Global Warming & the power of genuine debate!A New York audience invited to a debate on whether global warming amounted to a crisis voted 57.3% to 29.9% that it was a crisis BEFORE the debate took place. But, AFTER hearing the open debate between 3 sceptics and 3 alarmists, they flipped their decision 46.22% to 42.22% finding that GW is NOT a global crisis issue.What was witnessed at the Asia Society debate forum this week was a microcosm of the power of genuine debate when the playing field for both sides is levelled with only science facts and reasoned argumentation at their disposal. For more details, including the audience cheering when Michael Crichton called for ALL private jets to be scrapped - the alarmist organizations are headed by some of the worst private jet flying polluters - and for environmentalists to actually practice themselves what they preach others should do. They don't of course - they buy 'moral' carbon offsets instead. Al Gore's home is among the worst CO2 producing homes on the planet. Go here for more.Good Guys 1 Evil Eco-Empire 0.
Peter C Glover's WIRES - Peter C Glover's WIRES - Global Warming & the power of genuine debate!
"Good Guys 1 Evil Eco-Empire 0."I suppose this is an example of "genuine debate"?I saw some "genuine debate" on the news after that Great Global Warming Swindle programme was aired, too. It seems like the only person the sceptic lobby could find to represent them on the news was someone who had to apologise throughout that climatology wasn't even his field. He couldn't even mount a single argument against the evidence - his only argument being that there should be some debate, which he seemed nonetheless unable to provide. Fine - ask questions, but ask questions about both sides, because there's a lot at stake. And, if we assume for a moment that there is no connection between human activity and global warming, what will we lose by being cautious and doing something that should be done anyway - IE decreasing human pollution and destruction?
ReplyDeleteI think you've missed the point about all this. Everyone is scared of global warming, believing it is real and "we are all doomed". The fact is that not all scientists, including climatologists, even believe that global warming is caused by humans.Heck there is even a technical article referenced on "The Reference Frame" blog (sorry I don't have a URL handy) that demonstrates fairly conclusively that the concept of an average global temperature (which is often quoted by people) is totally misleading- apart from the fact that we can choose an infinite number of "averages" and some have gone up while others have gone down over the last couple of decades! There are other reasons why it is a meaningless idea including:* temperature as a concept is a term that is unrelated to energy flows in itself... it's a non-thermodynamic quantity* the number of sampling points around the world has HALVED over the last thirty years* What does it mean to average temperatures between Antarctica and the Sahara?* When a change in a quantity is small compared with the range of the quantity then the change is statistically meaningless.What will we lose by taking precautions? You and I will probably suffer a small reduction in standard of living due to economic stagnation caused by an unnecessary intervention in the market by the global alarmists. My friends in Asia will be doomed to another generation of poverty caused by being denied the benefits of cheap energy in the drive to industrialisation, and many millions of people will die from poverty induced diseases such as cholera, malaria etc. And of course the environment will suffer because they will not have the resources necessary to protect forests etc.There is a growing scientific concensus that global warming will stop in the next 20 years and a cooling period will commence- caused not by carbon dioxide but by slightly decreasing solar activity.Then the global doomists will be urgning us to burn more coal to put more CO@ into the air to save the planet!
ReplyDeleteI suppose I'm rather sceptical myself about the benefits of industrialisation. The fact remains that industrialisation, coupled with consumerism, is predicated on the continued use of limited resources, and it's not just climate that's an issue.http://www.well.com/user/davidu/extinction.htmlThere's a lot of other sutff going on giving evidence of our impact on the environment. I would personally be very relieved if global warming turns out to be a brief abberation with purely solar causes, and I am interested in both sides of the 'argument'. Unfortunately, most of the time it seems to be exactly that - an argument. I suppose that's human nature, especially when people are panicking. While it's true there are some scientists who are sceptical, many of these have financial links with oil companies such as Exxon, and even taken together they are a small minority. That's not to say a minority is necessarily wrong, but if we listen to the minority, why not listen to the majority, too? In terms of poor countries suffering - I have heard this before. I'm not quite sure what to make of this. I think the best course to take would be the development of eco-friendly technologies, since at this stage in history it seems pretty much impossible to go 'back to nature'. Besides which, environmentalists would point out that it is also the poor countries who suffer most from the effects of climate change - the result of the rich countries' disproportionate emissions. But it's quite possible that we will simply be faced with the 'unfair' fact that averting, or limiting, disaster will be a matter of limiting development, that the entire human way of life as developed since the Industrial Revolution, is not viable. In the end, we might not even be left the choice of whether to change our way of life; the choice may be made for us. I'd have thought that, rather than arguing that a phenomenon simply doesn't exist, if it's possible that it will have such far-reaching consequences, it is best to make the cautious assumption that something is happening and continue to investigate and take what action can be taken.
ReplyDelete