The Heat is On - Debate on Global Warming
I recently watched An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore. A global warning documentary on effects of global warming on our global climate. That’s a mouthful. It’s gripping. If all the scientific evidence that were presented are accurate, we have only less than 10 years to stop major catastrophes caused by weather around the world. Hurricane Katrina, the costliest and deadliest hurricanes in the history of the United States, was only a sampler.
But as always, the other camp (energy club) has allied (funded) with “friendly scientists”, to suggest there are 2 sides to the story. They try to dispute the scientific data that global warming is caused by man-made C02. Scientific data gathered by 2000 scientist in 100 countries. The most unprecedented collaboration around the world.
So who’s side am I on? It’s obvious by my remarks on the latter. One doesn’t need to deeply understand and weigh all the contradicting data. Just look at the motives of the 2 parties. One simply values and wants to conserve the environment while the other wants to conserve profits.
Who’s side are you on? While you ponder. Here’s a related comic relief from my favorite comedian.
I watched this show (Earth to America) last year. It was a great show and i think was really effective in reaching out to the American public to raise awareness on global warming. And yeah, Will Ferrel is the greatest mainstream Bush impersonator around. It;s a pity he had to leave SNL but he’s having a great career right now.
I also have a copy of an Inconvenient Truth and I just can’t help but asking how is it going to affect the Philippines since the Metro Area (NCR) is near the bay right? I wonder how many people will be dislocated if ever the sea level would rise up when green land and parts of S. Antartica’s ice melts up…
@JJ Manila is near bay area at sea level. Yes, it would be difficult to think if it goes 20 feet under. I live in Quezon City at a high elevation.
Anyway, let’s do our part to spread the message. God bless!
I watched “An Inconvenient Truth” as well as a video in Google that disputes Al Gore’s statements.
Do you know where we can find Al Gore’s rebuttal on the position that temperature affects CO2 levels and not the other way around?
Thanks!
@Manuel I’m yet to find Al Gore’s or anyone’s response to “the great global warming swindle.” Good to see that you already posted it in your blog (video). That’s great! >>http://manuelviloria.blogspot.com/2007/04/philippines-and-global-warming.html
I am regular reader of your article. And I am very impress with your blog upon global Warming. Now I am also write a blog upon Causes & Effects of Global Warming.
Your post was rather simplistic and lacks mature logic. Of course you need to look at the data and both sides. And just because you demonize business does not make business evil. Without business we have no economy. It is childish to reject other views simply because they come from a side that might prefer to keep their company going. Your post is a good example of the low level of thought being put into the issue by global warming alarmists.
@KMichaels. This set of vidoes can give everyone a good perspective with regards to climate change, the oil crisis, and destructive political forces that are compounding the problems.
You are kidding right? Those funding the global warming side are all disinterested in profit? How about Enron before its collapse? How about Dupont hoping for the U.S. to pass Kyoto and its funding of the energy rationing side of the debate? They had hoped (and continue to hope) that potential energy credits that would be in their possession would be worth BILLIONS? Why is BP (now “Beyond Petroleum”) funding global warming research? Because, unlike the rest of the big energy companies, it has over-invested in wind and other renewable energies which are completely unprofitable without government intervention. If you are going to put that shoe on the side against the global warming hysteria you had better put your foot out so the shoe can be put on your foot too.
The point is that we need to debate the facts and evidence. A fact does not become false just because somebody with an interest funds research. If that were the case, pretty much all scientific research would be worthless. Who else is going to fund research other than those that have an interest in the subject? By the way, there are a lot of other people who stand to profit either monetarily or as an advancement of their political views.
@Johnson, the debate is actually over. I just haven’t given updates on this post yet. Watch ABC News video here and read FoxNews feature here.
Bamtastic:
The debate is never over in science. The debate is only over for those who use global warming to further their agenda (and to them there never was a debate). It is pretty well established that CO2 is a GHG and that it should cause warming as more of it is added to the atmosphere. There still IS debate about how much warming it will cause. So far it has been at most about 0.6 - 1.0 degrees C. The next question is whether all of that warming is due to CO2. The next question is how much warmer will it get. It is fairly well established that each molecule of CO2 put into the atmosphere will have less of an effect than the previous one. Accordingly, you will need double the amount of CO2 to warm the planet 1 degree as you needed for the previous degree. After that it is 4 times the amount needed. As you can see, you quickly end up needing an exponential amount of CO2 to continue to warm the atmosphere.
Next, there is debate about what effects will actually occur if global warming is, in fact, true. The next question is what we can do to stop it if the effects would be as bad as the extreme side of the IPCC would have us believe. The next question is whether the costs of stopping the consequences (IF they would be as bad as the green lobby would lead us to believe) would be more than the costs of adapting and/or dealing with the consequences. If you are talking about us giving up all technological advances and going back to living like cavemen, I think many would take issue with stopping our economic progress.
The ones who do not want to answer these questions are the ones saying “the debate is over.” It is a convenient little trick that allows them to avoid these issues.