Interesting argument for Global Warning

[Alex]

http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html

Just passing on...

[stefan]

unfortunately anyone who is complacent will not be swayed by his argument.

i do agree that the more people who not only think along these lines but argue for and demand action along these lines, the more likely such action will be taken.

[nefarious]

It's a crap argument, a veritable Pascal's Wager for the true GW acolyte. Such superficial treatment of complex problems is precisely why we have trouble dealing with global warming intelligently in the first place. I'm annoyed and offended at having watched the video.

[Rev. Coyote]

Quaint. I don't think that will win anyone over.

Here's a problem I see, too, and that is the assumption that action to remedy global warming will cause financial ruin. I think just the opposite is true. Making steps to eliminate greenhouse emissions stimulates R&D (like the space program did, if you think about it), and some great payoffs like non-fossil energy development. The pain will occur in the change in the economy. So where some sectors will blossom and flourish, other will suffer. The risk for economic depression is nil -- but the risk to certain industiral sectors is admittedly great.

The other thing is that even if industrial evolution doesn't do much to remedy global warming, it will give us a cleaner environment. Better air to breate, water to drink, etc.

[nefarious]

Here's a problem I see, too, and that is the assumption that action to remedy global warming will cause financial ruin.The guy is obviously just pulling assumptions right out of his ass.

The problem with implementing the Kyoto Accords, as a for-instance, is that it would come at enormous cost but produce a very small benefit. No serious analyist, however, has suggested that it would cause a depression, much less economic ruin.

Global warming is real, and it is a problem. The challenge is in knowing how to cope with it responsibly. Trying to scare people with hysterical claims not supported by science (algore) and throwing logic right out the window (as the current dumbass whos youtube contribution inspired this discussion has done) is not the way to do it.