Global Warming

[John]

ON Friday, international scientists released a statement that was unequivocal: humans have greatly contributed to global warming, and really need to do something about it damn quick.

For most of us, this isn't really news. Similar statements have been surfacing since the 70s, but finally, finally, major governments seem to be taking it seriously. It wasn't all that long ago that Bush was asserting that while global warming (although he has always used the less threatening term climate change) appeared to be occuring, there was no evidence that humans were responsible, and anyway, changing industry practice would be far too expensive.

It is embarrassing to admit that only two developed nations have refused to sign the Kyoto protocol (designed to set caps on CO2 emissions). Those two nations? The USA (the biggest CO2 emitter by far) and Australia, which does whatever Bush tells it to. But now, even Bush is talking about CO2 caps.

Tonight I watched An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore's documentary on this issue. If you haven't seen it, it is quite worthwhile. The pro US, cult-of-personality, down-home, I'm-just-a-good-old-boy delivery aside, he makes a clear and undeniable case. He takes every denier argument you can think of and destroys it. Global warming is real, and we have done it.

[jesterdood]

John,

I recently saw "An Inconvenient Truth" too.  I would be interested to know if there is still anyone out there who disputes the fact that humans are contributing to global warming.  Bush has finally publically admitted it, yet he hasn't done anything about it.  Bush is talking about curbing CO2 emissions, but only on a voluntary basis.  He wont and isn't doing anything to make it mandatory.  He always talks about the need to become more energy dependent at the state of the union addresses, but he's basically just blowing smoke up everyone's ass.  His admin appears to have actually been trying to suppress global warming evidence.  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml

Some links of interest:

http://www.climatecrisis.org (has some tips on what you can do)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070129/us_n..._survey_dc

[John]

Another problem is the misinformation that is spread by the right's propaganda machine (and before you think I'm irretrievably biased (though I am) I know that the left also has a propaganda machine). I am thinking specifically of the rather stupid book recently published by Michael Crichton, State of Fear. The premise of the book is that the environmental movement's only interest is generating public fear (interesting that the right should be accusing anyone of that!) in order to squeeze funding out of them. There are also 'ecoterrorists' who generate environmental disasters such as flashfloods, or using explosives to break off chunks of icebergs. It's all quite silly, but Crichton accompanies his diatribe with cherry-picked scientific data to support his claims that global warming simply isn't happening, or is not a result of human activity. This gives the deniers a base to rest on. At the end of his book, he presents a lengthy essay comparing the science behind global warming as being similar to that behind eugenics.

You can read the absurd essay here: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/fear/fear_main.shtml.

Al Gore made a similar comparison in An Inconvenient Truth. He compared the denier's reasoning to that of those researchers who tried to deny the connections between smoking and lung cancer. A lot of that research was financed by JP Reynolds. Much like the link that Mike provided indicating that the chief of staff of the council on environmental quality, Phil Cooney(not a scientist) , edited scientific reports on global warming to minimise the language speaking of risks, and maximise the language of doubt. He was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute before going into the White House.

Amazingly, Crichton consulted with a number of environmental scientists while researching for his book, but drew different conclusions to theirs. Some of them have responded, with incredulity, to his arguments. You can read one such response here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

[Kenny]

jesterdood Wrote:I recently saw "An Inconvenient Truth" too.  I would be interested to know if there is still anyone out there who disputes the fact that humans are contributing to global warming. 

In my truck I only have a shitty AM radio and even on that I only get a few stations. I tend to listen to a couple of them that talk alot about politics and there does seem to be a loud voice out there who believe that global warming being caused by humans is a total myth. They have all kinds of facts and figures and theories as to what they believe the motivation is, including the kinds of things you mention John.

Alot of people apparently believe that global warming is part of the earths natural cycle of temperature variations. Or that it is caused by sunspots, etc. There is also, btw, alot of talk discrediting Al Gore and his whole agenda. They point to things like the fact that he jets around the world promoting all this in a private jet that burns as much fossil fuel in a single trip across the country as a Hummer does in an entire year.

So yes, Mike, there are many people out there who still dispute it.

[jesterdood]

Kenny Wrote:So yes, Mike, there are many people out there who still dispute it.

Then I say, let's invite some of these folks over to have a debate on the issue.  Regardless of Gore's "carbon footprint", his personal habits have nothing to do with the broad consensus of the scientific community.  To brush all of that off because Al Gore took a plane is not only silly but irresponsible as well.  Then again, I suppose a lot of it is just plain ignorance and or a combination of people who have been fed misinformation.  Then there's those who think science is a joke, like these funloving folks:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYLSGU64Zbc

I wonder where we can find some of these people.  It would be interesting to get them involved and put pcW28 to the test.  

[Kenny]

Yes, that would be interesting. Let's have a look online and see if we can find where they're hanging out and invite them over to talk about it.

BTW, that's a very interesting youtube clip Mike. This is a big topic, and I think I could dribble on and on about it. Not just re: a particular point like evolution or global warming, but the underlying issue of fact vs. fiction, or truth vs. myth. However, I don't want to dribble on and on about it right this moment.

Just to try and encapsulate the train of thought I'm looking at, it seems to me that the average person is at the mercy of a bombardment of information/misinformation and ideas about every manner of things, but the average person is not in a position to reach a truly informed conclusion. All the average person is able to do at best, it seems to me, is to decide whether or not to trust in data that is handed to them. That applies equally to a bible text as to a statement by a prominent scientist. What, or who do you choose to believe?

The average person is not a scientist or theologian. They have not carried out research and obtained their own scientific data. The average person is an empty vessel and whatever most convincing or well presented concept is placed in front of their field of vision they are likely to buy into. Like those kids. That speaker sold them on the biblical account and hence if you ask them, that's what they'll tell you they believe. I'd suggest any speaker could have stood up there and convinced those kids of anything with an entertaining presentation.

It seems to me that absolute fact is very hard to discern when many plausible yet conflicting views are bombarding you, and people are as likely as not to end up believing in myth or fiction as fact or truth if it is sold to them in a shiny package.

OK, I didn't want to dribble and it's starting to lean in that direction so I'll leave it there...
K

[John]

jesterdood Wrote:Then there's those who think science is a joke, like these funloving folks:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYLSGU64Zbc

My God! It's all so obvious! Behemoth WAS a dinosaur! What have I been thinking? I'm all turned around on this issue! Thanks Mike!

[John]

Kenny Wrote:Just to try and encapsulate the train of thought I'm looking at, it seems to me that the average person is at the mercy of a bombardment of information/misinformation and ideas about every manner of things, but the average person is not in a position to reach a truly informed conclusion. All the average person is able to do at best, it seems to me, is to decide whether or not to trust in data that is handed to them. That applies equally to a bible text as to a statement by a prominent scientist. What, or who do you choose to believe?

Yep. Nail on the head. And the beauty of intelligent readers, is that they can simply choose to disregard as propaganda any information that conflicts with predispositions.

dioje did it when he said something to the effect, 'I know what you've been reading over the last 5 years.' With the clear implication that Mike only reads texts that confirm his left-leaning bias.

And I am no better. Angela has encouraged me to read the bible. I ain't gonna do it. I don't believe that there is anything for me there. I will, however, read books published by authors such as Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris because I respect them. I consider the bible, conversely, to be an interesting historical artefact. Nothing more.

[dioje787]

Okay, here's a link that is every bit as scientific and knowledgeable, and informative about global warming.  It was signed by something like 19,000 scientists (not all climate experts), but there is a breakdown of their particular fields. The list of names is no more OR less credible than similar petitions from those promoting the theory.

It does NOT support the THEORY (yes, my friends, it is a THEORY and not scientific FACT, despite Al Gore's assurances) of global warming.  Al Gore has a big imagination... he wishes "Love Story" was his story, so he claims it was based on him and Tipper. He claimed to have created the Internet for pete's sake! Don't your emergency warning flashers go off a LITTLE BIT that perhaps there is a personal issue here?

But I promise if you read the following link, and you are intellectually honest, you at least should say, "hmmmmm... maybe I should think about this a little more before I accept being spoonfed what to believe."  

If I were you, I would IMMEDIATELY become suspicious when someone (who is most likely gaining their sustenance from government GRANTS) INSISTS something is scientific FACT when it comes NOWHERE CLOSE to meeting the definition of what science actually IS.  

I choose not to be influenced by FEAR and irrational theories.  You can too.  Read the ENTIRE document, and get back to me. But you both have a point! You will continue to believe what you WANT to believe, and you will agree only with documents and ideas that support your position! :)

http://www.oism.org/pproject/pproject.htm

[John]

I read the link. A lot of what is there looked very familiar. So I dug up Crichton's State of Fear, and yes, these are his arguments also. He cherrypicked and misrepresented his data to support his belief that global warming either is not happening, or is a natural occurrence. I love how he can play it both ways. These arguments are addressed at the link I provided.  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

My understanding is that the recent report included many global climate scientists, including the naysayers. If not for this open approach, the language used would have been much stronger. This gives you the opportunity to say, '90%? that's not enough!' I used to be pretty pleased when I got that result in an exam.

You readily dismiss their findings in the belief that they slant their findings for grant money? So who wrote your report? Why do you prefer it, and dismiss those concerned scientists as promoting, 'FEAR and irrational theories'? What political bias of your own does this report satisfy, that you choose to embrace it?

I also note that the recent report was published in 2007, and yours in 1998. Isn't it possible that the information is your report is outdated?