Comments on: The Most Terrifying Guy You’ve Ever Seen Starring In The Most Terrifying Video You’ve Never Seen

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 16:47:00 +0000

I like his argument, but found a small but important error……nnIf you pick “yes” there still would be a high cost and a global depression regardless of whether GCC is true or not.nnSo, if we’re talking about worst-case-scenarios, if you decide to spend the money to fix the environment, a global depression is inevitable. nnAnyone who is economically minded will argue this point, which again opens up the debate as to whether GCC is true or false.

By: Guest

Guest — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:30:00 +0000

Wow, liberals really are just a stupid as conservatives. Congratulations, you just recited the same line of logic that gave us the war on terror.

By: Michael Fletcher

Michael Fletcher — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:29:00 +0000

Analyzing his Analysis: Simple analytic model known as the Choice, or more technically, Confusion Matrix. Basic assumption: Binary Choice under uncertainty. implications of type I and type II error on outcome.nHis basic argument is sound. If we assume no knowledge of the probabilities and give them all equal likelihood (the indifference principle) the worse outcome has the lowest utility. nHis other main talking point he is saying, he is arguing we do not really have know anything about the probabilities to act. Technically correct. However, the science knows quite a bit about the probabilities of the columns which make his argument even more powerful. Most scientists use statistics and probability when assessing global warming predictions (known as confidence intervals) – what it boils down to betting against global warming is about a 20-1 shot according to the science.n

By: Guest

Guest — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:56:00 +0000

In reply to AJ Reisinger. If I was the head of an administration and wanted to limit the guaranteed rights (Bill Of Rights.) that my citizens posses, I would most likely do so through the quise of protecting them.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 04:55:00 +0000

Maybe we could install enough solar panels on our naval vessels to reach Libya thereby reducing the use of fossil fuels. And our missiles could be designed to explode without an explosion and still inflict massive carnage and destruction.

By: Michael Patrick Schmitt

Michael Patrick Schmitt — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 03:45:00 +0000

If no one has disagreed on his fallacious argument, it shows that his circle of people is extremely narrow and like-minded. Go to CATO and FEE and they will blow the argument out of the water.

By: Michael Patrick Schmitt

Michael Patrick Schmitt — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 03:41:00 +0000

Here are the fallacies in case he can’t see them; 1. In scenario A; there is CERTAIN worldwide economic collapse, which has in fact led to World Wars, in either case. 2. The worst case scenario B is EXTREMELY UNCERTAIN in its effects. History has shown that it is not climate change but economic changes that has led to wars whereas people adapt to changes in the enviornment extremely well and creatively. In such a chart, you need to assign the probabilty to each box. History has shown that climate change is ongoing and never ending and has, in fact, increased the diversity of species on earth and the evolution of life is completely dependent and defined by climate change no matter if caused by man or nature.

By: Kristian Townsend

Kristian Townsend — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:58:00 +0000

This guy is using cartasian logic. I love Cartasian Logic. So over-simplistic, so straightforward. Used by second hand car dealers all over the world.

By: Jake Skutlidge

Jake Skutlidge — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:51:00 +0000

Seems to me a better use of time to share this excellent video with those that will be more inspired to act (and in turn share) than to respond to those that don’t get it. In other words, by choosing to argue with these people, you have put your time into the lower right box, when its clear that your time is better spent in the upper left box. -Peace

By: Guest

Guest — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:45:00 +0000

AHHH….Modern sales techniques used to sell the progressive environmentalist agenda to young impressionable students. There are researchers all over the world developing alternatives to petroleum and carbon based fuels and products. They are right around the corner, as long as our government will stay out of our way.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:04:00 +0000

While, the are some good points here, there are some clear fallacies that conservatives will use against this model.nnFirst, TRUE / A might stave off climate change but it does not necessarily mean that cost and depressive side wont come along with it, just like FALSE A. Many conservatives believe humans can survive regardless of changebut the economic downturn would be worse.nnSecond, there is no differentiation between natural climate change vs human climate change….and this is CRITICAL. Many conservatives are coming around and are more open minded about climate change….melting glaciers and air quality samples are hard to argue with. However the question hinges on how much humans have done to cause this. nnThird, what if the climate change is a combination of BOTH human and natural changes? We know the earth does go through climatic changes, and we have historical, archeological evidence of this for which there is little doubt in the academic community. nnFourth, the real enemy is not your everyday conservative, who may have basic principles and an unease with accepting everything as knee jerk rash thinking. Even open minded progressives can appreciate the need to use rational logic. The real enemy is any group that would stand to lose out economically or militarily from a change in current global consumption of their product, ie, oil companies are the most obvious antagonists who would work (rather logically) to dispel any human cause climate change. And to some extent, we would be wise in presuming some in the oil industry actually believe what they say is true.nnThis leads to the last point, belief in perspective. We believe what we believe because we have nothing personal to challenge it. If a said problem hits home, than what might have otherwise been a screwball, hairbrain “liberal” conspiracy might take on a totally new perspective….it becomes personal. And thus true.nnGod help us all if we human causes are changing the climate and we do nothing. God give us the wisdom to see the truth, wherever it may be.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 21:08:00 +0000

In reply to Anonymous.

lol….troll…..what a stupid thing to say to someone voicing an opinion.nnHey dumbarse what do you think they pay commodities with? Since I’m sure you never made a trade of any kind with your own money you should just keep your mouth shut to not expose anymore of your ignorance.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 20:51:00 +0000

In reply to Anonymous. I have....its a scam.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 20:46:00 +0000

In reply to Anonymous. There is more oil in the US than all of the Middle East combined. But the EPA and Obummer will not let drilling occur where the oil is located. I agree all alternative energy sources should be exploited but for the sake of our own economical welfare the EPA should loosen the leash at the same time.nnFrankly the EPA should be abolished....its way too political.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 20:37:00 +0000

In reply to Anonymous. wrong, Troll.nnI have studied markets, continue to study markets, and it is not the currency market, it is the Spot Market and the Commodities Market which influence the volatility of oil prices the most. Troll.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 20:28:00 +0000

In reply to Anonymous. One's part has to do with only how much that one understands through his own experiences. One cannot be conscious of an idea he has not been exposed to unless of course he/she has some miraculous epiphany. That's what learning about life is all about. One's part could be as simple as not throwing trash on the ground.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 20:22:00 +0000

This condescending little prick is censoring replies when he is losing. He spends more time attempting to belittle people than attempting to engage in real discussion or prove his arguments. MoveOn should not allow this to continue. As many censorship issues as we have fought over the years, this is shameful! nnNow as to my reply:nHeat dissipation is covered by the laws of conservation as they apply to thermodynamics. You are either of a low IQ like you accuse everyone else of or you are being intentionally obtuse.nnMars Ice caps melting:nhttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.htmlnnIce age 1974:nhttp://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/03/video-barrasso-inhofe-tag-team-on-1970s-new-ice-age-exposure-of-holdren/nnGo ahead and censor this one to, windbag

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 20:09:00 +0000

In reply to Anonymous. Cap and Trade which is really cap and tax is not the answer.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 19:58:00 +0000

In reply to Anonymous. You are clueless about how currencies work. I don't need Fox News you fool. I trade my own money in the stock and currency markets everyday. I've actually studied how it all works unlike you.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 19:54:00 +0000

In reply to Anonymous. I am sorry you are to mentally challenged to understand economics which do involve everyone on the planet.