Interesting argument about global warming

[Taffy]

Theres a flaw in that over-simplistic argument. Global depression, as seen in top-left box, will lead to political and social upheaval, the environment will still be shaky, and healthcare will be severely damaged by the amount of funding going in to preventing global warming. There fore, we can simplify it even more into saying that basically, we are either going to be happy or doomed, and the odds are 50:50.

Besides, CO2 is, quite frankly, irrelevant. It makes up 0.03% of the earths atmosphere, and it is one of the least effective greenhouse gases. Water vapour, on the other hand, accounts for approximately 95% of the earths atmosphere and is one of the most effective greenhouse gases. And how much of water vapour is man-made? 0.0001% The TOTAL human effect on the earths atmosphere, when taking water vapour into account, is 0.28% So are we really affecting the atmosphere? Looking at those figures, i'd say no, we are not, and even if we were, we couldn't change it. And that's good, cause if you start trying to bugger about with the planet's atmosphere, it's gonna bite you, one way or another.

[Lothrian]

You saw that programme on Channel 4as well then It put forward a valid argument, but then is contradictions as some say the data used was incorrect. Still, the actual problem none the less is that we will run out of fossil fuels within the next 100 years - so its either invest in new energy technologies or rub sticks together.

That's the bigger picture - not whether the world as we know it will end, but how to keep the economy going once the reserves run dry.

[[R-MOD]Bob_Marley]

Beh, its not the energy problem that running out of oil brings that I'm overly concerned about. I'm much more worried about all the other byproducts such as plastics, which we will be deprived of.

[gazzthompson]

Originally Posted by Taffy

Water vapour, on the other hand, accounts for approximately 95% of the earths atmosphere and is one of the most effective greenhouse gases.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Nitrogen 78.084%
Oxygen 20.946%
Argon 0.934%
Carbon dioxide 0.038%
Water vapour 1%
Other 0.002

95% , i dout it. even if wiki got the 1% wrong i know for sure that nitrogen is 78%(well in school we hear 80%) so 95% water , no way.

[Lothrian]

H20, O, CO2, CO ... blame the oxygen

[gazzthompson]

i blame nitrogen , no 1 ever blames him he's well sneaky so i blame him for global warming !!

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

Water Vapour = 1%
So does that mean on days when the meteorologists tell you it's 100% humidity it's really 1% and then fractions as it gets more dry ?
I have read that there is no accurate way to measure the total precipitation on the planet and it's all guesswork patched together.
It's a shame there is not scientific authority we can trust.


Edit: i blame nitrogen , no 1 ever blames him he's well sneaky so i blame him for global warming
I go with that.
I blame the Episcopalians for seeking world domination based on the same theory. Have you ever heard about the grand Episcopalian plot ?
NO ?
See how effective they are at hiding their plans ?

[[R-CON]Wolfe]

In ancient times, kings and rulers used the weather to increase their influence over the people by telling them the gods were angry. The people believed it and turned on each other to prevent the anger.

Sound familiar?

Just 50 years ago, people ate radiation pills because they were told it cures everything. Not so long ago, today's deserts were jungles and jungles were deserts. And back then, there were far fewer people and zero cars on the planet. Maybe our co2 went back in time and caused pre-historical global warming?

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it." -Men In Black

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

But the double-edged part of it is that we should be moving away from IC engines for many other reasons so there is two forces that are puching for a change in the status quo.

[hoc_xfirestormx]

in actuality, there is no way increased spending would result in economic crisis. that is an absurd argument that people make to keep the issue an issue (it benefits politicians if the issue is unresolved because they use it to polarize people and make it a red vs blue deal). if you read into macroeconomics, government spending can only help the economy. for example:

hurricane katrina was beneficial to the economy. why? because the economy is like a circle -- the more money you spend, the more you get out of it.

http://www.csub.edu/ssric-trd/modules/macr/fig2.gif

thats not the best diagram, but its the easiest one to understand that i could find. you could say "but what about inflation!?!!111". well, believe it or not, inflation is not a problem as long as it isnt out of control. we constantly keep control by regulating the money supply of our economy by using the federal reserve bank to buy up or sell U.S. bonds, thereby regulating our money supply and keeping inflation manageable. believe it or not, for over 50 years we have had inflation, and it hasnt caused any problems.

by the way, while im on the topic -- debt doesnt matter and the deficit is only bad if it was extremely unplanned. yay for macroeconomics.

anyway, so my point is: the guy in the video does have it wrong -- the top left box should be "economy stays the same, we just learn the truth". gee, i wonder whether or not we should do something or not?