ConCen
Simplified Global Warming logic - Printable Version

+- ConCen (https://concen.org/oldforum)
+-- Forum: Main (https://concen.org/oldforum/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Health & Environment (https://concen.org/oldforum/forum-26.html)
+--- Thread: Simplified Global Warming logic (/thread-43558.html)

Pages: 1 2


Simplified Global Warming logic - DoomSayer - 11-24-2011

Here is some valid reasoning as regards how we can generate enough support for some form of action towards controlling the environmental impact of rampant consumerism.






RE: Simplified Global Warming logic - p4r4 - 11-25-2011

Good post, this forum needs some rationality...


RE: Simplified Global Warming logic - Hans Olo - 11-25-2011

Sure, rationality means posting "the most terrifying video you'll ever see". This is dumbed down to a point where you can write on the board "earth being attacked by space dinosaurs". If they DO attack and humanity does nothing, we're doomed. So it's rational and logical if we at least built some anti-space-dinosaur device, just to be sure. Clap


RE: Simplified Global Warming logic - p4r4 - 11-25-2011

(11-25-2011, 02:29 PM)Hans Olo Wrote: Sure, rationality means posting "the most terrifying video you'll ever see". So rational and yet so simple.

Seems you don't know the meaning of the word "sarcasm" either ...


RE: Simplified Global Warming logic - Hans Olo - 11-25-2011

Dude, sarcasm doesn't work on the internet when people don't know how stupid you might be.


RE: Simplified Global Warming logic - p4r4 - 11-25-2011

(11-25-2011, 02:36 PM)Hans Olo Wrote: Dude, sarcasm doesn't work on the internet when people don't know how stupid you might be.

are you talking about yourself ?


RE: Simplified Global Warming logic - Hans Olo - 11-25-2011

Since you're the one posting something stupid and then claiming "sarcasm" when getting called on it... no.


RE: Simplified Global Warming logic - rsol - 11-25-2011

guys you on on the same side here. gad zooks. are you here to argue the point or just argue?


RE: Simplified Global Warming logic - yeti - 11-25-2011

(11-24-2011, 07:19 PM)DoomSayer Wrote: Here is some valid reasoning as regards how we can generate enough support for some form of action towards controlling the environmental impact of rampant consumerism.

Great! Could you post the link that describes this reasoning, because the link you posted just has the ramblings of an idiot who only talks to other idiots.

Thanks in advance.




RE: Simplified Global Warming logic - rsol - 11-25-2011

a bit more from Greg Craven






RE: Simplified Global Warming logic - nwo2012 - 11-28-2011

(11-25-2011, 02:33 PM)p4r4 Wrote:
(11-25-2011, 02:29 PM)Hans Olo Wrote: Sure, rationality means posting "the most terrifying video you'll ever see". So rational and yet so simple.

Seems you don't know the meaning of the word "sarcasm" either ...

Well he probably read your posts on vaccines and therefore thinks you believe in man-made global warming also. Fluoride has that effect on people. Wink

This thread is of course a pile of dog shit.


RE: Simplified Global Warming logic - DoomSayer - 12-14-2011

Huh I assumed the reason I posted this thread was obvious. Let me spell it out for you:
Not all people are well informed, or even informed. An alarmingly large percentage of people appear to be unable to make a correct decision when confronted with more than one or two variables...
I found the "over-simplification" approach to global warming extremely refreshing and with recent HFC data contributing to the confusion, I thought that others would appreciate the viewpoint. This video is more for your "less informed" friends or your parents...send them a link and garner some support for taking action - or not, good luck trying to refute the logic.
Pfft


RE: Simplified Global Warming logic - Hans Olo - 12-14-2011

(12-14-2011, 07:31 PM)DoomSayer Wrote: good luck trying to refute the logic.
Pfft

You must be kidding. That's not logic, that's sophistry at best. Here's my counter argument you so conveniently ignored:

You can write on the board "earth being attacked by space dinosaurs". If they DO attack and humanity does nothing, we're doomed. So it must be rational and logical if we at least built some anti-space-dinosaur device, just to be sure. Here is how the 'logic' plays out. These are the four possibilities:

1. Space dinosaurs attack and we do prepare a defence - we spend a lot of money and resources and now we are safe! Phew! Armageddon averted!

2. Space dinosaurs don't attack but we do prepare a defence - we spend a lot of money and resources for nothing. This is shit, but not the end of the world.

3. Space dinosaurs attack and we do nothing - worst case scenario. We are fucked.

4. Space dinosaurs don't attack and we do nothing - best case scenario.

So if we do nothing, we have either the best or the worst case scenario.

And if we do prepare for an attack of space dinosaurs, we either defend the dinosaurs or we spend a lot of resources for nothing - but at least humanity will be safe.

DON'T YOU SEE HOW RIDICULOUS THIS IS? You can apply this 'logic' to every and any threat, imaginary or real, no matter how expensive, no matter how obviously ridiculous it is. Aliens from outer space - we need a $100 Billion space station to protect ourselves - just in case. Do you take vaccines against EVERY known illness? Why not? You know, if you DO get Malaria, and if you are not vaccinated... however, if you are vaccinated, at least you're safe. Do you wear a helmet every day? Why not? It COULD be that something falls on your head, you might die. Well if that doesn't happen, you'd be running around with a stupid helmet all day, but if something DOES happen, you might die without a helmet.


RE: Simplified Global Warming logic - p4r4 - 12-15-2011

(12-14-2011, 09:34 PM)Hans Olo Wrote:
(12-14-2011, 07:31 PM)DoomSayer Wrote: good luck trying to refute the logic.
Pfft

You must be kidding. That's not logic, that's sophistry at best. Here's my counter argument you so conveniently ignored:

You can write on the board "earth being attacked by space dinosaurs". If they DO attack and humanity does nothing, we're doomed. So it must be rational and logical if we at least built some anti-space-dinosaur device, just to be sure. Here is how the 'logic' plays out. These are the four possibilities:

1. Space dinosaurs attack and we do prepare a defence - we spend a lot of money and resources and now we are safe! Phew! Armageddon averted!

2. Space dinosaurs don't attack but we do prepare a defence - we spend a lot of money and resources for nothing. This is shit, but not the end of the world.

3. Space dinosaurs attack and we do nothing - worst case scenario. We are fucked.

4. Space dinosaurs don't attack and we do nothing - best case scenario.

So if we do nothing, we have either the best or the worst case scenario.

And if we do prepare for an attack of space dinosaurs, we either defend the dinosaurs or we spend a lot of resources for nothing - but at least humanity will be safe.

DON'T YOU SEE HOW RIDICULOUS THIS IS? You can apply this 'logic' to every and any threat, imaginary or real, no matter how expensive, no matter how obviously ridiculous it is. Aliens from outer space - we need a $100 Billion space station to protect ourselves - just in case. Do you take vaccines against EVERY known illness? Why not? You know, if you DO get Malaria, and if you are not vaccinated... however, if you are vaccinated, at least you're safe. Do you wear a helmet every day? Why not? It COULD be that something falls on your head, you might die. Well if that doesn't happen, you'd be running around with a stupid helmet all day, but if something DOES happen, you might die without a helmet.


There is no evidence for space dinosaurs, the evidence for climate change is overwhelming as climate changes all the time. The problem is how much of it is human based and how much is natural. There are countless examples of man made environmental disasters so assuming we can't affect the overall environment is wrong.


Risk is not absolute, but relative. it's not that you either wear a helmet all the time or never. and the simplified logic in the video is not absolute either, he does not talk about space dinos but about a real current issue. it would be stupid to make you decision based on that simple logic in the video, the point was to help people asses the risk of action or inaction. the best solution to the climate dilemma is knowledge, and we don't have enough of it.


RE: Simplified Global Warming logic - Hans Olo - 12-15-2011

For the 'logic' in the video it does not matter at all how real the threat is, the same 'logic' applies to any and all sorts of scenarios, that's the flaw.