And thus we hit Goodwin’s Law and the thread officially comes to a close.

Ah the good old Godwin comeback.

In this case a comment about Nazi Propoganda is more than relevant.

I’m sure Hitler said the same thing.

Tom, do you eat bread?  Hitler did too.

Is all propaganda untrue?  Any dissemenation of information with intent to persuade is propaganda.  The more important question; is it true?  It would appear that in this case the danger is real.  And like chloroflourocarbon depletion of the ozone layer some years back, we can do something about it if people understand the need.

In this case a comment about Nazi Propoganda is more than relevant.

And why would that be? I’m curious to hear your reasons, though I suspect I already know the answer.

To all those who don’t give a shit about global warming:

I dare you to express your views to any one of the survivors of Hurrican Katrina.  I dare you to tell a family who has lost a loved one to Katrina that you’re a proud contributor to the destructive power of the hurricane.

For those criticizing the movie before they’ve seen it:

Watch the damn movie.

I keep reading and reading on both sides of the issue and I remain undecided and unconvinced.

I have, however, found a speech by Michael Crichton that pretty much captures why I remain undecided and unconvinced.

Give it a read. It’s not actually about Global Warming so much as it’s about the way science is done these days. He has a pretty good proposal tacked on at the end.

The speech can be found at http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

Well, as convincing as it is that a med-school dropout who writes crappy sci-fi novels thinks global warming is hype, I think I’ll stay with actual climatologists.  Yes, it’s an appeal to authority, but it’s also recognition that people who collect data and try to compare it with existing science are worth a listen.  And while consensus doesn’t decide the issue, it is a factor if there is consensus across national lines and between competing scientists.

Yes, there is some uncertainty, and scientists have been wrong before.  But they’ve been right an awful lot of times, too, and global warming passes a number of sniff tests.  For instance, the properties of carbon dioxide are well-known.  The quantities are well-known.  The effects of ocean acidity on CO₂ absorption are well-known, so the curve of said absorption can be predicted.  There is little doubt of a climatic shift taking place and the much-maligned models do seem to correspond with it pretty well.

I also hope think many organisms will evolve (for instance, coral may become more resistant to acidic water) to adapt.  But the main point of global warming theory is that it should inform our technological choices by prompting us to look at the larger scale costs of those technologies, and give us an idea what those costs might be. 

I am not a scientist; the sniff-tests I apply are the best skepticism I have available to me.  It may all turn out to be BS but right now it seems our best bet.  If we’d waited long enough on chlorofluorcarbons for ‘all the evidence to be in’ the reversal in the ozone hole would be many decades farther down the line.  Restrictions on CFC’s are a success story.

Sagan was not a particularly good scientist, by the way, but he may have been right about the oil well fires if new methods hadn’t just been invented to put them out far ahead of the predicted time.  We should do something similar with energy technology and prove global warming theory ‘wrong’.  Somehow I doubt that promoting new cleaner technologies and conservation will ruin our economy.  Just the opposite, perhaps.

(I read Crichton’s speech.  He didn’t attack global warming per se; it seems he just brought up some scientific mistakes and the logical fallacy that if science ever made any mistakes, then we shouldn’t invest in anything science says until the inevitable hits us over the head.)

Oh, and as for the false comparison between tomorrow’s weather prediction and climate predictions… your insurance company’s actuaries may not be able to predict when you will die, but they’ve got your demographic nailed to several decimal places.  It may be the same dealio with weather/climate.

Well, as convincing as it is that a med-school dropout who writes crappy sci-fi novels thinks global warming is hype, I think I’ll stay with actual climatologists.

Ouch. A little harsh, don’t you think, DOF? I didn’t see anything in his speech that would warrant a personal attack from either side of the arguement.

In fact, it wasn’t so much about Global Warming as it was about the way scientific studies have been conducted over the last several decades. I think his suggestions regarding testing and data examination were excellent.

A little harsh, don’t you think, DOF? I didn’t see anything in his speech that would warrant a personal attack from either side of the arguement.

Quite right, there wasn’t anything in his speech that merited a personal attack. But I am profoundly frustrated by the larger context in which Crichton gets a long, personal audience with the President of the United States while actual working scientists just can’t get through.

thankgod there is someone like al gore in our world.
fuck you ignorant bastards that say anything bad against his name you have no right to.
our world is beautiful and deserves all the help it can get.
Al gore has used his brilliant public speaking skills and started to make people awear of the harm we are doing to our world.
if you choose not to believe climate change or refuse to reduce your co2 emmissions then you truly are a poor example of the human race.

Just a clip from Crichton:

“Our approach to global warming exemplifies everything that is wrong with our approach to the environment. We are basing our decisions on speculation, not evidence. Proponents are pressing their views with more PR than scientific data. Indeed, we have allowed the whole issue to be politicized-red vs blue, Republican vs Democrat. This is absurd.”

And look up the article in Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
Thirty-four years ago there was just as much evidence for scientists to declare we were entering a new “Ice Age.” Fear sells magazines and also manipulates the sheeple. That’s why it’s such a good tool of propaganda and politics (and religion). This is not to deny that we are responsible for taking good care of our environment, but NOT TO PANIC. How many times have we over-reacted and screwed things up by not researching those pesky unintended consequences that keep popping up?
What if Santa Clause signed the Kyoto Treaty? You know he does live at the North Pole and would be concerned about his environment. But, consider one of the greatest contributing factors to “global warming” is bovine flatulence. Consider 9 reindeer circumnavigating the globe and stopping at every residence with children. Unless he buys a lot of carbon offset, Santa will only be able to visit one-half of the homes this year. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES!   

That 1970’s “global cooling consensus” was a myth, a creation of the popular media.  A handful of scientists speculated that it would happen but a study of scientific papers published during that time found that many more said there would be warming.  Time and Newsweek took a report since repudiated by some of its own authors and made it front-cover news.

If you want to know how these myths get started, check out the history.  (It’s a long video, so get some coffee.  And note the presenter’s qualifications.)

DOF: TWO cups of coffee. And what are the qualifications and agenda of the other side (Soros, et al)? I’ll get back to you on those.