Heretics of the new religion?

180 posts / 0 new
Last post
Heretics of the new religion?

Going with John Stewart Mill’s view that no-one with a strongly held belief should be afraid to have it questioned – did anyone see Channel Four’s ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’? This was not a wholesale attack on all issues environmental – it was purely a critique of the perceived causal link between human activity and global warming. A co-founder of Green Peace was one of its main contributors.

It was a very long programme, but in a nutshell (sort of) it said this:

Are we experiencing global warming this century?
Very definitely, yes.

Have CO2 levels historically risen with the temperature of the earth (as shown by Al Gore’s polar samples, for example)?
Yes they have.

Both factors rose over time, but did they rise simultaneously?
No, the data shows there has always been a consistently large time-lag between the two.
(That’s the ‘complicated’ bit Al Gore skipped over in his documentary.)

Which factor appeared first according to those same polar samples, the warming or the CO2 levels?
The warming, actually.
(Amongst other factors, oceans and their contents are slow to warm up apparently but, when they do, they release more CO2, when they get colder, they absorb more.)

Did the earth’s temperature go up with the rise in CO2 levels (man-made or otherwise) during the post WWII industrial boom?
No, it got colder. In fact there was a rather doom-laden BBC documentary in the late sixties warning of an imminent ice-age.

Has global warming generally increased again since the seventies?
Yes, but…

Here’s the interesting part – when all the available records are put together from centuries past to the present, there is one factor that fits far more snugly on a decade by decade basis with the rise and fall of the earth’s temperature than CO2 levels and that is, solar activity. More sun spots, warmer earth and eventually… more CO2.

Were the Twenty Five Hundred ‘scientists’ included in the IPCC report’s bibliography all in agreement?
No, several eminent specialists resigned in disgust at the foregone conclusion but their names remained on the list (one has subsequently resorted to legal action to get his removed). Many on the list were mere scientific reviewers at best.

Were any of the dissenting voices (and there were many) quoted in the documentary in the pay of some vested interest?
No.
(In fact, it became abundantly clear that to attempt to gain funding for research that didn’t back-up the received wisdom was vastly more difficult than the other way round, let alone the professional ostracism and in at least one case, death threats, suffered by those who come up with contrary findings.)

Most importantly, given their desperate need for electricity – should we be brow-beating the Third World into using expensive and inadequate solar and wind power to generate electricity instead of utilising their own cheap natural resources of oil and coal?
No.

It was a fascinating documentary.

I watched the last half hour or so of it. I found it really interesting, and I think that a healthy scepticism of *any* idea is a good thing. What impressed me the most was the co-founder of Greenpeace coming out swinging on the side of developing countries and 'renewable' (read: unaffordable) energy; that 'forcing' developing countries to use unaffordable and inconsisent energy sources for power was in essence saying that the countries couldn't develop. That really struck a note, especially as it was validated by the (African) public health official. . . This is slightly off course (but in the same vein)... My dad, who is an avid economics fan (don't understand why, but everyone has a hobby, eh?) and I have huge arguments over things like 'free-range' eggs and meat. His view is that sustainable development and eco-friendly policies are the luxurious and indulgent pastimes of a rich country; when you are busy trying desperately just to survive, you don't give a shit if your cow is happy; you want it to live long enough to provide you with some meat to feed your kids. You don't care if you have to use fertilizers and chemicals on your fields; you just hope the rains don't come and wipe out your crop. In my heart, I think he's right. But what is the answer?
Fascinating stuff. In a nutshell, your dad is right. Ecofriendly policies are a luxury, but it's right that rich economies indulge themselves and the environment in that way -- because they can, and it's a good thing. Expecting struggling nations to follow suit is a bit like an able-bodied athlete telling a disabled athlete not to use the wheelchair, because his legs aren't getting any exercise.
'swindle' ? lol. Personally I'd like to be a member of a generation who did 'give a shit', considering the fact that many generations of my family will live on after me. I'd rather contribute towards making our planet a nice place, rather than a hell on earth. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

~It's a maze for rats to try, it's a race for rats to die.~

Just because you give a shit doesn't mean you haven't been swindled. The problem is, as non-scientists, (and scientists too, as non-specialists) we have to trust "expert" scientists. It reminds me of the fallacies regarding fingerprinting, blood analysis and DNA we've been buying wholesale for ages. If an "expert" in court says, "I analysed the blood samples, and he definitely did it."... we have a tendency to automatically respond with, "You know better than me, cock. GUILTY!" But these sciences, and many others, are really more of an art, and are massively influenced by interpretation.
Yan, that was a big part of the documentary – how anyone who disputes the CO2 theory is instantly labelled as a selfish, uncaring threat to future generations. It's hardly surprising. My nine year old daughter has been going round the house singing songs from her upcoming school show about how we unthinking humans ruined the earth. She was genuinely distraught the other day when her friend’s mum commented that we’d all better get used to living under water! I don’t blame anyone for believing in CO2 driven global warming, we’ve heard nothing *but* that theory since the early eighties. But if it is wrong – it’s doing more harm than good, isn’t it? We have a duty to consider the alternative theories. That *is* giving a shit, Yan – the fact that it’s unpopular to say so, shouldn’t make people cower away from doing it but it does. Put it this way, given how embedded the theory has become, what serving politician in their right mind would stand up and say, actually I don’t think CO2 emissions are a problem. Nigel Lawson was also interviewed. He was the first Chancellor to fund a study into Global Warming. He said when the report came back he was very surprised how flimsy the evidence backing the CO2 theory was. Margaret Thatcher was keen to run with the theory anyway, however, and gave more funding to research departments to find further evidence of the link. The implication is, you get what you pay for. More studies were produced, looking specifically for that relationship as opposed to any other cause. As to why Thatcher championed such research, one commentator pointed out, she didn’t trust the Middle East, she didn’t want to be beholden to the miners – she wanted to push the case for ‘clean’ nuclear fuel. I can’t see why the solar activity theory shouldn’t be given at least as much credence as the CO2 one. But to be honest, I think it’s gone so far, it’d just be too politically embarrassing. ~ www.fabulousmother.com
"what serving politician in their right mind would stand up and say, actually I don’t think CO2 emissions are a problem." Didn't GWB say something like that. Oh, right, "in their right mind" - got you.

 

2Lou is right.
I never believed any of that crap in the first place. As the scientists said, the climate has been changing for millions of years and it's no more 'drastic' now than it's ever been. The oceans and wild life farting produce more CO2 than humans ever could. Perhaps we should outlaw oceans? One thing that DID disgust me however was the state of Nigel Lawson's teeth! They were the most awful row of rotten decaying pegs I've ever seen. You'd think that sex-sybol, domestic goddess Nigella would whisper in his shell-like.

 

"But if it is wrong – it’s doing more harm than good, isn’t it? We have a duty to consider the alternative theories." How could it EVER do more harm than good? Apologies, but I fail to see any issue tough enough to oppose that of planetary harmony, unless you're deliberately panning the problem out; hoping that the indecision (and poor capitalist hogwash) may last beyond your demise, in which case you're cleared of any guilt for not taking immediate action? There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

~It's a maze for rats to try, it's a race for rats to die.~

No, Yan. I’m thinking of the real life or death costs to people living now of pushing a polemic that is fundamentally flawed. Yes, *we* could play safe and say that, well this might be the correct theory and therefore let’s play it safe and lower carbon emissions anyway. But in the struggling Third World it is hampering their attempts to develop. And I mean develop as in achieving the lowest basic standards of living that we’ve been enjoying for a couple of hundred years. No gas. No electric. That is what great swathes of peasant populations in the developing world are coping with. Indoor wood smoke, the only available method to cook or boil water is a common cause of premature death of children and mothers through pulmonary disease; hospitals where they have to choose between having the lights on *or* the fridge on, forget about any electrically driven sterilizers or operating equipment. There is no pre-industrialised idyll for these people. Life is hard and short. They should be encouraged to progress along the lines of the rest of the developed world, not be penalised for it. As AG noted, the African health official provided the most sobering wake-up call in the whole argument. If you get the chance, I really would recommend you watch any repeat of the programme before making up your mind. ~ www.fabulousmother.com
Wanted to check the figures for my above post. According to the World Health Organisation, four million children, under the age of five, die every year from respiratory diseases caused by indoor wood smoke and many million mothers die early from lung diseases because of it. Two billion people, nearly a third of the world's population, live under these conditions. ~ www.fabulousmother.com
On balance, it sounds like the conclusion of the programme re: the CO2 theory is that it's probably not making a significant amount of difference - that warming is happening anyway and there's not a great deal we can do to stop it. I think the second part of that at least is probably true: the positive feedback cycle - melting icecaps and tundra, fewer rays reflected back into space as a result, warmer oceans (affecting weather systems and important carbon sinks like phytoplankton), etc - is probably irreversible. Did the programme have anything to say about whether human activity should be 'adjusted' to take account of any possible credence to the CO2 theory, or was it basically saying that we should worry less about that than we have been? One point: the programme's title was a bit unfortunate for a documentary purporting NOT to be a wholesale attack on environmental issues. Sounds a bit tabloidy and sensational for what was clearly (I hope) a serious and wide-ranging analysis. Did Al Gore, James Lovelock and others get a chance to answer any of the findings? "Perhaps we should outlaw oceans?" Certain meandering rivers, too!
What I don't understand is the people who find the 'it's going to happen anyway' model in some way comforting when contrasted to the 'manmade carbon emissions' model. If climate change is manmade, then it's within our power (though very difficult) to address it. If climate change isn't manmade, we're fucked. I mean, I know this planet 'll see some of you old duffers out, but what about your kids and grandkids?
I agree with Rokkitnite. I also agree that it's healthy to have alternative theories thrown into the mix. Apart from anything else, it keeps the bods on their toes. My concern is that some people will see programmes like this (I haven't seen it myself so I can't comment on it, but it doesn't sound like it was very objective either in its analysis or its intention) and think to themselves 'Oh great... it's alright, then, for me not to worry anymore and to carry on as normal. The other thing was all crap and scaremongering after all.' If human activity is drastically speeding up the climate change process, then we can't just do nothing. The issue doesn't need to be about stopping the developing world from developing further. It more likely needs to be about moderating some of the developed world's behaviour. We use far, far more energy than we need, and we waste vast amounts of it - probably because we can afford to. We need to look at ourselves first - not start telling other parts of the world that they can't follow our model... which is, anyway, 'developed' far beyond what we actually need to live a decent, healthy, natural life.
Yeah I agree the title was a tad OTT. But the doc wasn’t a wholesale attack on environmental issues because it was at pains to point out that the green lobby started out with all sorts of issues before global warming became *the* issue. The harm being done by polluting rivers, toxic waste, screwing with biodiversity, destroying habitats, endangering species, knackering food chains, chemical contamination, lead in petrol… The Greens have been incredibly successful in bringing issues like these into the mainstream and getting legislation passed to try and deal with them. It’s become, rightly, a given now that environmental issues must be taken into account. The programme's argument was, that on the CO2-led climate change issue, the Greens have been misled. I would have liked to have heard some reply to some of the points raised too. I was kind of hoping there may be some discussions scheduled on the back of this, but I haven’t heard of any as yet. In a way though, this doc was a reply to the Al Gore doc, and others like it. One of the points I’d like to hear discussed was the issue of how greenhouse gases work. According to this doc, if greenhouse gases (which they’re not denying exist) are responsible for the current rise in temp., then the temperature should rise as you go up through the atmosphere, with the highest temperatures being at the top (sorry, crap at terminology for such stuff). However, they said that the data from both satellite and air balloon measurement, consistently show this not to be the case. Apparently, they have found no rise in temperature as they go up, when they have found changes in temp, it’s been in the opposite direction – i.e. cooler at the top. I would like to know if there’s an alternative explanation for this and whether it really does rule out the greenhouse gas effect as contributing to the rise in global warming. In answer to Rokkit’s point – the ‘it’s going to happen anyway’ model is comforting because there is absolutely no reason to assume that it will keep on rising. For this phase of global warming to keep moving in only one direction would be to go against every available record since time began. Luckily astronomers have been counting sun spots (big explosions on the surface of the sun that indicate it’s being rather lively) for centuries. And their observations do seem to coincide directly with climate records (again, it would have been good to have given others the opportunity to refute this point). In Medieval England, the temperatures were far higher than they are today. That’s why you have addresses such as Vine Street and the Vineyard in London. There was a massive heat wave that went on for decades enabling people to produce wine in London and further north. It didn’t last though, centuries later there was the, ‘mini ice-age’ when the Thames froze over every year. That obviously didn’t last either. One scientist said that to blame human interference for climate change is like finding something wrong with your car. You ignore the engine (the sun), the transmission (the oceans) and spend all your energy studying a man-made nut on the back wheel. Another said he thought it was extremely arrogant for humans to assume their actions would have more of an affect on the climate than the sun. I don’t believe it’s arrogance at all – the reverse in fact. I think we’ve become so conscious that we can harm the environment, because we can, that to assume that we’re harming it to the extent of causing climate change is an easy next step. Couple this with the natural tendency to feel somehow guilty for having it so good and for believing that every gain must have its price – and you’ve got the whole world believing it’s all our fault. ~ www.fabulousmother.com
Good points, Lou. If you're interested, this week's Any Questions on Radio 4 covered the issue of the recent European agreement. You can listen again here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/anyquestions.shtml It's the second question in.
Thanks, Al. I will. ~ www.fabulousmother.com
Basically we're fucked, aren't we?

 

Well, Styx... as they used to say in the West Country... 'Some bugger'll kill you if you don't die first.'
More expert opinion given by an eminent scientist and published in the national press today. * Environmental expert PHILIP STOTT, Professor of Biogeography at the University of London, explains why we shouldn't panic - and why he believes global warming is just another political bandwagon: "Every ambitious politician pays lip service to the daft idea that we can control climate, using "global warming" for their own political ends, from forcing you to wear hemp underpants to establishing a new generation of nuclear reactors. But look beyond the rising rhetoric ...what climate are these politicians hoping to produce? The biting cold of 1947, when the sea froze over? They have abandoned reason. More worryingly, elitist green agendas, like carbon taxes and road pricing, have terrible repercussions for the poor. Climate IS chaos. It is the most complex system, driven by volcanoes, the oceans, clouds, a wobbly Earth, a pulsing sun, and cosmic rays from exploding stars. Dealing with one factor at the margins - human emissions of carbon dioxide - is utterly pointless. Climate is change. It has flipped between hot and cold, dry and wet for 4.5 billion years. Unfortunately, our politicians have forgotten that a mammoth Ice Age ended only 12,000 years ago; that Medieval England was a balmy vineyard; that the Little Ice Age blasted Europe from the 14th Century onwards, producing the violent winds that sank the Spanish Armada. Samuel Johnson tells us of an Astronomer who claims that he can control climate: "...the sun has listened to my dictates, and passed from tropic to tropic by my direction..." Unfortunately, the Astronomer was mad. And so are we if we give such nonsense credence. Nobody, not even Mr Bush and Mr Blair, can fine tune climate to a degree Celcius. Yet, what about the future? The latest summary from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts a possible rise in temperature of between 1.1 to 6.4 degC. Other groups say we shall enter a cooling phase, up to -2C 2012. That's a range of 8 degrees - and what's that supposed to tell us? We should focus instead on bringing four billion people out of poverty, providing them with clean water and modern sources of energy. The richer one is, the better one can cope with change. Our "global warming" politial agenda is dangerously misguided. " * Governments are losing the plot on all fronts these days, mainly in an effort to portray themselves as 'green' and the saviour of the planet. Whilst 'Boy David' is spouting stupidity about allowing each family '2000 green air-miles' to be supplemented by yet ANOTHER tax on further travel, the current government is apparently preparing to push ahead with their ridiculous plans to charge house-holders on a pro rata basis for the disposal of the rubbish in their 'wheelie bins'! Quite apart from the fact that we are already charged for this service as a part of our council tax, it wouldn't work anyway. The result of this imposition would be a quantum increase in 'fly' dumping. People would be driving out into the countryside at the dead of night and dumping their crap by the roadside. That would result in an increase in labour costs to recover it. They may just as well leave things as they are, and demand that manufacturers reduce unnecessary packaging, and ban junk mail, not to mention the multitudinous bits of advertising crap that fall out of each and every newspaper and magazine. THAT would be far more beneficial to everyone.

 

Well, you've darn well got me convinced now, Missi. To borrow an immortal phrase from some obscure rationalist whose name escapes me: "I never believed any of that crap in the first place." I'm off out to buy the biggest gas-guzzler I can find now. Fuck the earth. It's doomed anyway. Let's have some fun while we still have the breath.
I’ve heard people are already asking Channel 4 to provide some form of two-sided scientific discussion over the issues raised. It would be great to hear the experts discuss things head-to-head instead of relying on ping-pong documentaries. I hope they do it. ~ www.fabulousmother.com
Many many people in this world practise a moderate lifestyle. They recycle what they can, they use appropriate cars, they go with bio-regionalism when at all possible. Lou, I have enjoyed reading your posts, I too watched the documentary and thought it very interesting. Like you, the part about the third world and our dictations (nothing changes) was the most thought provoking for me. I agree with archergirl in that healthy scepticism is a good idea. The balaclava wearing bandwagon leapers who placard every cause could do with a dose of that. Some people are too damn delicate for this world.
"What I don't understand is the people who find the 'it's going to happen anyway' model in some way comforting when contrasted to the 'manmade carbon emissions' model." Well, it means they don't have to put any effort in, have no responsibility for it, and can therefore get on their high horse about other life and death matters while refuting claims that they're planet-ravaging tossbags themselves. Much more important than your grandchildren's future. Did the program explain what anyone had to gain out of a potential 'swindling'?
"I’ve heard people are already asking Channel 4 to provide some form of two-sided scientific discussion over the issues raised. It would be great to hear the experts discuss things head-to-head instead of relying on ping-pong documentaries. I hope they do it." So do I. It's the only way to do it. Perhaps they could devote an entire evening to an open discussion programme - like they did with the terrorism issue - and have panels made up of leading experts on both sides of the debate and a studio audience. It doesn't have to be on a Saturday night, of course! "...healthy scepticism is a good idea. The balaclava wearing bandwagon leapers who placard every cause could do with a dose of that." I agree, Liana - or, if not scepticism, then at least the ability to keep a questioning attitude towards issues. One of the reasons I'm no longer affiliated to 'single-issue' campaigning groups is that it's too easy to find yourself swept along on a tide of righteousness. Challenges are always needed to help people to understand what they think they know unquestioningly. Even though I have my own beliefs on the issue, I'd hate to think they were rigidly fixed. I still try to keep an open mind. If that doesn't always come across in what I say, then I'm happy for people to tell me. I'll certainly take it on board. I certainly hope this programme's repeated so I'll get a chance to see it. Al Gore's film is very persuasive one way - though some stuff, as Lou said, was skated over. I'd like to see how the two measure up.
Why, thank you, Liana. Alan, yes that sort of discussion would be very helpful. You need experts in the same room to prevent the use of selective counter-claims. “Well, it means they don't have to put any effort in, have no responsibility for it, and can therefore get on their high horse about other life and death matters while refuting claims that they're planet-ravaging tossbags themselves. Much more important than your grandchildren's future.” Oh of course! There’s me thinking that I was alarmed by the possible destruction of the planet like you *good* people and therefore I was comforted by the possibility of those predictions being wrong. Whereas the *real* cause for my potential rise in comfort levels was the thought that I wouldn’t have to use long-life lightbulbs anymore. I actually have kids, but I couldn’t give a toss about them or theirs. Thanks for clearing that up. ‘High horse’? Fuck me – the irony. Swindle – a Sex Pistols fan couldn’t resist it, I expect. ~ www.fabulousmother.com
I guess Jack's real beef is with those who don't give a flying fart one way or the other - about this or any other issue. There are plenty of them about, of course. If you worry too much about them, though, you just end up bitter and cynical - and probably misanthropic, too. I'd like to think that the people who watched this programme are at least intelligent enough to realise that there IS an issue - whatever their own beliefs might be about it. Those who couldn't care less anyway were probably watching something else (which isn't to say that all those who didn't watch couldn't care less, of course!)
Haven't watched it, but I notice Ben Goldacre wasn't too sure about it and pointed to a rebuttal here from your actual genuine climate scientist types. One of the scientists interviewed is complaining this morning that he was misled and quoted out of context. Apparently Martin Durkin (the doc maker) has a track record of doing that sort of thing.

 

Just watched it. Great show, unfortunate title. "You don't need the light of the Lord to read the handwriting on the wall." Copies of Warsaw Tales available through www.new-ink.org
Martin Durkin, eh? Wasn't he the same bloke who did the famous Michael Jackson documentary? Maybe not. Thanks for the links, Dan. Good information. I'll check out the programme later - thanks Liana.
Martin Bashir.
Well, it’s certainly an example of why we could do with a live public debate involving both sides where views cannot be readily edited. Here’s an excerpt from an open letter to Steven Green of Wag TV from one of the scientists quoted on the doc: “...I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable climate-change stories in the British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf Stream could disappear, among others. When a journalist approaches me suggesting a "critical approach" to a technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious, and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, "critical" does not mean a hatchet job---it means a thorough-going examination of the science. The scientific subjects described in the email, and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated, worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words "polemic", or "swindle" appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have instantly declined to be involved. .... An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud. .... Carl Wunsch, Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography, Massachusetts Institute of Technology” In the interest of balance, here’s an excerpt from a complaint regarding RealClimate's handling of the controversy. “While you are correct to express outrage over the manner in which Wunsch's perspective was distorted in this documentary, I don't believe that you expressed similar outrage when Landsea felt that his perspective was being misrepresented by the IPCC, nor did you express similar outrage when Pielke felt that his perspective was being misrepresented by CCSP Committee. Insofar as you care about the issue, and appropriate policy responses to it, your over-riding concern should be that overly-zealous advocates should not undermine the credibility of the scientific community by politicizing key bodies representing scientific consensus. To an outsider, politicized misrepresentations at the IPCC or CCSP are far, far scarier than are misrepresentations in a documentary. The fact that Lindzen predicted that this type of politicization would take place and thereby create a "consenus," in the early 1990s, adds to his credibility.” For what's it worth, I'd say that the majority (I'd have to go back and count) of the other contributors, gave catagoric statements regarding their position on the overall question that I imagine would be hard to willfully misinterpret. It's a shame credibility on all sides seems to be suffering. With that in mind, I still think the programme is very worth watching. ~ www.fabulousmother.com
You are being told lies! Well... that ain't a very promising start - but I'll give it time...
"Oh of course! There’s me thinking that I was alarmed by the possible destruction of the planet like you *good* people and therefore I was comforted by the possibility of those predictions being wrong." As I understand, there is no distinction between the two theories except that the one blames global warming on mankind's activities, while the other says it's natural. So you've got no reason to feel any comfort - the outcome is the same. And in actual fact, if you choose to believe in the 'not our fault' line, then you should be *more* alarmed still, because it suggests that there is nothing we can do to slow it down. "I guess Jack's real beef is with those who don't give a flying fart one way or the other - about this or any other issue." No, my beef is with people who have constantly claimed that either global warming doesn't exist or that it's nothing to do with cars and industry, in spite of all the arguments and evidence that have been put forward. Unless they are scientists who have special knowledge in the area, their only reason for choosing to disbelieve (and I'm not talking about healthy skepticism here) everything that's been said is because it is, to borrow Gore's title, an inconvenient truth. There are no grounds on which to believe that experts are making it up - at least that have been brought to my attention. Missi says above that he "knew" all along. Well, he didn't. He chose to *believe* one version of events. That's not the same as knowing, even *if* his beliefs turn out, at some later point, to be right. And what he believed or believes is not demonstrative of his exercising more intelligence than the rest of us, as far as I can see. Now, obviously he can say what he wants about how he came to his conclusion, but my suspicion, in his case as well as many others is that the awkward consequences of one conclusion are a factor. If you accept global warming is human-induced, then, whoever you are, you suddenly have a whole new bundle of moral responsibilities. And my beef, as I say, is with people choosing one belief over another for what seems like convenience's sake, and I think that's a reasonable thing to have beef with.
God people, I've been telling you this all along. Everytime I mention it, I get thrashed like the energy hogging American you think I am. Global warming is occuring. It would have occured if there were ZERO humans on the planet for the last 1000 years. It's a political and commercial issue. Al Gore is selling lots of books. Are you buying? Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Share your state secrets at...
http://www.amerileaks.org

“As I understand, there is no distinction between the two theories except that the one blames global warming on mankind's activities, while the other says it's natural. So you've got no reason to feel any comfort - the outcome is the same.” I’ve already explained why I would feel comforted, Jack. (See reply to Rokkit’s original post.) It’s because if it *isn’t* rising this time round because of man-made CO2, then there is no reason to assume that it will keep on rising. I guess it *may* go on indefinitely, just as it was feared that the drop in temperature in the 60s/70s might have continued indefinitely. Thing is, it didn’t. However, as I’ve said before, I wasn’t at all sure about the program’s portrayal of the – it’s not hot enough near the top of the atmosphere, therefore it can’t be a greenhouse gas thing – argument. But even if the greenhouse gases are contributing to the rise, it would still be of some comfort to find out that solar activity was the *major* factor in temp change – not because I want to run out and buy a 4x4, but because there would then the realistic expectation that the next phase of solar inactivity could swiftly undo the harm done. An inactive sun may be our best bet – let’s face it – so far all the governments have done is sign bits of paper. IMO, the idea that solar cycles are the main driving force behind global temperature is a very persuasive one. See this for example: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N29/EDIT.jsp And yeah, I hope it’s true. So sue me. ~ www.fabulousmother.com
"God people, I've been telling you this all along." Yeah, the thing is, you've been telling us it from a position of near-total ignorance. People take more notice of opinions when they are delivered by those with insight. In any case, Rush Limbaugh was there before you with his ice cube demonstration (melting icebergs won't make the seas rise) and strangely, no one with any sense listened to him either. OK, 2Lou, I see your point and I apologise for any offence caused. I wasn't thinking of you when I answered Tim's question, but offering an alternative reason why this view is more comfortable to some people, thinking specifically of those who have perpetually held the 'myth' view no matter what evidence has been available at the time.
JC>"Yeah, the thing is, you've been telling us it from a position of near-total ignorance. People take more notice of opinions when they are delivered by those with insight. In any case, Rush Limbaugh was there before you with his ice cube demonstration (melting icebergs won't make the seas rise) and strangely, no one with any sense listened to him either." Hen-Jack, Don't make me bitch slap you. You're a Rush Limbaugh fan? If so, you are most definately in need of a double bitch slapping. How are those pimples healing btw? Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Share your state secrets at...
http://www.amerileaks.org

*... Missi says above that he "knew" all along. Well, he didn't. ...* At it again are you Jon? You highlight the word 'knew', and ascribe it to me! You consistently analyse people's posts and insist on clinical accuracy when in fact you do what most tories do! Distort the true words of others and when there isn't anything to distort you make it up. I also wasn't aware that I gave the impression of excercising a greater degree of intelligence than others here, though it's blatently obvious that you believe so. Like you, I assimilate what ever information is available and then decide for myself. I have never believed that human activity is responsible for any major change in climate. I do however believe that it is our responsibility to do whatever we can to be neutral during our tenancy here.

 

"You highlight the word 'knew', and ascribe it to me!" You're quite right. I completely misremembered your post! Apologies for this. "Distort the true words of others and when there isn't anything to distort you make it up." I try not to, but on examination, I have got it completely wrong this time with regards to the way you've expressed your opinion, yes.
"And my beef, as I say, is with people choosing one belief over another for what seems like convenience's sake, and I think that's a reasonable thing to have beef with." I apologise for being presumptuous with your beef, Jack. I agree with you to the extent that I'm sure a lot of people believe what it suits them to believe, or what it's convenient for them to believe - vested interests and all that. You don't hear of many futures traders or investment bankers giving up their positions and their six- or seven-figure bonuses over the exploitation of developing world labour and resources... though I'd like to think there are some.
Regardless of the scientific merits of either side, the show did prove one point conclusively: money and political agendas distort, even define, the debate. Now the "anti-warming caused by humans" camp will have a source to cite and off we go. Funding, not truth, makes the world go 'round. You don't need the light of the Lord to read the handwriting on the wall." Copies of Warsaw Tales available through www.new-ink.org
It's capitalism that's the problem.

 

I hate to be the one to ask the obvious question, Styx: why?
I hesitated to interject this into the discussion, but when I read Styx’s post I just had to speak up. This is exactly what the purpose of the “Save the Planet” folks are all about. They want this debate. It is the discussion itself that motivates them. It is not a Capitalist issue. Ultimately, mark my word, it is a religious issue; or at least soon will become one. Just wait and see - you won’t have to wait long. They, probably without knowing it for the most part, are bringing about the fulfillment of one of the end-time prophecies. These environmentalists are whipping up the people and preparing them for the “one world religion” that will… “worship the created, rather than the creator.” This is why I don’t believe in this movement - not at all. In fact, it scares me because it will not be on the right side of things in the end.
"They want this debate. It is the discussion itself that motivates them." I doubt that's true, but it's a pretty sound motive anyway. Discussion and debate are good things, unless (going back to 2Lou's John Stewart Mills quote) you are afraid of your beliefs being proven as wrong. "Ultimately, mark my word, it is a religious issue; or at least soon will become one. Just wait and see - you won’t have to wait long." No, sorry, I'm going to mark your word as 'voodoo jibberjab'. Motivations among individuals will vary, but environmentalists are, for the most part, not out to replace one God with another, and this is not a religious issue, except to the extent that religion offers people a way of avoiding the real issues.
In some ways I think this whole 'whodunnit' debate is pointless. The fundamental question is: is the world warming up? And, if so, and assuming that even optimal intervention by we humans to reduce our impact (significant or otherwise) fails to stop the world from warming up, what are we going to do to cope with the changes? Is anyone truly prepared for the mass migrations, the economic changes, ramifications for food and water supply, etc.? While people are still fighting over whose fault it is, the real problem-solving is shoved to one side.
I disagree - it is an important question, really. The point of the 'weren't us, guv'nor' crowd is that if it's happening anyway, taking measures to reduce CO2 emissions and what have you are a waste of time and resources, or, worse, just another way for various parties to extort money from those who can't afford it. But I do think it's a shame that the whole environmentalist debate focuses on global warming, to the extent that other reasons for becoming a more environmentally friendly race are brushed aside. Whether or not we can stop global warming, and whether or not we are the cause of it, are only two factors. Of at least equal importance is the fact that the Western standard of living is so high that it simply cannot be sustained, which means we're gonna go cold turkey, which probably means more armed conflict. It's not just fuel - it's space as well. Then there's wholesale destruction of entire species, ecosystems etc. as well as disruption caused to countless others, the mad ravaging of the sea, the incineration of possible cures for diseases in the rainforests. All that stuff. Global warming is the hot topic not because it's the most significant or happening at the fastest rate or the most provable, but because, I suppose, its effects are already being felt from our armchairs. And, perhaps, because it's the easiest to discredit.
"Then there's wholesale destruction of entire species, ecosystems etc. as well as disruption caused to countless others, the mad ravaging of the sea, the incineration of possible cures for diseases in the rainforests. All that stuff." Well, yes, exactly. Not to mention famines and wars caused by already limited resources. This stuff is being proven *without* the aid of the global warming brigade, and removing the global-warming blame-game may allow people to actually focus on what the more immediate ramifications of rabid Earth-plundering are. Focusing on accountability for global warming (or lack thereof) is putting the cart before the horse. It's like a distraction measure; and whilst people are arguing over who or what is causing it, the bigger problems are being ignored.

Pages

Topic locked