Interesting Argument About Global Warming

Post your comment

• 
• Write your comment...
• Post Your Comment

Showing 1 - 25 of 3325 comments

• 

  Forever211 - 2 months ago

  global warming is fake shit Algore came up with. That has also been proven.

  ReplyFlag as spam

  02
• 

  1aries83 - 4 months ago

  he forgot about space aliens coming down to earth and resetting the weather... read the farmer's almanack. this is a normal cyclic weather pattern. global warming is a ploy to get money for certain parties agendas by using the fear of global destruction via weather. none of us have been alive to witness the beginning and end of the weather cycles because they happen over hundreds of years. this guy an his party mates need money in this lifetime so they prey on your lack of knowledge, impose false ideas and

  ReplyFlag as spam

  01
• 

  verklemptchild - 4 months ago

  i agree with the guy, and acting responsibly and "taking action" should be smthn we should always he doing whether or not might be facing climate change

  ReplyFlag as spam

  20
• 

  Tom-Swinford-426 - 4 months ago

  I was hoping beyond hope that this would help my thought process, it did not. I want all the stuff to happen as you want, but for a different reason. I want jobs for everyone. This may be the answer? let me blow some holes in you post. Earth is in constant change has been that way forever. Now we say let’s start regulating the change. Wow great we now “if we could?” control world climate. How do we get there? Most all science is learned by doing it wrong. Then we know how to do it right. So we know we are

  ReplyFlag as spam

  00
• 

  Fearless283 - 5 months ago

  I don't know about you guys, but this is the truth. I'm with him. We will

  ReplyFlag as spam

  00
• 

  Steven-Bond-Smith-284 - 5 months ago

  you're wrong (maybe). here is your error. You need to include probabilities for climate change, and you need some time discounting for society's rate of time preference. I expect you will find the expected outcome of "no action" is actually lower. you are not wrong yet tho because you need to include some function of risk adversity, that we don't like the catastrophic outcome and therefore choose "action". What you ignore is the probability that "action" actually reduces the effects of climate change.

  ReplyFlag as spam

  00
• 

  montuewed - 6 months ago

  pascal tried the same reasoning, think it's a little more complicated and dynamic than four squares however.

  ReplyFlag as spam

  00
• 

  w84me12 - 6 months ago

  dont try to run away from the fact that you will have to choose at the end whether u want to or not.

  ReplyFlag as spam

  00
• 

  LauraHenry - a year ago

  My issue with the "global warming" debate has never been if it's happening or not, wether we can stop it or not or if recycling and other preventatives (for lack of a better word) will work... I mean how could it hurt, regardless, this is how are planet should of been respected from the get go. What makes certain aspects of the current issues hard to stomach is the envolvment of free enterprise... why does everything cost so much if our world (mother nature) is in turmoil. To me, creating any form of hyster

  ReplyFlag as spam

  11
• 

  jdogcisco - a year ago

   Is this how the Bush administration sold the preemptive attack on Iran to it's people?

  ReplyFlag as spam

  00
• 

  webly - a year ago

   sounds like fun!

  ReplyFlag as spam

  00
• Hide comment and all replies Show comment and 1 replies  
  

  bingercarber's comment and (1) replies are hidden

  

  bingercarber - a year ago

  so... global depression will just leave to something like the 1930s. Humm - no political upheavel, no social catastrophy, no health catastrophy in a world now armed with nuclear weapons. We can adapt to changes in the enviroment as we have through human history. I think world nuclear war would be a bit more catastrophic.

  ReplyFlag as spam

  00
  • 

    blade2000 - 6 months ago

    @bingercarberI agree we as people will be much more destructive if we act and nothing happens than if we just adapt to change

    ReplyFlag as spam

    00
• 

  bingercarber - a year ago

  ReplyFlag as spam

  00
• Hide comment and all replies Show comment and 1 replies  
  

  MisterKRS's comment and (1) replies are hidden

  

  MisterKRS - a year ago

  this video proves, were all gonna die :(

  ReplyFlag as spam

  00
  • 

    Forever211 - 2 months ago

    @your a dumbass

    ReplyFlag as spam

    00
• 

  DannnD - a year ago

   I see a few possible problems with this argument, the biggest being the idea that there is no way to know what nature will do. It worries me that politics and science are so closely combined because it is extremely hard these days to know when you are getting honest science or just a political message. I have seen very rock solid arguments for and against global warming, but a lot of the "facts" or "data" in each argument completely contradicted that of the other argument (which tells me one or both sides

  ReplyFlag as spam

  11
• 

  coldix - a year ago

   Not even a bit logical as an argument, put 4 random items is a box make one the "Biggest Fear" then say what would you choose. Week but it worked I watched it.

  ReplyFlag as spam

  00
• Hide comment and all replies Show comment and 1 replies  
  

  garybird23's comment and (1) replies are hidden

  

  garybird23 - a year ago

  this argument is ridiculously fraudulent. column "A" is contingent on the alleged fact that spending money on global warming prevention would in fact prevent or reverse global warming. this guy bases some blocks on assumptions and some on "alleged" facts. there is no possible way to determine whether man can reverse the cumulated actions that are supposed to be warming the earth. he says that if we act or don't act, then all we will be stuck with is high taxes and economic depression, when it is just as pos

  ReplyFlag as spam

  11
  • 

    t3r4by73 - a year ago

    @garybird23Then don't think of it as "Global climate change" Think of it more as "preventable global climate change." He still has a point

    ReplyFlag as spam

    00
• 

  electronbabies - a year ago

  This argument is the same argument Christianity and a lot of other religions use to persuade you into believing what they believe. You have two choices (same scenario... Is our religion correct? If you go with Yes and it isn't, you cost your life some extra baggage. If you go with No and it is, your afterlife (eternity) will be doomed to hell, the devil and Courtney Love. :) Obviously, the latter scenario is by far the worst (as is in the same case you explained) but by no means justifies believing in i

  ReplyFlag as spam

  10
• 

  Diarmaid - 2 years ago

   Douche. Climate change is happening, but it has always happened, and will continue to happen. Man made Co2 has very very very very very little to do with it.

  ReplyFlag as spam

  01
• 

  supahfly9 - 2 years ago

  Global warming is and Earthly cycle. Shut up about it...

  ReplyFlag as spam

  11
• 

  grambowill - 2 years ago

   Guarding against the worst case scenario is an absurd way to apply finite resources in a world of infinite needs. The same argument of protection against catastrophe regardless of costs or probability can be applied to endorse a police state against the possibility of catastrophic terrorist attacks, extreme spending for medicine against future unknown pandemic viruses, extreme military spending against the possibility of invasion by enemies, prohibition of fertilizer or genetically modified food in case

  ReplyFlag as spam

  01
• Hide comment and all replies Show comment and 1 replies  
  

  bizso's comment and (1) replies are hidden

  

  bizso - 3 years ago

   this is actually called game theory and he's got a point here. Though, IMO, he should weigh all the outcomes according to their probability, associated costs and other factors, assign a value to them and then draw conclusions.

  ReplyFlag as spam

  01
  • 

    lemming4hire - 3 years ago

    @bizso"Were christians right?" for the rows. "and should I go to church?" for the columns. Yes No False I waste my :] Sunday mornings True :] I burn for an eternity ____________________ will see you all in church. :'[

    ReplyFlag as spam

    02
• 

  puttle - 3 years ago

  It seems a lot of people shut down and disregarded the whole point just because they didn't agree with the conclusions. Wouldn't we all be better off if we opened our minds to other ideas and the possibility that we are wrong on occasion? He makes a valid point that we do not know reality - global warming either is or isn't happening. We can't really know this until it's too late. What we CAN do is make a decision based on the best evidence available and an evaluation of the consequences. This is basic deci

  ReplyFlag as spam

  11
• Hide comment and all replies Show comment and 1 replies  
  

  Auburnbunman's comment and (1) replies are hidden

  

  Auburnbunman - 3 years ago

  Your logic is only two dimensional. You assume we can reverse, alter, change etc... earth's natural cycles. You need to add a Z dimension that asks the question, "Can man change earth's natual cycle?" If the answer is no then the best be can hope for is to reduce man's influence on the natual cycle. If the answer is yes, then please identify the man or women who is sitting at the right hand of God.

  ReplyFlag as spam

  00
  • 

    cowrxio - 3 years ago

    @AuburnbunmanYou are pointing to the risk of: "tried to act but failed and global warming happened anyway." So you add some additional economic problems to the already dismal bottom right square. Its still 2-dimensional. If you really think that man cannot change earth's natural cycle, then you need to spend a little less time in church and a little more in science class.

    ReplyFlag as spam

    01
• Hide comment and all replies Show comment and 2 replies  
  

  ers811's comment and (2) replies are hidden

  

  ers811 - 3 years ago

  LOL… what a moron. I went to school with people like this. Speak well, use grown up words, appear intelligent to most people, got distracted with irrelevant/flawed philosophical arguements, and drum roll… would most likely soak a Logic textbook in drool before making it through the forward, maaaabe chapter 1. Nobody has found any flaws? Who has he been talking to, my 5 yr old cousin’s kindergarten class? No, he’s probably busy at his MENSA meeting. Even though the basic logic is flawed, let’s fix what’s w

  ReplyFlag as spam

  01
  • 

    ytsejammer - 3 years ago

    @ers811"LOL...what a moron."? Yeah, that's totally not stereotyped at all. He makes a fine point, that people like YOU can actually understand, and you call him an idiot, but don't say why--only call him a pedantic idiot and a nerd. You people scare me more than this massive global catastrophe.

    ReplyFlag as spam

    10
  • 

    Ym1r - 3 years ago

    @ers811You talk about his flaws, but you can't tell us what the flaw in the argument is? Watwatwat....?!!?!?!?!!

    ReplyFlag as spam

    10