Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Kirjava
Lothian Quay Industries Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 17:08:00 -
[1]
Okay, a chap I know in real life emailed this to me, no words just the link and I watched it. At the end of his arguement he challenges people to find flaw's in it in a process of elimination for policies on Enviromental Enginearing. So, I will give 10M isk to whoever can find a logical flaw that destroys this arguement.... I seriously can't
Rate my charecters please - 2M isk for a good review for the first 3 people!! |
Groes Thir
Gallente Karjala Inc. Onnenpyora
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 17:26:00 -
[2]
Move into an iglu. Ice age? Build thicker walls.
|
Star Gazer07
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 17:27:00 -
[3]
One major issue isn't whether or not global warming is real. Most evidence turns to it being real "the polar ice caps are obviously melting". The question is "Is it a natural occurance or is it man made" and "will it become a problem, or will it not be a problem". Honestly another option is we take the economic problems & global warming screws us over. Now we have a double disaster. Add in the fact that with the polar ice caps melted they won't deflect as much sunlight meaning even more warming.
It's too simplified. There's way more factors then just yes, no, true, false. This guy really is making an uneducated guess, not an educated one.
Why vote for the lesser of the two evils? VOTE EVIL SQUID TODAY! |
Bluefix
Gnu Terror Corps
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 17:29:00 -
[4]
Although I agree with the conclusion, the flaw is that he assumes equal chance of "false" and "true".
"True" is most likely and that's why I'd reach the same conclusion, but the video does not take this into account and if I were to argue that "false" was far more likely, the action "No" could be defended.
|
Kirjava
Lothian Quay Industries Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 17:32:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Star Gazer07 It's too simplified. There's way more factors then just yes, no, true, false. This guy really is making an uneducated guess, not an educated one.
That is true, I am only studying it at an end of High school level but all the examples and studies I have done slot roughly into one of those 4 options. Even colonising other planets comes into column A. It does seem to come up with a proof by contradiction that we need to act regardless if it is real or not because the possible conseqences of inaction outweigh the consequences of acting and not needing to.
Rate my charecters please - 2M isk for a good review for the first 3 people!! |
das licht
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:20:00 -
[6]
Real bullet proof gamblers pick ticket B. Quitter pick ticket A.
Very simple. Boom!
|
Rialtor
Amarr Yarrrateers
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:27:00 -
[7]
The flaw is that we have enough money/knowledge/manpower/etc. to actually solve the problem now. He disregards the very likely possibility that we act now, but we still get to the same conclusion since we acted at a wrong period. If we hold off till acting later, we may better understand the problem and have more advance technologies. A major level of conservation would not only hinder technology buy totally mess up the global economy. What we should do is try to be responsible. Right now there's pollution that's really unnessary, we can streamline those with at a fairly small cost, and it might actually be improvements overall.
If he means that humanity is not always attempting to find a better energy source then he's just wrong, so in essence we always have and always will be looking for a solution.
Even if the most stringest conservative movement was passed, it still wouldn't impact the issue by more than a few years, but we'd definately slot down prgoress in other areas.
The solution is to come up with better technology, which we are trying to do.
---- sig ----
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world... Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. |
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:31:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Rialtor He disregards the very likely possibility that we act now, but we still get to the same conclusion since we acted at a wrong period. If we hold off till acting later, we may better understand the problem and have more advance technologies.
I don't really understand your argument. Because we might be able to better later we shouldn't try now? Latest estimates predict that we have about 30 years to change things before we hit the point of no return... ---------------- Tarminic - 29 Million SP in pink Forum Warfare |
Rialtor
Amarr Yarrrateers
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:34:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Tarminic
Originally by: Rialtor He disregards the very likely possibility that we act now, but we still get to the same conclusion since we acted at a wrong period. If we hold off till acting later, we may better understand the problem and have more advance technologies.
I don't really understand your argument. Because we might be able to better later we shouldn't try now? Latest estimates predict that we have about 30 years to change things before we hit the point of no return...
That we spend resources now that we can spend better later. When people talk about spending money to combat global warming today, they're talking about massive conservation. Even if we meet Kyoto, it's just a few years till we the same result.
---- sig ----
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world... Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. |
Lala Ru
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:38:00 -
[10]
While I support changing global behavior for climate change, his argument is nothing but a rehash of Pascal's Wager. You can't draw any conclusion unless you know the possibilities involved. If, THEORETICALLY, human caused global climate change has only a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance to be true, then his argument falls apart.
Personally, I believe the opposite, in that humans are certainly causing climate change. However unless we have a good handle on the possibilities of climate change and a concrete grasp of the costs and consequences involved, his argument doesn't work.
Now where's my 10m ISK?
|
|
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:39:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Rialtor That we spend resources now that we can spend better later. When people talk about spending money to combat global warming today, they're talking about massive conservation. Even if we meet Kyoto, it's just a few years till we the same result.
But I still don't understand how acting later and not acting now can help our chances, even assuming that there are massive advances in our understanding of climate change in the future. The argument might be valid if we're tampering with the climate through some other artificial method, but cutting back on pollution and carbon emissions in general certainly can't have any negative effects on the environment and is what the vast majority of climatologists are recommending. Is still seems like a better idea than buying real estate in the artic. ---------------- Tarminic - 29 Million SP in pink Forum Warfare |
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:42:00 -
[12]
There are no logical flaws in his reasoning because its the most simplified version you can get - and the flaw is right there, in the oversimplification.
Sig removed for the third time, inappropriate content. Sig Locked. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes |
das licht
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:44:00 -
[13]
Will we ever be able o terraform e.g. mars, if we even can't solve that litle GCC problem? I don't kn÷w!
Scary.
|
Lala Ru
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:44:00 -
[14]
Here's a more concrete example.
To buy a lottery ticket, or not. You don't know if you're going to win or not.
If you don't buy, you gain nothing and lose nothing. $0 change.
If you buy, if you lose you're down $1. If you WIN you're up 200 million dollars!!
So, is buying the lottery ticket a good deal? You have no idea until you actually look at the ODDS involved.
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:45:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Sokratesz on 02/12/2007 18:44:59 ..I still agree with him though. We humans have an influence on our environment previously unwitnessed for any species or any development. If we want to keep our presumably unique earth and not destroy ourselves in the process, we need to change our way of life.
Sig removed for the third time, inappropriate content. Sig Locked. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes |
|
CCP Prism X
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:45:00 -
[16]
Edited by: CCP Prism X on 02/12/2007 18:46:25 Edited by: CCP Prism X on 02/12/2007 18:46:00 Edited by: CCP Prism X on 02/12/2007 18:45:45 I'm going to go with: Given the statement "GCC is caused by humans" is true. That doesn't say anything about whether we can take any actions against it or not, or whether they will prove useful or futile".
This would be the true worst case scenario for A, true as well as the true worst case scenario all together. That makes the whole catastrophe inescapable so B at the least comes with the benefit of not wasting moneys on nothing while we still have the earth, instead we could develop FTL drives so we can bail and destroy the next planet we find.
What I'm saying is that the smiley-face in (A, true) isn't the given it's made out to be IFF worst case scenario is applied to it, which is the case for the other choices according to the argument.
...wait a minute... this isn't General Discussion.
~ Prism X EvE Soylent-Green Database Developer, Relocating your character to a cozy, giant secure container since 2006. |
|
Rialtor
Amarr Yarrrateers
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:52:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Tarminic
Originally by: Rialtor That we spend resources now that we can spend better later. When people talk about spending money to combat global warming today, they're talking about massive conservation. Even if we meet Kyoto, it's just a few years till we the same result.
But I still don't understand how acting later and not acting now can help our chances, even assuming that there are massive advances in our understanding of climate change in the future. The argument might be valid if we're tampering with the climate through some other artificial method, but cutting back on pollution and carbon emissions in general certainly can't have any negative effects on the environment and is what the vast majority of climatologists are recommending. Is still seems like a better idea than buying real estate in the artic.
It's a matter of working smarter not harder, and resource allocation. Global warming isn't the only issue mankind has, so it shouldn't be the only thing we spend money on. And getting the most bang for our buck is important.
I agree we should streamline processes that are not. But that's hardly a huge investment. What he means in his video is a MASSIVE program to try to combat global warming now. And currently our only way to fight it would be massive conservative movement.
If he's advocating that, and it sounds like he is, I'm not for that. It's far too reactive to a problem we do not yet understand.
There are 6 billion people now, if we somehow cut emmission by half. How long till the population doubles? Do they not need more power as well, can we then again reduce by half?
The end goal is to get a technology that can efficently harness natural energy sources for everyone and we have always been actively researching and working on it. I'm all for putting more money on the research end, and streamlining processes. But conservation, I don't think that should be done now.
---- sig ----
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world... Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. |
LUH 3471
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:54:00 -
[18]
Edited by: LUH 3471 on 02/12/2007 18:56:36 the only thing here to be realised is that we need to change our thinking that we need to end this self destructive behaviour and embrace life not deny it the realization that life as it is already given is full and sufficient
|
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:56:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Rialtor It's a matter of working smarter not harder, and resource allocation. Global warming isn't the only issue mankind has, so it shouldn't be the only thing we spend money on. And getting the most bang for our buck is important.
I agree we should streamline processes that are not. But that's hardly a huge investment. What he means in his video is a MASSIVE program to try to combat global warming now. And currently our only way to fight it would be massive conservative movement.
If he's advocating that, and it sounds like he is, I'm not for that. It's far too reactive to a problem we do not yet understand.
There are 6 billion people now, if we somehow cut emmission by half. How long till the population doubles? Do they not need more power as well, can we then again reduce by half?
The end goal is to get a technology that can efficently harness natural energy sources for everyone and we have always been actively researching and working on it. I'm all for putting more money on the research end, and streamlining processes. But conservation, I don't think that should be done now.
OK Rialtor, thanks for clarifying that for me. ---------------- Tarminic - 29 Million SP in pink Forum Warfare |
An Anarchyyt
Gallente Sublime.
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 19:02:00 -
[20]
Originally by: CCP Prism X ...wait a minute... this isn't General Discussion.
And I'm still "What the hell-ing?"
Anyway, as most people have said what I would've said. 10 million what? ISK? Cake? $? Babies? Degrees of temperature?
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
|
LUH 3471
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 19:05:00 -
[21]
Originally by: An Anarchyyt
Originally by: CCP Prism X ...wait a minute... this isn't General Discussion.
And I'm still "What the hell-ing?"
Anyway, as most people have said what I would've said. 10 million what? ISK? Cake? $? Babies? Degrees of temperature?
10 million of nothingness
|
|
CCP Prism X
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 19:08:00 -
[22]
Originally by: LUH 3471 10 million of nothingness
Which will do me the exact same good as 10 mil ISK.
~ Prism X EvE Soylent-Green Database Developer, Relocating your character to a cozy, giant secure container since 2006. |
|
Adonis 4174
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 19:08:00 -
[23]
To prevent climate change we need to invest heavily in skyhook technology.
Once we can tether a satellite to the ground we can then put a thermoconductive core in the tether and a heatsink at either end, with movable heat shields on the space end. We then have the ability to combat the primary cause of climate change, which is that heat is not being radiate out through the upper atmosphere, by way of a global heatsink. If we cool the earth too much we simply reverse the process, shielding the outer heatsink when it is out of the sun, to raise it again.
Yes I have had a few but this idea holds water sober as well. The only missing element is a strong enough tether, which carbon nanotubes have brought us a long way toward. ----- "Why can't you just be friends?" -- Oveur |
An Anarchyyt
Gallente Sublime.
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 19:10:00 -
[24]
Originally by: CCP Prism X
Originally by: LUH 3471 10 million of nothingness
Which will do me the exact same good as 10 mil ISK.
Well then, in that case.......
Can I have your stuff?
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
|
CCP Prism X
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 19:11:00 -
[25]
Originally by: An Anarchyyt Well then, in that case.......
Can I have your stuff?
I don't swing that way, sorry.
~ Prism X EvE Soylent-Green Database Developer, Relocating your character to a cozy, giant secure container since 2006. |
|
An Anarchyyt
Gallente Sublime.
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 19:18:00 -
[26]
Originally by: CCP Prism X I don't swing that way, sorry.
Well then.....I'm just going to have to take it! Even if it takes me till next fanfest.
*wardecs CCP*
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Kirjava
Lothian Quay Industries Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 20:15:00 -
[27]
Adonis, I will assume your skyhook is an orbital elevator? I have also thought we should work on these to expand humanitys horizons, but a heat sink? Thats a new one..... and nanotubes are the only thing with enough tensile stenghth that we know of, but we should be able to get one built within the next few decades (theoreticaly). We would need a few OE though to do that at a faster rate than we are building it up and being on one side of the Earth while the other is radiating heat ect. The main problem will be who builds the first one, whoever does will be the unrivaled superpower of the Earth, so whoever owns it will be a state and hence military run. Think of it as an arms race as soon as one starts being built, the fact that the countries straddeling the equator are not the best places to build such an expensive instalation dosen't help..... I am hopeful Britian/EU can get one built on Ascention Island, it's accessable by sea and is British territory near the equator Also the person who was first to contradict the arguement will be sent isk asap.
Rate my charecters please - 2M isk for a good review for the first 3 people!! |
Keorythe
Caldari Terra Rosa Militia Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 21:04:00 -
[28]
Just to point out that according to his tables if we take action whether or not GW is true or false still leads to Global Depression. Additionally a global depression brings much of those same problems from his major catastrophe column as well. Economic, health, social, and political. Great depression would be considered low scale compared to this. So column A is bad either way.
Column B is still pretty darn bad if the worst case scenarios do happen. Its just that we are still unsure of what exactly will happen. Right now its all a big guess as to what problems will happen exactly. On top of that, the science behind it all is still in debate. We dont understand weather as much as we like and are reduced to plugging in stats into a clean cut computer model.
Damned if you do, maybe damned if you dont.
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes |
UPA Terf
Omerta Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 21:08:00 -
[29]
please....im begging...not another global warming thread...they make me cry
|
3rdD Dave
Gallente Deadly Addiction
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 21:16:00 -
[30]
Why does the politics of this topic even matter? Surely as tenant of the planet, thats you and me, shouldn't we be doing all we can to help our ONLY home and make sure our children's children have something to love.
It really bugs me that all this very stupid discussion takes place at all. Deforestation, rising water levels, more violent weather patterns.. why does it matter if its by human or by a natural cycle???
Were only tenants on this planet, instead of raping it for every single resource we can get out of it for MONEY we should be doing our up most best to preserve it.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |