More Global Warming Debate
So I'm reading Crichton's book and stumbled across this "Intelligence Squared" debate held on March 14, 2007. NPR has the unedited audio available HERE.
The motion is "Global Warming is NOT a crisis."
Here's the audience stats before/after:
Agree with Motion: 30% / 46%
Disagree with Motion: 56% / 42%
Undecided: 13% / 12%
Give it a listen.
- Get link
- Other Apps
Comments
Go to the Junk Science page http://www.junkscience.com, where there's a link to a viewable British Channel 4 documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" -- very well done. Plus they have another to a two-year-old Canadian documentary, "Doomsday Cancelled".
In addition Glenn Beck had people from both of these films and a couple more on Wednesday night's "Exposed: Climate of Fear" which was also worthwhile.
I enjoyed Crichton's book. A wild and improbable tale, as usual, but the underlying facts well researched ... again, as usual.
and of course while i'd much rather get my stats and assessments on the future of the planet from a pulp fiction writer VS, say, a globally united majority of world scientists... well that's just me.
what i really don't get is why conservatives so regularly swallow and publish the arguments of the global oil industry with so little interest in examining the conflict of interest.
World Threat #1, Oil says:
Sadaam, Jihad, WMD's - we must attack Iraq!
World Threat #2, Oil says:
Global Warming - It's all a dream of politically correct environmentalists... look, matt drudge and michael crichton and a british doc producer who took far too many interviews out of context all say so. and if you're a scientist i'll give you 5K to say so as well!
a wild and improbable tale indeed.
How did the proponents of the motion win if they are so readily and easily debunked? Perhaps you should have been on the "against" team to assist them?
It's not about "a pulp fiction writer VS, say, a globally united majority of world scientists"...or even "a pulp fiction writer vs. a former presidential candidate." I want to know more about what the globally united minority of scientists are saying.
I believe there are valid scientific questions that need to be asked and answered before we go charging down the unfathomably expensive road of legislation. It's going to be interesting to see what our electricity bills are next winter (or the winters to follow) here in WA. Who's going to help the poor people keep their houses warm? More wood burning anyone?
The money argument flows BOTH directions, and I could - from experience (I live on government grants to scientific research) - argue that the pro ACC side is more fiscally influenced, so the pro-ACC people really shouldn't wield that double edged sword. Or throw stones living in a glass house.
The question is: are we going to keep our heads open to arguments from both sides?
Did you see the blog debate I posted earlier? It's very good and I intend to keep on following it. I do tend to believe that their are actually proponents of both sides who are NOT stooges to the oil companies or pot smoking tree huggers.
For now, call me an Anthropogenic Global Warming agnostic...willing to be swayed either direction. At least I think so.
What facts are in question?
Or a better question to ask might be, by whom were you instructed to believe this?
The only arguments against the skeptics I ever see is "Oh, it's just big oil", or "Bush Lied! No Blood for Oil!"
They never argue the science, only the alleged motives.
When the facts are on your side, you argue the science. When they are not, you resort to attacking the messenger.
Watch how AGW believers argue against the skeptics. They pretty much don't. They just call them names and attempt to impugn their motives.
I was a skeptic long before Crichton came along with his book. I have a degree in atmospheric science, I don't aquire my opinions from novelists or from politicians like Al Gore. I just enjoyed the book. I can assure you that Crichton did not make this stuff up. He's extremely well educated and is well known for doing his homework thoroughly.
The wild tale bit of the novel involved what the enviro-nazis cooked up to convince us all that impending doom was upon us, not the science itself.
Ask this guy if the british producer took him out of context: Dr. Richart Lindzen. Or Dr. John Christy. Both former IPCC lead authors. Both firmly in the skeptic camp.
Looks like "anonymous" is living in the simple world where it's big bad oil against the trees and butterflies and children with flowers.
The rest of us live in the one where the IPCC is a political body with self-interest in perpetuating itself by attempting to stay relevant... and funded.
...like that whole tomb thing, huh? That guy's research is immaculate.