The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See (for all you skeptics overloards out their )

Problem: we're running out oil.

Solution: use less.

Can't people see it yet?

Regarding warming trends - yes, it is happening, but no, we are not the cause, and we'd have to be bigger than nature to do anything about it (which we aren't).

People seem to like to ignore the fact that two things are true: it has been warmer than now, and there has been more CO2 than now. It wasn't disastrous in the past, and there is no reason to think so in the future.

One more thing...

.4500000000 years ago Earth didn't exist.
.. 65000000 years ago all dinosaurs inexplicably became extinct (meteorite is an interesting theory)

Man appeared some time after that. So man has existed for at best, the last 1.4% of the earths entire lifetime.

We are saying by analyzing 50 years (or ~0.000769231%) of that time is meaningful? If we look at the lifetime of the planet, we are analyzing merely 0.000001111% of the entire lifetime of the planet.

In other words, we don't know what the hell we are on about.

One thing is certain: people can't handle the idea the planet they live on is a changing environment. A lot of people seem to like their lives to go like clockwork - start work at 0900, finish at 1700. Go shopping on a Monday and a Friday after work. Go out for a drink on Friday night, etc.. - they can't handle the idea that things change, and it is compounded by the fact the planet is changing and no-one can control it.

People live waaaay too much in a bubble and fail to realize just what living is about. It's not about going to work to earn money to buy a car - it is ultimately about survival, but because of progress most people are so far removed from it that they've no idea what it is.

My advice: suck it up, quit whining and start adapting! Opera won't be on TV forever. Neither will the TV.

There is one problem I see with that video.

Replace "Global Climate Change" with ANYTHING...and you get the same resutls.


Replace it with Defense of asteroid hitting us

Replace it with flu epidemic

Replace it with Alien Invasion


Replace it with anything that inaction will result in really really bad stuff...and that logic square will tell you it is "better" to take action. We can't take action on every single potentially bad situation...that is why we need to discuss if we think the scenario being talked about is "true" or "false".

I'm sorry but a boolean logic box being applied to climate change is like flipping a coin during surgery.

Goodness gracious. We've been seeing warmer temperatures since the last Ice Age. What can we use that for? Let's spend trillions and bankrupt the US, Western Europe and Australasia to prevent climate change while half of the planet has an industrial revolution that will put more greenhouse gasses into the air in 20 years than the rest has in the last 200.

I'd also like to see some of these so called "courses of action" that do anything but cost taxpayers trillions and benefit big money and politicians in the bargain. Nobody can stop it or even slow it down but the same screaming meemies who are pushing this crap haven't even taken a shot at common sense approaches. Only the methods that will make their agenda money.

Let's see Al Gore put money into relocating people away from the oceans and to higher ground. How about we start by moving the entire west coast beach population inland to a minimum of 500 feet above sea level. Then we can get Manhattan moved out and of course start tearing down all of the structures that exist there. I think it would show a measure of good faith on the part of the wealthy and wise crowd.

When the moneyed elite leave their expensive water front homes because they are preparing for climate change then I'll think about it. Until then, It's just another scam.

running out of oil?
They have to create an artificial shortage because we are not running out of oil....
al occidental oil glo ball warming guy sea side mansion gore....I mean come on...

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


It's a false argument. They are trying to use flawed logic to con people into doing something because the raw science is not sufficient due to the fact it has been seriously tampered with to make facts fit a business model (that imploded with spectacular results).

It is compounded by the fact that climate science is not very mature as a discipline, yet scarily, is the only scientific subject to be absolutely 100% certain of its facts, even though those "facts" are based on flawed computer models, using mediocre data sources that are open to interpretation, and are flawed anyway due to the very nature of the data recording equipment and historic records being used!

FACTS: There is only 45 years of known oil remaining at present consumption. When it runs out, what then? We need alternative energy sources, but wind turbines and batteries are not the way. HYDROGEN POWER IS. Requires water (lots of that!) and the end result of combustion is... water. It also offers a much higher energy density than a battery ever could. Problem? It would be so cheap as to not make anyone seriously rich.

Last year (2009) the total output of all the UK wind turbines was... 6% of total wind generation capacity. Yep - those wind turbines that use enormous amounts of energy to produce will have paid for themselves in about 200 years time in terms of total energy used to make them and put them up, etc... vs. the energy they output.

I don't know why we we won't use coal - it is a viable energy source! It doesn't fit into their argument of CO2 output, but then that argument doesn't hold anyway. We are simply artificially restricting energy supply and deliberately creating a shortage of energy. As it is, the UK is shutting down perfectly good coal fired power stations soon, regardless of the fact it will mean an energy shortage! There is absolutely no good reason whatsoever not to keep on using coal.

Nuclear is no solution either - they say it is "green" but they fail to mention that radiation is more hazardous to the environment than anything we could produce burning fossil fuels. CO2 never killed anything. Radiation however... just look at Windscale (or Sellafield as they prefer to call themselves these days). They keep burying reports of cancer clusters, and they have seriously under estimated the wider effects of Chernobyl. Official death toll still stands at 36, but it is put at closer to 1 million (and that doesn't count all those suffering birth defects who are still alive!).

Not even close to being the most terrifying video I ever saw. Don't be surprised when mother nature does not fall into a nice and organized little box, or boxes. That only works for humans, they can be very predictable. What are the chances that someone or a bunch of people with money, would try to take advantage of a natural change or even a change in the city systems that were created by obvious means? How about I sell you a car and charge you to drive that car, and even for the gases it puts out. Would that solve your problems of smog and stuff?

reply to post by Nephi1337


This posting is ridiculous. Well allow me to clarify, the video is ridiculous. The guy points out that under situation A you have two events that will occur, one being insane depression all around from massive spending. This is of course under the theory that Global Warming is false. Now the question becomes how is it that in the scenario where Global Warming was actually true does the result come only as some "cost". Both situations in option A should have the same outcome which is having a huge cost and total depression dwarfing the 1930's as he puts it. So then you have two options at hand either choose the side "A" where your going to go into a dire depression no matter what , or choose the scenario "B" where depression can be avoided with a possible consequence of mass chaos. Id at least choose the side where there is a chance of a happy face, wouldn't we all?

one of the replies nailed it! THE ANALYSIS IS FLAWED! as I type hunt and peck I am '
I'm going to plagiarize from this reply :

"Error in the calculations. Top left corner -- global depression making 30's look like a party. Bottom left corner -- same global depression but now there's a happy face?

You cant know if its real or not, so if you spend the money to fix it, you get the same global depression. You dont know if you fixed anything but you crashed the global economy. WHY would you smile about that?

Your analysis is flawed dude."

I must admit that I am completely terrified by threads that are based solely on videos and the OP does not even offer up a hint as to what the video is about, let alone give us a brief description before we invest (waste) any time, or much less a summary for those who cannot view the video at all. Scary stuff.

reply to post by PurpleDog UK


The poor soul is seriously lacking in his projected doom for mankind if we follow through on National and global watermelons controlling of all energy and land use in the name of climate change. That is total central control over the means of production and an end to property rights. That is a communist's wet dream come true.

Communism is more than just massive poverty and oppression if we are looking at if we give control over to the climate doomers. It is massive death if the track record of communism holds true. And isn't it something that almost all the doomers talk about forced population control to bring the human population down severely.

So this kid needs to read some and go back to the drawing board. He needs to read beyond Daily Kos and Huff and Puff.

Originally posted by davidgrouchy
This global warming stuff would crack me up if it wasn't so tragic.

Cell phones used to be analog, then they went with repeaters, then compression, then multiplexing, and now everything is digital. And with digital comes higher frequencies. Higher frequencies are better at penetrating cloud and moisture in the air. No static like AM radio. A high enough frequency and not even a single bit will be lost, which is critical in decompressing a signal. These are called Microwaves.

Now what happens when you put something in a Microwave. That's right. It gets hot. All of our cities are carpeted in non stop microwave transmitters now. Redundant carriers covering the same neighborhoods, with towers everywhere pointing in all directions.

If they turned off all the microwave transmitters there would be a drop of half a degree, maybe overnight, which is huge.

Isn't it logical that this would cost [color=gold]less money than any other vague feel good solution that always seems to be just over the horizon?

David Grouchy

NO OFFENSE just saying:" AM radio ( amplitude modulated signals) change in amplitude ( voltage) the rising and falling voltage(the analog of the information) is detected. (demodulated) into the original audio voice) frequency information+ noise;
Static and noise from lightening is also detected as changes in voltage so it adds right in with the detected signal = static noise
Fm( Frequency Modulation has the information encoded by a changing frequency on a carrier. As changing frequencies are not really common in nature;the information demodulated without environmental noise" no static at all : FM..."

digital modulation can be an Am or fm ( quadrature modulation, bpsk ( bi phase shift keying)) signal but the signal is clearly defined ons and offs ( 1's and zero's) if environmental noise is added to the bit and it is still less than "On" voltage it is processed as a "0". if it is over the threshold the bit is processed as a "1" no matter how high it is= clean clear reproduction of the original information.
The higher the sampling rate the closer the digital conversion is to real life drppoed bits( quanitization errors and aliasing) occur from too low sampling frequencies abut sampling ( "quanitization rates" dont get any where near microwave frequencies you are talking about different parts of the communications system the reason digital is clear is because of the defined nature of the digital process..

cellphones operate around 980mhz.Micro wave ovens @2400 mhz ( 2.4ghz). I imagine there's some heating of liquids and lipids at 980mhz but its a little less than half of the frequency of your home microwave.and the power is miniscule comparatively.
cheers.

Originally posted by cushycrux
reply to post by Danbones

 

And we had 19°C in mid November in Switzerland...when we had EVERY winter about 1 Meter Snow in the mid 80's.

edit on 21-11-2010 by cushycrux because: (no reason given)

Could you expand that graph back about a 1000 years to see if it's us doing this??
I dont think a few years does it very well...

BTW, I'm all for stopping the poluting of our home, I'm just a little weary of guys like Gore ,that have a bigger carbon footprint than my hometown combined, telling ME I need to pay a carbon tax to do it..

reply to post by backinblack


You can not say you are all for stopping pollution unless you know what Algore classifies as polution. You exhale carbon polution, you know.

Originally posted by sara123123
reply to post by backinblack

 

You can not say you are all for stopping pollution unless you know what Algore classifies as polution. You exhale carbon polution, you know.

Yeah, but I'd wager Al Gore exhales more than me, from both ends

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

It's a false argument. They are trying to use flawed logic to con people into doing something because the raw science is not sufficient due to the fact it has been seriously tampered with to make facts fit a business model (that imploded with spectacular results).

It is compounded by the fact that climate science is not very mature as a discipline, yet scarily, is the only scientific subject to be absolutely 100% certain of its facts, even though those "facts" are based on flawed computer models, using mediocre data sources that are open to interpretation, and are flawed anyway due to the very nature of the data recording equipment and historic records being used!

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
FACTS: There is only 45 years of known oil remaining at present consumption. When it runs out, what then? We need alternative energy sources, but wind turbines and batteries are not the way.

HYDROGEN POWER IS. Requires water (lots of that!) and the end result of combustion is... water. It also offers a much higher energy density than a battery ever could. Problem? It would be so cheap as to not make anyone seriously rich.

HYDROGEN IS NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE: it is a false promise.
Hydrogen is not an energy source! there are no pools of hydrogen! we MAKE hydrogen through electrolysis and that takes energy!. hydrogen is considered an "ENERGY CARRIER"because you take perfectly good electricity from coal or nuclear or wind or Busy TSA officials sweaters; and use it up creating hydrogen!.a hydrogen fuel cell reverses the process and yes you get the electricity back! and water out of a tail pipe but the cells don't last very long and they are ridiculously expensive.Fusion reactions are a totally different deal and out of our technology for now.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Last year (2009) the total output of all the UK wind turbines was... 6% of total wind generation capacity. Yep - those wind turbines that use enormous amounts of energy to produce will have paid for themselves in about 200 years time in terms of total energy used to make them and put them up, etc... vs. the energy they output.

I don't know why we we won't use coal - it is a viable energy source! It doesn't fit into their argument of CO2 output, but then that argument doesn't hold anyway. We are simply artificially restricting energy supply and deliberately creating a shortage of energy. As it is, the UK is shutting down perfectly good coal fired power stations soon, regardless of the fact it will mean an energy shortage! There is absolutely no good reason whatsoever not to keep on using coal.

Nuclear is no solution either - they say it is "green" but they fail to mention that radiation is more hazardous to the environment than anything we could produce burning fossil fuels. CO2 never killed anything. Radiation however... just look at Windscale (or Sellafield as they prefer to call themselves these days). They keep burying reports of cancer clusters, and they have seriously under estimated the wider effects of Chernobyl. Official death toll still stands at 36, but it is put at closer to 1 million (and that doesn't count all those suffering birth defects who are still alive!).

edit on 21-11-2010 by mirageofdeceit because: (no reason given)

What a waste of time.

The whole "global warming take action now" argument is riddled with inconsistencies, fallacies, false data and plain lies. How about we start with turning off our bombs?

Imagine how much happier and cooler we'd all be if the US didn't invade Iraq, prompting saddam to light all those oil wells? How about if we didn't have massive quantities of troop movements, supply chains etc, all to make a a lot of noise, smoke, heat and death, of course.

Leave me alone thanks, i pay enough taxes for which i get no return.

Originally posted by LordBucket

Look, if you really find that kind of argument convincing, then let me run this by you: I assert that if you don't immediately empty your bank account and give me all your money, along with your wife and daughter as sex slaves, you and everyone you know will be taken away by locusts and slowly and painfully eaten alive over the next several weeks.

So, there are two possiblities.

Sadly your logic does not investigate the situation entirely. Unlike the facts surrounding global warming, which is indeed occurring, your facts fall short.

I have no money.
I am not married.
I have no daughter.
And I pretty much dont give a flying sock puppet about anyone around me.

So there are 6 possibilities. The ones you suggested, which have zero possibility, AND these :

3: You seriously propose the situation, and I do nothing.
4: You seriously propose the situation, and I hunt you down rambo style and kill you.
5: You suggest it was only an example, and I do nothing.
6: You suggest it was only an example, and I still hunt you down because youre obviously crazy.

Seems number 5 would suit you best. But nonetheless, it's all just bollocks, isn't it.

Unlike you, global warming is going to do bad things.

So... maybe the clue lies in Knowing the facts... and not just randomly stating illogical outcomes for the sake of argument?

Nah, better to argue wildly and let the world go to crap, than say "Hey, even if it doesn't matter it really can't hurt.."

Too simple.. too easy... Cheers for that.

reply to post by Nephi1337


I borrowed this comment from a poster on the site, but it sums up exactly what I am thinking about his logic.

'Error in the calculations. Top left corner -- global depression making 30's look like a party. Bottom left corner -- same global depression but now there's a happy face?

You cant know if its real or not, so if you spend the money to fix it, you get the same global depression. You dont know if you fixed anything but you crashed the global economy. WHY would you smile about that?

Your analysis is flawed dude.'

The guy has a single message here- choose the slippery slope of choose to hold on to what ground we have left.

4 million hits is fantastic, I hope it's at 10 million by this time next year.

This post helps spread his "easy to understand message" it should be posted here every three months.

Originally posted by Angry Danish
For instance; I doubt anyone here looks under their bed every night to check for the bogeyman hiding under it, waiting for them to fall asleep so he can sneak out and kill them. Yet, we can fill the same chart out and display that it's MUCH better if you check under your bed every night.

So, not checking under your bed = death by bogey man, not doing anything about "GCC" = death by fire and brimstone.

Funny thing is, I'm an Atheist, who does not check under his bed for the bogey man.

Why is it - I've never reasoned against this concept before, it's new to me, go figure - that people are using illogical situations based on nothing to negate the reasoning behind this logic?

Do you really believe there are boogie men under your bed? No? Then you need not worry. If the worst case scenario is you have a spider under your bed, then that is at least a logical thought... boogey men?

Locusts and other nonsense unless I hand over people?

It's hysterical.

Come on you guys...

Global warming is not a friggen boogey man, regardless of it's cause, it's not hiding under your bed waiting for you to go sweepes to come and boil or freeze you.

It's not telling me to hand over my wife.. it's not got the desire to rape my daughter.

It does have the potential to ocking fay us all up...

"Hey man, your coughing up blood... you might have cancer guy, better go to a doctor!"
"you idiot, thats like saying I might have aliens up my butt. how stupid... just stfu and let me smoke."