danickstr wrote on Sat, 27 January 2007 01:16 |
Socrates, just out of curiosity, did you see the film? I am guessing no because if you see the film you would have a bit better of a grasp of the severity of the situation.
I am a cynic and sceptic about alarmist crap, but this is actual weather, not even science, really. The CO2 changes the weather, and it is just that simple. IF Greenland melting seems like religious fundamentalism, well then I'll see you in Waco, pass me the Kool-aid.
|
I will not be seeing the film--I understand that it is quite persuasive if one is not familiar with atmospheric science. I get my information from written sources and have been following this story for years and my dad pointed out the global cooling alarmism. I also spent some time at a party chatting with a geologist who was familiar with the body of weather knowledge revealed in ice core samples which revealed wide swings in average temp over the centuries, but also relatively rapid increases and declines.
Also, I seem to recall that co2 levels were higher in the 1950s and have declined somewhat since then but rising again. The primary determinant of our weather is the sun, and its activity varies somewhat in ways we have no way of understanding. The fact that most people don't realize that is a sad commmentary on the state of our educational and media institutions.
I think I have been too confrontational on this, and I can't blame people for believing what they are told hundereds of times a year from the media, and in a politician's movie. If one wants to get other sides to the story, the internet has many sources. To be fair, the fundamentalism applies to those who refuse to consider all sides of the story. The media is pushing this story so hard, a person would have to be extremely sceptical of the media's agenda to not have a concern arising from thoughtful and responsible motives.
I debated this quite a bit on the marsh, and don't think I convinced a single person of anything they didn't already believe, so I will leave it at this post rather than offending everyone here over a relatively academic point.
As I write this, I am recalling that there has been unprecedented snow in las vegas and texas, and unusually cold temps in southern california. Every time it is unusually hot, the media touts it as proof of man-induced global warming, but when it is unusually cold that just 'proves' the other prong of the argument: "Climate Extremes."
Also, it ought to go without saying that the weather changes differently on different parts of the earth. One can focus on one spot melting and neglect to mention another spot that is freezing.
I am not saying that I know c02 is not causing warming of some sort. what I am saying is we don't have sufficient scientific certainty of this--certainly not anything to lead to the unbridled speculation of dire consequences in the future. Sure, there appear to be tens of thousands of scientists who are pushing this, and some of them are meterologists, but there are plenty who have contrary views, and they are getting zero air-time. Also, the degree to which vast numbers of scientists are dependent on government grants and tailor their public activies to ensure a stream of income is never reported in the media. Hell, we all have to make a living right? Anyone get a big raise going against the company line?
Will the earth get warmer? It certainly could. It could get colder too. The core samples show that the earth's temps can vary a lot from century to century. Will things melt? Maybe. Did burning fossil fuels make things warmer? Maybe. Now for the tough question: What realistically can be done about it?
Stop heating our houses in the winter, no more electricity, no more driving cars? Reduce the human population to 1900 levels and start wearing bear-skins and living off the land? Force developing countries to stop developing?
Now, I do like the idea of reducing fossil fuel consumption for other reasons. Fossil fuel use contributes to our national trade deficit, it ties us to the unstable politics of the middle east, and it causes pollution. I am against these things.
Like I said before, I really don't like it when journalists feel their mission is 'making a difference' through selective reporting to promote an ideology. I see science as a quest for the truth regarding physical things, and journalism as a quest to inform and educate. Both of these conceptions are hoplessly naive, but they are ideals I use to measure the real world.
As far as greenland--it was melted when the vikings saw it, hence the name.