I find this Article and accompanying cited references interesting to say the least.
So the evidence points to some form of global warming. We just don't know if this is unnatural or how severe a problem this is. If it is true that back in the 1200's the world was maybe 1C hotter, then that bodes wells for us. It means that we are not close to some "greenhouse cliff" that will cascade into serious disaster and we still have time to figure out what is going on.
Whatever the reality, clean air is still good, and we are gonna run out of oil at some point.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Global Warming?!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think the truth is finally starting to be understood by more people on global climate change. Yet we still have the majority of people on the two extremes: Global warming is an imminent threat to us all, or global warming doesn't exist. The fact is, it's somewhere in the middle. Yes, there has been a slight warming trend, no we do not know what for sure is causing it. I definitely agree with you on being conscious of what we're putting into the air for health and economical reasons though!
When we let politics and the media inform us of scientific problems, we are all bound to lose. Various pesticides have been outlawed long after they were proven safe by the scientific community due to media attention and political pressure, costing us millions of dollars. We must keep a clear head and look at all sides of a scientific issue.
If you haven't read State of Fear by Michael Crichton it's a good book both for it's plot and it's well researched thoughts on global warming. Yes, it contains Crichton's bias, but he always does a good job at laying out his research and both sides of an issue. I highly recommend it.
I think we are eating our own atmosphere and that is why things are warming up. Not as much ozone to protect us.
If you're going to read a Chrichton novel (ie, fiction) and recommend it as a vehicle for learning about climate change, then you have to read or see "An Inconvenient Truth" (non-fiction, ie, actual science) as well. Whether or not you think Al Gore is a liberal hack or extremist tree-hugger, he does quite a job of laying out the facts.
Or, to paraphrase Karl Rove: Crichton is entitled to his facts, Gore is entitled to the facts.
Actually, I was about to compare Crichton to An Inconvenient Truth. One researches the facts and extrapolates and presents them in a well annotated in a fictional hypothetical setting, and another researches the facts and extrapolates and presents them in a hypothetical future. Oh wait, that's incredibly similar. Crichton is just as entitled to his extrapolation as Gore is, and they are both well-researched on the subject, which is easy to tell by viewing An Inconvenient Truth or reading State of Fear, especially the author's essay on the research he did. I don't think either of them would admit being able to predict the future, and it's good to be well-informed on all sides of a subject.
As I said before, I'm much more comfortable devoting money, time, and effort towards reducing very real health issues due to pollution from fuel consumption and reducing our economy's dependence on foreign countries than I am on spending that money on an idea based on extrapolation of current trends and computer models, especially in such politicized and media-hyped areas of science. As a side benefit, focusing on our health and economy also reduces many of the same things those models puts forth.
I don't champion one side or the other of the global warming debate, my problem is that sides even exist. This is a scientific issue, not a political debate, and the fact that scientist have analyzed the same data and come up with different results seems to be ignored as the media tries to pit it as a battle between politics and science. Kind of like the way they try and pit science against God. Things don't have to always be a battle, they can be reconcilable, and we should try and look at them as such. A whole lot more gets accomplished that way.
You're right, there aren't really two sides of this. When 90% of scientists believe one thing, and 10% believe the opposite, I think you can safely call that "consensus."
That said, yes, there are other reasons to drive less, use less electricity, consume fewer products, etc. So good for you.
I'm part of a group of local moms who are working in our own small ways to fight global warming. We put out a monthly email with tips on little actions you can take to lower your impact. We're called "Cool Families." Check it out on my blog!
Post a Comment