An inconvinient truth - your thoughts?

[Mr. Tony Weckström]

Hey.

I just watched ex-vice president Al Gore's documentary on global warming, and it seemed quite scaring, in an eye-opening way.

What do YOU think about global warming?

I for one, changed my electrical contract directly to a 'green' alternative.

[Xhorxh Asmour]

I think global warming is an iminent threat and we have to do something about it right away.
China, the US, Brazil and other developed and developing countries are responsible for most of the pollution in the world, and they unfortunately don't seem to give a damn.

[Tric'hard Dïeulofaçeva]

I agree with you guys except for one thing.

You say that China doesn't care about pollution. This is somewhat unfair, mainly because China is enormous and is growing rapidly. This drastic growth will cause further emissions because more populous means more emissions, especially at their growth rate. But compared to the percentage of pollution and waste we in the US dump they have quite a constrained pollution level and they indeed do care, as we have seen they are cleaning their cities, most notably Beijing. Overall the US is the real polluter in the world because we have about 300k people and yet we dump more pollution than anyone else in the world.

[Brad Holmes]

Global warming is a hoax.

It's pretty arrogant to think that man can influence, change, or disrupt something as massive and complex as the climate. I'm not saying people don't leave their mark. We're good at killing tasty animals and chopping things down. But in the same breath, the surrounding ecosystems adapt and the world continues to spin.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

It seems pretty clear global warming is occurring. There are a number of dissenters, but the sad fact is that with places like the American Enterprise Institute offering $10,000 to anyone who dissents, there are bound to be. This is not to say that there aren't some legitimate dissenters, but I am not a climatologist, and so I am forced to side with the consensus. Every scientific organization except the American Association of Petroleum Scientists has come down in support of the IPCC, including the Academies of Science in every G8 nation.

With all respect to S:reu Holmes, man has been changing the world in steadily increasing ways throughout history. We wiped out species as a prelude, then chopped up the sod of the Midwest to make a Dust Bowl. Then we increased the global radiation levels by tenfold in the wake of nuclear testing. This is just the next step.

[Chirisch Daviescu]

Look, its pretty harsh to say that china and india dont give a damn. We have to look at it from their perspective. Their governments are resposible for the health and prosperity of a billion plus people each, and only recently have they begun to make serious improvements in the welfare of their populations, and catch up to the west. now, countries that have been prosperous (and stuffing the environment up) for 150 plus years are coming and telling them to possibly depress their economies and harm their people to clean up a largley western mess. now im not saying they shouldnt do it, im just saying we shouldnt only look at it from our own perspectives.

[txaglh]

thebrad said:

Global warming is a hoax.

It's pretty arrogant to think that man can influence, change, or disrupt something as massive and complex as the climate. I'm not saying people don't leave their mark. We're good at killing tasty animals and chopping things down. But in the same breath, the surrounding ecosystems adapt and the world continues to spin.

our esteemed mr. president, ie. of Czech Republic, would agree with you.

on the other side, common reason is often (if not perfectly) misleading in natural science. you can pretty have a chill during global warming, cos the word global means that average temperature all over the world rises, but locally, the changes might be different.

of course, it is very bold to think we may change a weather (or anything similarly huuuuge), but as the effect of "butterfly wing wave" seems to be quite well working principle, even a small change may cause unbelievably wide range of consequences. it is exatly the place where common sense is senseless. talk to any one dealing with chaotic determinism. even me, poor chemist, knows many non-equilibrium thermodynamics effects, which simply look unbelievable if you do not understand the "hard-sci" background.

it is not easy to say if we are really responsible for the global warming (which phenomenon is a fact), but even we are not, should not we be responsible just for sake of our own if not because of our children? living on a debt paid by those who will come is easy, but far from responsible.

[Catrina Þestra]

I'm inclined to agree with you, Ián Txaglh. Even if global warming were not caused by us (note the second conditional, I'm not saying it was), future generations shouldn't have to suffer under it, regardless of who or what is to blame for it.

On the other hand, it can scarcely be stopped immediately and future generations shall probably suffer under it anyway.

[Trotxâ]

agbdavis said:

It seems pretty clear global warming is occurring.

S:reu Davis -

Indeed. Analyzes of MSU and AMSU tropospheric temperature data shown some degree of warming, ranging from about 0.4 C /century to 1.2 C /century. The current "best" trend from the Spencer and Christy analysis is the MSU2LT data, a combination of MSU and AMSU data, that shows a 0.74 C/century trend. The real question is "Is the warming anthropogenic (caused by humans)?"

Given that warmer temperatures have been measured both on Earth, on Mars^* and on Neptune^*, the possibility that Earth is in an anthropogenic warming cycle seems a bit unlikely. It's not like the Viking landers have been throwing off a lot of the worst greenhouse gas (water).

As for S:reu Gore, as you know, he is a politician. That means that much of what he says should be taken with a grain of salt. None of his pronouncements have been through the peer review process critical to establishing scientific fact. Gore is not a scientist, nor is he a climatologist, nor is he a meteorologist. He is a politician. Don't feel too bad if you've been compromised by his efforts.


Personally, I prefer to have scientists doing science, and politicians doing politics, and NOT visa versa. The big problem with the "Global Warming" controversy is that it has substituted politics for process and faith for science.

Sir T.

* Footnotes:
1. "Look to Mars for the truth on global warming" by Lawrence Solomon; for The National Post.
2. "Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report" by James M. Taylor; for the Heartland Institute.
3. "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming" by Kate Ravilious for National Geographic.
4. "Global Warming on Triton'' by Elliot, Hammel, Wasserman, Franz, McDonald, Person, Olkin, Dunham, Spencer, Stansberry, Buie, Pasachoff, Babcock, and McConnochie; for Nature

[Chirisch Daviescu]

Its very possible that we may be getting ahead of ourselves in regards to global warming. however, the fact is that whatever changes that are happening, they will plausibly be of significant danger to the human race. Even if its a natural process, i would still want to look for a way to stop it, as prior cycles of earth evolution have not included unpredictable elements like the technology that we have spread all throughoput the planet, so therefore any change could have serious and unknown consequences.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

If global warming *is* a natural process, we should be very cautious before we *assume* that reversing such a natural process would be a good thing, and try to *intentionally* alter the planet's climate. The potential for unintended consequences from such an initiative would be huge. Would it have been a good thing for Renaissance Europe (had they the ability) to stop the current warming trend when it began - at the end of the Little Ice Age?

[Tric'hard Dïeulofaçeva]

Well that's the whole point, if it's natural then there would be less inclination to implement measures while if indeed it was humanity then it would be to the best interest of the world to do something. If you look data on climate change you can plainly see the gas levels (not only of CO2) today are much higher than the breaking point at which the climate trend peaks at.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

clemente said:

Given that warmer temperatures have been measured both on Earth, on Mars^* and on Neptune^*, the possibility that Earth is in an anthropogenic warming cycle seems a bit unlikely. It's not like the Viking landers have been throwing off a lot of the worst greenhouse gas (water).

I am familiar with the research you are indicating. While it was immediately broadcast, fewer people broadcast the conclusion stated not only extensively in their paper, but even in the abstract: statistically speaking, the solar cycle cannot possibly be the explanation for earth's warming. It's simply not potent enough.

I pay little attention to Gore. I was campaigning on behalf of anti-warming efforts some years before it was "cool," since I've always been a science nerd.

clemente said:

Personally, I prefer to have scientists doing science, and politicians doing politics, and NOT visa versa. The big problem with the "Global Warming" controversy is that it has substituted politics for process and faith for science.

I would actually say the opposite. Every scientific organization of repute on the globe has come down in support of the IPCC, except for the American Association of Petroleum Scientists (gee, shucks). This is in interesting contrast to the other side of the aisle, where such groups as the American Enterprise Institute have offered $10,000 to fund any research against global warming. One amused scientist noted it was the first time he had ever been told what his results would be.

[txaglh]

agbdavis said:

clemente said:

Personally, I prefer to have scientists doing science, and politicians doing politics, and NOT visa versa. The big problem with the "Global Warming" controversy is that it has substituted politics for process and faith for science.

I would actually say the opposite. Every scientific organization of repute on the globe has come down in support of the IPCC, except for the American Association of Petroleum Scientists (gee, shucks). This is in interesting contrast to the other side of the aisle, where such groups as the American Enterprise Institute have offered $10,000 to fund any research against global warming. One amused scientist noted it was the first time he had ever been told what his results would be.

this is quite remarkable note. although one should not try too hard to be profi in what he is an enthusiastic amateur, cross-breeding of knowledge branches is welcome. well, it must be done seriously, not in a way politicians do such jobs. i would agree, never let scientist run a community, but never let politician to speak into science both bring sour fruits.

[Chirisch Daviescu]

Hey, I reckon we should all by properties in the middle of Greenland, cause at the moment, given its ice cube status, it should be cheap. Then we all wait until we're seventy, then sell it all off as perfect, beachfront property. Not the fastest way to become millionaires, but hey, least its a sure thing