Don't Use AIT as a Broader Argument Against Global Warming
Stoat hits the nail on the head surrounding the broad topic of global warming and Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
...I'm going to give my opinion on what is the heart of the problem, and indeed with so much greenpeace-type stuff too: that the basic truth about GW is too boring to present to a mass audience and so people feel a need to sex it up. The bottom line, if you want to know whether its getting warmer, is to look at the temperature record. Which shows its getting warmer. There, are we done now? No of course not, too dull. So we need... The Snows of Kilimanjaro melting. Or charismatic megafauna drowning. Or whatever. Yes I know that a simple straightforward presentation of the IPCC SPM, which could be done in about the same time, would have audiences running away screaming. Its a problem.
But what would also be a problem would be if all the good guys felt obliged to get trapped into defending AIT to the death. I hope that doesn't happen (Myles Allen on R4 last night didn't). It should be clear that AIT is a partisan film, not a source for the science; for that we have the readily available IPCC (or wikipedia, if you want a readable summary). AIT is in some danger of becoming a cuckoo overshadowing what it is supposedly explaining. Skeptics can find it very convenient to attack the film, and thereby pretend they are attacking the basic science.
Just as global warming proponents shouldn't use AIT to defend their positions, global warming deniers shouldn't use it as a case (of many inaccuracies) that global warming is not being caused by humans hence it shouldn't be addressed.
My Groups
-
political Updated: 12 minutes ago
-
Freethinkers Updated: 12 minutes ago
-
Conservative Politics (host) Updated: 24 minutes ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
Agreed, but people having been using the main source (a book) as a anchor to argue against just about anything since the Bible. It seems to be the thought that if you can prove a book wrong, you can prove the whole theory wrong. It's just how we think. I also believe that any argument against AIT is a good thing. If there is no argument against it, then people aren't interested.
Last point AIT is easy for people to argue against:
1.because it's written for first graders: lots of pictures, few words.
2. because it means people have to change.
Truthfully, I am happy he got the Nobel Peace Prize. I believe he worked hard for it, and it is an issue that needs to be addressed globally. Besides, I like the fact that people seem to be paying attention. However short that is.
If I am correct in my assumption of populists they are exactly as you described
Populism, in it's true and quite rare form, actually is extensive review from both sides of any spectrum. Political or scientific, or anything else.
Are you referring to popular opoinion instead?
Because, in my opinion, thats a totally different conversation.
John
[1] And this is what frustrates the hell out of non-scientists. We don't care what your book says. If it isn't in the data, it isn't in the data.
Except that it’s just a model and models are not one and the same as the real thing. Then there is the problem of human interpretation, ego, personal agendas and mans’ desire to gain from his work and be noticed.
Understood. I agree that if the data isn't there then the thesis cannot be supported. But doesn't most science does begin with an idea, a thesis (or theory) before gathering data?
And yes I agree that AIT is not a very good book. period.
You're funny! But I understand where you are coming from, now that your definition of a populist is clear. To be honest, I have seen data both ways on the argument of global warming. It's difficult for me to look at research as unbiased because many times data can be interpreted in different ways. Where on person see's a trend another may disagree that the trend leads to the place that the first person believes it will. That being said, data doesn't lie, but tools sometimes do. And the way the tool is used to gather data makes a huge difference as well. That being said, the majority of the research that I have read on this topic points to global warming taking place. That does not mean ALL of the research, but most of it does. I am sure, though, that there is a ton more research out there that I have not had a chance to read yet. For this reason, I am not taking a position on this yet.What I do know, is that either it's happening or its not.
It has to be one or the other. AIT will never be the deciding factor on that...but it has raised interest, which hopefully means that people will inform themselves more on the topic...and make their own decision. In my opinion, (and maybe this makes me a populist) it's better for people to be informed, than not. If AIT sparked that, even if it's not written well, then it's done a good thing.
John
I like your style, John. Very very true.
Sorry for the grammar error :)
Please explain? I know who they both are and I disagree.
Al Gore and Michael Moore both covet power and influence for its own sake, are intellectually dishonest. They skew facts to make a point. They support an omnipotent government rule by the bureaucracy where honest disagreements cannot coexist and economic freedom is replaced with license.
OK. So I see you may be a republican? I have to still disagree with that statement. I see Michael Moore as not supporting any type of omnipotent government, I don't really agree that he would support onmipotent government period...and as for Al Gore, well, he has lived a pretty decent life as far as policians go. I think that just because someone who tries to influence politics feels passionately about an issue, does not mean that honest disagreements cannot coexist.
Now, you may be thinking I am a liberal, I am not. I did not like Clinton because he allowed genocide to take place in Rwanda, then landed his plane a few years after to meet with survivors, but never actually got out of the plane. But, I have liked Gore, simply becasue of the life he has led. I think he has good intentions.
I already know you will disagree with this. I don't see that as a bad thing. I actually think it's good to have different opinions....go figure.
It sounds like you don't like Clinton because you are a liberal?
Really? Well maybe I am and I just don't know it. :)
Is it liberal to think that people should act the same way towards the genocide of the jews as they should toward any other ethnicity? I think thats more a human view than a political one. What I believe is that all humans are created equal. I think that is a fundamental right all people are entitled to. That is neither liberal or conservative. It's a right that every human should have...the right to live and try to pursue happiness, in whatever way that individually makes them happy. Whether that be money and economic freedom, or just simply the freedom breathe without feeling like the person next to you, born ina different ethnicity is going to kill you. I don't think genocide was right when Hilter did it, AND I don't think it was right in Rwanda. Because all people are created equal, there is no difference. The children who died there, the people who died, were loved by someone in both cases. In either case, there could have been a mind, that solved a massive global issue, could have cured a disease, could have solved a scientific problem.
When it comes to just meeting with the small group whose whole ethnic race had almost completely been brutally exterminated, yes, I think he should have stepped out of the plane. There was no danger at the time, it was some time after the actual problem. It was the right thing to do in very basic terms.