The title for this video "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See" may sound sensationalistic but watch it through to the end. This guy should be put on a stage and broadcast worldwide...oh wait, he is (youtube). I would like to see all world leaders (namely Bush to start with) hear his argument and respond to him on live TV. Digg for the future!
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Global Climate Change argument nullified - 4 possibilities!!
|
Labels: video |
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
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.
Thanks for your input, but don't tell me, tell him.
Maybe he has done his research, but how much can you show in a 10-ish minute video. The arguments around Global Climate change could take a life time of research. In addition, all research is typically biased by the researcher although it shouldn't be.
My reason for posting this is to say, I agree with his point. It's not whether you agree with his exaggerations (and he does mention that for the sake of the argument, he's going to assume the extreme). It's whether you agree that taking precautions against GCC is a better choice than doing nothing at all.
So what if he's repeating what someone else has already thought up. I didn't see their argument, I saw this guys, and it's more important to gain some input on the subject than none at all, wouldn't you agree? Regardless of the source, as long all information is taken with a grain of salt.
Post a Comment