An Inconvenient Truth - you must see this!

Cardew

banthecar wrote:

There is a overwhelming consensus within the scientific community that global warming is real,

‘Oh no there isn’t’ - as they say in every good Pantomime- do I hear ‘Oh yes there is’ ?

Did you read the article in the link above?(http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597) or is that also 'An Inconvenient Truth'? on the other side of the argument;)

Professor Lindzen is an eminent scientist, who specialises in Atmospheric Science, categorically states there is no such consensus and also challenges the theory that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has the adverse effect that is often attributed to it(usually by those not qualified to make such a statement!)

He makes the very point that the claim you make in the post above, is endlessly and erroneously repeated. Frequent repetition does not equal proof!

So who is right. Professor Lindzen or Al Gore?

I have absolutely no idea who is right on this whole environment issue, and I suspect neither you or anyone else reading this thread has either.

However rather like a religion(and that is a fair analogy for some) if anybody becomes a ‘True Believer’ they will tolerate no argument.

banthecar

didnt actually read the article - I was firing off a quick reply in my break. Guilty as charged.
I always enjoy reading your comments Cardew

So, are we wasting our time with all this ? or should we be focusing our energys elsewhere?
The earths resources remain finite so cutting back on our consumption remains an ethical position to take regardless of whether the planet is dying or not.

Maybe environmentalism has become something that an increasingly secular society can be evangelical about. And as much as some of us hate being preached at by religious groups, some of the environmental movement are guilty of the same dogmatism .
I probably need to be less dogmatic in my views - especially as it annoys my wife no end, being reminded to take the reusable bags to Tescos.

Cardew

banthecar wrote:

Maybe environmentalism has become something that an increasingly secular society can be evangelical about. And as much as some of us hate being preached at by religious groups, some of the environmental movement are guilty of the same dogmatism .

Love the quote above!!

I think some of the ridiculous ‘how can I recycle my toenail clippings’ brigade could be categorised as fanatical rather than evangelical.

While it remains harmless, it is nothing to get too concerned about; but these things have a habit of getting out of control with people resorting to ‘direct action’.

The respected, if conservative, RSPSA spawned the Animal Liberation Front with members who felt justified in sending letter bombs to humans engaged in medical research!!

Environmental lobby groups were well represented at the protests at various
G7/G8 meetings. Whilst the vast majority were there to peacefully protest, the anarchists jumped on the bandwagon and caused riots that have left hundreds of dead and injured and cost £000 millions of damage and in wasted resources to control crowds.

Would anyone bet against a ‘direct action’ group sabotaging a polluting power station or similar establishment?

And if Professor Lindzen is right and Al Gore wrong????

Volcano

Professor Lindzen is a meteorologist, not a climate scientist. I've worked on a lot of climate indication data with some of the top climate change scientists in the UK and once you see the rapid acceleration in global temperatures reflected in data from: ice cores, tree rings, isotopes, plant seeds and a mass of other palaeoclimatic indicators you can't help but think "there must be something to this......"

These scientists were always getting asked "what if it's all wrong? what if?" and the same answer would crop up: "If we are wrong and it's not happening, then the measures we are taking will be a waste of time. If we are right and don't take these measures, then it is likely we are heading toward a massive disaster".

But really the scientists I worked with couldn't give a toss about the politics, they were far too busy wrapped up in their work. Does make you think who takes their data and uses it to convince governments to change policies though?

kittiwoz

Even if global warming is treated only as an unproven theory it is still one worth acting on simply because the stakes are so high. It is worth investment now to avoid even the possibility or risk of catastrophic climate change in the future. The alternate option of waiting until the catastrophy occurs to prove the point one way or another is hardly appealing. Even if we did we would probably never really know whether our destruction was undeniably at our own hand or unrelated to human activity. But faced with this threat surely it is only sensible to take whatever action we can that may help avert it.

JasonLVC

The DVD is most certainly an interesting film and one I have recommended to many, regardless of whether they believe or not.

Looking at the other posts, I think it is a red-herring to go down the line of "are the scientists wrong or right". I think just using common sense, something scientists don't have, would suggest there was some sort of issue here with our environment - there are too many unexplained numbers.

Even if they had 100% categoric proof, with pictures, there would still be the disbelievers. Take smoking. We ALL know it causes cancers and will kill you and yet millions still smoke and the big companies that make the things still pretend they are doing a community service - despite the lawsuits.

Same with the gun lobby and their right to bare arm and kill folk, same with people having unprotected sex despite the risks of aids/other sexual diseases.

Read a book by Bill Bryson (A Short History of Everything) where he looks at scientific discoveries over the centuries and you'll read that scientists have always argued with each other - it's what they do to get their names into journals. It took 100's of years for scientists to accept that atoms existed and the poor guy who did discover them earlier was humiliated and ostracised by the community.

Basically, mankind isn't clever enough to believe the facts in front of him. It takes a vocal minority who merely believe with a passion (right or wrong) and the will of those people to push the agenda amongst governments across the world.

Cardew

JasonLVC wrote:

Basically, mankind isn't clever enough to believe the facts in front of him. It takes a vocal minority who merely believe with a passion (right or wrong) and the will of those people to push the agenda amongst governments across the world.

Not sure I understand the logic here. It would appear:

Mankind doesn't understand the facts because he is not clever enough.

However only the 'Vocal Minority' are clever enough to understand the facts?

So passion, regardless of it being 'right or wrong', is justification enough to push their agenda; and in a democratic society we must accept that they will get their way?

Well a tiny but 'vocal minority' of Muslims believe(right or wrong) that the whole world must convert to Islam; and they most certainly have shown that they are 'passionate' enough to push that adenda!!

So perhaps we better start brushing up on the Koran!

JasonLVC

Indeed that is my point.

The world and history is full of minorities who've changed the world. From Joan of Arc and The Suffragettes through to Gay Rights and Race Relations.

Always started by one person, then a group, then a torrent of acceptance. It's almost irrelevent whether we believe or accept the argument. We've no problem with women voting today but not back then. Society is still uneasy with gay/lesbians and muslim extremists are yesterdays IRA/political party. And look where SinnFein are today!.

Don't want to go down a political route. This is about posts here with argument and counter-argument against environmental warming. Even if it is just cyclical and nothing to do with 'us', the ice caps are still melting and so we should as a society do something, even if it is to acknowledge they are metling and do nothing else. But we can't even do that.

My post was merely to note that we demand evidence before accepting something and then still ignore it anyway!. Mankind as a whole isn't clever enough, it prefers to go with the flow like sheep. A small minority, who may equally be blind to the facts are vocal enough, driven by a passion to get the message across. Even the apostles themselves were merely a minority spouting off about something they believed in (God sent his son through a virginal birth only to let him be killed - what a story!!) and yet whole societies are built on this concept.

Back on topic, people can accept or disagree with environmental warming - whether the facts stack up or not but should be based on their own opinions, not that of a 'scientist' who always have their own agenda. Most scientists are funded to research things by big corporations. Rare to find them researching for their own benefit as it costs too damn much and there's no money/profit to justify it.

Jelicho_Kitsune

:T I've seen some of the facts myself, studying Environmental Sciences and Climate Change at the University of East Anglia (who have active forefront climate research units). I don't need to get into the arguement, since I know what's going on... shame that's not a consensus..!

Anyway, I'm now a Geography teacher and I'm taking my GCSE kids and gifted and talented pupils from other years to see this. I first saw it when it first came out in the USA and thought it was fantastic. It's an educational visit, where after the showing there will be researchers from the UEA Tyndall Centre (which is leading the UK research on climate change) who will take questions and debate with the students.

I'm so excited for them to see it! It'll be good in so many ways, but more importantly for them to make up their own minds and to challenge their ideas with the experts.

My gifted and talented Geography kids will also be planning and running a "sustainability week" at school once we've seen AIT. I've had many debates about using AIT as an educational tool.... some have told me "don't dare bring politics into the classroom"... *ahem" POLITICS? Well.. if it happens to turn out to be an attempt by Gore to reignite his political career... frankly... who cares...! The global warming message is the same!

Cardew

Let me see if I have understood this correctly.

You as their teacher “know what’s going on – and don’t need to get in an arguement(sic) ” so I rather get the impression that your opinions are fully formed?

You will take them to watch An Inconvenient Truth and then your “gifted and talented” pupils will “importantly - make up their own minds”

Mmmm – sounds like they will 'make up their own minds' after a frank and open debate with both sides of the argument presented without any form of bias!!

Run that by me again please.

P.S.
What happens to the less gifted and less talented pupils?