http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
If you believe in global warming, you should watch this video.
If you don’t believe in global warming, you should watch this video.
Entry viewed times. Posted in Environment and Nature
3 Responses to “Theory on Global Warming”
You are reading the journey through the daily life of a native pagan spirit and survivalist in the back hills of Maryland. Within these pages you'll find information regarding the struggle of a young 20-something divorced aries supporting her disabled father, her spirituality with a Druid Grove, various posts regarding web development, and the custody battle of her baby sister.
There are currently 3 Users Online. The most visitors I've ever had online at once is .
My top commentators this month are:
Reorganizing my life has turned out rather scary. I owe more money than I thought I did, and of course, it’s all due at once. Right before Yule/Christmas, and right as I owe $800 to car insurance. Ain’t that some shit. There should be a law against having to pay bills […]
Read More
June 13th, 2007 at 7:32 am
This guy should have done some research. Amazingly, he is not the first person to have thought of odds and impacts of scenarios in this way. He might start with the decades-long modeling project executed by the Yale School of Forestry and Department of Economics to do for real what he is showing on a whiteboard. For that matter, he might have read the UN IPCC WG2 and WG3 reports which reference a lot of relevant research on this question.
Here are some (example) problems with his video:
1. His “bad case” is overblown and rhetorical. Under a reasonable scenario for global economic and population growth (Scenario A1B), the IPCC projects about 2.8C increase in global temperatures by 2100. According to any competent modelers (for example, the Yale project), this would lead to about break-even net global economic impacts, i.e., the positive benefits of warming would about equal the negative impacts. It’s only when you get to warming of about 4C in 22nd and 23rd centuries that you, according to the IPCC, see a net reduction in global GDP of about 1- 5%. That’s a lot of money, but it’s hardly the Armageddon that he is describing.
2. According to the IPCC, no global climate model currently predicts any of the disaster scenarios he describes for the next century.
3. Without any quantitative consideration of odds of an outcome, you could apply this same 2X2 matrix argument to the risk of space aliens descending from the sky and killing everybody. Why don’t we have crash programs that risk global depression against space aliens and a meteor strike and a global pandemic based on a modified version of Avian Flu and, and, and, and….? Because the list of such anxieties is endless and our resources are finite.
June 13th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Well I can’t say I’d ever trust a single solitary organizations viewpoints and research on a subject (IPCC). Some people say yes, some say no. Which actually I believe this guy was trying to address in his video.
I think most people miss the point that his “grid” or “scenario” applies really to any and all threats on a global scale. His merely addresses Global Warming and the possibility that it -could- be true, or it -could- be false. Better to be “safe” than to be “sorry”. I seriously doubt he’s trying to say that situations such as the Avian flu or space aliens would be any less of an issue.
But like I said, most people miss the real point of the video.
June 13th, 2007 at 9:44 am
On a side note, I do appreciate your input, it does provide another thought process on the matter