InquiryLabs
Politics, Programming and Possibilities
Interesting Alternate View of Global Warming
Author: Duane Johnson28 Apr
So I hate it when some new evidence confutes my assured perspective. But alas, learning is a never-ending endeavor, and I’m an avowed truth-seeker. So here’s a link from Nathan McDonald to a documentary called the Global Warming Swindle. There’s also a counter-documentary that I have yet to watch that claims it’s a scam. I haven’t reached a conclusion on this yet, but I wanted to bring awareness to both sides of the issue. (I’ve been very pro-green lately, a perspective I’m glad to have acquired from “An Inconvenient Truth”, and one I intend to keep simply because I appreciate and love the earth).
The video has some good points, however, regarding the lack of evidence for a CO2-caused global warming effect. It seems to match the data better if we look at it the other way around—that is, increases in CO2 have always followed increases in global warming.
There was a surprising point made in passing near the beginning of the documentary—that the politicized “green campaign” may actually be a way of keeping the rich nations rich and the poor nations poor. Once again, I haven’t reached a conclusion on this point either; however, I find it sad to see how much we’ve done to our environment in the name of progress and comfort, but even sadder to see how our fellow human beings in third-world countries have so little. I suppose that if they are forced to depend on imported “green” products from other countries, they will never be able to attain to the same level of industrialization as the West has.
I’d be curious to hear other perspectives if you’ve watched the documentary and have something to contribute. I know very little about the science behind climatology.
PhotoStream
-
flickrRSS probably needs to be setup
8 Responses for "Interesting Alternate View of Global Warming"
I highly recommend reading:
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
I once thought that Global Warming was real and that something must be done right away. I’m not anti-conservation or against cleaning up and respecting the environment, but I no longer think the way I used to. This movie (which there are a couple of problems with, just like an Inconvenient Truth) and other things I have seen and read have lead me to the conclusion that 1) yes the earth is warming 2) man may even have something to do with it but, there are plenty of really smart scientists out there that don’t buy into the consensus of the IPCC.
To which I would add that equating statistical correlation with causality is not responsible science, at least not in the sense of positing a theory and performing experiments to either prove or disprove that theory, thus refining the theory.
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.
Heh. Thanks for your comments, all.
The relationship between atmospheric carbon levels and increasing temperatures worldwide is much stronger than simple correlation. The mechanism by which global warming works is very well understood, and we have data going back thousands of years that substantiates that relationship. There are people on both sides with political agendas to press, but you’ll find very few scientists without a political agenda who do not agree that the climate change being observed results from increased atmospheric carbon levels.
I find it disturbing that people would claim global warming is a conspiracy to chase “scientific funding” or that the green movement is really a plot to stifle third-world development.
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.
Hi Gabe,
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.
BTW: Here’s another interesting article by a scientist in the field. Make of it what you will.
http://www.nowpublic.com/i_was_on_the_global_warming_gravy_train_by_david_evans
Leave a reply