The Most Terrifying Thing you will ever see
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

It is actually pretty scary when you think about it.

Well the guy is right on all fronts... also it's hardly any more complex then he makes it out to be because in the end we're either gonna or not gonna act on a threat that may or may not exist. It's also at this point that some of the comments underneath that video make me laugh because those idiots can't grasp the entire point this guy was making and instantly call him a loonatic.

So, basic point of the video for anyone who didn't get it: No matter who is right about the whole climate change debate, governments are going to push money and laws to prevent it anyway because doing nothing is to big of a risk apparantly.

I'm still downloading this so I can't completely comment at this stage other than to say that the title of this thread is completely misleading.

The first thought that popped into my head was a picture that a friend described to me recently of a woman doing inappropriate things to a squid. Actually, it was probably the other way round. Either way, I would consider that far more terrifying.

I've seen that picture, Nate. Want a linku?

God no. And if you provide it anyway... consider yourself banz0red to hell. :flames:

You're all wrong. Tub Girl is thwe most terrifying thing you'll ever see.

I beg to differ. Goatse is worse.

Ha! Goaste fails in comparison top Tub Girl. To see someone stretch something that far is bad, but to see.........such a......fountain of..............oh god........

There's one thing that dazzles me... By what standards is this THE most terrifying thing we'll ever see? It's the most truthful video about effects of human choices on the space-time continuum.

Looking Cthulhu in his ugly mug just might screw you five times over.

Cthulhu is a sexy beast. Almost as much as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

And I say screw da environment. We've got enough problems worrying about real threats like Islam and the fundie agenda rather than focusing on sky-is-falling brigade claptrap.

Eh, it was a good video. Didn't tell me anything new; that's more or less how I've been arguing global warming since that idiot Republican* lived with us for a while. But it was expressed quite well.


*Which is to say that he's a Republican who is an idiot, no that all Republicans are idiot. Buuuuut... There does seem to be a strong correlation in many of the Republicans I've met.

I'm a Republican. Am I an idiot?

Yes.




Just kidding XD


Sorry, Patrick Vykkers, I just couldn't resist. :D

The funny thing with global warming is that, from what I hear (which could be wrong), natural sources (e.g. volcanos) actually put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than anything humans have made (in fact I think there was a percentage of greenhouse gases contributed by humans, and it was rather small). Which, of course, could be wrong; afterall, we all know how easy it is for statistics to be completely flawed, but I find it interesting. And in that case, we're going to have to work freakin' hard to stop it XD

You tell me.

The Yellowstone mega volcano might explode any moment or in a million years and with that comes a new ice age. We might be looking at the last seconds of the world as we know it right now.

No offense, but I think that you are a few cards short of a full deck.. not that I disagree on YellowStone..

Answered your own question really didn't you?

I hear that one often, and it's not difficult to argue against. Humanity releases 150 times more Carbon Dioxide annually that volcanoes, which due to the aerosols they release actually contribute net cooling.

And yes, overall, natural sources contribute far more Carbon Dioxide than humanity. Plants for example, in autumn the leaves drop and growth dies back, and their carbon returns to the atmosphere. But what happens come spring? The leaves come plant, plan growth begins again and carbon is sequestered in plants once more.

This is true of all natural sources- they are offset by natural sinks at the same rate. However, anthropogenic releases are not, that would take the same processes that created the fossil fuels in the first place, which takes far longer than we consume them, which takes us back to the problem of diminishing, non-renewable resources.

However, the planet has stepped up the plate and increased its sink capacity, in oceans and forest growth, otherwise we would be experiencing much more extreme effects than we are and will, but it cannot, does not and will not sequester it all.

In the past global temperature changes are initiated by forcings such as solar variation, or the polarisation of the Antarctic continent that created the currents of the Southern Ocean, but these are not sufficient by themselves to cause the observed temperature changes by themselves. They did, however, initiate a cascade effect, or positive feedback loop, in which Carbon Dioxide is added to or removed from the atmosphere, enough to complete the observed temperature changes until a new equilibrium is reached.

What we are doing now is bypassing the natural forcing part and directly adding Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere, which may still activate a positive feedback loop if we continue in this way.


I've seen this video before. He has either read about and reworked or else independently come up with Pascal's Wager, used to show that the possible gains of believing in God outweigh the possible losses. Pascal's flaw is that it assumes that you choose the correct religion, and that God or equivalent rewards belief.

Here, the flaw is that it assumes that taking action now will make any difference, and assumes that there is only one course of action, though in reality there are many, some of which will be less effective than others.

That's certainly true, but the point is that taking any action is better than taking none at all.

Oh yes, I agree. I just have to point it out if I'm going to make a point in the argument. We'll get nowhere if we only examine the flaws in everyone else's arguments and not of our own standpoints.

If only the United States government would use this type of thinking. Instead they just decided to "wait it out" and see what happens.