An Inconvenient Truth.

by Blueblades 34 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  uk humanist

  I haven't read the book, but according to Wikipedia:

  Crichton included a statement of his own views on global climate change at the end of the book, affirming that the world is heating up, but arguing that the causes, consequences and benefits or harms of this change are unknown. He warns both sides of the global warming debate against the politicization of science, and endorses the preservation of wilderness and the continuation of research into all aspects of the Earth's environment.

  Is this not correct? It seems to disagree with "Is it caused by man? NO" as a fact presented by the book?
• 

  daniel-p

  "a majority of climatologists consider it probable that human causes are adding to or speeding up this warming effect: "
  
  Exactly. The issue is not whether humans are causing climate change, but if we are exacerbating a present cycle. Redefining the issue into something it is not is a favorite way for opponents to construct credibility around their argument. People admire Crichton because he does a lot of research in prepration for a novel and has a way of making scientific concepts easy to grasp - I enjoy his books just as much as anyone else. I've read most of them. But writers also have a way of encapsulating convincing evidence that supports their claim, and do not represent a non-biased source of scientific findings.
• 

  james_woods

  In regard to the new poster's points (and welcome from me - )

  I find it hard to believe that there is a global conspiracy between scientists from around the world, what purpose would this serve?
  I will offer an analogy - that of Margaret Meade (the so-called anthropologist of the south sea islands of the 1920's). She taught a sort of pre-hippy "free love" amoral culture of the South Pacific islands as mankinds natural behavioral order. Modern society with its mores and rules were said to be artificial results of prissy religions. This was soundly debunked in the 1980's because it was discovered that she was just apeing her mentors and giving positive vent to her own personal lifestyle. She had barely visited the cultures in question - having spent most of her time in various "social" activities. Those who opposed her view, however, were taken to be krackpot nuts by the mainstream university professors, and were immediately supressed. She is still taught in most courses on this subject because she was famous and it has become the norm. The only two girls she is supposed to have interviewed on the island have long since renounced her accounts.

  Like the JWs - the science community has from time to time just started saying and publishing things so long enough to make it into their current political wisdom and so that is what it becomes. They are then reluctant to rethink it. This serves the purpose of those who get money from giving the speeches, writing the books, and teaching these things long enough to get their tenure.
  
  Ultimately, if it could possibly relate to our activities (which seems likely), and we won't enjoy the consequences, why take the risk that the people with the most information are wrong? ...better safe than sorry would seem to be a sensible approach, given that we don't have any spare planets to live on.

  Can you imagine the "risk" we would take by instantly dismantling our electric power grid and current transportation systems worldwide (including rail, sea, air, as well as the highway vehicles)? Or by doubling our fossil fuel power production to run minimal electric cars? Or to try and replace it all with nuclear fission? How do you know that the third world developing countries would not just burn oil and coal to more than make up for those who made the sacrifice. Brazil is in fact, still a petroleum importer - they only make about twice as much fuel ethanol as we do - and have done great ecological harm to their native forests to grow that much sugar cane.

  I submit that if poorly researched panic mode plans are taken, then we might prove to be more "sorry" than "safe".

  Sincerely, James
• 

  jgnat

  LOL Stephen King for theology. They say there's greater truth in fiction...
• 

  SixofNine

  "I submit that if poorly researched panic mode plans are taken, then we might prove to be more "sorry" than "safe"."

  Fortunately, no one is calling for any such thing.
• 

  uk humanist

  I will offer an analogy - that of Margaret Meade (the so-called anthropologist of the south sea islands of the 1920's). She taught a sort of pre-hippy "free love" amoral culture of the South Pacific islands as mankinds natural behavioral order. Modern society with its mores and rules were said to be artificial results of prissy religions. This was soundly debunked in the 1980's because it was discovered that she was just apeing her mentors and giving positive vent to her own personal lifestyle. She had barely visited the cultures in question - having spent most of her time in various "social" activities. Those who opposed her view, however, were taken to be krackpot nuts by the mainstream university professors, and were immediately supressed. She is still taught in most courses on this subject because she was famous and it has become the norm. The only two girls she is supposed to have interviewed on the island have long since renounced her accounts.

  Thats a false analogy - one person getting it wrong in a niche area of science does not equate with a global conspiracy between countless individuals in one of the most highly visible areas of science. I'm not yet convinced of any reason to distrust these people? Given that they have the best access to evidence, and experts in the field, it will take a lot to persuade me that they are lying, or misguided. Let's start with motive - what's there motive?

  Can you imagine the "risk" we would take by instantly dismantling our electric power grid and current transportation systems worldwide (including rail, sea, air, as well as the highway vehicles)? Or by doubling our fossil fuel power production to run minimal electric cars? Or to try and replace it all with nuclear fission? How do you know that the third world developing countries would not just burn oil and coal to more than make up for those who made the sacrifice. Brazil is in fact, still a petroleum importer - they only make about twice as much fuel ethanol as we do - and have done great ecological harm to their native forests to grow that much sugar cane. I submit that if poorly researched panic mode plans are taken, then we might prove to be more "sorry" than "safe".

  I agree, we shouldn't implement 'poorly researched panic mode plans'. I guess your saying "don't try to improve the situation, because there is a possibility that the wrong action could be taken". If everyone followed that logic, we'd still be in the pre-stone age.
• 

  james_woods

  No one is proposing any drastic actions without research...

  No? I heard Al Gore say in public that he wanted to outlaw the internal combustion engine within 15 to 20 years when he ran against Bush. Of course, I also heard him say that he invented the internet on which we are now writing this interesting debate.

  Should we also bring up the Kyoto accord?

  James
• 

  uk humanist

  You still seem to be saying, correct me if I'm wrong, "don't try to improve the situation, because there is a possibility that the wrong action could be taken"?
• 

  james_woods

  PS, humanist, thanks for your polite and reasonable remarks. They are thought provoking.

  I will submit that the Margaret Meade analogy was an illustration not of how she got it wrong, but how a whole scientific community suppressed an opposing view in the face of better evidence.

  This is often a regrettable part of human nature, even for scientists.

  BTW, I am a proponent of large scale carbon dioxide scrubbing technology, located close to a selected group of fossil power plants, similar to the way a nuclear sub scrubs CO2 from its on-board air. The CO2 could be compressed and used in secondary petroleum recovery if the locations were picked appropriately. Then, relative CO2 reductions could be measured.
• 

  SixofNine

  I also heard him say that he invented the internet

  
  

  
  I don't know if you're a liar, or just have a bad memory, but you most certainly did not hear Al Gore say that.

  You may have heard him make a (somewhat clumsily structured) reference to his well documented role in helping to make the internet available and seeing it's potential before other's did. He's above criticism for that role, and is in fact due accolades and appreciation. Large people will give him just that, small people will not. Which are you?

  I'll have to take your memory of his statement on internal combustion engines with a grain of salt, until you show me a reference. In any case, IC engines will need to be phased out eventually. You're a self admitted car guy, so I can't help but wonder if perhaps you're pre-panty-wadded over that idea?

  Should we also bring up the Kyoto accord?

  lol, only if you'll say something actually accurate about it.