Truth Driven Thinking Forum

[earwax]

I watched this film and thought it was quite thought provoking. This issue is being so driven by politics right now that I am being quite cautious in jumping on the bandwagon of "lets end civilization now before all life on earth is terminated." Al Gore is in the middle of all of this. His movie claims that the sea level is going to rise something like 20 feet and the latest IPCC report said that it was going to rise about 2 feet. Who are we supposed to believe? I also don't put much faith in these computer models. It seems like you can get whatever results you wanted out of a computer models. The results would also be very dependent on the quality and amount of information you would put in to them. The information out there that I have seen have only showed some correlating evidence that as the temp. rises so does CO2. I haven't seen any convincing evidence that show CO2 as a causation. Right now I feel there is no more reason to believe that sun is warming the earth or that CO2 is. Even if CO2 is, I still haven't seen evidence that Humans can prevent it since the CO2 they contribute is such a small portion of the total anyways. Even if we grant that Humans are causing it... is there any evidence that a warmer climate is a bad thing? A lot of questions to be answered and I don't think it is even near time for politicians to start making public policy on this yet.

[harpoonflyby]

The basic premise I find interesting (again I am not so invested into this debate probably because my lack of TV service prevents me from becoming consumerized) because it really do something pretty lofty. They try to turn the debate upsidedown by claiming that human Co2 emissions, the very premise of the Global Warming swindlers, is not causing greenhouse gases to rise, and, more convincingly that it is not even greenhouse gases that are causing the globe to warm. I couldn't help but think while they were making this the whole time they are saying to themselves, "see it's simple we can foil the global warming swindlers as easy as peanut butter and jelly". So they repeatedly show this scene where two happy people send up some weather balloons into an: absolutely goregously, breathtaking sky. And hey, balloons! How can we not be both cheery and scientific about that? Nicely done. In fact they pummel you with beautiful shots of clear blue skies and wonderful cloudscapes through out the production, all in widescreen glory. Suffice it to say the production quality is half of what makes it compelling to watch

They look at satellite data, look at the data from the balloons, and this shows that the upper troposphere isn't actually waming up as much as the greenhouse gasers would require (greenhouse gas theory requires that the troposphere would indicate an accelerated growth in temp). Later on they reinterpret ice core sample data that Al Gore used, they said it's pretty dubious if you look at how Co2 emissions actually lag global warming trend by 100 years!! As i've said before, it would appear that science is not an exact science. However, most scientists are willing to go as far to say the surface of the earth is warming. But the surface temp of the earth is constantly changing anyway. They make the incredible counter assertion that Global Warming is what is causing the increase in Co2, not vice-versa [insert hidden agenda here - human beings can go back to work and keep on producing, don't interrupt the economy]

Keep your skeptic hats on, expected viewership is through the lens of western politics, capitalism, imperilism, propagandizement, and developed nationry. The producers of the show, BBC which I have found highly suspect at least in the areas of pro-Zionism, Pro-Iraq war, Pro "terrorism" and "al-qaeda everywhere" rhetorics, as well as having a general anti-deism, and counter socio-religious agenda. The documentary does a very good job in the captivatation deparment - politicians have come a long way, learning a thing or two from Disney (not just the Nazis!). The emotional production quality is very high. Though this is not unlike Al Gore's political last hurrah An Inconvenient Truth.

If you do watch Global Warming Swindle, and I recommend it even if you're marginally interested, try not to get wrapped up in the nostalgia, the music, the fun, bloopy animated effects, that just give you warm fuzzies about the whole thing. As to where I stand on the debate (if we suppose for a moment that the debate itself is not a complete consumerized fiction), I'd have to say I support any assessment that we are in an "alarmist climate". Sorry I can't do much more than that.

[RPS]

I wonder if it’s appropriate for skeptic’s to seek a role in the global warming “controversy”. What does it mean when prominent skeptics state they are convinced now? Typical “skeptical” issues are pretty much a case of logic and reason versus nonsense. For example: telekinesis versus physics, snake oil versus modern medicine, ID versus evolution, and similar. The skeptic tool bag is very effective in attacking pseudo science, but that seems a lot different than making pronouncements on scientific issues.
In overseeing the battle waged by the pseudo scientific, skeptics don’t see many good punches landed against science. Attacks on science turn out to be illogic, misrepresentation, scams and such. Within science rival camps land some pretty good blows on their opponents, yet sometimes the science stands and sometimes it’s overturned. On global warming the skeptics may be giving credit too soon. The arguments for and against global warming are both much stronger than most anything that comes from the woo woo crowd.
Lord Kelvin landed a good blow against evolution showing the earth was to warm to be the age needed for Darwinian evolution. Years later Marie Curie discovered radioactivity, and that argument wasn’t so strong. Scientific controversies can take some time. Both sides can have strong evidence. While I have tremendous respect for the leaders in the skeptic movement, I think they are grossly over-estimating the ability of their critical reasoning skills when they apply it to true scientific controversies.
_________________
RPS

[harpoonflyby]

[AlonzoFyfe]

The difference between Al Gore's claim that sea levels could rise by 20 feet and the IPCC report of 2 feet has to do with time scale. The 2' prediction is by the end of this century. The 20' increase has to do with the effect of the entire greenland ice cap melting - however long it takes. It will probably take longer than 'the end of this century'

As for putting faith in computer models, you may wish to note that almost everything we do is based on computer models. From designing bridges and buildings to withstand an earthquake to designing airplanes, it all begins with a model.

The claim that 'you can get whatever results you wanted' presumes that the scientists who are involved in this research 'want' to get a particular result. These are scientists. The results that they want are whatever most accurately predicts and explains climate change. The scientists with the best models will win the scientific contest for prestige.

The number of peer-reviewed articles that question the basic science of global warming is zero. You will find people questioning these things in non-peer-reviewed television documentaries and newspaper articles (all of whom have clients who pay for these things), but not the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Next, it is an error to assume that climate change science began with an observation that temperatures are rising and then sought an explanation for these facts. The way it worked - over 100 years ago scientists measured the absurbtion spectrum of CO2. That, and the physics of black-body radiation lead them to conclude that an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere must necessarily lead to an increase in temperature. What we have today is not 'a temperature increase in search of an explanation.' It is empirical verification of scientific laws that have been known and well understood for over 100 years.

Finally, assume that you were the captain of a cruise ship moving at full speed. Evidence suggests that there might be ice-bergs ahead. What is the wise action to take in these types of circumstances. Should we continue to move at full speed and hope that there is no iceberg? Or should be slow down so that, if there is an ice berg, we will have time to maneuver around it? Prudence dictates the latter. If you select the former, you are gambling with a lot more than just the lives of a couple thousand passengers.

Add this to the fact that the evidence of icebergs is virtually guaranteed because, like I said, it is based on some of our most fundamental scientific principles. It is not that difficult.