This is an example of a WordPress page, you could edit this to put information about yourself or your site so readers know where you are coming from. You can create as many pages like this one or sub-pages as you like and manage all of your content inside of WordPress.
Hey Greg,
I stumbled across your video the other day in a blog at Evergreen. Great job!!!
How are things with you, Jodi, and the family? We’d love to catch up. Are you guys now using e-mail? =D
-greg and shannon (stewart/claeson)
So here´s a positive comment. Nice seing a dedicated science teacher trying to make a difference.
You explain things in an easy-to-understand way; even for a dane like me
I´m a teacher too, and I think the way you talk about this question is inspirational. I´d liked to have been your student; maybe I would have listened more in science-class…
Keep up the good work!
Dorthe Hartvigsen, Denmark
Well done! I happened upon your 1st “frightening” video – and am most grateful to you for giving structure to this most important subject.
Keep up the good work – and I will pass on the word.
I agree with Dorthe as well – I think your teaching technique is entertaining – and informative.
All the best
Peter
AWESOME and entertaining explanations and arguments! Thank you!!!
This crusade could be your ‘purpose’ on this Earth. Your dedication in putting these videos together and arguing with those skeptics is appreciated (by me, at least). Thank you to your family for giving up having you around while you worked on this!
I forwarded links to your information to a couple of hundred people today. Hopefully technology will work faster than the quick demise of our planet’s resources.
BE sarcastic – whatever it takes to make your point and bring in more minds to your videos! Run for President in 2008 (you already have my vote), go ‘Hollywood’ – whatever it takes! I’d like to see a group of businesses support you in teaching our country about this serious issue – you speak so eloquently and offer explanations and solutions.
I’d like to help promote you and the cause!
What a brilliantly simple and catchy way of presenting this arguement. Well done mate for this and lets hope this gets around the internet as quickly as a virus!!
Cheers from the UK
Matt
Give the man a microphone and an audience !
Big rounds of applause for the whole series, the way they’re packed and offer which ones to pick-out ! He deserves to be in the team with the IPCC that won the Nobel Price together with Al Gore … just for the number of people he’s reaching and way of getting the data and message out !
The series is Super Smart ! Brilliant Teacher/Prof ! Witty ! Entertaining ! Very thorough or casual … it’s up to the viewer how and where to go, come back for more or get started !
Only superlatives !
PS
We’re using them in our cycle of workshops to train Kyoto Protocol Consultants !!!
Hi, Yes, very inspirational. I am just getting started, having only watched the one that was tagged into the Alternet article today on why nuclear is not the answer. Taking your cue we will start looking for people in Taiwan to start on subtitling in Hanji (traditional Chinese characters) and simplified Chinese for the people in China and I hope you will “pay us as much as we will pay you”.
Question — maybe you can save us some time — cause this is urgent. In the video with the four boxes you mention the “Economy” and put it in the false do nothing box. Might the debate be different if a distinction were made between “short term economy” (like ones measured by accounting and reporting quarters and years or terms of political office) and “sustainable economy” (e.g., the seven generation idea of native Americans, or the 1987 UN definition of sustainable in the context of development (distinguising between needs and wants and satisfying present needs without trashing the ability of the future generation to meet their needs?
Very inspirational, awesome, very useful. Thank you.
Robin
Yes, defining the economy differently would certainly change the grid. I’ve got a book coming out in July with a much more thorough analysis. You might also note the point I make in the video “How It All Ends: The Manpollo Project:” that is, the grid can get as complicated as you want, but then requires greater effort and formality for it to yield a result to guide your preferences for what we do.
As for translating, please do so! There are some people who are working on translations into various languages, and they have discovered some tools to help in that (like subtitling programs). Check out their wiki: http://klimaschutz.pbwiki.com/Manpollo+-+Translations+-+Call+for+help
Cheers,
Greg
Hi, I so rarely leave messages that I forgot to check to see whether you responded. Thank you. And thank you for the tools recommendation we have done Cheat Neutral, Wake Up, Freak Out, then Get a Grip and Story of Stuff, so perhaps those tools will make the work go more smoothly.
Your book. We have published a number of books here — Paul Hawken’s Ecology of Commerce and Derrick Jensen’s Strangely Like War being two examples. Any chance you could send a sample chapter so I could see whether there is interest in a Hanji version (would also make a Chinese version much easier to get going).
Best regards. Robin
Hi Greg Thanks for the video. I enjoyed it. It is always nice to listen to somebody who can think clearly.
Nonetheless, I have some comments. Please note that I am German and that my English is therefore not perfect.
At the end of the video you seem to suggest that there is still time for us to change and that climate change is something we can deal with if we all join forces. I’m certainly not a pessimist, but I’m afraid I don’t see how this can work.
To combat climate change, we somehow have to find a way to ensure that the entire world population lives in a sustainable way. But how can this be archived? We all know that sustainability and growth are simply not compatible – for simple arithmetic reasons:
If the world population is growing, the size of our planet has to grow at the same rate to allow for sustainable living. Since this is not possible, we need zero per cent growth in population. But we all know that this is never going to happen. Everything mankind does is aimed at increasing the growth in population. We fight diseases, promote healthy living, increase safety and so on.
In short:
1. Climate change can only be slowed down or possibly even reversed (very unlikely) if we find a way to live on this planet in a sustainable way.
2. Sustainable living requires zero growth in population. As soon as you have growth, you have a predictable outcome. A lot of us have read Dr Bartlett’s about the misconception of the exponential function: if growth continues as it is now (which it will and must), there will be room for exactly one person per square meter on this planet in approx. 700 years.
3. The inability of mankind to DIRECTLY promote higher death figures means that the reduction in growth will have to be achieved INDIRECTLY. Climate change is exactly this indirect way: climate change and its effect on life will ensure that the true yet impossible outcome of one person per square meter in 700 years will never become reality.
I enjoyed your presentations very much but I’m not convinced. The contrary evidence from other experts and the suppression of opposing views as well as the outright propaganda of some of the their claims leads me to conclude this is more of a political position rather than a heroic scientific endeavor. Question: Name one country anywhere that has met its Kyoto CO2 emissions goals? Just one! Second, why were the emerging nations left out of the requirement? Why was Russia exempted? Why was Russia allowed to sell its credits to countries not able to achieve its targeted CO2 emissions goals and still pollute as much as they desire while we are expected to bare the burden of reductions? Why was China and India exempted, both who are now significant and growing sources of CO2 emissions? In a global economy, how does it benefit the global environment if our jobs (industrial production) goes off shore to countries under no restrictions? Isn’t this a net zero sum game? How is the environment benefited? Why did Canada drop out, a NAFTA partner? I might agree if we all were in this together but we are not. Your argument breaks down on the politics of the situation. And those emerging nations, who do they want to emulate? Of coarse those filthy rich capitalistic Americans. And what of the third world nations? What happens to them? They are discouraged from developing their own natural resources which leads to deforestation and loss of habitat for other species, a continuing ecological disaster in many underveloped countries. No my friend, a very interesting and entertaining production but politically its truly unsolvable. I refuse to be stampeded off the cliff like a dim witted lemming. You want to go off the cliff, then be my guest. I’m not going!
On the science: I believe that the Earth’s climate is cyclical. We are now within the medium of the known temperature variations in recordable history, the Medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age. During the Medieval warm period the Norsemen colonized Greenland and raised sheep and planted vineyards until the climate changed and forced them to leave or starve. Since then Greenland has not been hospitable to human habitation. No, I believe the Sun is the driver of climate change and nothing we can do on the human level will ever correct that. Besides, even if you were correct, the political issues will never be resolved. The proposed Cap and Trade legislation is going to be an economic nighmare for the US. The promise that this is a “jobs bill” is absolute unmitigated nonsense by the Marxist we have masquerading as a president who feels that “whitey” has to pay..
Your presentation: “Mathematics, Population, and Energy” was very profound. I have been concerned for some time that our present economic system is not sustainable. This goes to prove my assumptions were correct and more frightening than I realized. BUT THIS HAS NO BEARING ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE. It is a separate and more important issue. Perhaps instead of bankrupting ourselves on “Cap and Trade” we should put a lot more money into the existing fission technology, development of fusion technology (a new Manhattan project) , use of fuel cells, and the burning of hydrogen. I think this a better plan and more better use of our resources from which the whole wold could benefit than a zero sum game.
Thank you!
Thank you for investing so much effort in trying to change the world.
You are a complement to the whole human race.
Well played.
-Howard Knudsen
Dear Greg, Einstein and many other that had to deal with “complex” situations went through the same pattern… eventually crashes. One of the things that you may find usefull is the Agenda21 blue-print to make it to beyond the next century. Your way to help people make-up their mind, recuperate many that are now lost in a jungle of over-information. You will soon feel you are not alone, have not been working alone in small or not so small rooms, alone or not so alone on complex issues. Agenda21 is a worldwide action as you know, many of the brightest and in powerfull places as well as completely on the other side of the spectrum: grassroots and individuals are using it as a plan of action for their day-to-day lives and strategical plans. I’m writing you from part of my life in Agenda21-Chapter IV, more specifically “How to bring part of the money circulating in the “Low Carbon Economy” to the citizen.” This brings me into Strategical Management exercices with some top-consulting companies, top companies, governments, educational institutions, media, finaniers, … Part of the money I make there, I will transfer to your account. Untill I get your account, I’ll contribute by buying your book. I also invite you to collaborate in integrating parts of your book in Agenda21 exercices.
From Brussels, Capital of the Largest Emission Trading System on the Planet and fully engaged in Agenda21,
Sven
Speaking 5 languages and holding 3 degrees minimum.
Dear Greg,
I am the Production Manager at CeDEP, part of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. www. soas.uk/cedep
We offer distance learning Masters’ degree programmes, and are currently developing a new module entitled ‘Climate Change and Development’.
We would like to include the following 2 of your ‘You Tube’ videos on a CD that is distributed to the students (approximately 100 annually).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg&feature=video_response
This would be for educational, non-profit purposes.
I would be grateful to have your permission to use your material in this manner.
Because of the unreliablity of internet links, we would prefer to include the media file on the CD.
Many thanks
Fiona Swingland
Learning Resources Production Co-ordinator
I don’t say this lightly, your videos are awesome. As a fellow science teacher, i envy your energy, articulation, and sheer determination to be so thorough. You have really done a great job and i often use your examples in my classroom when we speak about climate issues(which is quite often). Thank you. I really see you as an asset to those of us who are trying to fight the good fight.
When the Black Death started in London in 1665, the authorities felt compelled to do something. They didn’t know how the disease was spreading but, like ‘Wonderingmind42’ decided the risk of doing nothing was greater than doing something even though it might turn out to be a waste of time and money. As I understand it, this is the position being advocated by ‘Wanderingmind42’ regarding Climate Change.
The action the Government decided to take in 1665, was to follow the advice of the ‘Established’ experts who advised that all the cats and dogs in London should to be put down. Over three million cats and dogs were destroyed in the space of a week. The result was that the rats multiplied and the Bubonic plague, carried as it was by rats, not cats, turned into a massive killer epidemic.
In the video, “The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See” , Wanderingmind42 is advocating doing the same sort of thing with regards Global Warming. By advocating some sort of radical action, Mr Wanderingmind42 is assuming the ‘experts’ know what they are talking about and no serious harm could come out of following their suggestions. This is a serious mistake. Virtually all the correct scientific prognostications throughout history, have come from marginalised individuals or groups OUTSIDE the accepted scientific consensus while the established ‘experts’ always got it wrong, often with disastrous results.
In his video, Mr Wonderingmind42 makes an extraordinary statement:
“This is where we get to set aside this whole contentious debate……by acknowledging that no-one can know with absolute certainty what the physical world will do…”
Really? I think what he means is, “In the absence of any real facts…..no-one can know with absolute certainty what the physical world will do.” In that case, let’s have some facts, not opinions:
In order for there to be a year-on-year rise in atmospheric CO2, the rate at which CO2 is put into the atmosphere (through combustion, respiration and decomposition) has to be greater than the amount of CO2 taken out of the atmosphere, by whatever means. All agree? Absolute certainty?
Do we know with certainty that: 2C8H18 (typical fuel)+ 25O2 = 18H2O + 16CO2 + heat? Yes we do! We know for certain that fossil-fuel plus oxygen will burn and produce lots of carbon dioxide and heat. We can even find out for ourselves that burning fossil-fuel will produce about three tons of CO2 for every ton of fuel burned. These are facts we know for certain.
Do we know how plants grow? Yes we do! I feel certain that: 6CO2 + 6H2O + sunlight = C6-H12-O6(cellulose and sugars) + 6O2 or put more simply, a plant, in the presence of sunlight and water, will draw in carbon dioxide, produce more leaves and push out oxygen. I believe this is accepted as fact not just opinion.
I also know for certain that when I took a flower-pot with a growing plant in it and put it on a set of scales and put the scales on a flat rigid sheet and covered it with a bell-jar, then put the whole apparatus on another set of scales, I noticed the flower-pot getting heavier during the day while the weight of the whole apparatus stayed the same. I am certain that the plant used about three units of Carbon dioxide to produce one unit of dried biomass meaning that a farmer’s field yielding five tones of wheat and straw per acre must have used up fifteen tons of CO2.
Can everyone understand this? Does anyone disagree with this?
It is estimated the amount of organic matter produced world-wide by photo-autotrophic growth is about 150,000,000,000 tons per year. This means the amount of CO2 sequested from the atmosphere to produce this mass of organic matter must be in the order of 450,000,000,000 tons.
Yes, most of the carbon in this biomass is eventually returned to the atmosphere via various oxidizing processes but more than 7% doesn’t return to the biosphere and can be regarded as being permanently removed from the carbon cycle. This includes the creation of irreducible biomass including peat swamps, organic sediments, top-soils, carboniferous oceanic depositions and the 4 billion tons of carbon-based waste buried every year in landfill sites. Altogether, this represents about 31 billion tons of CO2 permanently removed from the atmosphere. For our part, (According to the US Energy Information Administration), we put back about 29 billion tons of CO2 through fossil-fuel burning and other manufacturing processes.
That looks like a net reduction of 2 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere every year. I propose that this is an accurate picture of what is going on in our atmosphere. It fits with the known facts which are that there is only a trace of carbon dioxide left in the air and a great deal of oxygen. This thinning of the atmosphere would, in all probability, have a destabilising effect on the weather patters.