Global Development: Views from the Center

Really appreciate this initiative as most Europeans believe that vast majority of American citizens just do not care about climate changes and its global impact.

How conceivable is it that GW advocates speak loudest and offer unprovable hypotheses as demonstrated proof.

The issue of causality on GW are unclear, and much less so than say acid rain - there forests were dying, lakes polluting, and acid rain chemistry was established without any doubt. Issue was atomospheric models linking sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions to severe polluters specific coal burning power companies in Ohio and W. Va. This was enough to cause debate in Congress for years during the '70s and '80s. Causality was clear rationality resulted in some positive actions although debates continue on among the consituencies - "boxcars of acid are being dropped every day onto our forests" What would we do with rational discourse and less rhetoric. Junk politics, perhaps but better than whining weenie socialism coming from other continents.

Issues of science should be dealt with using scientific method with objectivity of approach to and acceptability of the results of scientific study. Objectivity indicates the attempt to observe things as they are, without falsifying (distorting) observations to accord with some preconceived view. Acceptability is judged in terms of the degree to which observations and experimentations can be explained and reproduced. Scientific method also involves the interplay of inductive reasoning (reasoning from specific observations and experiments to more general hypotheses and theories) and deductive reasoning (reasoning from theories to account for specific experimental results). By such reasoning processes, science attempts to develop the broad laws—such as Isaac Newton's law of gravitation—that become part of our understanding of the natural world.

"Indulge your passion for science, but let your science be human, and such as may have a direct reference to action and society. Abstruse thought is not allowed, by the pensive melancholy which they introduce through endless uncertainty in which they involve you." ref. David Hume: An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding

"In fact, no opinion should be held with fervor. No one holds with fervor that 7 x 8 = 56 because it easily proved to be the case. Fervor is only necessary in commending an opinion that is doubtful or demonstrably false." Medawar in Advice to a Young Scientist. Here I add that this frailty of human behavior is clearly demonstrated by arguments surroundig GW. If the facts (science) were clear there would be no debate. Additionally, the interpretation of what is and is not fact and science is misdirected by power, money and notoriety given to those who speak out most loudly – Thomas Hobbs said that people’s opinions, statements and actions are done looking after their own best interests. How true - right on Mr. Al Gore. Well you can bet your political career on making movies that are not supported by the science.

Data are statistics and need to be treated as such. Data trends with high levels of statistical significance do not demonstrate causality. Let the continental liberal weenies cry and whine for lack of a real cause.

Did you watch the Al Gore movie before reviewing it?

All Gore is not telling you the whole story at all. If you look for dissenting information you can find it. Check this out:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

A few thoughts off the top of my head about everything Al Gore flashes at you quickly in this movie and claims to be true without offering even a hint about data sources and methodology, let alone opposing arguments.

First, it's not sure for how long the earth has actually been warming because the data is so bad from 50+ years ago, not to mention 100 plus years ago, etc.

Second, while Al Gore practically insists on consensus that this phenomenon is attributable in large part to human activity, no one actually knows. It may be due to increased solar activity. The Washignton Times did two or three articles in the past year on this. But they're all part of the Exxon Mobil conspiracy, right?

Third, if it is the dramatic increases in atmospheric CO2 that is causing this warming, then why when the CO2 levels were 10 times as high 450 million years ago was the planet essentially a big ice cube?

Fourth, the earth warms and cools all the time.

Fifth, some of the ice melting is revealing 1,000 year old flowers. Guess what that means - Yep, 1,000 years ago it was warmer than today! That's why the vikings settled Greenland and then left when it got too cold. Did humans cause the earth to warm up back then? What caused it to cool again? Al Gore doesn't know. Do you?

Sixth, plenty of people dispute the claim that global warming is caused by human activity, notably Frederick Seitz, a former President of the National Academy of Sciences. Check out the Oregon Petition for a list of around 17,000 people who have been refuting Al Gore's speculative thesis since 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Sixth, IF global warming is a real geological trend (30-40 years is miniscule in geological time) Al Gore has to demonstrate why it is so awful. In this movie he alludes to a rise in sea levels that will flood major cities aroudn the world. Yet scientist can't agree what will happen if the earth gets warmer: will it increase cloud cover and lead to cooling? NO ONE KNOWS. You can't make blanket industry laws based on inconclusive speculation. If you look for dissenting information, you can find it.

Finally, the models that inform even the vaguest speculation are woefully inaqdeuqate. They have almost no predictive power because they lack the capacity to simulate every possible interaction between relevant particle in the atmosphere, seas surfaces, cities, etc. Let me emphasize: They are really, really poor. In fact these models aren't even used as predictors; they are more accurately described as scenario generators.

The real story in a nutshell is:

We don't know what's happeneing, why or if it will continue.

Al Gore is not telling you the whole story. Look for another story. Question the data behind the graphs he flashes again and again and again. The lines aren't so clear or reliable as he wants you to believe.

The Center for Global Development should reconsider its views here expressed, as they are not based on remotely sound science.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I have been following this debate for at least 10 years now. Those who accept what the majority of the world's scientists now believe- that the climate is changing at a rate that is not normal or natural, but as a result of how human beings have chosen to live and develop these past 100 years- ie. a society based on access to cheap fossil fuel- will watch this documentary and hopefully begin to walk a different path. Those who want to remain "flat-earthers" will do so, but as the effects of climate change become more and more obvious, even these voices will disappear. In the meantime, I'm looking at the way I live in my own community and making some changes that respect the earth, rather than consume it. There are just 3 laws when it comes to the environment: Everything is connected to everything. Everything's got to go somewhere. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
We've been acting like these laws don't apply to us. Thanks to Al Gore's documentary, more of us will know that they do.

The poster for the movie shows a smokestack spawning what apparently is a hurricane, the unsubtle implication being, carbon emissions aggravate the frequency and/or the intensity of hurricanes, a notion that NOAA scientists get really weary of continually having to debunk.

Significantly, the hurricane in the graphic is rotating in the wrong direction. This factual error could have been easily corrected had the movie's makers been really interested in factual accuracy. But this mistake is metaphorical for the factual accuracy of the entire picture. Let no fact get in the way of Al Gore's making his point.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060622031609990007

"Earth's Temperature Is Hottest in Centuries:
Scientists Blame 'Human Activities' for Warming Trend"

WASHINGTON (June 22) -- The Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, probably even longer. The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie -- replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets -- mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

Read the rest:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/27/gore.science.ap/index.html

Dan, I suffered through that movie like a champ. How about a substantive discussion? HKB

Thankyou for your concern about the quality of our air and other effects that may come from overt usage of coal products. I represent the Human Development Project and am doing research at the moment as to where I can best serve the interests of those who share common goals. If you can direct me towards the regions of the globe that not only share my goals towards sustainability, yet independence as well, then political sustainability will be obtained. Politically separating from those who have endangered our communities in the first place is crucial towards obtaining independence. If we have to take away the licenses of harmful companies, even if they committed these wrongs back in 1996 then that may be a viable solution.