Taking the wonderingmind42 Challenge

Recently I was sent a link to an old YouTube video, “The Most terrifying video you’ll ever see”. Narrated by wonderingmind42, who apparently a math teacher. The video is about 3 years old, but I have not seen it, but apparently 7 million viewers have.



wonderingmind42 has a common sense way about him where he presents his view of Global Warming. He shows a grid with his presumed 4 possible results of either paying to reduce global warming or not;

1)We pay to reduce global warming and it does no occur = (the) “Cost $” (resulting in a) Global Depression
2)We do nothing and global warming does not occur = (smiley face)(we save the money and no Global Depression)
3)We pay to reduce global warming and it does occur= (smiley face)(the) “Cost $”
4) We do nothing and global warming does occur= Catastrophes (including); social, economical, political, environmental (and) health

wonderingmind42’s conclusion: Considering the possible extreme results of global warming, there is no choice but to reduce our carbon footprint and pay the price. And then he asks for feedback as to where he has errored. Well wonderingmind42, Ill take you up on that.

Without going any father than your chart, in #3 the result of paying to reduce global warming, whether it happens or not, will still result in the same depression as with #1. Now we also have to look at what the United States by itself could do to slow global warming. According to Joel Rodgers founder of the Apollo Alliance, a liberal think tank and Green policy adviser to President Obama, the United States would have completely de-industrialize and it would still have minimal impact on Global warming.



Okay, forget that, lets consider the practicality of de-industrializing enough to actually reduce global warming. We would first need world government, as China (the worst offender), India and most emerging third world countries will not jump on the global warming bandwagon, so we are looking at the cost of a world war, which will have the same effect as #4. Okay lets forget that, lets look at the current effect of going green in the world. The current policies of the IMF, which have forced struggling countries to switch from food crops to alternate energy crops, which has led to, according to the United Nations themselves, the unintended consequence of being the direct cause over 1 million people starving to death per year. Ouch! This is the reason we found a thriving business in Haiti selling mud biscuits.

Based on these unintended consequences, there is now evidence that the amount of C02 that we produce is related to the population we can support. The ratio seems to be close to 1 to 1. In other words with our present technology, if we reduce C02 production by 10%, there would be a reduction in the ability to support 10% of the population. If your not understanding this, it means reducing Co2 will lead to the death, usually by starvation, of large percentages of the world. President Obama wants reduce US green house gases by 28% and the US produces about 29% of the worlds green house gases; this should result in the death of 8.12% of world's population.

Hmmm trying to stop this global warming thing is not looking good. But look you added another video, “How it all ends”.



The first thing I noticed is you removed any downside to #3 leaving only a smiley face. Apparently just stopping global warming will eliminate the massive effects of the cost and likely global depression. You also added scientific organizations like NAS and AAAS and energy and chemical companies that back global warming. First lets discuss the scientific evidence and reputations. For one thing you did not mention the IPCC, the United Nations Climate Organization that is responsible for supply the NAS and AAAS with 75% of their data. Turns out the IPCC was so concerned about their reputations, that the ignored contrary data, fudged computer models and attempted to discredit the life work of any scientists with contrary conclusions. Oh, I’m sorry, this occurred 2 years after you made these videos. Let me also add this from my blog, Progressives; Lost in the 20's It is no coincidence that progressive thought and science are both produced in academia. The idea that science cannot be influenced and comes to its conclusions independently is historically absurd. The truth is science has always been used to protect and prove the status quo, while independent inquiry is usually done in darkened rooms with notes written in code. Most scientists are employed by large corporations and are not paid to do independent research.

And then there are all the energy and chemical companies like BP, Shell, GE Dow, Dupont, PGE, Siemens..etc, are all pushing for green energy. Well, not really, what they are pushing for is carbon credits. You see they are in the unique position of having control of the carbon credits market and the derivatives that will result in a cap and trade system. By all accounts, cap and trade will do little to reduce green house gases as industry will simply pass down to the consumer the added cost of carbon credits ; that’s why it is referred to as pay to pollute, as these companies will reap billions in the carbon credit market. The company that first invested in the concept of carbon credits was Enron, with BP, Shell and Phillips not far behind. The company that first invested in the concept of carbon credits was Enron (remember them?), with BP, Shell and Phillips not far behind.

wonderingmind42, I’m guessing many of these issues have already been brought up, but there is something about 7 million people watching this kind of propaganda that kept me up for about 20 minutes last night. One more thing, returning to Joel Rodgers for a minute, if your wondering why one of the biggest supporters and promoters, has pretty much written off ever reducing or stabilizing of Global Warming, the answer is simple. Like all progressives, Rodgers is a redistributionist. When all is said and done, all global warming will end up being, is a scheme for redistribution of wealth through carbon credits. By the way, good Alton Brown imitation.