An Inconvenient Counter-Augument
Posted by: Marker | Uncategorized | 12.03.2007
Now that Al Gore has received his Oscar, it would appear that it’s now safe for criticism of the whole ‘global warming’ thing to ramp up.
A couple of weeks back we had the revelation that Gore’s 10,000 sq ft Nashville home churns through approx 221,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year, compared with an average for that city of 15,600 kilowatt hours. So that’s the hypocricy argument pretty much settled.
Then last week Britain’s Channel 4 aired a documentary I’d really recommend you watch (the whole thing is available for viewing online): ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’.
The argument the makers have put forward is the third option that I’ve always found conspicuously absent from the ‘global warming’ debate: ‘If the planet is warming up, is it of our own doing, and is there anything we can do about it?’ The short answer, put forward by an impressive array of eminent scientists, is ‘No’. They also do a great job of illustrating the insidiousness of the ‘Global Warming’… erm… swindle.
I’m posting this not because I want to engage any of you in a pissing contest, but because on reflection a couple of interesting thoughts have occurred to me:
- Is it just me, or is the whole ‘global warming’ hysteria reminiscent of the Y2K phenomena of the late 90′s?
*’Possible issue’ identified.
*Somebody figures out that there’s money to be made, but only if we commit to ill-conceived knee-jerk reactions (see also the Kyoto Protocol).
*’Possible issue’ becomes ‘definite threat’, becomes ‘armageddon looming’.
*Any dissenting or alternate opinions regarded as ill-informed heresy.
*One way or another, I end up paying for it. - Remember SARS?
- Ever get the feeling you’re being played?
Personally I have to say I’m undecided. The only thing I know for sure is that none of the arguments put forth in the mass media are convincing enough for me to agree with wholeheartedly. All the big players seem to have an ulterior motive – a quest for a viewers, an Oscar, or economic ruin (see Kyoto Protocol).
What do YOU think? Don’t tell me the conclusions somebody else made, that you’ve decided to agree with – have a look around, consider the evidence ON BOTH SIDES, make your own opinion, and share it with the world.
Or you could ask yourself – even IF Global Warming isn’t happening would I rather be in a position, 30 years from now, where I’m saying ‘I wish I did something about that when they told us’ or ‘I’m glad I did my bit to slow it down”?
This TVC Makes you wonder as well
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sGKvDNdJNA
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5425355
It may be soon possible with the use of the Internet to make wide scale text analysis using such methods as LSI for us as individuals to see and detect media/politician/citizen/company bias.
So – on watching that clip it would seem that they base their findings on the research of 5 ‘scientists’, the peculiarity of science that says that nothing is 100% factual (it can only be less wrong or right) and the observation that the earth has warmed up and cooled down many times in the past. Interestingly enough they fail to mention that historical climatic change has taken many millennia to actuate – not the 100 years that we’ve managed to do it in. I remain a believer that global warming is happening and that we do need to do something about it. However – you are correct that we should do our own reading and research…try a book called “The Weathermakers” by Tim Flannery (I think).
1. Watch the rest of the doco (see the links provided to the C4 website, and YouTube search results) – there are a LOT more then 5 viewpoints presented.
2. Empirical Research 101: ‘Truth’ (however ‘Inconvenient’) is relative, but with facts there is no grey area. In science we formulate hypotheses and then attempt to disprove them. A hypothesis may be presumed valid until disproved, but the absence of disproving evidence does not strengthen its validity. Take, for example, the hypothesis ‘Man cannot be teleported like they do in Star Trek’. Now, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle would suggest that teleportation is unlikely, but this should not be taken to mean that it is impossible, because one day someone may beam down in a red uniform and (after the poor sod has met his maker, such is the lot of the crimson-clad ‘Lt. Deadmeat’) we’ll all be left with egg on our faces. In the meantime we can presume teleportation is unlikely, but must be open to the possibility as we don’t know for sure. Relating this to the climate change argument, there is evidence to support all kinds of theories, including global warming. BUT the fact of the matter is that little has been proved (disproved) either way. Although they do make some pretty strong points starting at about 1m10s into the third clip.
3. Thanks for the book recommendation (seriously). Like I said, the point I’m trying to get across is that people need to examine the evidence themselves and make up their own minds. This isn’t just regarding climate change – in this age of seemingly unlimited access to information it’s disturbing to see the power some people have attained by manipulating the media. People need to wake up to that shit and think for themselves before it’s too late.
4. Regarding your first comment. Actually, “IF global warming isn’t happening”, in 30 years I’d rather be in the position of being able to tell my grandkids that I didn’t get sucked in by the hype and taken to the cleaners like all those other saps did. Just like I do now (albeit not to my grandkids) regarding Y2K, SARS etc.
5. I respect your opinion and belief that global warming is a reality. I hope you’re wrong, but more than that I hope that one day we can know for sure either way. The current state of (mis)information for and against brings us no closer to any form of (a) closing it off as a non-issue or (b) really understanding the threat in a way that will gain real committment to a solution.
Ahh – was trying to find the rest of the doco. Ta.
I absolutely agree with the points you are making and you are quite correct with your Emperical Research 101 – and, as you say, this is valid for which ever side of the discussion you sit on. In my opinion (and it is only my opinion) there is far more data to proove that global warming is a. happening and b. is a product of mankind than there is against. Again – this is not proof but I’d like to err on the side of caution on this one and not be left with egg on my face when I have to answer to the grandrugrats. In terms of what I’ll be telling them in my dotage is that I didn’t cop out of taking some responsibility for this and that I actually did a few things, however small, to reduce my output of carbon and other ‘greenhouse’ gases.
With regard to your closing comment – what if it takes another 25 years to prove either way? Wouldn’t you rather we start taking steps now to at least create a status quo? Estimates are that at roughly 6-8 billion tonnes (and rising) of C02 we emit into the atmosphere per year we only have to the end of this century to create that balance. The sea and other carbon sinks take out roughly half of that I think but, as sea temperatures rise, it’s ability to hold carbon diminish. So if we can even halve our yearly output of the next 10 years the time line increases substantially.
There’s a link in this post that I thought might point to us (excited right-wing bloggers)… anyway Russell Brown has an interesting counter-counter-argument. Riled Lefty Blogger
[...] Like I said folks, I’m honestly undecided on this one. However, I do smell bulls*@t when Gore opens his mouth, and look forward to hearing some straight answers to the aforementioned curly ones – although something tells me I shouldn’t hold my breath. [...]