http://www.nowpublic.com/i_was_on_the_global_warming_gravy_train_by_david_evans

Thanks for your input. I’m kind of sitting neutral on the subject, but quite willing to get on the “green” bandwagon, as I respect the earth and want to preserve it (and I’m willing to change). I think I just need more information. This documentary was one of the “opposing points of view” so it seemed worthy of viewing and debating.

Since I am not a scientist and I don’t have enough knowledge to properly evaluate the facts myself, I have to choose to trust someone. The question is, am I going to trust the majority of scientists, at least some of whom still have a very high ethical standard and a respect for the pursuit of truth? Or am I going to believe a single documentary film-maker with an obvious agenda who is accused of misrepresentation by his own interviewees?

The nefariousness of this documentary is that no one really wants to believe that we have to change, so they will convince themselves that it IS a conspiracy despite all scientific evidence. Personally this sort of thing proves to me that it’s impossible for us to change, because as soon as an issue has been around for a while it becomes so politicized and polarized that any hope for objective truth (such as scientists pursue) becomes totally irrelevant. We are not a world of scientists, and we don’t make our decisions that way.

By the time climate change becomes serious enough for politicians to take action, it will be too catastrophic for society to handle. Millions will die, governments will collapse, and the strong and the resourceful will be the ones to survive.

There may indeed be a correlation between an increase in hydrocarbon fuel consumption (for example) and a rise in the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere, but that doesn’t mean that the first causes the second. You could as easily argue that the second causes the first, using correlation. But you might be wrong in either case. And you would certainly be wrong to use one as your sole basis for claiming the other.

Show me evidence — from actual experiments performed with sound methodology by scientists with no pre-ordained required outcome or political agenda — that the correlation works both ways; i.e., that a increase in one results in an increase of the other AND that a decrease results in a decrease such that the increases and decreases can be predicted by theory and further verified experimentally. Then I will consider the statistics scientifically interesting. But not until then.

A good theory will take other factors into account. Is the earth gradually tilting more or less on its axis relative to the ecliptic? Is there an increase/decrease in solar radiation? The earth is documented to have “ice ages”; why can’t it have “warm ages”?

The whole global warming thing strikes me as being a topic that idealogues on both sides of the aisle find convenient for their own purposes. But the amount of noise being made about it to further personal and/or party agenda does not necessarily mean that that noise is warranted by the facts.

P.S.: I’m not particularly “green” myself. I own a 2000 Chevy Suburban, primarily for my wife’s use, and because I feel better about her and my children’s safety while they’re in it. I personally drive a 2007 Accord (LEV), because I drive more, I like the fuel economy, and it’s a reasonably affordable stick-shift. I’m more likely to vote Republican than Democrat. You have been warned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

Among other things, scientists are misquoted and/or grossly taken out of context.

Cheers,

Simon