Global Climate Change - Another View
-
Hi,
I know this topic has been discussed before so I thought you may like to check out this link which suggests that Al Gore and his followers need to have a re-think.
Visit: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/37938,features,whatever-happened-to-the-climate-change-consensus
Regards
Mr S -
Whenever i read the words 'list of scientists' i get quite suspicious. There are lots of lists of scientists in that article.
The reason i get suspicious is that i've read similar articles before, only to then find that a lot of the scientists who supposedly signed it do not agree with whatever was being proposed. I havent checked eery source in that article but it gave me no reason to believe that there is anything that hasn't been said before.
As an example, the first arguement made relates to "the so-called Oregon Petition rejecting the IPCC line on climate change." The author also mentions it was signed 10 years ago. Is it not possible that new evidence might have arisen in those 10 years? or perhaps after re-reading some of the evidence some of the scientists may have changed their minds.
He also makes little to no refernece to the opposing side of the arguement, which to me doesnt constitute a very good arguement (quite ironic on my part as this is a very one sided arguement, but i'm gettign a bit bored of writing this.)
In a sentence: i'm not convinced.
-
I'm always a bit confused as to why someone would WANT to write an article like this.
Whether or not the facts behind it are true (and I am deeply dubious), what is the motivation for writing/publishing it?
Al Gore and his 'followers'
have a clear motivation - they are trying to stop what they see as a very real, man-made threat. I have never met someone who 'believed' in global warming who wanted it to be true - why would you want something bad to happen? Unlike followers of a faith (with which they are often compared), they would like the thing they 'believe' in to disappear.So the writer of this article - do they WANT inefficient cars? MORE CO2 emissions? MORE use of oil? Everyone has a motivation - it's the root cause of actions. What do you think the motivation is here?
Just a thought.
AJ
-
I imagine what they want is to encourage people to look at the evidence and counter evidence more closely, and also try and rectify this: "...because the British mainstream news media declines to report it."
-
Channel 4 Documentary on this subject. Let the debate commence.
-
Depending how old you are, some of you may remember that in the 1970s the media were telling us how it was a proven scientific fact that that the world was going to end because of "Acid Rain" caused my modern industry. We were told that the scientific community were all agreed on this. I also remember the media campaign about the threat of AIDS. It got so scary that you felt the only way to survive was to become a Monk or Nun!
Although these issues (and many others) are very serious, I don't feel inclined to listen to individuals like Al Gore. His career as a politician is over, and this is just another fasionable issue to keep himself in the limelight. He should stick to just becoming another talking head in the media industry, like all other failed or retired politicians do.
I am not just picking on Al Gore. I feel just the same about Bono, Madonna, Angelina Jolie, Bob Geldof etc. What makes these people think that just because I may enjoy a movie, or listen to one of their songs, that I care in the slightest what their political views are?
I have a great Bakers shop by me and I really like the owner and enjoy his produce.
This doesn't lead me to believe that he has the answers to all the worlds problems.
Why do people in the media think what they have to say is somehow special?
More importantly, and more concerning, is how many of the general public actually take seriously what they have to say.Regards
Mr S -
When I first saw this thread the first thing that came to mind was that there will always be nay sayers and conspiracy theorists that go against the grain, I am one with a very left leaning agenda. Initially I wondered why would anyone dispute such internationally accepted and 'proven' facts and to what end was it serving.
Unfortunately we are all very polarized and fundamental in our beliefs and opinions, I even own the Al Gore DVD 'an inconvenient truth' and believed it to be rather sound proof of our climatic dilemma. Fortunately I am also not a dogmatic personality and will entertain different opinions and the BBC show thats linked above certainly is great food for thought and has left me more open minded to this whole issue.
So thanks for firstly starting this thread and the links to an informative video, I will now investigate this issue a lot closer and reserve judgement regarding this until I can make an informed decision as to which side of this debate I truly believe in my own mind to be the right one.
-
@mr s said:
Although these issues (and many others) are very serious, I don't feel inclined to listen to individuals like Al Gore. His career as a politician is over, and this is just another fasionable issue to keep himself in the limelight. He should stick to just becoming another talking head in the media industry, like all other failed or retired politicians do.
i don't know all the exact facts and dates but i do know that this stuff isn't new to al gore and i don't think it's fair to claim he's just trying to stay in the limelight after his political career is over..
i know he had a book published on the same topic prior to becoming vice pres and he did these same sort of tours for years.. much of his agenda as vice president had to do with presenting evidence to congress on these issues and was trying to use his political weight to solve these problems.. although i think he definitely got the ball rolling, there's still a ton of work to be done and he's just continuing along those lines - with or without a political career.. just saying - he's dedicated most of his adult life to environmental issues and this isn't just some sort of publicity stunt.. -
That channel 4 'documentary' was the most amazing collection of rubbish. A classic big lie attack in fact.
You should at least take a look at some of the serious climate change sites - http://www.realclimate.org for example is run by actual professional climatologist. Perhaps they might know what they're talking about a touch more than media pundits taking a day off commenting on Britney or Oprah? Y'know, just maybe?
tim
Science: it works, bitches
-
The global warming debate seems hopelessly tangled in politics and ideology (as opposed to science). Still the best article I know to get you thinking:
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
and these are pretty good too.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html -
That top article is an interesting read, id recommend it.
-
@mr s said:
Depending how old you are, some of you may remember that in the 1970s the media were telling us how it was a proven scientific fact that that the world was going to end because of "Acid Rain" caused my modern industry. We were told that the scientific community were all agreed on this. I also remember the media campaign about the threat of AIDS. It got so scary that you felt the only way to survive was to become a Monk or Nun!
The threat in the 1970s was in fact very serious. In the Western countries the governments reacted to the increasing public pressure, and thanks to that the spreading of the poisons to the environment here is somewhat in control. For instance in our parts the large lakes were already in great danger from the wastes from the pulp and paper industry, but better waste processing has largely cleaned them up, with more efficient production methods as beneficial side effects.
The large industrial wastelands of the former Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe bear witness to what could have happened here too if things had continued the same for 25 years longer. For instance, the woods around Nikel in the Northwest Russia are quite dead in a large area, and the production of nickel is still going strong there. The same dangers are also still in effect in the third world.
So whether climate change can be stopped or not, I consider environmental protection to be the most important area that requires investment. Besides the need to limit carbon oxide emissions, a large part of the world's population is daily in need of a cleaner environment.
Anssi
-
Personally, I'm on the fence with the Global Warming debate. On one hand, you'd be a moron to not recognize our impact on the environment and the fact we are causing mass habitat extinction, on the other I do question our carbon emissions as one of the major agendas in the public conscious. Surely instead of just addressing carbon (lets face it; 'carbon offsetting' is a complete joke), there surely should be more coverage on other greenhouse gases such as methane. With the current rise in population clustered in urban concentrates, then the increase in methane gas is something that is worth acknowledging? Thoughts?
-
I'm a climate change skeptic. I've followed the debate closely and I believe the scientific community has failed to prove any of the conclusions Al Gore so forcefully presented.
here's a fair summary of my views as presented by Prof Don Aitken.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2008/2226464.htm
note the snide introduction by Robyn Williams, the presenter of the Science show and a confirmed GW believer. There is also a reply to Prof Aitken's remarks here.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2008/2249809.htm#transcript
Advertisement