Up until tonight I had basically left the concept of global warming unchallenged. After all, who would make that stuff up? It's gotta be valid since there's no big business behind it. The oil companies are certainly not. Also from what I understand of the greenhouse effect, the whole concept seems to make sense. CO2 is one of many greenhouse gasses which keep our planet warm. Add C02, make the planet warmer.
Tonight I watched a movie that challenged these assumptions to the core, The Global Warming Swindle. First of all, we're all conditioned to believe CO2 is bad. Of course we'll acknowledge that we're made up of it; we expel it. Trees, plants, animals, and most of all, water expel it. But it still seems like a bad thing, cause it makes our planet warmer.
Or does it? The big studies show that historically CO2 levels and planet temperature are directly related. But what a movie like The Inconvenient Truth doesn't tell you is that the CO2 changes lag four to five hundred years behind the climate changes. It's the classic cause and effect logic mistake. The planet gets warmer, and then CO2 levels rise. Not the other way around. So what's causing what?
But still, it doesn't hurt to cut down on CO2 emissions right? Despite the scare in the post WWII era about the looming ice age (no joke!), I've always wondered what anti-environmentalists get so worked up about. Even if we're wrong, it doesn't hurt to play it safe and sell your f#$*ing SUV. Well, in some cases it might. Developing nations are being told they have to use alternative forms of energy. Their infrastructures are just beginning to develop, so it makes sense to start them off the right way.
Right? (one word paragraph)
Well, alternative energy is at least twice as expensive, which means that these countries are being significantly held back in their development because they're being forced to adopt alternative energy. And in case you're thinking this means they won't be able to upgrade from the 2 slice toaster to the 4 slice (I hate waiting for my 3rd slice), you're wrong. It means people are dying. The movie shows a hospital that has no electricity except for a couple of solar panels to power either their lights or their fridge, but not both. Development is crucial for the lives of people in these countries, and they are being dramatically held back by what appears to be bad science.
I'm not saying this info might not be skewed and twisted to make me doubt global warming. It's really hard to tell who to believe. Perhaps this movie was funded by Esso. To get into how global warming advocates are financially motivated, it's related to government spending and scientific grants. I'll let the movie get into the details of that. Watch it and comment.
It should be on your right, one of the top two. If not go here. The bottom one appears to be a movie that counters The Global Warming Swindle. I'm gonna watch that now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
very interesting. good to think about as well. i heard recently that vehicles only make about 4% of greenhouse gas emissions. weird! i don't know if it's true, but, worth thinking about. i think we can all see the benefit of the three r's, so that our planet doesn't become a stinking cesspool, and personally i'm all for alternatives to fossil fuels, but i think it's safe to say that when it come to global warming etc, we really don't know the truth. though, i'd like to err on the side of caution...
I haven't seen this documentary, nor have I seen An Inconvenient Truth. However, I do work for an architecture firm that has a vested interest in green building (under the auspices of a program called LEED, which certifies green buildings). This past fall I helped research and prepare a publication for the Canadian Green Building Council that argued for municipalities to build green facilities when they develop new buildings. Therefore I am well aware of the usual arguments for global warming and the climate change evidence that is marshaled in its support.
Although green building and its promotion has been a major component of my job, I believe everyone has a right to an opinion and any debate on this issue should be in the open. I am all for freedom of speech and a balance of opinion in the press, so thanks for the link. In the spirit of that, I offer the following lunch-hour wikis:
On the "Great Global Warming Swindle:" here
Of note: "Carl Wunsch, professor of oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was also interviewed but has since said that he strongly disagrees with the film's conclusions and the way his interview material was used.[4]."
On "Global Warming":
here
Of note:"Greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without which mean temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 33 °C (59 °F) lower, so that Earth would be uninhabitable.[10] It is therefore not correct to say that there is a debate between those who "believe in" and "oppose" the greenhouse effect as such. Rather, the debate concerns the net effect of the addition of greenhouse gases while allowing for associated positive and negative feedback mechanisms."
Hockey Stick Controversy: here
Of note: "The major criticism was the claim that Mann et al.'s choice of data sets and their processing largely suppressed two notable climatic variations: the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) around the beginning of the second millennium and the Little Ice Age centered around 1600-1700 AD."
The article on the Global Warming Swindle also criticizes the graph used in the program. It has been proven to be doctored - the data shown ends at 1988 while the text shown alongside it showed a more recent end date. The intent was to not show a recent spike in global temperatures.
Now for some quick thoughts:
"The planet gets warmer, and then CO2 levels rise. Not the other way around."
According to the article on global warming, C02 and climate change have a reciprocal relationship.
"It also provides evidence that the relationship between CO2 and climate can go in both directions: changes in CO2 concentrations affect climate, while changes in climate can affect CO2 concentrations. One proposed mechanism for this effect is increased release of sequestered CO2 from oceans as circulation patterns shift, perhaps abruptly, in response to climate change.[3] [" There is a lot more on this here .
"Well, alternative energy is at least twice as expensive, which means that these countries are being significantly held back in their development because they're being forced to adopt alternative energy."
this was the part of the article that grabbed my attention the most and I haven't been able to find out a single thing beyond this in my lunch time. The articles I linked to offer no contradiction to the claims nor links to other material. Anyone have any research links on african development/sustainable development?
My initial reaction is that while it may make (terrible) sense for the western world to stall african industrialization so its natural resources can be left for western claimants, is this really happening to that extent? Is there really someone forcing african govenments to adopt sustainable energy practices or is it an argument of economics (ie. independent sustainable energy technology is what small clinics in remote locations can afford?) Where is this kenyan clinic - is it far from any major city/power grid or close to such a connection? How much would it cost to hook it up to such a power grid, and is it really "twice as expensive" to buy a few solar panels and operate them independently? Usually by using off the grid sustainable energy the initial cost is higher than typical power grid energy costs, but the operating costs are near zero, besides equipment maintenance. That doesn't excuse there not being enough solar panels to power basic operations, but it doesn't seem logical that the clinic was forced to adopt this "more expensive" technology if a local hookup were easy to achieve, and allege that if they didn't have solar panels they'd surely have a power grid connection and the facility would have lots of power.
I find the "government conspiracy" aspect of the anti global warming argument hard to swallow. Usually the people handing out grants are goverments or large corporations, correct (as they have money to do such things)? and well into the second term of Bush's admnistration, does it really make sense that government and big corporations would be unwaveringly biased TOWARDS environmentalists? Other european countries are certainly not unilaterally leftist either, and Australia has had a conservative government for over 13 years. Canada's Liberals did little in their tenure to meet any of the Kyoto targets - the current government is arguing their achievement would result in economic disaster. Where is this supposed widespread bias towards the left/environmental reformers? Correct me if I'm wrong in my assumptions, but I don't buy the argument.
Thank you very much. After posting I watched a little rebuttal video that was unfortunately not very well done and did little to convince me of anything until it showed me the temperature graph from which the film had taken off the past 20 years. Once I realized that they had wilfully misled me it was hard to believe anything else they were saying. Then there's the Carl Wunsch deception, and the questions that you raise... I've drawn the conclusion that I don't think this film holds water scientifically. I can't begin to understand all the issues involved, so I have to have trust in those that I believe.
But the developing countries question is still a concern. The film doesn't offer any solid evidence for that assertion. The problem with this type of film is that it's highly persuasive with highly questionable material, and it only has to raise doubt in the viewer's mind in order to make them complacent about global warming. For that reason I'm removing the video links from my blog. I've never felt like a censor before, but I don't want to chance somebody randomly watching that video and not doing any more research into whether its claims are true. Thoughts? Maybe we can have a freedom of speech debate as well.
i should clarify one thing. I don't think the movie was arguing a government conspiracy theory. Their point was that there's a lot of money in grants right now for global warming research. Scientists need money just like everybody else, so in order to keep their jobs they have an ulterior motive for supporting the global warming theory. If they debunked it there'd be no money in their field anymore. Also in order to make headlines and gain attention they need to have increasingly extreme predictions and warnings. For what it's worth.
I've seen the Gore film, but not the Great Swindle. I've also seen a documentary on CBC that really made me think about who's presenting the information and their credentials. The film wasn't about climate change per se, but about the media's desire to seem impartial and how in order to do that they give equal time to scientists who disagree with things like global warming, despite the fact that they are a tiny minority among the scientific community. By giving naysayers equal time makes it APPEAR like there's a greater division in the scientific community than there really is. Also, this documentary examined some of the scientists who are the most outspoken voices against climate change. Most haven't published anything relevant in decades and a staggering number were the same "scientists" who argued that smoking doesn't cause cancer in the 70s and 80s. Now they're saying that the world isn't warming up.
On an unrelated note: Jeremy, have you heard (of) Neal Morse?
Of course the other major argument for finding alternatives to fossil fuels (and one that I don't hear many naysayers bring up) is that fossil fuels are a LIMITED resource!
I haven't finished reading it yet, but, I'm already skeptical of the arguments that follow, since plants and trees do NOT expel CO2....Don't know if this is just an oversight by Jeremy, or if this is stated in the documentary he's defending here, which then makes me wonder what other "facts" are presented...
Wow, this is a super interesting discussion, I'm glad I made it through! Regarding the government funding of global warming research, my theory is that by continuing to fund the research, they can argue that they are spending money on "dealing" with global warming, without actually doing anything about it. And while I may be somewhat biased and/or naive with this opinion, I like to believe that the peer-review process keeps most scientists honest (though the media will latch on to whatever "scientific article" they think is interesting, without paying any attention whatsoever to the quality of the journal they're taking it from, but that's a whole other rant from me...) The developing nations in Africa argument also hits a nerve with me, because there are so many underlying problems that are holding those nations back, and no one is taking real responsibility for any of them, or offering solutions to the ones they didn't cause. Africa is so riddled with problems that you really can use it as an example for whatever your cause may be, whether it's global warming, disease research, whatever.
Whether or not the whole global warming "theory" is true, I think we need to start taking better care of our environment. It's not fun to have to chew before you breath when you drive through downtown Hamilton, or plan your outdoor running around smog advisories.
the plants and trees thing was my mistake. I added that misconception of mine in there. Mike I haven't heard of Neal Morse, should i have? I definitely agree with you on the limited resource thing. You'd think that right wing types could see the dilemna this is for them, gas prices are only going to continue to go up as the oil supply is gradually depleted. That means your precious businesses are going to have a smaller and smaller profit margin. Therefore in order to keep the bucks rolling in we should focus strongly on developing alternative energy that will not rise in price exponentially in the foreseeable future. But instead oil companies are being hugely subsidized by the government to go find more oil! Despite record breaking profits! Its unbelievable. Find your own freaking oil, let the grants go to sustainable development.
Neal Morse is a prog-rock musician from California. He left Spock's Beard (which he co-founded) after converting to Christianity. His solo works are EPIC and AWESOME. Check out his album "?".
I haven’t finished reading everything yet, but as I was going through the post I wondered about the accuracy of directly relating developing countries’ reliance on solar power to being held back because of global warming concerns.
In the Congo we relied on solar power to run our fridge and the hospital had a gas powered generator that they used only for surgeries. This was pretty much the only electricity in the village and it worked well enough for our purposes. It would have been impossible to get any other form of electricity up and running there because it’s just too isolated.
So it could be a valid argument, or not. I have no idea if they took an unrelated fact out of context or what. Possibly the most useless comment ever. I will continue my reading now.
Omigosh this looks like a very interesting and thought provoking blog. I have to leave for work now (which I'm biking to! I'm on a green week. I'm trying to do it once a month where I don't use my car for a whole week) but I will definitly be reading and adding my own opinion to this!
I apologize that I have not read everyone's opinions thoroughly, cause everyone probably has valid points. This year I studied this debate from both sides extensively in political studies and heard good points both ways. I also heard really really dumb points from the antienvironmentalists like this one dumb guy who shouldn't be allowed to speak named something like bjork. Basically he said what people want to hear because no one wants to hear that their cushy lifestyle is really lessening peoples quality of life in other countries. People are dying due to inefficient water use and climate change. In some area's it means massive floods which destroy land and in some it means massive drought. Though there are some doubters, the MAJORITY of scientist DO believe that greenhouse emissions are speeding the rate of global warming. I've also heard the opinion that it is natural, and every 500 years there is a huge increase in temperature, but it's not just that, there's no denying that we are raping (yes raping) the earth of it's natural resources and thus permanently changing the planet. God's initial task for humankind was to be caretakers of the earth. Not only because it's His creation but cause it really does affect the rest of humankind. I don't think everyone needs to be crazy fanatics but we can at least do our part to make sure we're "reducing our eco footprint" (hehehe)
Post a Comment