A convenient lie
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
After seeing the Al Gore movie, I remember thinking \"wow, he really overdid it.\" Unfortunately, it's a double-edged sword, or a Catch-22, or something.
Globabl warming is happening, and it's extremely likely that it's due to human activity. However, the public en masse doesn't do so well with science or terms like \"extremely likely,\" they only deal in certainties couched in rhetoric (\"Iraq has WMDs and we know where they are\"). So to get the message out, it's necessary to overhype it in the political arena and popular press, which in turn gives doubters something to attack. This is why you see the \"debate\" blazing in the political and popular press realms, and not so much in the scientific realm.
We see this asymmetric debate in this very thread: support for human-induced global warming coming from scientific sources and FUD against it coming in more anecdotal form (\"hey it's not hot here today!\"). Keen observers will note the parallel with the evolution/ID \"debate.\" In both cases, science and politics don't mix well, particularly under the current administration.
Globabl warming is happening, and it's extremely likely that it's due to human activity. However, the public en masse doesn't do so well with science or terms like \"extremely likely,\" they only deal in certainties couched in rhetoric (\"Iraq has WMDs and we know where they are\"). So to get the message out, it's necessary to overhype it in the political arena and popular press, which in turn gives doubters something to attack. This is why you see the \"debate\" blazing in the political and popular press realms, and not so much in the scientific realm.
We see this asymmetric debate in this very thread: support for human-induced global warming coming from scientific sources and FUD against it coming in more anecdotal form (\"hey it's not hot here today!\"). Keen observers will note the parallel with the evolution/ID \"debate.\" In both cases, science and politics don't mix well, particularly under the current administration.
- Lothar
- DBB Ghost Admin
- Posts: 12133
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: I'm so glad to be home
- Contact:
You echo Al Gore's words: \"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is.\" Shadows of fake but accurate.it's necessary to overhype it in the political arena and popular press
Of course, when Bush did the same thing with WMD's, a certain former vice president exclaimed \"He betrayed this country! He played on our fears!\"
Indeed. As James Taranto says, \"Gore lied! People cried!\"
Re:
Very interesting indeed...Duper wrote:Thank you Vulcan
this is a very interesting watch. Watch all 8 installments. It does the body good.
Pretty interesting, Duper.
I found Patrick Moore's comments in 5/8 to be stunning.
I wonder where I can get a dvd of the whole program. Would be interesting to compare to Gore's film.
(edit - oh... so what is Channel 4?
hmmm ... then, there's this ...
also see the other commentary in the Channel 4 forum)
I found Patrick Moore's comments in 5/8 to be stunning.
I wonder where I can get a dvd of the whole program. Would be interesting to compare to Gore's film.
(edit - oh... so what is Channel 4?
hmmm ... then, there's this ...
also see the other commentary in the Channel 4 forum)
Unsurprisingly, RealClimate has some response to the Channel 4 program -
http://news.independent.co.uk/environme ... 355956.ece
In particular, Carl Wunsch is unhappy with the way the Swindle program portrayed his views; see his letter in comment 109 below the article. In fact, read as much of the commentary as you can, as it is quite interesting.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environme ... 355956.ece
In particular, Carl Wunsch is unhappy with the way the Swindle program portrayed his views; see his letter in comment 109 below the article. In fact, read as much of the commentary as you can, as it is quite interesting.
I found this passage interesting:
\"The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of \"global cooling\" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention.\"
So it would seem the real culpret for global weather is the Clean Air Act. By what is stated above, all that is needed to slow the warming is to take out of mothballs all those old furnaces and start shoveling the cheap coal into them.
\"The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of \"global cooling\" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention.\"
So it would seem the real culpret for global weather is the Clean Air Act. By what is stated above, all that is needed to slow the warming is to take out of mothballs all those old furnaces and start shoveling the cheap coal into them.