Monday, March 26, 2007

The Great Global Warming Swindle

got an hour and half on your hands like I did saturday night and this might worth a gander...

ht: jc

Now, it should not surprize us that this film exists at the same time that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is surging into popularity. And because environmentalism is such a strong force in popular culture it shouldn't surprize us that this film also elicits a mostly negative response. What should surprize us is that would let AIT to use the word truth in the way that they have. If we were smarter we would all be aghast at the brash retorical use of this word to evoke a political perspective. Saying that LET ME BE CLEAR I am not the one to be making judgements on which scientific perspective is superior and better able to reflect what is actually happening. But the worst thing about both of these films is not that they are doing good or bad science it is in fact they are claiming to unequivocally hold the truth on this issue. (And have used overly emotional rhetoric to accomplish that...)
What I mean is that once a person engages the brain several things become perfectly clear almost instantly...
1. It is stupid to to be wasteful with the resources that we have been given in nature.
2. Our capacity to exploit natures resources (and even its essence) is greater by far than at any other time in history.
3. There are numerous cases of abuse of nature that should not only shock us but move us to ardent redress of these mistakes.
4. Personal actions are political statements. (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle)
5. It is important to take precautions to avoid disasters caused by wacky weather.
6. Smog is disgusting.
Of course when we claim to possess the truth so completely as both of these shows do, the temptation is to pick sides. We reject everything about one or the other option. This is a senseless personal position. And it is completely irresponsible on the part of any of these scientist who wish to have an honest discussion about what is actually happening...

6 comments:

jc said...

Okay so you have watched both of the movies. One thing that seems to jump out at me is that apparently the total amount of CO2 emmissions created by humans is around 4 percent. If we abanded all technology, stopped breathing, and campfires would this have any effect I am quite doubtful of the claims that human emmitted CO2 causes wacky weather patterns or that it is going to end thousands of species existence on earth. Warmer climates are more hospitable to animals generally. Sure smog is gross but it does not major effect on the life I live.

I am wondering, after viewing these movies would you advocate any sort of governmental policies be inacted to combat global warming?

Incoming... said...

hey there jc
I thought you might be tuckered out from the plethora of comments you've been contributing around the blogosphere alas...

clarification: actually I have only watched part of the "swindle" show and have not watched the 'truth' show at all. I hardly think I need to. I'm not trying to be arrogantly naive about the scientific implications or contradictions that exist. Instead I actually expect them. For me the scientific data and its comparison is far less provocative than the rhetorical accrimony (sp?) on either side of this debate.
Anywho as for your question...
You bet I advocate governmental policies that combat CO2 emmissions. First of all, just because you or I are not affected by smog doesn't mean we should stop caring about other people who are affected by it. Second, regardless of the implication of our emmision of CO2 on global warming - it is still quite glaringly clear that we consume way too much of the globes resources (renewable or otherwise). Third, our CO2 emmision rate is a reflective outcome of some of our other nasty habits in the developed world - primarily exploitation and destruction of natural habitat, blatant disregard for the waste we leave behind (garbage, sewer, etc.), and the way our greed tends to dictate the agenda of economic policy globally.
Having said that...
my main point which I will draw you back to quickly is this:
Rhetoric that claims to hold or refute unequivocally - the truth - is always suspect for me. It is unfortunate that in this issue polarization of perspective is often the only result.

jc said...

"Rhetoric that claims to hold or refute unequivocally - the truth - is always suspect for me. It is unfortunate that in this issue polarization of perspective is often the only result."

You see this is the problem for me. Like you I am not a scientist. But you seem willing to advocate some policies that could be harmful to the human race. Policies that have not been shown to even work or reduce whatver harm we may be doing to the planet. The Great global warming swindle movie show some of the effects of this on the third world... although not as in depth as I would like. At least from the evidence so far I see no reason to conclude that CO2 causes global warming. It seems correlated but that is not the same thing. As for smog, I don't think smog has any major ill effect in most of the USA and Canada. Most of our cars are pretty clean probably because of the pollution standards in California. It is true that third world countries have much bigger issues with smog than we do. But our pollution standards against polluting cars seem to have little effect in China and Africa. To me it seems like this hysteria about global warming is so out of control that any sort of policy that is going to be made now will end up hurting more than helping.

Incoming... said...

I'm baling what you're swathing dude...
Of course I am not interested in creating policies that are going to harm people. I think it takes alot of wisdom and that is why the science behind both of these perspectives is a crucial element for discussion - and not the propaganda that insinuates one thing or another. What I am trying to get back to is a more common sense approach to this issue. I think the things I have mentioned are actually fairly commonly held positions. There has to be a way for a commoner like me to engage with the basic elements of this question as it is unlikely that i will be able to access all the right science on this issue even if i did know what to do with it. The question comes down to who do you trust. And all I am saying is that I tend to not trust either one of the people who made these movies - not becuase their science is bad but because their approach is wrong namely claim to hold truth absolutely.

jc said...

"And all I am saying is that I tend to not trust either one of the people who made these movies..."

This seems the best approach of whats availible at this time. It frustrates me that this is all that seems to be availible for someone who does not care to be swindled at this time by either side.

Incoming... said...

amen