Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Simplified Global Warming logic
11-24-2011, 07:19 PM,
#1
Simplified Global Warming logic
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.



Reply
11-25-2011, 02:05 PM,
#2
RE: Simplified Global Warming logic
Good post, this forum needs some rationality...
Reply
11-25-2011, 02:29 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-25-2011, 02:36 PM by Hans Olo.)
#3
RE: Simplified Global Warming logic
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
Reply
11-25-2011, 02:33 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-25-2011, 02:34 PM by p4r4.)
#4
RE: Simplified Global Warming logic
(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 ...
Reply
11-25-2011, 02:36 PM,
#5
RE: Simplified Global Warming logic
Dude, sarcasm doesn't work on the internet when people don't know how stupid you might be.
Reply
11-25-2011, 02:38 PM,
#6
RE: Simplified Global Warming logic
(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 ?
Reply
11-25-2011, 02:43 PM,
#7
RE: Simplified Global Warming logic
Since you're the one posting something stupid and then claiming "sarcasm" when getting called on it... no.
Reply
11-25-2011, 07:30 PM,
#8
RE: Simplified Global Warming logic
guys you on on the same side here. gad zooks. are you here to argue the point or just argue?
Reply
11-25-2011, 08:15 PM,
#9
RE: Simplified Global Warming logic
(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.

[Image: randquote.png]
Reply
11-25-2011, 10:17 PM,
#10
RE: Simplified Global Warming logic
a bit more from Greg Craven



Reply
11-28-2011, 08:44 AM, (This post was last modified: 11-28-2011, 08:45 AM by nwo2012.)
#11
RE: Simplified Global Warming logic
(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.
Reply
12-14-2011, 07:31 PM,
#12
RE: Simplified Global Warming logic
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
Reply
12-14-2011, 09:34 PM, (This post was last modified: 12-14-2011, 09:41 PM by Hans Olo.)
#13
RE: Simplified Global Warming logic
(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.
Reply
12-15-2011, 02:56 AM,
#14
RE: Simplified Global Warming logic
(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.
Reply
12-15-2011, 08:09 AM,
#15
RE: Simplified Global Warming logic
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.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Survival or Extinction: The OM Principles versus the Global Depopulation Policy mexika 0 342 11-20-2013, 10:06 PM
Last Post: mexika
  - Toxic Logic - mexika 0 241 11-09-2013, 01:19 AM
Last Post: mexika
  US farmers may stop planting GMs after poor global yields Easy Skanking 6 659 02-16-2013, 06:33 PM
Last Post: thokling
  Bird flu is 'only three steps' from mutating into deadly new form - global pandemic TriWooOx 2 470 07-14-2012, 08:29 AM
Last Post: nwo2012
  Leaked Rio+20 Earth Summit Final Agreed Text – Utterly Inadequate Response to Global mexika 1 437 06-22-2012, 03:35 PM
Last Post: nwo2012
  The Global Bee Death. i8manu 6 1,677 05-20-2012, 09:38 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Canada – $6b to cut global temps by 0.0007°C. Just $84Trillion per degree! icosaface 1 485 10-21-2011, 04:27 PM
Last Post: nwo2012
Information Where's the Beef? Global Livestock Population and Agricultural Production Statistics FastTadpole 1 2,843 08-23-2011, 05:48 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Global Warming/ Climate change? junebug0000 14 2,442 12-04-2010, 02:31 PM
Last Post: icosaface
  US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest fraud' drummer 0 616 10-10-2010, 09:08 PM
Last Post: drummer

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)