US
London
Since I'm in southern California, I am not suffering like those of you in the East or Mid West-or Europe for that matter. But as I read news reports about sub-freezing temperatures (-30 degrees in Bismarck, ND), one wonders........
Where's Al Gore?
"I don't think that's funny."
Probably in Bangkok giving a speech about global warming.
13 comments:
I know that you won't believe me when I say this, but I had a good talk about this issue with a friend of mine who's a scientist. His area of expertise is biology - as he works on cancer cures, but still, he is a pretty reliable person when it comes to understanding science as a process.
We concluded that we are both global warming skeptics, but we certainly aren't deniers (which is where I'd place you). The problem with something like global warming is that unlike something like evolution, where you're piecing together the evidence to figure out what happened in the past, global warming (or climate change, even) involves predicting the future. That's where it gets tricky.
We also both agreed that a lot of the people like Gore probably don't have the purest of intentions, and it's a mistake for anybody to call it "settled science". (That's a mistake no matter what you're talking about, as theories change to suit the evidence - not the other way around.)
With that said, the proponents of the theory still have a lot of good evidence on their side (like the melting of the ice caps and average global temperatures increasing). Still, there are so many variables that we cannot be sure exactly what our impact is - or what the outcome might be. The sad fact is that it's possible that the Earth is warming due to human-made causes, and it's already impossible to do anything about it.
So, now you know that I'm not some died-in-the-wool Al Gore/Global Warming awareness advocate. I have my doubts about it. With that said, I know the following three things:
1. A cold winter does not disprove the theory any more than a hot summer would prove it. It's about average temperatures.
2. You deniers need to get past the whole Al Gore thing. He's easy to knock down. Try debating one of the actual scientists on this issue or addressing the evidence that they put forward. You'll find that to be a lot tougher than making silly little photo distortions like you've been doing lately.
3. Those emails about which you deniers have written are hardly the smoking gun that you think they are. If they were, I'd be pretty interested in that. I care about the truth - even if that means admitting that I was wrong about something. I looked into this issue, and you guys have made a mountain out of a molehill.
Bottom line? I'm a skeptic. What pushes me closer to being a believer though? The weak arguments that you deniers use. And while I hope you guys are right, I don't think that we can afford it if you're wrong.
Lance,
My position has always been that I don't know the truth. Therefore, I maintain that Gore has made a misstatement of fact when he says the science is settled and the debate is over. That is not true.
That said, I think it behooves us to be absolutely sure of what we are talking about before we turn the world upside down and take apart American economical and technological superiority as well as capitalism in the name of Global warming.
One year may not settle any arguments, but let's consider that in the 29th century 4 or 5 of the hottest years were during the 1930s.
As for Al Gore; First of all, the guy is a boob in so many areas. Secondly, he has made a vast fortune on this stuff since he left the VP office. He actually founded this carbon offset compnay that has made him a fortune-added to his speaking fees.
I would also be very sceptical of the motives of the UN crowd, which I think is using this as a vehicle to gain political and economic control world-wide. Also don't ignore the socialist/Marxist interest in promoting global warming.
And if that scandal at E Anglia University doesn't bother you, I give up.
Bottom line. I could still be wrong. I'm no scientist, but given E Anglia, Gore and Copenhagen, I lean toward hoax.
It's like I keep saying - you have to go beyond Gore on this. This is not his thing. I remember reading about it in a book by Carl Sagan long before I heard any of it coming from Al Gore. Read what the scientists have to say. Find out about the evidence they present. You will not find out about this sort of a thing on Fox News - and probably not on most mainstream news stations - but the information is out there. Gore is just one guy, but he gets a lot of attention because he was VP and he made a movie. I don't give a crap about what he says one way or the other - I just care about the evidence.
As for the hot years in the 1930s, you've trotted out this talking point before. It still misses the point entirely as we're talking average global temperatures, and we have data that goes back much further than that.
That said, I think it behooves us to be absolutely sure of what we are talking about before we turn the world upside down and take apart American economical and technological superiority as well as capitalism in the name of Global warming.
I don't think that anybody is advocating this. From what I understand, green technology is capitalism in action, and it can lead to more jobs - the only problem is that there will be new people getting rich at the expense of those who are getting rich off the status quo.
If I'm willing to admit that the motivations of the environmentalists might not be entirely pure, you have to admit that the other side isn't exactly altruistic either.
Oh, and one last thing:
My position has always been that I don't know the truth.
Maybe so, but it certainly is not the position that you've been taking on this blog. Your little cartoon with the penguins and many of your posts tell a completely different story.
I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Lance,
You quote your scientists, but forget about the other scientists who disagree. You should say SOME scientists, not THE scientists. What about those dissenting scientists that E Anglia University kept out of the "consensus"?
As for my 1930s data, how much farther do we have global warming data? Much farther back than that? Really? Like the 1630s perhaps?
As for my penguin cartoons, they are tongue-in-cheek, but the central message is-we don't really know-and it is darn cold out there.
You quote your scientists, but forget about the other scientists who disagree. You should say SOME scientists, not THE scientists. What about those dissenting scientists that E Anglia University kept out of the "consensus"?
The tricky thing with this is that you can always find a "scientist" who disagrees with the consensus. What we need to look at is the climatologists - what do they say? From what I understand, the vast majority of them accept climate change as man-made. I've read figures as high as 97%. The ones who are actually studying in this field are the ones we should pay attention to.
I don't care to much if there are dissenters - I only care about what they have to say. After all, you'll find a lot of so-called historians who deny the Holocaust. Their argument flies in the face of the facts. I don't know enough about those particular scientists to comment on what they had to say. However, if they have some compelling argument aside from "We're scientists and we disagree" then I want to hear it.
As for my 1930s data, how much farther do we have global warming data? Much farther back than that? Really? Like the 1630s perhaps?
Yes, actually. Data from tree rings goes back thousands of years. A science teacher friend of mine was telling me about how Christian monks kept very careful records on the beginning dates of the seasons. The data that contributes to our understanding of climate change comes from a number of sources. The information is out there if you care to find it.
As for my penguin cartoons, they are tongue-in-cheek, but the central message is-we don't really know-and it is darn cold out there.
Gary, that's not the message and you know it. Just because you're being glib, that doesn't change the fact that it comes across as the joke of a denier. I suggest typing "penguins" and "climate change" into Google - you'll see that the penguins have indeed received the memo.
Lance,
The fact is neither of us knows what the truth is. Tree rings and monks writing down the start of a new season doesn't sound too conclusive to me.
You will also note that I changed my penguin sub-title from memo-to e-mails-referring to the E Anglian emails.
Can we move on now? You never comment on my more serious posts like Iran. Why not comment on my new post on Yvonne Ridley. Do you disagree on that too?
When I don't comment it's because I:
1. Agree, so I'd only be repeating you.
2. Don't know enough about the matter to feel that I have something intelligent to say one way or another.
3. Don't care enough about the matter to comment.
4. Am so baffled that you could say such a thing that I don't even know where to begin.
Usually, it's 2, but it's often 3, and sometimes it's even 1. Every now and then, it's 4. The Yvonne Ridley thing falls under 2 with a little bit of 1.
I'm curious though, are you going to comment on what's going on in Uganda on the part of Christians and their new law where homosexuals can be killed as well? Or how so many Christian leaders over here have been so slow to respond? (Like Rick Warren - who supports the notion of "curing" homosexuals.)
And lastly:
The fact is neither of us knows what the truth is. Tree rings and monks writing down the start of a new season doesn't sound too conclusive to me.
That's my point. Those things alone are not supposed to be conclusive. They're two things in a larger body of evidence - it was just two of the examples I knew, and it shows that the whole "but in the 1930s..." argument misses the point.
I'm not up to speed on Uganda, but I'll check it out. I can say with confidence that I am opposed to any law anywhere that says homosexuals can be killed.
Well, and I'm not saying this just to play nice, but I never figured that you'd be FOR that sort of a thing.
Well, Bryan thought I was a homophobe.
I won't speak for him.
I will say that I know some folks whom I would definitely call homophobic who wouldn't support what's going on in Uganda though. There are different levels of homophobia.
Of course, but opposing gay marriage is not in of itself homophobia.
And please, let's don't go there again.
Post a Comment