this video demonstrates communication and truth, American style. First, it will not happen often, for it moves too slowly for American viewers.
Second, it is truth by consensus. In this panel, you have one, count 'em, one climate scientist. There is a popular science entertainer, Bil Nye, and two commentators who are not scientists at all. no one watching this can come away with an honest conclusion about anything discussed.
and yet, it is good enough for the masses. We are a vulnerable people. We are easily manipulated.
When it comes to the global warming debate, the issue to watch out for is policy, for we are not talking about facts and science anymore. We are talking about global government and global economics.
On this issue, I am leaning to listening more and more to the dissenters who are be being slandered and attacked. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! The greatest Oz has spoken." That sounds like the voice of the establishment on this issue. It is time to question the establishment. We must in order to get to the truth. If they are right, the establishment, that is, it will be provable. But so far, the main arguments I hear, even from Bill Nye, are, "What? You don't believe it? Are you crazy?"
No, I don't blindly believe the media and political establishment. Faith in the authority of these people is not enough for me. Let's do real science again, one that has provable results. let's explain it and not attack dissidents, but listen to them, and explain point by point why they are right or wrong.
Putting Bill Nye, who is not a climate scientist, against Lindzen, who has studied nothing but the earth temps for long before the time this became a political football --this tact will work with the masses in America, because, frankly, they don't care. Americans, in general, are distracted by entertainment and self-indulgence. They are content to trust the government to handle this issue. I am not.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Larry King: Bill Nye vs. Richard Lindzen
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Blah blah blah... I burnt two more tires to speed up spring :)
Andy, I see the humor in your comment and know you meant it for such.
However, for the record, burning rubber tires does put a polutant into the air --a number of them in fact. Whereas CO2 is, of itself, not a polutant.
In general, one of the problems with rubber and plastic is that to burn it is to polute the air, but it does not decompose well, nor quickly. "Plastic is forever" the saying goes. Not exactly true, but close. I admit, I do think we'd all be better off if soda was in glass bottles, which is made of sand and not at all harmful to humans chemically (it can cut you, though).
I also prefer wood to plastic in theory.
That said, plastic is everywhere, cheap to produce, and here to stay. I am not against it's existance. I like it. The science of dealing with waste is good science, in my mind.
It is good to know that many landfills are now golf-courses.
I don't think you should burn rubber. It's nasty.
But, I guess I'm a bit of a hypocrite. We burn our trash out here, and I don't take out ever piece of plastic before I burn. too much work.
well, I guess I was rambling.
While I do not subscribe to the global warming crisis, I read somewhere that by building just four new Nuclear Power Plants in the US, we'd cut Greenhouse Emissions by 60%.
But because of the mass hysteria of using "safe" Nuclear Power it'll never happen.
"But because of the mass hysteria of using "safe" Nuclear Power it'll never happen."
What mass hysteria are you referring too?
I agree that we moved to far away from Nuclear Power after Three Mile Island, but I don't see mass hysteria.
"Whereas CO2 is, of itself, not a polutant."
True, but too much CO2 in the atmosphere has consequences that could be dire.
On the flip side of having Bill Nye defending global warming concerns, I have seen FOX "news" trot out Tom Clancy to suggest global warming is a facade.
I agree that we should listen to scientists. Most of which see man made pollutants as the primary cause of global warming. They also see global warming as a threat to humanity. These are peer reviewed scientific studies.
Passafist, I agree that nuclear power is a good solution. Unfortunately, most people agree, but "not in my backyard."
Wizard, true enough with the comment on Foxnews. This isn't a right vs. left comment I am making. My point is that Americans in general are easily manipulated because they don't want to think through the process. There will always be a minority of whom this is not true. the youtube video is just one exhibit of this reality, not the argument itself. Such a presentation is normal for CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC, etc. I will say that the News Hour on PBS does the best job of them all with at least giving the experts they bring on time to talk.
Grey,
30 years ago the earth was cooling at an alarming rate. 20 years ago we were going to be wiped out by acid rain.
True Global Warming may occur, but the question becomes, can we do anything about it? They're are many scientist that see these changes as "Natural" and without a human factor.
I'm just tired of hearing that a mild winter is cause and big example of Global Warming, while the Global Warming conference is cancelled because of snow.
Publish the proof and then I"ll believe it.
Pass
No one is pointing to the mild winter as evidence. They are pointing to serious changes in our environment.
What would you consider "proof"? There are countless studies, white papers, and documentaries out now.
If you wish to dismiss it, that is your option. But why oppose others who want to help prevent it?
"If you wish to dismiss it, that is your option. But why oppose others who want to help prevent it?"
GW, because it affects me. I may have given the wrong impression with my first comment (and Mike got it as the dark humor it was intended to be). I am aware of the pollution problems. Anyone who has driven down from San Bernardino into LA knows there's a major problem with air quality in places of the country. But if one kid eats glue, should glue be removed from all the schools nationwide?
Let me start by saying, Wizard it's nice to have you back. This everybody agreeing with each other gets boring.
I am not a huge proponent of the Global Warming trend, having spent the first half of my life hearing about the coming "Little Ice Age". I believe that the planet has it's cooling and warming trends, and there is as much science against global warming as there is for it, one just gets more money and publicity than the other. It seems that politics are trying to get science to verify a predetermined outcome. ("This is what we want you to prove.")
That being said, with the knowledge that I could be wrong, I do believe that we have to do what we can, where we can, realizing that it may only be a drop in the bucket. It is naive to think that treating the planet like a trash bin will do no harm. That commercial with the crying indian guy had its effect on me.
Andy,
Your analogy about children and glue falls a bit short.
Environmental regulations don't amount to taking anything away from you. We are responsible to some degree for global warming. And we certainly all have a lot at stake. No exceptions there.
Aside from that, taking a dismissive approach to global warming is irresponsible.
Andy, what exactly do you think people concerned about Global Warming want to take away from you? What is your "glue" you are concerned about.
FYI, the cities that have voluntarily adobted the Kyoto Accord regulations are doing quiet well.
What I am really trying to figure out is why some folks are so anti-global warming science. With evolution vs. creation, I can at least see the religious implications. I don't see that here.
One example is R-12 refrigerant. R-134 requires more energy, and is much less effective than R-12. Another is lowering sulfur content in diesel fuel, which drives the cost of the fuel up, as well as increasing engine manufacturing expenses which is passed on to the consumer. You could argue that these are environmental issues, not related to greenhouse gases, but it's all tied together in our government. Ask a contractor about the new laws on certain paints and varnishes that limit sales to 1 quart containers and completely banishes some products.
People are dying because of environmental regulations. The science behind the global warming scare is questionable at best, criminal in all likelihood. We can see by their own lifestyles that the most vocal proponents of demanding everyone else change their lifestyles for the sake of the environment don't really believe it, and the real agenda driving the whole thing is the desire for absolute political power. And if there were a real problem, the last ones I would want to solve it would be bureaucrats.
Julie said
"and there is as much science against global warming as there is for it, one just gets more money and publicity than the other"
that is actually not accurate. the scientific community overwhelmingly supports global warming theory, with a minority voicing dissenting opinions. The fact is the minority is getting a skewed amount of publicity.
Jim C. said
"The science behind the global warming scare is questionable at best, criminal in all likelihood."
Not really Jim. Its not really questioned much, except by the right wing in the US. Most of the world has signed on.
The real criminal behavior is people pushing reports and stuidies trying to discredit global warming science in an effort to protect their own financial interst.
Dubious at best? Sorry, just not true. Dubious is denying a reality staring us right in the face.
It's become very fashionable lately to "cherry pick" information and take a stand based on that limited set of data.
Great discussion everyone.
GW, it's funny that we so often see some things from completely opposite sides, even though we are looking at the same animal! :)
"the scientific community overwhelmingly supports global warming theory, with a minority voicing dissenting opinions. The fact is the minority is getting a skewed amount of publicity."
my perception is that the publicity is skewed away from the minority and in favor of the global warming line. Interesting.
Anyway, the thing that gives me most pause is the policy implications. There are some great scientists, more and more of them as I dug in, who say that a. the cause of global warming is not at all proven and b. we are not even sure the warming isn't just a natural cycle.
and yet there are politicals and government leaders who want to take this incomplete picture and force drastic economic and liberty-inhibity policies down the throat of the whole world. I truly believe there is a great need for caution here. we, the public of the world, are very vulnerable to the official disseminators of information. enough scientists are pointing out the political influence they are feeling to make me say, "Wait. Let's slow this thing down."
The main argument I hear from the media is "All scientists believe this, so you should to." What I hear from the dissenters is, "Let's look at the facts." What I hear from the critics of the dissenters sounds like paranoid conspiracy about backroom deals and payoffs. Yet the money pouring into the policy-police oriented global warming crowd is like an ocean of cash.
Just my observations as I have waded in.
I'll keep listening and learning.
Mike
First of all, you must trademark the term "liberty inhibity". It has a chance to catch on.
Aside from whether or not you subscribe to global warming theory, you can not say that the scientific community is "split" on the issue. Its not 50/50, or 60/40, its 99/minority fringe.
The minority fringe is getting way more publicity than warranted. They areent using peer reveiwed studies, they are just poking holes in another theory.
Yes, it is possible that global warming isnt being caused by man. Its also possible that if I get drunk and drive home, I wont cause an accident.
I am still unclear on what liberties are being trampled in the effort to curb global warming. There can be discourse about how the changes are implemented.
We used to be a great nation of achievers. Can't we solve the potential problem rather than ignore it and hope it goes away?
liberty inhibity was a typo, but you may be on to something!
I see your point regarding solving problems, and I agree with that. I want clean air, clean water, and a healthy land to live on.
I guess I'm just very suspicious on this for many reasons, which, out of laziness, I'm not going to articulate right now.
One thing to consider though: I don't know how big my carbon-footprint is, but I know I can lay down a pretty big "methane" footprint if I put my mind to it!
More renegade minorities:
this story from UPI
"Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth
COPENHAGEN, Denmark, March 15 (UPI) -- A Danish scientist said the idea of a "global temperature" and global warming is more political than scientific.
University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen has analyzed the topic in collaboration with Canadian Professors Christopher Essex from the University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph.
It is generally assumed the Earth's atmosphere and oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years because of an upward trend in the so-called global temperature, which is the result of complex calculations and averaging of air temperature measurements taken around the world.
"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth," said Andresen, an expert on thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".
He says the currently used method of determining the global temperature -- and any conclusion drawn from it -- is more political than scientific.
The argument is presented in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics."
Try and focus on peer reviewed studies and research, not sensational comments in the media and staged events.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Specifically the paragraph that reads:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
If its something you are really interested in, I cam compile as much research as I can on the topic -- peer reviewed -- regardless of its conclusions, and provide them. It will probably take a few days to a week.
I am not trying to be confrontation here, must informative.
Finding someone with any point of view, regardless of topic, is possible. Heck, Marge Schott (former Reds owner) once commented on how the Nazis were misunderstood.
Lets at least keep to the science.
Just out of curiousity, have any of you seen "The Inconvenient Truth"?
not a global warming story per se, but on topic in general.
this is the kind of American innovation that can solve our problems.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070315/ts_csm/chydro
GW
It might be that we can come close on many points in agreeing on environmental issues, but we may never meet completely.
That said, I'd like to say three things to you personally.
1. I too agree that science and peer review matter. I believe that the "majority" side is ignoring peer review more than the "minority." I know we don't agree, and I don't know how much farther we want to pursue that.
2. I think, perhaps for philosophical reasons, perhaps perceptions reasons, perhaps experiential reasons, we seem to each be suspicious of groups of people the other more naturally trusts, and vice-versa. No need to try change that necessarily, but noticing it helps me to look below the surface of what we are talking about and thinking a little deeper.
3. I want to ask your forgiveness for the times my style of arguing points has been too agressive. You know my affection for you doesn't always match my style of discussion. I can be very war-like when it comes to debating facts and ideas.
I thank you for being my friend and brother all these years, and I appreciate your willingness to keep pushing forward in frienship.
After spending the morning underneath my wife's car chipping away ice, I no longer believe global warming is a threat.
I would settle for car warming at this ppint.
GW, :)
There's a reason why Florida and Arizona are filling up!
Post a Comment