Watch this one first.

YouTube - The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See


Then this which I believe is the follow up.

YouTube - How It All Ends


Passing it on as asked, as I think it's sound reasoning..


Andy

 

Poor and wrong-headed reasoning. Chicken licken would be proud of the guy

There should be 3 rows and 3 columns in his grid IMHO -

Rows
GCC is false
GCC is true but not man-made
GCC is true and man-made

Columns
We tax and punish western economies with good effect
We tax and punish without effect ,as the China issue is never addressed and aid to grow developing world populations continues without question
We do nothing

 

Can I get 8 minutes of my life back please? Thats how far I got with the first one

 

 

A lesson to help you all out. Get a deckchair and go and find a beach when the tide is out. Now sit there, right near the sea. Bask in the glory of the human race and your own self importance.

When the tide starts coming in, stand up and command it not to. You are human, and you are all important. It, nature, should bend to your whims and not come in and destroy your sand castle.

Keep trying that until you understand that there is **** all you can do about the planet. Nature made oil. The carbon that went into the oil came from vegetation. The carbon in the vegetation came from the atmosphere. Now its all going to go back where it came from. Nature will deal with it.

Not to mention that we are not even meant to have ice caps. Only reason we have them is because of the ice age. The ice age being brought about by an asteroid smashing into our planet. We are still recovering from that. The climate of the British Isles before the asteroid came along was tropical. Buy some shorts, suncream and beer. Enjoy

<rant mode off>

 

Simple answer: Planet is overpopulated. Stop over population, or nature will do it for us anyway.

So, we need more war

 

right - ok - because BP are getting involved in this it must mean that Global Warming is more likely... no agenda there then

 

I feel sorry for the guy who made that movie. His "sound reasoning" must cause him all sorts of problems.

For example, say he woke up with a headache one morning. He'd draw his little chart, saying that he might have a brain tumour ("false" or "true"). He can either take action (start chemotherapy immediately) or do nothing.

His boxes say, if he starts chemotherapy but hasn't got cancer, he'll get very sick, all his hair will fall out, food will taste disgusting, he'll suffer nausea and other problems. But if he doesn't start chemotherapy straight away, HE MIGHT DIE (worst case scenario, remember).

So, because he wakes up one morning with a headache, he insists on starting a six month course of chemotherapy.

That's why I feel sorry for him. His "sound reasoning" is anything but.

 

Darwinism and Natural Selection is the way forward. Failing that, time to move "off planet"...... we've broken this one, time to move on

 

Well presented arguments which in all honesty generate something to think about.

Les

 

Well presented arguments which in all honesty generate something to tax us with

 

lol oh the irony, a bunch of Impreza drivers having a discussion about save the planet.

Whatever next, seal clubbers complaining about animal cruelty

Tis a sensitive issue, but scientists do love proving things in ONE direction, and people are usually likely to believe the scary information.

 

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

 

I guess the trouble is, people only normally tend to discuss such emotive issues with other people whom we know are already in broad agreement.

That's why nobody he's actually spoken to has been able to point out the flaw in his argument - they agree with his conclusion, therefore don't look very hard for problems. It becomes just another tool to use in an attempt to prop up their own preconception.

In this case, I think his rows are correct: either GCC is happening, or it isn't. Whether or not it's man-made is a moot point IMHO - what actually matters is whether man's activities from this point onward can prevent it from escalating further.

What he needs, though, are two extra columns:

- We take action to reduce or prevent GCC and fail, and

- We take action to mitigate the effects of GCC if it does occur - which isn't something I've seen anyone suggest before (non-PC?) but which seems like a pretty obvious course of action to me.

 

So it basically means as he rightly points out we NEED to take action on what we know we CAN change and then as science progresses keep fighting to mitigate the effects as you rightly say.
So that's STILL a Yes we do take action as opposed to sitting on our asses!

The fact that this is Subaru forum is a bit of moot point, yes ok our cars arn't the most eco friendly out there but where is the REAL alternative at the moment?
Moving to a more fuel efficient car based on the same principals is hardly a step forward.

Dam... back to work..

 

his grid is wrong - it should be...

gcc_refute.jpg (image)


So he is saying we should definitely get poor and cause world poverty (lottery ticket A), because the alternative is maybe we could get richer and eliminate poverty, or maybe the world will be virtually uninhabitable - or maybe not

 

We need a TOTAL revolution in global society or a massive technological leap e.g fusion power to even begin to address GCC, assuming it is caused by man.

 

That too!

I can't answer for the taxing society we live in!

Les

 

Sod the planet! I'm alright, Jack!!

 

A big problem with all the "carbon cost" stuff its its horribly hard to actually calculate costs. Say for example I drive to work and own a car, I decide to buy a push bike and ride to work one day a week when the weather looks worth the risk. I save one journey a week, thats not actually much carbon, but what is the carbon cost of digging up some iron ore, turning it into steel, shipping it halfway round the world, turning it into a bike, painting the bike, finding tires, and lights, and all the other surprisingly diverse parts on something as simple as a bike, then shipping it from china to my house. I would suspect that in the long run the carbon saved from not driving to work one day a week would take a long time to offset the carbon of the bike.

I have the car anyway and I am unlikely not to have it so why cost the environment a car AND a bike. Yet this is exactly what the weirdly beards are telling me to do.

The other one that really winds me up is this "energy saving bulb" thing.

Filament bulb - Glass, Stable inert gas, Tin, small bit of steel
All 100% recyclable.
Compact florescent - Balance Circuit, with silicon and semiconductors, phosphor tube containing mercury and other nastiness.
100% Pain in the *** to recycle

Yes it lasts longer, bloody should do it costs twice as much energy to manufacture never mind source the parts. Yes it uses less power, but then it also degrades, so at the end of its life it will be giving out far less light for the same power, on a straight line decay.

Seems to me the answer to this is to stop telling consumers to buy bulbs they wont be aloud to throw away due to the WEEE directive, but start investing in ways of producing cleaner energy. That however is more a government problem and unlike blaming the consumer sorting that out is going to cost money.

Err and now I have an appointment with my anger management councilor!

 

How about buying a second hand bike, shock horror.


Andy

 

Ultimately that still causes one new bike to be manufactured, though. Someone else, who might have bought the same used one, now has to buy new instead.

Total number of bikes manufactured = number currently in use + number in storage + number scrapped. It doesn't matter who buys which ones.

 

bollox. get down the auctions and see how many bikes there are sat around not doing anything.

Andy

 

Can I join in?!! I also recall from that article that ventilation is key for the longevity of these bulbs, as we have recently finishing our house with, as it happens completely incompatible light fittings, some of which a energy saver wouldn't even fit in, are the government going to pay a grand or so to replace my light fittings? Didn't think so

 

He is of course missing the real worst case, take action and it doesn't work.

 

well we are all fcuked then and the economy will be the least of our worries!

 

Oh Ollyk I don't know, simply not working is boringly unironic, chances are it would work, we would all be back in caves of course but the environment would be stable. Then right at the moment all was perfect an asteroid would strike, or a plague, or anything else preventable by retention of our environmental genocide.

To be honest its getting a bit boring, I am 27 years old and I cannot remember a time when man kind was not in imminent danger of something it was blaming its self for. When I was 15/16 it was the huge hole in the ozone layer caused by the deodorant I was using, meaning that by now everyone would have skin cancer and inevitable painful death. Before that it was the threat of more direct environmental impact called atomic war.

It would seem that at any point in time these days there are a group of people forecasting the end of mankind, the only thing we can be sure of is that when mankind eventually does manage to really screw up, there are going to be a lot of very very smug yellow toothed veggies, but then thats only fair I guess they deserve some happiness after so much disappointment!

 

We noticed we had a problem with the ozone, worked out what was causing it and did something to rectify it.
It worked (is working)
That's why we haven't all got skin cancer and died of a painful death.

If the atomic war (WW3) had happened back then, none of us would be sat here typing this..
We create problems, without realising it, then someone works out where we fcuked up and it's big news.
It has to be big news or nothing would ever get done to fix it because no one would be any the wiser about it.
If we only put as much energy and enthusiasm into making life better for ourselves, instead of how to make a few quid by killing our neighbours, life would be a whole lot ******* sweeter!

 

Well the ozone is something of a curiosity actually, the size of the hole varies with the weather and has other dependences, and since when the hole was first discovered they lacked the satellite images they now have making comparison difficult. They believe its getting smaller, but by how much or how fast there not really sure. I agree the action that was taken was the right thing to do, there was little social/economic impact from the move away from the offending CFC's and it seems to have halted damage if nothing else.

Don't get me wrong here I am not some evil person, I own a copy of "The Inconvenient Truth" I do my bit where I can and most of all where I feel its not self defeating.

The atomic war did not happen back then but lets be realistic it still might, thats not a problem thats exactly gone away, not now the middle east is climbing onto the bandwagon.

Yes news help, but what gets me is hype!