LuckyWillIs Global Warming the next Y2K bug?
May 27th 2007 11:37
Reading the Sunday paper today I was shocked to learn about a documentary that not only opposes Al Gores famous An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) but tries to wholeheartedly refute it. It's called The Great Global Warming Swindle (TGGWS) and likely has as many staunch partisan supporters from the other end of the spectrum as does AIT.
Now, I'm no scientist (though have spent time in a lab for academic research on rats) but clearly I'm just caught up in the massive groundswell that has become a major issue quite recently. I've seen the photos of pre-existing waterfalls, rainforests and the statistics on an incline of termperature and all the rest Gore has to offer - but what I can't say is that this has been caused from a single, direct result of environmental pollution that humans are causing and nothing else besides. Consequently from his argument, I'm taking his words as an authority to which seem reasonable enough and also quite believable to an extent.
However, if I was stopped in the street to speak on the issue all I could give was a circular argument. Being that, pollution is changing the globe at a rapid rate, pollution is bad, there's an influx of things either going missing or being outright destroyed and this is because of pollution. Therefore, pollution which is bad is changing the globe due to the detrimental things that are happening. I'm really only re-stating the premise to offer as a conclusion. What do I know for certain that isn't expressed by people (admittedly scientists) that haven't already been vouched for?
This documentary (probably much maligned like that of AIT) forces a heavy-heanded approach to the issue without reservation for decisive, empirically based testing and careful, even deliberation. It will be screening in Australia on the ABC in June sometime and should hopefully provide for a reconsideration if nothing else than just a piece of propaganda. Though it's doubtful.
Co founder and critic of greenie issues Patrick Moore (not Michael's brother) had these very interesting things to say about IAT and the climate change theory.
"(IAT is) ...how a theory about climate turned into a political ideology... ...a story of censorship and intimidation... ...of the distortion of a whole area of science... ...a cautionary tale of how a media scare became the defining of a generation."
Miranda Devine, 2007
This, he attributes, is the most recent focus of extremists after "world communism failed, the Wall came down and a lot of peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental movement bringing their neo-Marxism with them and learnt to use green language in a very clever way to cloak agendas that have more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation than... ...ecology and science."
Ibid
Devine, M. 2007, Sydney Morning Herald Open your eyes to see who really is doing the swindling pp15, Fairfax Media.
Now, I'm no scientist (though have spent time in a lab for academic research on rats) but clearly I'm just caught up in the massive groundswell that has become a major issue quite recently. I've seen the photos of pre-existing waterfalls, rainforests and the statistics on an incline of termperature and all the rest Gore has to offer - but what I can't say is that this has been caused from a single, direct result of environmental pollution that humans are causing and nothing else besides. Consequently from his argument, I'm taking his words as an authority to which seem reasonable enough and also quite believable to an extent.
However, if I was stopped in the street to speak on the issue all I could give was a circular argument. Being that, pollution is changing the globe at a rapid rate, pollution is bad, there's an influx of things either going missing or being outright destroyed and this is because of pollution. Therefore, pollution which is bad is changing the globe due to the detrimental things that are happening. I'm really only re-stating the premise to offer as a conclusion. What do I know for certain that isn't expressed by people (admittedly scientists) that haven't already been vouched for?
This documentary (probably much maligned like that of AIT) forces a heavy-heanded approach to the issue without reservation for decisive, empirically based testing and careful, even deliberation. It will be screening in Australia on the ABC in June sometime and should hopefully provide for a reconsideration if nothing else than just a piece of propaganda. Though it's doubtful.
Co founder and critic of greenie issues Patrick Moore (not Michael's brother) had these very interesting things to say about IAT and the climate change theory.
"(IAT is) ...how a theory about climate turned into a political ideology... ...a story of censorship and intimidation... ...of the distortion of a whole area of science... ...a cautionary tale of how a media scare became the defining of a generation."
Miranda Devine, 2007
This, he attributes, is the most recent focus of extremists after "world communism failed, the Wall came down and a lot of peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental movement bringing their neo-Marxism with them and learnt to use green language in a very clever way to cloak agendas that have more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation than... ...ecology and science."
Ibid
Could this in fact be the case?
Have we all been duped under caring and altruistic but misguided sentiments to further a cause that at it's roots is a socialist and neo-Marxist banner of propaganda?
Even if this isn't the case at all, pondering on it for a moment is still highly alarming.
Even moreso alarming as an ideology that nearly everyone subscribes to as a deductive theory due to what other people have said (from both sides) but no one really knows for certain.
Have we all been duped under caring and altruistic but misguided sentiments to further a cause that at it's roots is a socialist and neo-Marxist banner of propaganda?
Even if this isn't the case at all, pondering on it for a moment is still highly alarming.
Even moreso alarming as an ideology that nearly everyone subscribes to as a deductive theory due to what other people have said (from both sides) but no one really knows for certain.
Devine, M. 2007, Sydney Morning Herald Open your eyes to see who really is doing the swindling pp15, Fairfax Media.
| 88 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Really Long Link
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Comment by Justin
Another point TGGWS makes is that climate change is happening but not thanks to AIT's assertion of humans but that of solar increase warming up the oceans which produces much more CO2 than we ever could. Amount this with "volcanoes, bacteria, animals, rotting vegetation and the ocean" and it suggests a picture of our industrial world adding a tiny fraction towards climate change.
So reflexively there's people denying it, people who believe climate change is happening but not by our hands and then on the other side the 'if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem' debaters.
With this important discussion, I at least couldn't definitively state which side I belong to.
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
I understand the earth has a regular cycle of this or that, however I don't understand how we can say 'since the earth does such and such what we do does not amount to anything'.
Sure, we should take every factor into account, but when I say every I mean every single factor, not just the ones that are convenient for our own views.
The people who outright deny mans involvement always make outlandish claims and can never back it up, they claim scientists agree with them but they can't point to any and the few they can point to tend to have alterior motives for their claims.
On the other hand you have those who think it is purely peoples fault, they propose really nutty measures which in reality won't help humanity, I mean were in this to live better lives.
In the end I kind of wish I could just say 'nah, humans don't have anything to do with the planets changing climate' but I find it hard to believe. WHen I go read/listen to deniers they can never properly scientifically disprove whats happening, it's always a mixture of politics and science which they somehow think makes all this go away.
This goes back, way back, for instance when people dump hazardous materials into public areas and claim they don't do any damage, people argue against it and say 'no it does' but then comes all the half truths and lies. So what happens? A few years later the ill effects of the materials show. It's basically teh ability to deny that which is not for certain though more than likely, simply because we don't see it happening around us in any profound way we can have people who claim it isn't happening at all.
Comment by Justin
What I'd love to see is objective information without any politics behind it representing how much of an impact we're negatively making to climate change. And then letting the politics take hold.
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
It stands to reason though that global warming is NOT the soul source of the problem, there are so many other factors to consider.
Either way there is a climate problem and we need to reduce it, so an eco-conscious lifestyle is a good place to start. Nothing worthwhile is easy and it wont be the quick fix some preach though, non renewable natural resources for fuel are being consumed at a staggering rate.
Comment by Dustin