Interesting climate change video

[Bravus]

...with explosions

[olger]

Explosions are cool .

I watched his presentation. That reminds me, a lot of Democrats are going around whining that George Bush got us in a war that we can't win and that he lied to us... ok.

You know what? There's a democrat that lied to us and is trying to get us involved in a war we can't win. Who? Algore. He's trying to get us involved in a war with global warming, and it's a war that we can't win according to John Coleman (founder of the Weather Channel).

But thanks for the "hot" tip.

olger

[Bravus]

One more time - Al Gore is not climate change, and climate change is not Al Gore

[Jeannieb43]

That's a very intriguing video presentation.

And I didn't see a thing in it relating to politics or divisiveness. Just some great illustrations of our options.

Thanks, Bravus.

[Amelia]

Did he say "snake oil"? LOL

Anyway, I agree with him on the economic fallout. We have already seen something close to that with Katrina and how many years later New Orleans is still a mess and people are still fighting with FEMA. Have a few senarios like that happen close together and YIKES! Add to that the tax hikes that will occur to fill the holes made in government pockets and the slow pace of minimum wage increases; high consumer debt to cover the needs not met by low income...yadda yadda yadda.

I also read a bio on this guy. He went from teaching full time to part time so he could spend more time on these videos. His wife was not a happy camper.

[LifeHiscost]

That's a very intriguing video presentation.

And I didn't see a thing in it relating to politics or divisiveness. Just some great illustrations of our options.

Thanks, Bravus.

Ditto!

[there buster]

I can hardly believe our institutions of higher learning have been reduced to believing in such drivel as this.

First, he opposes the nebulous 'economic harm' against a very specific scenario of disaster.

And later he refers to 'economic harm' as 'going broke.' But that's not what it is. If we spend money on one thing, it is not spent on another.

The worst case scenario is not as he puts it. Here's a more realistic one.

Suppose we spend all the money we can on preventing or ameliorating global warming, and it has no effect on the climate whatsoever. In the meantime, avian flu or ebola or some other plague sweeps the planet, and we're not prepared for it because we spent it on global warming.

There are a myriad of such scenarios, many of which are more likely than human caused global warming.

Then there's the risible notion that we should believe NAS or AAS because "they're not advocacy groups." What nonsense. They're advocacy groups for science, which means research grants, which are easier to get if there's a sense of urgency.

Also, their 'prestige and reputation' makes them more reliable.

Well, history shows that not to be true. Scientific organizations often resist data that makes them look bad, i.e., threatens to damage their 'prestige and reputation.' Just consider Ignaz Simmelweis and the spread of 'child-bed fever.'

His analogy between the atom bomb in WWII and global warming is ludicrous. The Germans were at war with us-- it was not theoretical or predicted. They had some of the best physicists on the planet. They had taken Norway, at least in part to get heavy water for atomic research.

Global warming may or may not be aggravated by human activity. It may or may not be reversible. But there is no human power with which we are at war behind it, looking for an opportunity to use it against us.

If I had put something like this together for my high school science teacher, he would have laughed me to scorn.

[olger]

Astounding.

Ed & I agree.

:)