing nothing.

Basically Pascal’s wager, and it has the same problem Pascal’s wager does: if the scarier scenario is extremely unlikely, accepting the relatively minor drawbacks of taking action to avoid it becomes absurd. If this were not so, we should never fly – even though the risk of a fatal crash is around one in 10 million – because a cramp in our traveling style is nothing compared to the plummeting-to-the-earth-and-being-horribly-crushed-while-burning possibility.nJust as believing in a God that does not exist, thus enslaving ourselves to meaningless rules (a drawback Pascal ignored) is no big deal compared to burning in hell, but when the existence of said God is highly unlikely, it would be crazy to waste one’s life in this way.nnObviously, I don’t think global warming is “extremely unlikely”, but there are those who do, and they’re probably not going to be convinced by this argument.

So let’s keep using, polluting, exploiting peoples, and acting like juveniles. The earth is our Mother, and common sense tells me that no matter what the scenario, we should treat her right. As a white American looking at our short history, we’ve exploited every resource available. Put that in your fair and balanced chart. BTW, if we focused on a “greener” path as most of the world is doing. We’d find a way to make plenty of jobs and money. You know why? Cause we’re f-ing Americans. How does someone become so poisoned?

It’s a shame this guy is teaching children.

I agree, in part, with wyyzerd that there are elements missing in the columns and rows. I think that costs can be moderated by good science. That is applying real research that is not backed by someone with an agenda to find out what are the most effective ways to reduce or eliminate humans effect on climate. For example, one of the things people can popularly do to guiltlessly continue excess power consumption is to buy energy credits from someone else’s solar array. Really? That seems silly to me. They aren’t getting the power from the array, just the brownie points. But while we are at it, why focus just on climate change. We do live in a closed system after all. Shouldn’t we simultaneously consider other ways we pollute the planet?

Well said.

honestly, even if we aren’t causing climate change (which I can’t believe any reasonable person still believes), what’s the harm in becoming a more sustainable, environmentally conscious society? the teacher in the video suggests global depression, but doesn’t it seem like that’s happening already? Wouldn’t a green revolution, which would create new markets for individuals to capitalize on, plus create an entirely new sector of jobs, supress, as a opposed to create, a depression?nneven if humans aren’t causing climate change, what’s the harm in walking to work? or using energy efficient appliances? or pushing your government to pursue sustainable energy, products, technologies, etc.? is it just me, or does it seem like people are just too lazy to do anything about it?

simplynonnasez-I think you need to add another row-the one of those with $$$,corporations,& decision making/creating ability & the rest of the world with real people,fears,hopes & TRUTH. Do you feel lucky;)

simplynonnasez-I don’t believe being “poisoned” is a bad thing-u need to be able to see and feel the dark in order to apprecaite the light-think Star Wars..If u stayed in your “happy” world, your eyes & heart wouldn’t be able to understand;)

simplynonnasez-look at your history..Pascal himself was pesecuted as a heretic by the church;)

simplynonnasez-maybe “heaven” was the better alternative for this man?Maybe he was “saved” better than being saved by others? i guess u allways need to follow ur heart, and as Rush would say in their song FREEWILL-”I will choose a path that’s clear-I will choose FREEWILL;)

simplynonnasez-you need to believe in YOUR god,which is YOU! Your faith depends on YOU and your actions depend on YOUR results (with some luck thrown in the mix;)

god will save us… who needs science?n Just ask James Watt.nGod can just make more coal and oil for us when we need it… I think that’s what Michelle Bachmann said or was it Sarah P. I can not remember. just remember god loves us but he hates fags…. got that little nugget of wisdom from the westboro baptist church. I don’t think god love socialists or scientists either… but magic underwear donning hate spewer’s like Glen Beck are in his good graces.n Don’t forget that Satan put those dinosaur bones there to fool those heathen scientists…. don’t listen to them. Just find a nice evangelical and listen to the voices in his head…. everything will be alright.

Global Warming is a fraud. Always has been, always will be.nnWhy you libs refuse to see this is curious. I can only conclude it’s due to stupidity.nnIf you truly believe carbon dioxide is destroying our planet, please stop breathing and LEAVE THE REST OF US ALONE!

Well, with 5 to 5.5 billion less people, housing will be cheap.nnNone of these arguments matter much anyway. We will soon enough be out of oil and will have no choice but to get cleaner in our energy usage. That is surely undeniable.nn2 little 2 late? We will see.

Willie Rhodes Fess You know me and I’m all for going as green as we can and for doing everything we can to protect our planet….and I don’t like to take the other side and am not really doing that but what about column C ? What if we are not helping the situation but at the same time, it is not due to mankind but simply nature in action and we are doomed to column 2, row B regardless of what we do. I’m not saying not to try, we must try, but we must at least acknowledge that possibility 3 is out there and not be like the fear mongers on the right and leave out important facts just to further our agenda. We have to admit that it is possible that global warming is going to continue to escalate no matter how great our efforts. I don’t say this to be discouraging, only to help you remember to include all facts not just the ones we like.

In my opinion, it should be called Climate Change, instead of Global Warming. To many idiots are looking out their windows, at the first snowfall, and saying, there can’t be any Global Warming going on.nnFor me I look at it scientifically and remember things like, Cause and Effect, nothing is free and nothing is 100%. After centuries of pouring chemicals into the environment, there has to be something changing.

But, why not give it a shot? Nihilism is the natural refuge of cynics.

I see a couple big holes in the logic (and not just because it’s a repackaging of Pascal’s Wager); at least one of which the originator mentioned and then ignored (Not saying these are right or wrong, but the originator was asking for people to poke holes in his logic):nnColumn 3: We enact harmful draconian legislation, but it doesn’t help any because it was drafted and enacted by incompetent bureaucracies. We are therefore left with both sets of negative consequences. Having closely watched how a major government entity has tried to solve a much simpler ecological situation, I see this as a likely scenario.nnRow 3: Global Climate Change is an inevitable natural occurrence on our planet and nothing we do will stop it. Any attempts to do so would be a waste of money, so we are doubly injured if we try to stop it.nnWe now have a 9 cell grid with 2 happy faces, 4 bad possibilities, and 3 doubly-bad possibilities.

This guy must have read my mind. You have to take the safe course of action.

Frank Luntz told the Republicans to use “climate change” because it sounds neutral and natural. The problem with “global warming” is that people think it means “warmer everywhere” rather than an increase in the *average* global temperature, which most people have trouble grasping. I suggest “planetary warming”.nnPutting chemicals into the environment has various effects but few of them have anything to do with planetary warming, and that argument opens the door to deniers objecting that C02 is plant food. The problem is *specifically* that C02 is a greenhouse gas, which slows the escape of heat from the planet — talking about “pouring chemicals into the environment” muddies the issue.

Pascal’s Wager is simply based on fallacious reasoning; there are an infinity of possible gods and no way to know which we should brown-nose in order to avoid going to hell — including gods who send to hell those, and only those, who are foolish enough to think that Pascal’s Wager is a valid argument.nnThe global warming argument is not like that — the risk we are concerned with isn’t simply made up by a bunch of ignorant sheep herders.

“The heat built up in the crust” Sigh. “These scientists are the same group that called for another Ice Age in the 70s.” Lie. “The science is flawed and is not taking into account the heating of every other planet in the solar system including the melting ice caps on Mars. ” Ignorance and foolishness.

“I can only conclude it’s due to stupidity.” This from someone with an IQ below 100.n

“I think this guy is a moron pushing his own agenda. ” Says someone with an IQ below 100.

Lie? Really? Time… Newsweek… against um.. Al Gore? I’m not the only one that remembers this Ice Age hype. http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/03/video-barrasso-inhofe-tag-team-on-1970s-new-ice-age-exposure-of-holdren/nnI am surprised that someone as obviously ignorant as me, has to explain to a science teacher the laws of conservation as it applies to heat dissipation as it relates to mass/density. Unless of course, your sigh was due to the fact we are talking about a temperature fluctuation of 0.8C yeah, that is pretty minisule compare to the 4C we cooled in the 70s. nnBut there are other ignorant respected scientists that I have been listening to through all of the hype that have been that have observed the Ice caps on Mars.nhttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.htmlnnFor obvious reasons, our own health and well being, the pollution must stop.

That Is awesome! Lol, It inspires an argument for the nature of understanding.nnFaith in religion in my opinion isn’t faith in a god. Itu2019s faith in people. (Thatu2019s the part that scares me about organized religion!) Blind, bumbling, week and fallible people. It’s faith in clergy, dogma, scripture interpretation, prophets and that the book your reading is the book that your god and his fallible prophets intended for you to read and not some abridged, edited, watered down, piece of propaganda designed by charlatans to brainwash you into being a good little sheep. Itu2019s the same argument for global warming/climate change/why are winters not as cold in 2011 as they were in 1775? (Little subliminal message there for those of you that paid attention in US history class) With religion, it’s not the god but the people and their arguments for their religionu2019s righteousness you must have faith in. I say ignore the people and their church, worship the god how it feels right for you and it will only be your god you need faith in. With science and the argument of climate change, people too often make the leap that you need to have faith in the arguments of journalists and scientists. The god in this scenario is fact. Ignore the scientists because they were hired by the right or the left to find proof for their employeru2019s causes. Ignore the media because they are trying to scare you so they can make money because nothing sells like bad news. Itu2019s all propaganda. Look at the facts. The word on average is warmer than it was in 1775 and we can keep marching blindly to the tune of brain washing and scare tactics or we can do some of our own research and try to do all we can to avoid global disaster. Thatu2019s my two cents take it or leave it.nnP.S. No flaming about religion. These arguments are only my opinions and not meant as statements of fact or to ruffle any feathers. They are a method of comparison for my arguments only.n

Everyone with two eyes (or even just one) and half a brain can also plainly see that the Earth is flat and the Sun (made of gold) and moon (green cheese) move across the sky as they revolve around us, here at the center of the universe. Always have been, always will be. Science is ignorance and all the answers are to be found in the Bible or prayer. By the way, the tobacco industry is deeply concerned about public health and energy speculators are working hard to keep the price of oil down so we can experience economic revival. Anyone who can’t accept these facts is just stupid.

lol….you Progressives are so funny. You talk about having a green revolution but you naive fools can’t even see the EPA will not allow any business growth because of your wonderful progressive environmental regulations. Your great ideas have already forced corporations to leave the US costing Americans too many great jobs.

And that is the problem with progressives/liberals. Making statements like “there has to be something changing”. No facts just opinions that you then want to it jam down everyone’s throat who disagree with your opinions. Facts only matter…not what you think!nnHey danny347..its called Mother Nature and she’s been changing the dynamics of the earth for BILLIONS of years. But progressives, true to their nature, think they can control what Mother Nature does naturally.

simplynonnasez- here’s an idea-let’s call it global warNing;)

Who is most of the world Robert? China and India are the emerging markets of the world. How green are they?nnBtw, where are all those green jobs at around the world?nnIf you want job creation get rid of the fool in the White House, get rid of the Unconstitutional Federal Reserve and IRS, along with the EPA, and public unions. All have contributed greatly to the bankruptcy and demise of America.

I know Robert. We need more brainwashers like yourself teaching as many kids as possible right?

lol……how soon are we running out of oil?

Hey RichardH if you had a clue about economics you would know the reason that oil has been increasing in price so much is because of the moron called Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve. Did you know that oil is tied to the dollar. Did you know that when you print more money that it become worth less? Also that is why your food prices are going up too. Hope this helps you buddy.

elfinito….I think you better go hide under a rock or build a spaceship so you can escape to another planet. It that how you base every decision in your life? Gees….if there is a 1% chance the sky is falling maybe you can be like Chicken Little.nnI’ll bet there is a 1% chance you’ll die in your sleep tonight so you better never fall asleep…..lol….EVER!….lol

Oh, that’s it…..let’s now destroy a clean and valuable source of alternative energy without a replacement. You treehuggers are clueless.nnlol…..who agenda do I trust?…..certainly not yours.

You pathetic soul…….oh that’s right….your clueless to the fact you already have one.nnTake your Public Policy and stick it up your arse. I’d rather have freedom of choice not your socialist utopia.

I guess if you had a relationship with God you would naturally respect what he created right? Just do your part along with everyone else who cares and it will take care of itself. That is what faith is about which it appears you don’t really understand.

It’s not just about America’s welfare. Open your thought process to consider something outside of your own backyard. America may be your whole world but it is only a small part of our planet Earth.

True. Mother nature has been causing extinctions for billions of years. We alone are the first creation that has a real shot at averting extinction and surviving in harmony with nature. But this will require us to either change or die.

Hey dude, America is not going to control what other countries choose for themselves. But I’m sure you would jam it down their throats if you could huh? Global warming is a farce and if you had any economics sense you would know the cap and trade bill would destroy the economics of America.nnBut it sounds like you are a treehugger that just doesn’t get simple math.

You are disgusting. nnNot sure what in any my posts had anything to do with Socialist Utopias? nnNor what that has any bearing on how Religious faith in Jesus should factor on public policy decisions.nnNot that me being an atheist would matter, but I am quite religious, just not a Christian that believes that some mythical being will save me, and therefore I do not need to do care about this world — because eternal paradise awaits.

The problem is defining what “ones part” is. nnAnd how you define “respecting what he created.” nnMost environmentalist central tenant is respecting the Earth — isn’t that what he created? (BTW — why he?)nnIt seems from your post that you are a Christian religious rugged individualist.nnthat is the exact opposite of “doing your part” — your part is to say that your only responsibility is to you, and only you — and selfishness and greed are positive driving factors. (not very Christian — but how the Economic Right has somehow merged with the Christian Right is still beyond me — since it is completely contrary)nn

No disrespect but I have no doubt if humans were here before the Ice Age that all the harmony in nature we would have had would have changed how the Ice Age naturally occurred.nnIts man’s own ignorance and arrogance that thinks he actually can.

If there is 1% chance I would die in my sleep tonight — but actions I could take before going to bed to reduce that risk — yes I certainly would do them.nnnn

SDTraderdude. read toffler’s Future Shock. That will get you up to date on how industry has steamrolled through nature in the past hundred years. Listen. we’ve had earthquakes over the course of billions of years for sure but here’s the fact jack, not one of them took out a nuclear reactor because they didn’t exist in the mother nature you’re talking about. industry is responsible for perilous condition we’re in, in more ways than one. Controls are vital.

I guess you just don’t get the difference between big government and personal freedoms.nnBtw, what religion are you?

go central high school!

hey DUDE, almost every other country already has an energy plan. The truth is we are behind most of the other countries who are taking the responsibly to clean up for the future of our kids. there is no reason we can’t become a more healthy country, our economic system is already in the toilet thanks to that drunk red neck that people were stupid enough to vote for a second time

to survive we might have to die?

Hey dude and the one in office has spent 4 times more then the moron before him so what does that make Obama?nnAlso your point about becoming a more healthy country versus an economic system that is already in the toilet makes no sense at all. nnBe specific about “almost every other country already has an energy plan”. Name them……you mean Europe…lol?nnIts uninformed individuals like yourself that have no clue how we can get back a healthy America. And its certainly not going to be achieved by the idiot in the White House at this time.nn

Cameron Loyds comments were the only intelligent ones that I could find on here.(I read them all.) The warming or cooling of the earth is simply the way it is. Are we so arogant as to think that we can actually make a difference? Common sense says to be conservative with our resources but to actually believe that we can have any significant effect on the Earth’s climate is the ultimate in foolishness.Both political sides have agendas and in case you’re a moron, it should be obvious that neither has our best interest in mind. It’s all about money people! The fool that made this video left out the most important possibility of all, it’s natural and there is nothing that we can do about it. In anycase what will be, will be and humanity will adapt as is our best trait or we will go the way of the dinasours. It’s really that simple. There is no god to protect you and if you believe that there is, then when and if things get tough you’ll find that all the prayer in the world won’t help you. Please, face reality folks and get on with living your life as YOU choose and ALLOW others to do the same. Stop trying to manipulate each other through fear. Life will either go on or it won’t. It is 100% based on your own ability to adapt. nFor those of you that like to insult others by claiming that they have a low IQ, take it from someone with an IQ of 146 that you only show your own ignorance.

His agenda is obvious. You simply choose to ignore it.

So what is your IQ? If you can’t see his agenda then maybe you should have your IQ tested. nThis is from someone with an IQ of 146.nThank You

Right, so we all ought to go back to the horse and carriage to. Also while were at it, let’s get rid of anything that has to do with industry altogether. Then we all can be safe until we invent the magic environmental energy pill that takes care of everything.

Well bud that chance exist right now. So what are you going to do to reduce that risk tonight before you go to bed?

No SD, no horse and buggy, mr trader. but are you saying that one billion cars, 100 million trucks, two million smokestacks churning any given minute of any day on our planet absent 100 years ago has nothing to do with climate because mother nature has been here for millions of years, and therefore wins out every time. it’s just intellectually lazy for you to talk horse and buggy and dismiss our industrial evolution as not having anything to do with impact on climate change. imho

Total fallacy. He ignores that odds factor into it. Either/or consequences are not 50/50, one chance may be so remote as to be negligible. I hate that our educational system turns out people like this. A little knowledge, as they say, is a dangerous thing.

Oh, here’s another jackass who thinks that economics is the be-all of knowlege and wisdom on the planet. I know a couple of these types. They worship their little baileywick like it’s a god. nnHere’s a concept, SDTrader: when the shit hits the fan and you’ve had your party in the sun, ignoring and obstructing everyone else who’s trying to make a positive difference, how do you think YOU will be thought of in the new, more desperate world? We’re all bailing water and you sit back an laugh as the boat is sinking.nnYou and your know-nothing conservative friends will get a history lesson and see firsthand what humanity was like when you help move us all backwards to the 1800′s. I think you’d better learn to shoot, because you won’t last long in the irrational, lawless mean-spirited world y’all are trying to create. Tribal groups go pretty rough on members with “screw-you-all” attitudes. In the old days, they had a rail they could run folks like you out of town on, tarred and feathered. Sometimes it was a noose.nnEither get on board with helping save the American middle class and cleaning up Spaceship Earth or find yourself as a fish out of water. The party won’t last forever, troll.

You flunk the test. You weren’t paying attention when he said to construct the matrix yourself and add as many shades of grey into it as you want, with approriate intermediate consequences. He asked for corrections and any input others could offer. Kinda like the scientific method, not that you’d know what that’s all about…nnIt’s a shame that YOUR educational system turned out such a closeminded and opinionated fool. Climb back under your rock.

And you base this opinion that we couldn’t possibly have affected our environment on what, exactly? You say it’s arrogant to think that we have? Strange, it doesn’t seem arrogant to think we could have screwed something up, it seems the opposite of arrogant. It seems humble to me, and it seems earnest to want to try to fix it. nnBut then, your fatalistic attitude is so much more enlightened by facts.

Didn’t he address that whole issue of natural vs man-made when he created the chart? Does it really matter who’s responsible? The consequences are huge either way, so why not make new industries trying to clean up the world? Hell, if you’re going to make money, why not make it doing something good? nnOr am I the only one who sees a benefit in working toward something good on this earth in this lifetime? I realize I don’t have the eternal sunshine of a spotless mind by being a fundamentalist, believing that this life is just a warm-up for the afterlife (so nothing really matters..) I believe that what we do on this planet does matter.

SDTrader, you’re an ass. This was posted in good faith by someone who gives a crap. Sorry you don’t. You’re a sorry excuse for a human being. You write snarky crap to everyone just to piss them off and wag your nasty political opinion all over the place. You don’t care to disuss the issue or think about anything, so why are you here? You just want to spew your opinions on everyone. The word for that is TROLL.

Troll

No disrespect. That’s pretty funny. That’s all you’ve done on this board.nnTROLL.

TROLL

Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla TROLL!

Bla Bla Bla TROLL

TROLL

I do love trees and I guess that makes me a treehugger. Was that supposed to be an insult?

Wonderful. A high school science teacher with a Pepsi addiction has all the answers.nnI doubt if he’d even listen to anyone poking holes in his brilliant white board analysis.nnHowever, there is NO proof that MAN is the sole cause, or even the primary cause for climate change. His nine-minute analysis presumes that MANKIND has caused the problem and that MANKIND can somehow undo whatever we’re doing to solve the problem.nnIt all reminds me of the story of the scientist and the frog. A scientist made a loud noise next to a frog, then measured how far the frog jumped. He measured the distance at one foot.nHe then repeated the loud noise after removing the frog’s hind legs. This time, the frog only jumped one inch.nHe created the loud noise a third time, this time after removing the frog’s front legs. This time, the frog didn’t move.nThe scientist noted his findings, then published a paper which proved that if you cut off ALL of a frog’s legs . . . nn. . . the frog goes deaf.nnAll the observations are true and correct. It’s the conclusion that needs some work.

Have you ever tested a frog’s hearing?

It’s the greed of corporations who want a certain amount of $ for their top officers that have pushed them overseas. If they take a reasonable salary, how much can that save the company to allow them to stay? And if they’re unwilling to do that–they want the $$ and the ability to pollute–let them pollute elsewhere; the problem is, the globe will still feel the effects.

Are you actually Porter Stansberry?

The ‘holes’ in his logic start BEFORE you build your matrix. His ‘analysis’ rests on a set of assumptions which haven’t been proven.nnBut if you let him create his own foundation, he can reach almost any conclusion he is predisposed to reach.

If you believe in a creator, do you also believe that the creator gave his human creations dominion over the earth and the admonition to take care of the earth? In what way can you support the idea that we are just to sit idly by, letting anyone do anything when this earth, which you can call God’s creation, is destroyed? Somehow, I don’t think any creator would much appreciate such a cavalier attitude.

Wait a second. In column A, the outcome of Global Economic Depression is dependent on the cost and the regulations whether or not Man-Made Climate Change is true. So if we choose column A, we are actively choosing Global Economic Depression. And fundamentally this is why there is still healthy debate about what to do.

Please do the same for nuclear power.

WOW. Critical Thinking on Climate Change! nnThat’s something that has been very much missing from the debate generally, and utterly absent from the mainstream media and politics.

One of the reasons that climate change is such a hard sell among the short-minded politicians that cant see much past the next election, is that local weather variations fluctuate far more than the long-term trendline of mean global temperature.nClimate science is HARD, it scares Rocket Scientists.nnSo every time there’s a major snowfall in Washington, some Right Wind Senator pounds on his podium with his shoe that Global Warming CAN’T POSSIBLY BE HAPPENING. Mind you, last winter that snow was supposed to be in Canada. nnBut don’t mind me, I was paying attention.

Do the science. Then we’ll talk. Have a nice day.

also, bla bla bla Faux News Dittohead

I think “Global Catastrophic Meltdown” about covers it.

“How does someone become so poisoned?” I’m thinkin, listenin to Faux News and The Big Fat Idiot?

oil and food are increasing in price mostly because of unregulated market speculation. turn off Faux News, turn off Wingnut Radio, read and listen to fact-based discussions, and get a clue. nnFox News, the More You Watch, the Less You Know

wait, what? we have already passed peak oil, and with China and India now industrializing at a dizzy pace and competing with the rest of the developed world for what oil is left, we will be out of oil too damn soon. better to get a jump on the problem by developing solar and wind energy than hit the wall of oil depletion.

Deadhead!

The deadhead offers nothing again.

Deadhead…..

No disrespect but I guess you are too much of a deadhead to think on your own huh?

What issue do you have to discuss deadhead?

I am sorry you are to mentally challenged to understand economics which do involve everyone on the planet.

You are clueless about how currencies work. I don’t need Fox News you fool. I trade my own money in the stock and currency markets everyday. I’ve actually studied how it all works unlike you.

Cap and Trade which is really cap and tax is not the answer.

This condescending little prick is censoring replies when he is losing. He spends more time attempting to belittle people than attempting to engage in real discussion or prove his arguments. MoveOn should not allow this to continue. As many censorship issues as we have fought over the years, this is shameful! nnNow as to my reply:nHeat dissipation is covered by the laws of conservation as they apply to thermodynamics. You are either of a low IQ like you accuse everyone else of or you are being intentionally obtuse.nnMars Ice caps melting:nhttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.htmlnnIce age 1974:nhttp://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/03/video-barrasso-inhofe-tag-team-on-1970s-new-ice-age-exposure-of-holdren/nnGo ahead and censor this one to, windbag

One’s part has to do with only how much that one understands through his own experiences. One cannot be conscious of an idea he has not been exposed to unless of course he/she has some miraculous epiphany. That’s what learning about life is all about. One’s part could be as simple as not throwing trash on the ground.

wrong, Troll.nnI have studied markets, continue to study markets, and it is not the currency market, it is the Spot Market and the Commodities Market which influence the volatility of oil prices the most. Troll.

There is more oil in the US than all of the Middle East combined. But the EPA and Obummer will not let drilling occur where the oil is located. I agree all alternative energy sources should be exploited but for the sake of our own economical welfare the EPA should loosen the leash at the same time.nnFrankly the EPA should be abolished….its way too political.

I have….its a scam.

lol….troll…..what a stupid thing to say to someone voicing an opinion.nnHey dumbarse what do you think they pay commodities with? Since I’m sure you never made a trade of any kind with your own money you should just keep your mouth shut to not expose anymore of your ignorance.

While, the are some good points here, there are some clear fallacies that conservatives will use against this model.nnFirst, TRUE / A might stave off climate change but it does not necessarily mean that cost and depressive side wont come along with it, just like FALSE A. Many conservatives believe humans can survive regardless of changebut the economic downturn would be worse.nnSecond, there is no differentiation between natural climate change vs human climate change….and this is CRITICAL. Many conservatives are coming around and are more open minded about climate change….melting glaciers and air quality samples are hard to argue with. However the question hinges on how much humans have done to cause this. nnThird, what if the climate change is a combination of BOTH human and natural changes? We know the earth does go through climatic changes, and we have historical, archeological evidence of this for which there is little doubt in the academic community. nnFourth, the real enemy is not your everyday conservative, who may have basic principles and an unease with accepting everything as knee jerk rash thinking. Even open minded progressives can appreciate the need to use rational logic. The real enemy is any group that would stand to lose out economically or militarily from a change in current global consumption of their product, ie, oil companies are the most obvious antagonists who would work (rather logically) to dispel any human cause climate change. And to some extent, we would be wise in presuming some in the oil industry actually believe what they say is true.nnThis leads to the last point, belief in perspective. We believe what we believe because we have nothing personal to challenge it. If a said problem hits home, than what might have otherwise been a screwball, hairbrain “liberal” conspiracy might take on a totally new perspective….it becomes personal. And thus true.nnGod help us all if we human causes are changing the climate and we do nothing. God give us the wisdom to see the truth, wherever it may be.

AHHH….Modern sales techniques used to sell the progressive environmentalist agenda to young impressionable students. There are researchers all over the world developing alternatives to petroleum and carbon based fuels and products. They are right around the corner, as long as our government will stay out of our way.

Seems to me a better use of time to share this excellent video with those that will be more inspired to act (and in turn share) than to respond to those that don’t get it. In other words, by choosing to argue with these people, you have put your time into the lower right box, when its clear that your time is better spent in the upper left box. -Peace

This guy is using cartasian logic. I love Cartasian Logic. So over-simplistic, so straightforward. Used by second hand car dealers all over the world.

Here are the fallacies in case he can’t see them; 1. In scenario A; there is CERTAIN worldwide economic collapse, which has in fact led to World Wars, in either case. 2. The worst case scenario B is EXTREMELY UNCERTAIN in its effects. History has shown that it is not climate change but economic changes that has led to wars whereas people adapt to changes in the enviornment extremely well and creatively. In such a chart, you need to assign the probabilty to each box. History has shown that climate change is ongoing and never ending and has, in fact, increased the diversity of species on earth and the evolution of life is completely dependent and defined by climate change no matter if caused by man or nature.

If no one has disagreed on his fallacious argument, it shows that his circle of people is extremely narrow and like-minded. Go to CATO and FEE and they will blow the argument out of the water.

Maybe we could install enough solar panels on our naval vessels to reach Libya thereby reducing the use of fossil fuels. And our missiles could be designed to explode without an explosion and still inflict massive carnage and destruction.

If I was the head of an administration and wanted to limit the guaranteed rights (Bill Of Rights.) that my citizens posses, I would most likely do so through the quise of protecting them.

Analyzing his Analysis: Simple analytic model known as the Choice, or more technically, Confusion Matrix. Basic assumption: Binary Choice under uncertainty. implications of type I and type II error on outcome.nHis basic argument is sound. If we assume no knowledge of the probabilities and give them all equal likelihood (the indifference principle) the worse outcome has the lowest utility. nHis other main talking point he is saying, he is arguing we do not really have know anything about the probabilities to act. Technically correct. However, the science knows quite a bit about the probabilities of the columns which make his argument even more powerful. Most scientists use statistics and probability when assessing global warming predictions (known as confidence intervals) – what it boils down to betting against global warming is about a 20-1 shot according to the science.n

Wow, liberals really are just a stupid as conservatives. Congratulations, you just recited the same line of logic that gave us the war on terror.

I like his argument, but found a small but important error……nnIf you pick “yes” there still would be a high cost and a global depression regardless of whether GCC is true or not.nnSo, if we’re talking about worst-case-scenarios, if you decide to spend the money to fix the environment, a global depression is inevitable. nnAnyone who is economically minded will argue this point, which again opens up the debate as to whether GCC is true or false.