Wednesday, April 11, 2007
An Inconvenient Truth
Last night, I finally got around to watching Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. I had rented it at Blockbuster because I had a free movie pass and figured it might be good for a laugh, at the very least.
It was actually worse than I expected. I certainly expected poor science. After all, turning to a former-English-major-turned-Government-major-turned-Divinity-school-dropout-turned-Law-school-dropout for data in the hard sciences is probably not the best idea of finding a credible source. The poor science was there, of course; at many times, Gore was downright misleading.
What I didn't expect was that the focus of the film was in no way global warming or the greenhouse effect or even the environment. No, the focus was Al Gore. This movie was all about Al Gore - period. Anyone who didn't see it this way is kidding themselves. (For more, see James Bowman's review in The American Spectator, who pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.)
But - thank God that Al invented the Internet. Because of that, I was able to find two excellent restatements that refute his little movie.
Both of the sites above contain actual science - while blowing holes in Gore's skewed arguments - that people schooled in the sciences can understand. (Admittedly, some of it is not for those who avoided science courses like the plague in college, mind you.)
So, what's the answer? Just listen to the scientists? And if so, which ones? My preference is those who aren't seeking grant money, for starters. Despite Gore's claim that this is solely a moral issue, this is also a political issue, for sure. The problems are that its the politicians that should be getting lectured, not giving the lectures (see the Kerry vs. Gingrich debate yesterday for clear examples of this), and that no one can agree on who the unbiased experts on this subject are. In fact, is anyone free of the taint of money and political favors on the issue to the point that the powers that be can step back and agree that this particular expert or that particular expert is an unbiased source whose studies and opinions should be given additional weight on the subject?
We are dealing with a very limited data set and trying to make sweeping conclusions based upon that data. This is a tough exercise no matter how you slice it, whether dealing with the global warming phenomenon, special evolution, or the behavior of species limited by a phenotypic bottleneck.
One truth that pertains to both science and law - it's usually not a bad thing to admit that you don't know if the truth is that you don't know. I don't know if this is a natural variation, if it's short-term in nature, or if the problem is even fixable. (Gore surely doesn't comment on the last element there - can we do anything about this, Al?) I admit that I don't know, which, oddly enough, might be a good place to start.
Labels: Al Gore, Global Warming
Permalink posted by Rob Huddleston @ 6:33 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
So, what's the answer? Just listen to the scientists? And if so, which ones? My preference is those who aren't seeking grant money, for starters.
Has it ever occurred to you that the scientists pretending global warming doesn't exist don't need funding because the energy industry is keeping them afloat? (Used Fox News for the reference so you wouldn't try to claim it's some liberal media creation)
Second, you claim to value science--- So why rely on an unsigned post on "Junk Science" and an astronomer from the University of Texas to make your case?
or if the problem is even fixable. (Gore surely doesn't comment on the last element there - can we do anything about this, Al?)
If your house is on fire, which do you worry about first--- Rebuilding the damaged walls or stopping the fire from spreading?
There is no immediate repair. The ozone layer can build itself up again, but not in our lifetimes. There are enough chemicals already in the atmosphere that damage it that even with a complete cessation of production starting at this instant, the damage will not quit for another 20 years.
But I think my kids will be worth that kind of investment in time, that kind of long term strategy. Their kids will too.
Has it ever occurred to you that the scientists pretending global warming doesn't exist don't need funding because the energy industry is keeping them afloat? (Used Fox News for the reference so you wouldn't try to claim it's some liberal media creation)
Second, you claim to value science--- So why rely on an unsigned post on "Junk Science" and an astronomer from the University of Texas to make your case?
or if the problem is even fixable. (Gore surely doesn't comment on the last element there - can we do anything about this, Al?)
If your house is on fire, which do you worry about first--- Rebuilding the damaged walls or stopping the fire from spreading?
There is no immediate repair. The ozone layer can build itself up again, but not in our lifetimes. There are enough chemicals already in the atmosphere that damage it that even with a complete cessation of production starting at this instant, the damage will not quit for another 20 years.
But I think my kids will be worth that kind of investment in time, that kind of long term strategy. Their kids will too.
No need to rely on only one professor from UT. Check out "The Great Global Warming Swindle" by the BBC.
Post a Comment
<< Home
