General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

Can I derail this derail? The word "skeptic" is widely misused both in this debate and elsewhere. It doesn't mean "someone who thinks a particular thing is untrue", it means "someone who doesn't believe in an idea without evidence". In this sense, all proper scientific research is skeptical in nature.

I don't know what all this grapes growing in England nonsense is about. I grew up in Buffalo, NY one of the more colder places in this country. They have many vineyards around Buffalo and supply Welches grape juice with much of their grapes. That's because people grow grapes in the summer, not the winter. Duh!

as a budding oenophile, thank you for clarifying this. the only thing skeptical about the video in the OP seems to be skepticism about the value of truth in journalism.

possible neutral party here (i use a reusable water container at work while everybody else seems to use the disposal styrofoam cups, but i don't recycle when i get home). most people i respect believes that global warming is actually happening. but to what degree? and are our species' contribution compounding it? i don't know. and i'm not holding my breath for these answers.

but what i actually care about is whether the amount of fear we have about it today justified? poker players should understand this problem very well--it's a problem of probability vs expectation.

if there is any amount of global warming that we're contributing to, even if insignificant today, how will it affect the very far future?

think of it in terms of gambling [i got the example from Fooled By Randomness by N. N. Taleb]. if i can play a game where i bet $1 per bet, and 999/1000 times i win $0.99, but 1/1000 times i lose $10,000, what is my expectation?

the expectation of this game is -$9.001 per bet. this is a losing game.

i see being skeptical of global warming (and environmentalism in general) as playing a losing game. yes, it's not getting as warm as some people have predicted in the past. yes, our models aren't very good--we can't predict the weather tomorrow let alone the climate 100 years from now. but if we stay skeptical and play the losing game, one day in the distant future, nothing will matter anymore because the planet, and all of us with it, might die. we will have been gambling on something we shouldn't have been gambling on in the first place.

or what mitch said.

and what improva said. [i should prob edit the beginning of my post now, i didn't watch the 2nd video until now]


finally, i am also a fan of Michael Crichton, so i think the following video belongs in this thread. it's 100x more sober and honest than the video in the OP. but i don't think he understood expectation either.

Michael Crichton discusses the notion of global warming with Charlie Rose

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSxaVcJ1sDA

This is a reasonable start.

Interesting, but not a single statistic on access to water in the whole documentary, I guess that wouldn't paint the end of the world picture as desired. The thing with most of these doom documentaries is they project problems getting bigger but neglect or gloss over their projection of the ever increasing mastery humans have over their environment. For most of the world, access to water is improving and is not FUBAR.

Interesting, but not a single statistic on access to water in the whole documentary, I guess that wouldn't paint the end of the world picture as desired. The thing with most of these doom documentaries is they project problems getting bigger but neglect or gloss over their projection of the ever increasing mastery humans have over their environment. For most of the world, access to water is improving and is not FUBAR.

Which is why year on year we have more drought warnings in the UK than ever before.

Wait. What?

Which is why year on year we have more drought warnings in the UK than ever before.

Wait. What?

Yea, we aren't doing great in the US either.

http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

Great website. Much of southern US is (and has been) in a drought for over a decade and predictions only show it getting worse for multiple decades into the future.

Well, unlike those party-pooper scaremongering scientists, for a while at least we will still be able to party.

Well, unlike those party-pooper scaremongering scientists, for a while at least we will still be able to party.

I had no idea we could run out of helium. Doh.

Well, unlike those party-pooper scaremongering scientists, for a while at least we will still be able to party.

I was just at Party City. There is plenty of it there.

I had no idea we could run out of helium. Doh.

Actually, this is a serious issue, too. Helium is commonly used in industry as a cooling agent for large manufacturing processes.

There are large stocks of helium in the world, but the problem is we're using it extremely quickly. When it's gone, there are ways to "get more" helium, such as extracting small amounts naturally occurring in the air, but it's extremely expensive. Think about a helium balloon running $100+.

The same issues are true for phosphorus. We've made huge advances in food production because we add phosphorus to the soil to make crops grow bigger and faster. But we're using much, much more phosphorus than is sustainable. Consider the implications if suddenly there isn't enough to go around. Wars are fought for land, some day they may be fought for the ability to grow stuff on that land.

The following was written in the third century, long before a chunk of coal, drop of oil, ounce of aluminum were of known use to man:

You must know that that the world has grown old, and does not remain in its former vigour. It bears witness to its own decline. The rainfall and the sun's warmth are both diminishing; the metals are nearly exhausted; the husbandman is failing in the fields, the sailor on the seas, the soldier in the camp, honesty in the market, justice in the courts, concord in friendships, skill in the arts, discipline in morals. This is the sentence passed upon the world, that everything which has a beginning should perish, that things which have reach maturity should grow old, the strong weak, the great small, and that after weakness and shrinkage should come dissolution.

But this time the end is nigh, man will cease to advance and destroy the world around him....

Interesting. Here is a 2008 article: Next On The Endangered List: Helium?
My prediction is they will need to have increased nuclear power use. if it becomes necessary to extract it from the air. The French supposedly produce Hydrogen, using nuclear power when energy demand is low. Otherwise, the energy needs for producing Hyrogen are not cheap (and hydrogen is much more abundant than helium).



But as far as Global Warming, this is unrelated. It is just an example of lifecycles for resources. We will survive. The worse thing that could happen, is getting the government involved. Let the free markets decide the next steps.

================================

@nawhead. Really liked that video of Crichton. Definitely "sober" and rational discussion.

Books and Movies – RIP Michael Crichton.
When I was a little kid, I read his book The Andromeda Strain. He was a hero-author of mine. I might have just been starting to study biology in school. In the back of the paperback, Crichton had pages of scientific references/footnotes backing the ideas behind topics (in a Science Fiction book? wow). Westworld was another film I really liked as a kid. Yul Brynner made the best Baaaad Robot.
…...........But the Jurassic Park movies are what made him world famous. He was a perfect example of, "the book is better than the movie". RIP Michael Crichton.

Global Warming conversations
Here is the complete unedited clip of his Charlie Rose interview.
** GW stuff starts at about 22min (but the other science stuff is also interesting).

** He discusses science vs politics. “Al Gore is wrong”
** “rank prejudices” diluting Global Warming science
** People clamor to disaster stories. Everything-is-okay is boring to humans.
** People get angry if any doubt is discussed (religion vs science?)
** Science will be “enormously injured” by being wrong about this. Bad.

I did not agree with a couple of other things Crichton said, but I am okay with that. I liked hearing someone at least trying to be neutral and objective (rational and non-alarmist). He seemed to want to bypass the bureaucrats/politicians/extremists who have hijacked the GW/name-your-thing bandwagon.

One thing I completely agree with. (paraphrased) Scientists cannot even predict the climate for the next month, yet they are making disaster predictions for a 100 years. Why don't they just apply their models to 10 years.

This is exactly it IMO. Fulfilling a 10 year prediction would make it crystal clear , enough to make believers of everyone, even for those who current believers think are just too dumb to see their GW truth. As of today, nothing that the GW alarmist predict comes true.....which increases doubt among the general population and honest non-invested scientists.



IQ2 Debate: Global Warming Is Not a Crisis -- Crichton
In another speech, Crichton pointed out how the alarmists' numbers keep dropping (extreme-extreme to extreme to today's numbers being fractional ).
......i.e. rising sea levels 20 feet .... now 30ctm .....or 10 degrees increase to now 7/10 of a degree over 100 years).

If I was a scientist, I would be embarrassed to have to keep changing the numbers to fit the scenario. The polls are showing that the population is becoming more skeptical, especially when their economies are being sabotaged by more stringent legislation.

I believe that the story is getting old, without any fulfilled predictions. (Thus the name changes) The real inconvenient truth is that selected hindsight-interpretations do not count as supporting arguments for the fullfillment of climate model predictions IMO.

Interesting. Here is a 2008 article: Next On The Endangered List: Helium?
My prediction is they will need to have increased nuclear power use. if it becomes necessary to extract it from the air. The French supposedly produce Hydrogen, using nuclear power when energy demand is low. Otherwise, the energy needs for producing Hyrogen are not cheap (and hydrogen is much more abundant than helium).



But as far as Global Warming, this is unrelated. It is just an example of lifecycles for resources. We will survive. The worse thing that could happen, is getting the government involved. Let the free markets decide the next steps.

================================

We need to regulate pollution and the use of natural resources - suggesting that the free market is enough is (speechless)...

We will survive. The worse thing that could happen, is getting the government involved. Let the free markets decide the next steps.

This is referring to helium and not global warming right?