Take a look..

[Septikos]

Helloes,

Not many videos have been posted by my, actually this is my first. But felt like sharing this one, simply because its the first time for quite a while now, that someone actually makes sense. This guy is not just saying rubbish, he has really thought things through; so take your time and see if you agree with me..

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

And here is one more. The one above is the YOU SHOULD SEE It, while as this one is a bit more disturbing.. If you have spare time then see it

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE

- Septi

[Celestyna]

That is the most terrifying video i've probably ever seen on Youtube, but I must say his arguement is extremely valid and well constructed... I for one have linked this to alot of folk on my msn

~Celes

[hula]

I believe that he may have underestimated the risk from taking action where there is no problem, but his argument is fair.

However, I found the second video a lot more disturbing than the first (although I am not surprised)

Hula

[Vanur]

Bored me to death :/
But thats maybe cause I couldn't care less about these things.

[Septikos]

Perhaps Vanur.. That might be the case

[Vanur]

Actually the second one is a bit more entertaining though I have seen it.
"So what country do you think we invade next?"
With out even thinking
"We will make a f**k**g crater out of the middle east."

[Cinxia]

I'll comment on the first video only;

Great to see that some people manage to find an interest in deductive reasoning - his argument is often used; ie. the cost of not acting or acting whether or not global climate change is true. It's only two parameters and most people will agree (if they are able to be objective about it) that the cost of being wrong and not acting on a very real global climate change is worse than being wrong and acting on no global climate change.

He DOES however make a semantical error in using "risk" versus "consequence" - but it is clearly not his intention. This argument limits the choice on whether to do or not to do to merely "which is the most expensive consequence if we are wrong."

The rest, really, is hoping that more people take an interest in this. And for God's sake - learn science or at least philosophy in school so we don't have to explain to them why their arguments are wrong. Objective logic is a dying discipline. *eyes Vanur*

[Septikos]

Cinx, I can do nothing else but to agree with you 100%. And yes, he makes the error, but I did not mention it, because as you say, he makes it unintentionally.

Here I have some more vids, and please do say if you get bored. Just to make it clear, I have not just recently had an revelation telling me to fight evul and save the world. The only reason I'm putting these vids out is to make people think.. No more, no less - just to make someone think is to accomplish a lot:)

First the serious one -

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvTFKpIaQhM

And here is an impressive one, what we all would be capable of if we did not play WoW:)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3eEpqLi-DU

Enjoy

Septi

[Vanur]

Yeah... It makes you see better how it is in small numbers. Buuuut its not to simple to fix this.
*modified so Clinx could get some sleep*

Ps. I can totally do what those street football dudes where doing. Totally. I did it yesterday.

[Cinxia]

*Stabs Vanur a bit*

[Septikos]

*joins in on the stabbing*

[Felbane]

I hate arguments like that guy's. That sort of reasoning is destructive and leads to fanaticism.
By polarizing the issue into right and wrong, he skips the most important part of the process, even though he mentions it several times during the speech. IS there a problem?

with this kind of reasoning, taken to the extreme for clarity, you should also kiss your family goodbye every evening, cause hell, there's people out there that says the world will end tomorrow, and what IF? isn't it better to have kissed your family good bye once too often than go to hell without it?
No. the world isn't ending tomorrow, and you know it. so you don't kiss your family goodbye.
this is the exact reason why people argue about global warming, we NEED to know if its a problem before we act on it. just like everything else in the world. The leaders of the world knows this, scientists know this, that's why they aren't acting more than they are. this is the right thing to do. Don't let crazy greenpeace guy above trick you into thinking you know this stuff better than the ones that have it for a profession.

my 2p

[Tardon]

I think the point he makes is nothing new, and a pretty obvious one... dosn't take a genious to figure that one out

this is the exact reason why people argue about global warming, we NEED to know if its a problem before we act on it. just like everything else in the world. The leaders of the world knows this, scientists know this, that's why they aren't acting more than they are. this is the right thing to do. Don't let crazy greenpeace guy above trick you into thinking you know this stuff better than the ones that have it for a profession.

When there are equally qualified people standing on each side (which there are), saying completely opposite things... when you look at what is a stake here... isn't it best to take the safe route?

And your argument fails a bit felbs... yes, it would be safest to kiss your family goodbye every single evening! BUT, if you dont, the single worst that could happen is that you didn't kiss them goodbye. Thats the worst. I think thats something most people could live with (afterall, pretty much no one actually gets to do that). So in your scenario, the "concequence" isn't something overly bad.
Then you should also factor in chances... the chance of the world ending tomorrow? Slim, but it could happen. The chances that we are the cause of global warming, and need to act faster? 50/50.


And lastly... the second video clip was something between hilarious and scary xD

[Felbane]

The example was on the extreme side to illustrate a point. Fact remains that we deal with a ton of questions like this on an every day basis, where we refrain from taking the "better safe than sorry" route because we figure the chances of being sorry are low enough that we can live with it.

yes I think global warming is a threat to consider. No, that does not make me like that guy's reasoning more at all.

[Kurse]

I don't really like his argument either.

He seems to think his suggestion that we put aside the question of "is global warming true ?" somehow makes the whole issue simpler to deal with. Perhaps this is some fundamental question in the USA but my belief is that it is basicly people are agreed that climate change is happening. There is a small amount of dissent on the subject of "Is that climate change that is due to human industrial activity or was it going to happen anyway ?" but as far as I see its accepted as a serious problem that needs to be addressed by most governments.

He does underestimate the consequences of severe global recession which could be equally catastrophic in terms of health, political stability and the displacement of populations, and which are potential consequences regardless of what happens with the environment. It is not at all a case of "Smiley face if it turns out we were right about global warming, that was money well spent and they all lived happily ever after." Its a delicate balancing act and the consequences of either too little action or too much could be equally devastating, particularly for the third world.

Lastly I find his suggestion that all we need to do is spread the word pretty facile, as if the only thing that needs to change is the president's mind and "public policy." The real "inconvenient truth" is that we need to change the way we live as individuals and laws and so forth are almost irrelevant to that.