Sunday, December 17, 2006
A Global Warning
I just stumbled upon a video on Youtube which is quite powerful.
It's not just another clip about global warming, it's a very compelling one.
BTW, the part with the children is not so big.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
mwoah..
You should really watch an Inconvenient Truth (torrent link), that's where a lot of the images in the clip came from. It also goes a lot deeper into the subject matter instead of only given sensationalist pictures.
It's also said that Tony Blair gave his speech shortly after seeing Al Gore's 'slideshow' on which an Inconvenient Truth is based.
Yeah, good post, but go watch an Inconvenient Truth!
This is a quote from Scientific American:
"An Inconvenient Truth shocked me out of my doubting stance" - Science historian and founder of The Skeptics Society, Michael Shermer.
There is ofcourse more than AIT... AIT is very focused on negative effects and scaring people(which might be the way to activate people). It can't be and isn't 100% objective. We should always look at things from different perspectives.
Here is a decent A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth, with a good summary on the first page. This guide doesn't say it's all bullshit but points out some one-sided, misleading, exaggerated and wrong statements.
You could write a skeptics guide to the skeptic guides to an inconvenient truth if you want ;) and there is a lot more the be found on TEH INTERNET!
I do think global warming is serious. It's time for major research($$$$) and investments($$$$$$) into the energy sector. Two flies in one hit: Global warming and running out of oil.
I agree this clip doesn't go very deep into the material.
But going deep isn't the way to reach people. By seeing this, everyone ( and I mean everyone) understands global warming.
Hence Global Warning.
True, and it's not a bad video!
It's more or less a summary of an Inconvenient Truth! AIT doesn't go very deep into the material either, but it's a bit longer with a bit more text (and some Al Gore biography bullshit)...
Nice source, your sceptics guide *cough*
wiki
"CEI is a think tank that is funded in large part by corporations and organizations interested in the focus of the CEI's work, including the Scaife Foundations, ExxonMobil, the Ford Motor Company Fund, Pfizer, and the Earhart Foundation."
Among other things, CEI has been an outspoken opponent of government action on global warming that would require limits on greenhouse gas emissions. In March 1992, CEI’s founder Fred Smith said of global warming: "Most of the indications right now are it looks pretty good. Warmer winters, warmer nights, no effects during the day because of clouding, sounds to me like we’re moving to a more benign planet, more rain, richer, easier productivity to agriculture".
In May 2006, CEI released a controversial ad campaign with two television commercials [5] arguing that global warming is not a problem. The commercials used the tagline "Carbon Dioxide - They call it pollution; We call it life." One ad stated that the world's glaciers are "growing, not melting... getting thicker, not thinner."[3] The ad cited two Science articles to support its claims. However, the editor for Science stated that the ad "misrepresents the conclusions of the two cited Science papers... by selective referencing". The author of the articles, Curt Davis, director of the Center for Geospatial Intelligence at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said CEI was misrepresenting his previous research to back their claims. "These television ads are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate," he said.
---
very good source...
I know what CEI is, but I still think they can give reasoned arguments about AIT, you can't ignore well constructed arguments even if they are made by someone who is funded by ExxonMobil. They sure are selective, but so is Al Gore. Al Gore does a good job and I do trust him, but if you want to go deep into this subject, you also have to read what CEI has to say about it. I should have added what the CEI is though.
A judge also listens to a lawyer who is paid by a suspect. It's all about the arguments.
I think it's a decent report because it goes into detail and uses independent sources, it's more than a bunch of bullshit. I'm not at all saying that you have to believe the skeptic guide.
You could probably find the same kind of reports from truly independent sources. Take the (out-dated)The Skeptical Environmentalist. Even independent sources can be driven by making money...
That quote from 1992 is just too old to use anymore. There were a lot of independent scientists who said the same in 1992.
Let's, for example, take a look at the causality between CO2 levels and global temperature(over a very long period) that Gore implies and what CEI has to say about it:
"Gore does not actually say that changes in CO2 levels caused the alternation between ice ages and warm interglacial periods, but he allows or even encourages readers (or viewers) to draw that conclusion. In reality, global temperature changes preceded changes in CO2 levels by hundreds to thousands of years.13
The causality is very nearly the opposite of what Gore insinuates. When ocean temperatures fall, seawater retains more dissolved CO2, and the expansion of polar sea ice further limits sea-to-air CO2 flux. Conversely, when the oceans warm, more dissolved CO2 outgases into the air.14 At most, changes in the air’s CO2 content had an amplificatory effect on climate changes already under way"
I checked the 3 sources they used and they seem very legitimate. Al Gore has no source for his implied opposite causality.
I really think you do gain from reading well constructed arguments from both sides.
I don't have the time to read through all they have to say, but reading through the bullet points on the front page, especially the so called "One-sided statements", it reads like a load of BS.
If I read something about global warming I'd rather have it from an independant source.
Im surprised you knew about CEI. I didn't know about them, but when I read some of the statements my BS alarm flashed so I checked it out.
I read about the CEI and similar organizations in "natuur en techniek".
The article was about a similar dutch think-tank that is funded by Shell etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a global warming skeptic.
I just like to read what "the other side" has to say. It's fun to see how they "fight". And I do think they have a good point that Gore ONLY presents and implies on the negative and has a bit unrealistic solutions.
A more objective documentary would have been a bit more balanced and without the unconnected part about his personal life.
I do see that this might be needed to reach a large public. The end probably justifies the means, but it could have been a bit more scientific and objective. A greenpeace feeling creeped on me sometimes....
Post a Comment