Global Warming Risk Analysis

Ahnimus

Check out this video, it's an interesting risk assessment of the global warming controversy.

http://www.shoutfile.com/v/DFbe9fgQ/How_It_All_Ends

NoK

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=311715

Greenlanders welcome global warming
Sunday October 28, 2007

NoK

Ahnimus wrote:

Check out this video, it's an interesting risk assessment of the global warming controversy.

http://www.shoutfile.com/v/DFbe9fgQ/How_It_All_Ends

Interesting video

surferdude

Garbage analysis right from the get go where he only sees two possible actions: Action = possible economic harm, Inaction = Destruction and Upheaval. Then the further breakdown is more of the same garbage. It scares me that this guy is a teacher and is teaching this type of analysis.

I like that he's taking it from a risk management approach but he did his whole presentation in order to reinforce his opinion. He fails to realize that running our current economy as it is a type of action. It sets into motion revenue streams that are being used for research and will lead to discovery. His analysis of downsides of taking action were woefully incomplete and again makes it scary to think he's in charge of teaching anything smarter than a hamster let lone our kids. Let's say we take great action immediately and it only has an adverse effect on the economy for 10 years. Meanwhile that's 10 years of inaction on Africa, 10 years of completely doing nothing for victims of natural disasters. After all there's only so much money to go around and if the economy's adversely affected there'll be less money than there is now. Why isn't he presenting the very real uncertainty that more people may die as a result of all out action than may die as a result of no action or measured action.

NoK

surferdude wrote:

Garbage analysis right from the get go where he only sees two possible actions: Action = possible economic harm, Inaction = Destruction and Upheaval. Then the further breakdown is more of the same garbage. It scares me that this guy is a teacher and is teaching this type of analysis.

I like that he's taking it from a risk management approach but he did his whole presentation in order to reinforce his opinion. He fails to realize that running our current economy as it is a type of action. It sets into motion revenue streams that are being used for research and will lead to discovery. His analysis of downsides of taking action were woefully incomplete and again makes it scary to think he's in charge of teaching anything smarter than a hamster let lone our kids. Let's say we take great action immediately and it only has an adverse effect on the economy for 10 years. Meanwhile that's 10 years of inaction on Africa, 10 years of completely doing nothing for victims of natural disasters. After all there's only so much money to go around and if the economy's adversely affected there'll be less money than there is now. Why isn't he presenting the very real uncertainty that more people may die as a result of all out action than may die as a result of no action or measured action.

Is it me or even with the money right now not that much is going to Africa. Same applies with natural disasters. You're argument on more money = more help to problems is flawed because it goes back to INACTION from the current governments. Might as well piss the money away on fighting global warming than on war.

A large amount of ppl are already dying as a result of inaction. Money wont change much because we aren't helping that much in the first place.

sourdough

NoK wrote:

Is it me or even with the money right now not that much is going to Africa. Same applies with natural disasters. You're argument on more money = more help to problems is flawed because it goes back to INACTION from the current governments. Might as well piss the money away on fighting global warming than on war.

A large amount of ppl are already dying as a result of inaction. Money wont change much because we aren't helping that much in the first place.

Good point. More money in the economy doesn't translate to more aid or better social services. Canada's contribution to world aid (They promised 0.7% of GDP) has declined regardless of economic performance. It has just as much to to do with how money is allocated.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

Check out this video, it's an interesting risk assessment of the global warming controversy.

http://www.shoutfile.com/v/DFbe9fgQ/How_It_All_Ends

you know ryan; i don't know why we have these discussions. it seems most here can't comprehend the converstaion. it's no longer a matter of whos fault it is; it's a matter of what people are going to do about it to save their own lives.
the indian islands are preparing to evacuate; towns in alaska have been evacuated; and i just learned islands off new guinea are being evacuated. the worlds largest lake (in africa) is now a mud puddle. these mud bogs are releasing CO2 which hangs to the ground and kills everything in its path.
these clowns still sit in their ivory towers. go talk to those now being effected. you're wasting your time here.

NoK

sourdough wrote:

Good point. More money in the economy doesn't translate to more aid or better social services. Canada's contribution to world aid (They promised 0.7% of GDP) has declined regardless of economic performance. It has just as much to to do with how money is allocated.

You said it better than me!

If you take a look at how much Australia is giving in Aid

$AUD 3.2 Billion

http://www.ausaid.gov.au/budget/budget07/summary07.cfm

and then you take a look at this

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22633738-2703,00.html

its pathetic.

Fighting more useful causes is all it requires.

Ahnimus

surferdude wrote:

Garbage analysis right from the get go where he only sees two possible actions: Action = possible economic harm, Inaction = Destruction and Upheaval. Then the further breakdown is more of the same garbage. It scares me that this guy is a teacher and is teaching this type of analysis.

I like that he's taking it from a risk management approach but he did his whole presentation in order to reinforce his opinion. He fails to realize that running our current economy as it is a type of action. It sets into motion revenue streams that are being used for research and will lead to discovery. His analysis of downsides of taking action were woefully incomplete and again makes it scary to think he's in charge of teaching anything smarter than a hamster let lone our kids. Let's say we take great action immediately and it only has an adverse effect on the economy for 10 years. Meanwhile that's 10 years of inaction on Africa, 10 years of completely doing nothing for victims of natural disasters. After all there's only so much money to go around and if the economy's adversely affected there'll be less money than there is now. Why isn't he presenting the very real uncertainty that more people may die as a result of all out action than may die as a result of no action or measured action.

So, you are complaining that he didn't include the effects of economic collapse? But economic collapse is a side-effect of both inaction and action. In reality, the US economy is already collapsing. But that's from destruction, war, not global warming action or inaction. Now you are also saying there is something called "moderate action" or "moderate inaction", but keep in mind this is a simplified analysis. A line is drawn straight down the centre. You can tell that by the smiley faces.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

you know ryan; i don't know why we have these discussions. it seems most here can't comprehend the converstaion. it's no longer a matter of whos fault it is; it's a matter of what people are going to do about it to save their own lives.
the indian islands are preparing to evacuate; towns in alaska have been evacuated; and i just learned islands off new guinea are being evacuated. the worlds largest lake (in africa) is now a mud puddle. these mud bogs are releasing CO2 which hangs to the ground and kills everything in its path.
these clowns still sit in their ivory towers. go talk to those now being effected. you're wasting your time here.

Comprehension is a serious problem around here. Sometimes I think it's the isolation of North America that makes people here so self-centered. This teacher created this video after being criticized by a number of people, as he mentioned at the begining. Criticism is good to get to the bottom of something, but even with the ultimate uncertainty, it's important to take a position and that should be the one of least risk. I'm sorry people can't see that.

Obi Once

Thanks for the link, even tho it's simplified logic it still makes sense. Even if global climate change is unstoppable and a natural process it still does no harm to try keep a balance between industry and nature. I don't believe in immediate disaster, but in my view it's better to try and prevent it from happening than waiting to see the effects of the continuation of polluting the air, water and land we depend on to survive.

polaris

the implications and ramifications are happening now ... and as in many other instances - it will be those who have that can most deal with it vs. those who have not ...

surferdude

Ahnimus wrote:

So, you are complaining that he didn't include the effects of economic collapse? But economic collapse is a side-effect of both inaction and action. In reality, the US economy is already collapsing. But that's from destruction, war, not global warming action or inaction. Now you are also saying there is something called "moderate action" or "moderate inaction", but keep in mind this is a simplified analysis. A line is drawn straight down the centre. You can tell that by the smiley faces.

He didn't look at how dollars are spent. Did you get the feeling anywhere that he sees spending money adapting to change as a viable option? Did he mention the real life impact and harm to human life some of his 'actions' are taking?

Well the UN sure has.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7065061.stm

"A United Nations expert has condemned the growing use of crops to produce biofuels as a replacement for petrol as a crime against humanity.

The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, said he feared biofuels would bring more hunger. The growth in the production of biofuels has helped to push the price of some crops to record levels. Mr Ziegler's remarks, made at the UN headquarters in New York, are clearly designed to grab attention. He complained of an ill-conceived dash to convert foodstuffs such as maize and sugar into fuel, which created a recipe for disaster.

It was, he said, a crime against humanity to divert arable land to the production of crops which are then burned for fuel. He called for a five-year ban on the practice. Within that time, according to Mr Ziegler, technological advances would enable the use of agricultural waste, such as corn cobs and banana leaves, rather than crops themselves to produce fuel. The growth in the production of biofuels has been driven, in part, by the desire to find less environmentally-damaging alternatives to oil. The United States is also keen to reduce its reliance on oil imported from politically unstable regions. But the trend has contributed to a sharp rise in food prices as farmers, particularly in the US, switch production from wheat and soya to corn, which is then turned into ethanol. Mr Ziegler is not alone in warning of the problem. The IMF last week voiced concern that the increasing global reliance on grain as a source of fuel could have serious implications for the world's poor."

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

Check out this video, it's an interesting risk assessment of the global warming controversy.

http://www.shoutfile.com/v/DFbe9fgQ/How_It_All_Ends

the problem is that the ignorant want to debate whos fault global warming is.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT. we could have made a difference but we choose not to. thousands of us have tried; but it takes everyone to make a difference.
if this is a natural cycle of the earth; then look at what the earth was/will be before this cycle reverses. the coast of the gulf of mexico will be in kansas. most of florida will be under water as will new york city. this is just a drop in the bucket used as example. 2/3 of the worlds population will be relocated. since they are going to wait until the water is at their door; their house and equity are now worthless. and because those of us with land in safe areas know you don't have a choice; we will charge you a fortune for that land. but will you have gas to evauate? most oil processing plants are located in low areas and they will be flooded too. if the water intrudes only a mile inland; how will you unload the supplies brought by boat when those boats can no longer come to the shore because the water is too shallow? did any of you think of these things? these are just a few examples. that water will mix with sewage and chemicals making the areas a toxic waste area. how do you expect to get food?
no matter who or what caused global warming; the results are the same. the ice expected to melt by 2050 is already melted. expeditions and satellite photos prove it. the ice that melted was already in the oceans so we haven't seen a significant rise. just like ice melting in a glass of water. we are now at the point where water is being added and the rise will come fast.
may God have mercy on your souls.

Obi Once

surferdude wrote:

He didn't look at how dollars are spent. Did you get the feeling anywhere that he sees spending money adapting to change as a viable option? Did he mention the real life impact and harm to human life some of his 'actions' are taking?

Well the UN sure has.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7065061.stm

"A United Nations expert has condemned the growing use of crops to produce biofuels as a replacement for petrol as a crime against humanity.

The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, said he feared biofuels would bring more hunger. The growth in the production of biofuels has helped to push the price of some crops to record levels. Mr Ziegler's remarks, made at the UN headquarters in New York, are clearly designed to grab attention. He complained of an ill-conceived dash to convert foodstuffs such as maize and sugar into fuel, which created a recipe for disaster.

It was, he said, a crime against humanity to divert arable land to the production of crops which are then burned for fuel. He called for a five-year ban on the practice. Within that time, according to Mr Ziegler, technological advances would enable the use of agricultural waste, such as corn cobs and banana leaves, rather than crops themselves to produce fuel. The growth in the production of biofuels has been driven, in part, by the desire to find less environmentally-damaging alternatives to oil. The United States is also keen to reduce its reliance on oil imported from politically unstable regions. But the trend has contributed to a sharp rise in food prices as farmers, particularly in the US, switch production from wheat and soya to corn, which is then turned into ethanol. Mr Ziegler is not alone in warning of the problem. The IMF last week voiced concern that the increasing global reliance on grain as a source of fuel could have serious implications for the world's poor."

True, but this is no new knowledge.. As it seems now bio fuels will not contribute much and will cause other problems. But there's a certain government who (in my guess by popular uneducated demand) is backing this, in the name of green (oil independency).

Money could and should be used to research low costs, easy applicable ways for saving energy and pressure our environment less.

He (in the video) and Ahnimus don't mention any examples of action, but there are enough. Sure some now have huge costs with them, but if we would innovate at the rate like we have fastened processor capacity and lowering prices (Moore's law), it would be very cheap within years.

And there are easier ways with lower costs like switching to less energy consuming lights, better waste management and recycling in many fields, often in industry alone, better isolation of offices and housing, options that on short term are efficient. And will have no (big) 'real life' impacts as mentioned in the above article, well maybe our energy bill will go down, damnit!

surferdude

Obi Once wrote:

He (in the video) and Ahnimus don't mention any examples of action, but there are enough.

That's a cop out in my opinion. Screaming do something but without offering solutions. Then when I point out the actions being taken could be killing people, it's we said do something but we didn't say do that.

Let's say we have $100 billion dollars to put towards the global climate issue. What percentage of that should be spent on research for technology improvements to lower future greenhouse gas emissions? What percentage should be spent on education? What percent should be spent on adapting to climate change? What are the parameters to call each one a success? What is the opportunity cost of every dollar spent on the global climate issue?

There are some exceedingly fundamental questions need to be answered before anything can be done. 1. Is a life in the future worth the same as a present life? 2. Is a life in a different country worth the same as one in your own country? During World War I and II the answer to questions 1 and 2 were a life in the future is of more value than a current life ad a life ina different country is of the same value of as a life in my country. In 2007 I don't think we have an answer to question 1 and question 2 based on behavior seems to be a life in my country is worth more than any other life.

Going around screaming do something without a plan in place is killing people. And a plan is more than just goals, a plan includes the actual work required to meet those goals.

gue_barium

surferdude wrote:

That's a cop out in my opinion. Screaming do something but without offering solutions. Then when I point out the actions being taken could be killing people, it's we said do something but we didn't say do that.

Let's say we have $100 billion dollars to put towards the global climate issue. What percentage of that should be spent on research for technology improvements to lower future greenhouse gas emissions? What percentage should be spent on education? What percent should be spent on adapting to climate change? What are the parameters to call each one a success? What is the opportunity cost of every dollar spent on the global climate issue?

There are some exceedingly fundamental questions need to be answered before anything can be done. 1. Is a life in the future worth the same as a present life? 2. Is a life in a different country worth the same as one in your own country? During World War I and II the answer to questions 1 and 2 were a life in the future is of more value than a current life ad a life ina different country is of the same value of as a life in my country. In 2007 I don't think we have an answer to question 1 and question 2 based on behavior seems to be a life in my country is worth more than any other life.

Going around screaming do something without a plan in place is killing people. And a plan is more than just goals, a plan includes the actual work required to meet those goals.

Good questions.
Here is a current events situation that may sum up the uphill struggle of more environmentally friendly alternative energy sources in the US. BTW, I'm not sure I trust all of the facts cited in opposition of the wind farm in this article.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22204

Residents of Kittitas County, Washington are expressing their outrage at Gov. Christine Gregoire's (D) September 18 decision to overrule county officials and allow 65 new, towering wind turbines to be built on hillsides surrounding the town of Ellensburg.

Kittitas County commissioners had rejected the proposed wind farm, noting local opposition to the 410-foot wind turbines that are expected to destroy scenic views, kill birds and bats, and create loud, reverberating noise in addition to generating a relatively small amount of electric power.

County officials and citizens groups have vowed to appeal Gregoire's decision to the state supreme court in a case that will be closely watched by wind power supporters and opponents alike. Gregoire's decision was the first time a governor used a 1970 state law written to facilitate nuclear power plant construction to justify building a wind farm.

U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings (R), whose district includes Kittitas County, joined local residents in expressing concern about the governor's decision, telling the Seattle Times for a November 19 story, "I fear this precedent will embolden energy companies to bypass local leaders and go to the governor to have projects imposed on communities."
...continued (link)

Obi Once

surferdude wrote:

That's a cop out in my opinion. Screaming do something but without offering solutions. Then when I point out the actions being taken could be killing people, it's we said do something but we didn't say do that.

This is a risk analysis, not a plan on how to and I'm sure I heard no one scream, you? And a plan could be to be able to live the standard of life we're used to, but with less waste and more efficient use of energy. Why run towards a possible tipping point and screw up the place we live in. I and many many other never claimed bio fuel will be salvation and the end of all problems. I have more faith in hydrogen when it comes to transportation.

Let's say we have $100 billion dollars to put towards the global climate issue. What percentage of that should be spent on research for technology improvements to lower future greenhouse gas emissions? What percentage should be spent on education? What percent should be spent on adapting to climate change? What are the parameters to call each one a success? What is the opportunity cost of every dollar spent on the global climate issue?

I'd say don't bet it all on one horse and see what technological improvements will achieve the best results. I'm not an expert on planning funds for climate change, but if you ask me if I'd rather see more efficient use of (natural) resources first. Fossil already implies extinction.

There are some exceedingly fundamental questions need to be answered before anything can be done. 1. Is a life in the future worth the same as a present life?

Exceedingly fundamental questions relating to if we should try and not stop global climate change? Are the life's of our children's children equal to ours? Why wouldn't they be..?

2. Is a life in a different country worth the same as one in your own country? ... based on behavior seems to be a life in my country is worth more than any other life.

Amazing... In all cases the life of 1 of your fellow countrymen, no matter their place, believes and history? To me that sounds quite nationalistic and perhaps even narrow minded.

Going around screaming do something without a plan in place is killing people.

Don't Panic. War is already killing people, so are traffic, lung diseases and many other things. I don't see how improving e.g. solar, hydrogen and wind energy will cost lives.

And a plan is more than just goals, a plan includes the actual work required to meet those goals.

Plans on global scale have been around for a relative short while and their are some big players not involved. There's no doubt work needs to be done, hence the need for funding. Already some companies are aware of their role and what the public wants. Now if education on how we all use and waste a lot of energy that can easily be saved we'll get somewhere.

surferdude

Obi Once wrote:

Exceedingly fundamental questions relating to if we should try and not stop global climate change? Are the life's of our children's children equal to ours? Why wouldn't they be..?

So can I take from this you are against abortion? You've given equal weight to a future life as a current life.

Obi Once wrote:

Amazing... In all cases the life of 1 of your fellow countrymen, no matter their place, believes and history? To me that sounds quite nationalistic and perhaps even narrow minded.

I wonder if you make a payment to African charities equal to the taxes you pay to your government? If you believe a foreigners life is of equal value to a fellow countryman's you'd be all for global free trade. As long as someone is being employed it does not matter where they live.

It's quite easy to say you believe all peoples lives have the same value or that a future life is of the same value of a current life but, it's quite different to live according to those beliefs. These beliefs have a serious impact on your neighbours. Are you willing to try to impose our belief system on them?

onelongsong

for the sake of the idiots; let's say man had nothing to do with global warming. could we have slowed it? yes.
now; we say this is a natural cycle. what was the earth like during one of these cycles when the earth didn't have ice cover? extinction. we have an extinction every 62 million years. since you don't believe me; look for yourself.

onelongsong

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/03/26/coverstory/index.html
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/globalwarming/interactive/interactive.html

maybe this will help.