Tuesday, December 11, 2007

The Idea That May Save the World

It’s hard not to suspect you’re delusional when you think you’ve produced the video that may save the world. I suppose all I can do is put it out there and let history judge.

The ten-minute home video is called “How It All Ends,” and is the result of hundreds of hours of research and production, stemming from an earlier video I produced, titled “The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See.” “The Most Terrifying Video”, posted on the web six months ago, made a novel argument for taking action on global climate change, and has garnered over 4 million views on various websites. Reading the 6000+ comments on that video—most of them critical—allowed me to hone my argument, so that now it is—as far as I’ve been able to tell—undeniable. Repackaged in “How It All Ends,” the argument is backed up by over 6 hours of “expansion pack” videos, anticipating and answering every single objection that I’ve been able to elicit from skeptics. Sounds impossible, yes. But then, I’ve been maniacally thorough.

So I submit it for your consideration. Perhaps after viewing it, you’ll be moved to publicize it. Because what we really need is nothing less than a change in our culture, to prompt large-scale policy changes, in order to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic climate change.

I think that the factors for a wholesale change in culture are in place. And I think the ideas presented in my little video may very well be the pebble that sets off the avalanche.

But then again, we agreed I might be delusional. ☺

Check it out at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg
or wonderingmind42.com or manpollo.org and judge for yourself. (Those last two websites are not created or managed by me.)

The press so far:
* AM 940 Montreal (hey—it’s got to start somewhere, right?)
* The HuffingtonPost (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-tonello/you-tube-can-make-a-dif_b_72497.html)
* The Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/article/281733)

Coming up:
* A feature article in The Oregonian (Portland)
* A commentary piece by me in The Oregonian (At their request! Cool!)
* A piece in the Christian Science Monitor (the reporter is meeting with me later this week)

Wouldn’t it be cool if this were the Rosa Parks moment? A long shot for sure, but what’s to lose?

I can be contacted at wonderingmind42@gmail.com

Really—isn’t it worth the ten minutes to check out the video that might save the world (I mean—us)? Thank you for your time and consideration.


T. Greer said...

I posted this over atClimate Resistance, but I figure it would be good to have a copy over here as well:

Okay, I will play. First off, I should probably say that I think wondermind is correct in saying that the focus needs to be taken off the 'uncertainty' path and onto the 'risk management' path. However, I reject that your solution is in anyway the one with the 'least' risk associated with it.

The biggest flaw in your argument is presented about 3:00 minutes into your presentation. (The 2nd video you made- not the first one.)

Most of the objections to your premise attack your portrayal of the upper left and lower right squares, saying that you understated and over-exaggerated each square respectively. In contrast to these people, my major objection is with your lower left square.

Here you state that "we will still have the economic problems of the first option, but we will all be happy because we will have saved our cookies."

There is a simple problem with that: there is nothing we can do to 'save our cookies.'

Consider the words of Gerald Meehl, who headed a study for the National Center for Atmospheric Research on the subject:

“Even if we stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations, the climate will
continue to warm, and there will be proportionately even more sea level

Even if all industrial pollution and auto emissions
suddenly ceased today, Earth's climate will warm at least 1 degree by the year 2100 and seas will rise 4 inches (11 centimeters)”

This view is not restricted to a few fringe scientists. Rather, it has become the mainstream view of the scientific establishment, with the most recent IPCC report stating that global warming was "unequivocal," even if all CO2 emission were to cease. [2] While you said in your video "The Solution" that we will be unable to tell when the 'tipping point' comes, the vast majority of scientists (assuming that the IPCC represents the world's scientists) have accepted that the science clearly shows that we have already passed the point of no return in the fight against global warming.

What does this have to do with your grid? It means that, quite simply, all of those things in the 'bottom right'- be it social, economic, or political upheaval- will still happen in the left quadrant, despite deciding to go with the 'yes' column.

Now in terms of risk management, what column is better: column A, in which we either get worldwide economic failure or massive AGW driven ECON/Health/POL/Environmental problems PLUS massive economic failure, or Column B, in which we either get a smiley face or all of the problems I mentioned above MINUS massive economic failure?

If you ask me, Column B is much better choice for both he insurer and the casino manager.

~T. Greer

[1]Robert Roy Britt "No Stopping it Now: Sea to Rise 4 Inches or More This Century" LiveScience March 2005


[2]United Nations. Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis; Summary for Policy Makers New York: United Nations 2007.


P.S. (My personal view is that we do need to take action climate change, but none of this silly Kyoto-ish stuff that essentially does nothing at all. I am an adaptionist to the core. You can see a more nuanced version of this reply, at my blog HERE.)

Pascal said...

Your Devil's advocate here is noticeably short sighted. You seem to believe you've answered all the questions that could possibly undermine your view. Certainly,
your response to me yesterday
sure seemed like you are still Blowing Smoke