Just throwing these out here. I've found a couple of interesting videos online that show both sides of the debate:
Here's Al Gore in a trailer for his movie, An Inconvenient Truth
Now, here are a couple from the Heartland Institute on the skeptical side:
And finally, here's one more:
So which side are we to believe? I really don't have a clue, but either way, I think this last movie raises a pretty good point when it said that "science is not the language of politicians nor the profession of celebrities." I wonder if the politics (the trillions of dollars at stake) are driving the science instead of the other way around. Who knows!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
This was a great post. Somewhere in the middle of all this is the truth. Here's what I think, and this applies to both sides of the argument. This was the last part of Devin's post, "science is not the language of politicians nor the profession of celebrities." I wonder if the politics (the trillions of dollars at stake) are driving the science instead of the other way around. Who knows!" I would have to agree with this statement. However, it goes both ways. According to their own website, "Heartland’s mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies." Obviously the idea of regulation of carbon emissions goes against the fundamental belief that government should not be involved in what businesses do. And about Heartland's claims and supposed backing of 500 scientists? Some of them didn't even know they were supposedly backing them!
"In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that the Heartland Institute's list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[10] included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. Dozens of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford wrote "Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!" I have read elsewhere that some of the donors to the heartland institute include those in the oil business. Does the oil business have an interest in debunking the idea of man-made global warming? Oh yea they do.
So here's my point...I think both sides are probably somewhat guilty of promoting self-interests. It's obvious there is money to be made, and the natural man loves to make money. So who do we believe? I don't know, my gut tells me we are the cause of global warming, and we sure ought to curb our consumption of fossil fuels. This is a tough one, tougher than I originally thought. However with the democrats in control of the white house, senate, and every other branch of government I can think of, I bet we'll see some serious legislation to curb global warming. And now with Arlon Specter (probably spelled his name wrong) dissenting from the dark side (kidding around guys!) they are that much closer to the 60. Long story short, I think we'll see action taken against global warming, and that makes me happy. No doubt there's gonna be a lot of issues and questions arise along the way.
1-Creighton brings up an excellent point - it definitely does go both ways! I'm not surprised in the least that the oil industry donates to the Heartland Institute. They've got a lot to lose if cap and trade passes. Nor am I surprised that there were a few scientists who didn't know what they were signing. I'm sure that is the case with most petitions, although I don't condone signing things before reading them or knowing what the implications of your signature entail. Were these scientists swindled? It seems like it after listening to their side, but there is always another side. I don't know because I wasn't there, but what about the other 30,955 scientists who had no problem signing the petition?
2- Three words about the Specter switch: I'm not surprised. He's self-interested, and wants to keep his job. He's up for re-election in 2010, and there was no way he was even going to survive the Republican primary after voting for the stimulus bill. He's a politician, so I'm not surprised that he said last month he wasn't planning on switching parties, but he did switch on Monday (isn't that two flip-flops for the price of one? haha). But Creighton is right, the dems now have a 60 vote majority in the Senate. However, Specter is so moderate that I wouldn't consider the switch a huge victory for the dems. It's definitely not guaranteed he's going to go along with everything Obama (formerly the most liberal senator) wants to do, like card check. So we'll see how it goes I guess.
3-I'm not so sure cap and trade and other climate change initiatives will pass smoothly. Here's why - lots of democrats come from districts or states where many of their constituents work in the coal, oil, and natural gas industries. West Virginia, for example, is a HUGE coal mining state. The two senators and two of the three congressmen are democrats. I wonder if they will vote for legislation that would cost many of their constituents their jobs. In their sense of political self-preservation, these congressmen will probably protect their constituents first. Basically, it's my theory that the climate change votes will not fall strictly along party lines as much as they will depend on who the legislators represent back home. Just a theory, so we'll see.
4-Lastly, I'm probably leaning toward the skeptical crowd (surprise, surprise) when it comes to man-made global warming. Why? Most current stats since Gore's 2005 movie seem to show that there are substantial increases lately in arctic ice and small decreases in global temperatures. Again, I'm no scientist, I'm not 100% settled (probably around 75% or so), and I could be very wrong here. But both sides can at least agree that if we ARE going to spend billions and billions of dollars on climate change initiatives, we should have a meaningful debate first in congress before rushing anything through. We've already seen the negative effects of legislating in such a manner (AIG bonuses).
Devin I think you're right on the money when you say "I wonder if the politics (the trillions of dollars at stake) are driving the science instead of the other way around." I think that's totally obvious, and I intend to explain why.
If this really were a "scientific certainty" which the mainstream media is trying to convince of by saying "the debate is over"...then should there not be a reasonable scientific solution? Even if I accept the main premise that we're causing harmful climate change, why does that mean I AUTOMATICALLY have to COMPLETELY give up my freedom to a supposed "all-knowing government"? Since when are a few scientists (who are most likely funded or somehow influenced by left-wing political forces...correct me if I'm wrong) given AUTOMATIC POLICY-MAKING authority...IN AMERICA?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Who decided all of a sudden that we as Americans have no free will anymore to make our own policy decisions? Am I missing something here?
My main point is that proving global warming right or wrong should only be HALF of the "debate"...we should still have options to make our own decisions about how we want to solve it (or if even at all) because last I checked this isn't Nazi Germany!! (or...is it...?) I don't care how smug and arrogant Al Gore and all his biased scientists are, and I don't even care if they're right...freedom is freedom and according to the Declaration of Independence NOBODY can take that away. Yes, freedom entails the ability to make "wrong" decisions, but the alternative is even worse...it's called TYRANNY. I don't care if his name is Adolf Hitler, Sadaam Hussein, or even Barack Hussein Obama...anyone who imposes their own will over powerless subjects without their consent is A TYRANT. In that sense I really feel like this new environmentalist global warming movement is A TYRANNY, plain and simple.
Now I know some of you are thinking "hey, that's not fair, Obama was elected fair and square." Technically that's true, but that only goes so far when you look at how he campaigned. Just because a bunch of people voted for a hip new black dude who knew how to spin the word "change" a million different ways so that it never really meant anything doesn't equate to them voting away their liberty in virtually every way. That's one heck of a leap, and it isn't fair. Call me crazy, but I think that Obama's "electoral mandate" (to quote FDR's excuse for violating the Constitution) goes only as far as he specifically campaigned--which wasn't very far at all--because you can't vote for something if you don't know what that vote is!! That doesn't make any sense!! Oh, but wait, it is Obama we're talking about, so I guess that would be asking too much...(the man's basically a walking fallacy, for anyone who knows anything about logic and reason).
Let's talk about a few scientific certainties....AIDS is caused by a virus that attacks helper T-cells. What is the reasonable scientific solution? No one knows (other than not sharing dirty needles or having unprotected sex with people you don't know.) What causes cancer? Mistakes in cell replication. What's the reasonable scientific solution? No one knows. I'm sorry, but that is just faulty logic. There are not answers to everything in science, and we don't always know everything.
And since you don't want to AUTOMATICALLY give up your freedom (you might have to drive a different car?) why did we establish regulations for factories dumping pollutants into the rivers? Heck, we're TYRANNICAL for making them dispose of that waste properly! Why don't we go up to the top of Logan river with all our unused oil and just dump it in the river? We have the freedom to right? It's a free country, we can do whatever the heck we want!
I think what you are "missing" is that even though we do live in a free country we have to realize that not everything we do is without consequence. When your actions bring a negative consequence to another person (in this case, this will affect our grandchildren and so on) someone better step in and say stop. And sorry Jeff, but I can say I know a little bit about logic and reason, and I do not consider Barack Obama a walking fallacy.
So far, Pres. Obama's proposals are not tyrannical - because in order to implement cap and trade, legislation would have to be passed. Pres. Obama's job does not include making laws. So regardless of how broad or narrow his "mandate," the imposition of cap and trade would come from majority votes in congress. There, the Democrats have majorities in both houses. Majority rules. If a majority in both houses of congress passes a cap and trade law, all Pres. Obama can do is: 1. Sign it; 2. Veto it; or 3. Take no action and let it become law by default. I don't think that the American public was hoodwinked into believing that Pres. Obama would veto a cap and trade bill.
It is hard to say, in this situation, that tyranny is involved. The majority has a right, without violating the system or anyone else's rights, to pass laws that happen to be stupid, in the eyes of the minority, so long as the law is constitutional.
Here is a link to a WSJ opinion that gives some detail to Devin's point about cap and trade voting crossing party lines and falling along regional divisions. Note Utah's lone Democrat congressman in the midst of the "Whoa, Nelly!" crowd. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124052841876150301.html.
Have fun.
Thanks for the link! I promise, I formed my theory after seeing multiple WV pro-coal industry commercials warning about the consequences of cap and trade and discussing this issue with some of my liberal and conservative classmates, many of whom are West Virginia natives and as such, are very interested in energy law - not after reading this WSJ article. Trust me, I'd give the WSJ credit to avoid thought plagiarizing if that were my source. My short experience interning for a U.S. Senator also made it very easy for me to imagine that when climate change legislation is brought up for debate, there will be MANY coal miners from WV phoning in to tell the congressmen what they think about the bill.
So maybe if this whole law school thing doesn't work out for me, I could send the WSJ my resume? Ha ha, yeah right, in my dreams. Or maybe the NY Times might hire me. I could ask Obama "what has enchanted you the most about the presidency?" Piece of cake ;)
OK I don't know if anyone is still paying attention to this thread, but I feel I need to admit that I definitely got carried away with my earlier comment. It wasn't fair to pin it all on Obama and insinuate he's a tyrant because Congress has to be involved, too. So obviously if they follow the whole process and pass all kinds of initiatives on global warming and the people don't vote them out then it is constitutionally legitimate.
But I still think they need to be careful, because if they take it too far they risk ticking off the people who have to deal with the practical realities, and I'm not just talking about obvious stuff like "[going] up to the top of Logan river with all our unused oil and just [dumping] it in the river," because only crazy people are willing to actually go out of their way to pollute the environment. What I'm talking about are extreme regulations involving simple day-to-day decisions like being able to choose the color of your car (I heard that they're trying to outlaw black cars in California or something). Again I admit that tyranny was too strong a term because as far as I know we're still following the constitutional process.
That said, however, I still feel like the lawmaking process--though constitutional--is slightly tainted because of the extreme dichotomy between having to choose between the extreme of having to give up virtually EVERY modern convenience (no matter the cost) or destroying the planet at a catastrophic rate. It's a good thing you "know a little bit about logic and reason," Creighton, because that means I don't have to explain to you why that would constitute (assuming my premises are sound--feel free to take issue with me on those) a "false dichotomy" which is, as you know, a fallacy.
For the rest of you who aren't logical experts let me try to explain my qualms in simpler terms. As I understand it Al Gore's push for extreme measures to combat global warming is fueled by fear. That entire video about his "Inconvenient Truth" was laced with extreme images of climate catastrophes and people starving, and he even threw in a comparison to terrorism, so by the end you're scared to death (assuming you believe it) that the earth's going to explode in just a few years if we don't take drastic action. As far as I can tell the whole movement has followed suit, resorting to all-out fearmongering to convince people that they will literally destroy the earth unless they agree to let government force people to do things through massive regulation.
Again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but to me that feels like a lot more than keeping people from doing reckless and stupid things like dumping oil in fresh water: the E.P.A. has been around since before Al Gore's power-point presentation, after all. If we really need a global warming scare to tell us not to freely pollute our fresh water supplies, then we've probably got bigger problems on our hands.
For the record I'm still wondering what you really mean when you say "someone better step in and say stop" when freedom results in harm ("your actions bring a negative consequence to another person"). Does the word "say" indicate a mere suggestion or an actual law? If the latter, then does that mean that I only have freedom to make good decisions? Is that really freedom? And which Platonic Guardian are we to trust if not our democratic process? Or is that what you mean, like when we make drugs illegal? But what about marijuana? Is it fair that there's much more harmful stuff (alcohol and cigarettes) that's still legal? What's more, is marijuana even harmful in the same way that those drugs are? But then again, we already tried with alcohol back in the '20s, but it didn't stick...so why not give up altogether and make them all illegal so we can tax and regulate stuff that people are going to use regardless?
You get my point? I do respect your concern about people hurting other people because that is in itself a violation of the victim's freedom (assuming they don't bring it on themselves), but I think this issue of how to regulate "global warming" is--in its own way--just as complicated as drugs, illegal immigration, abortion, marriage, terrorism, you name it.
The truth is there is no cold-hard, "undisputed" scientific theory that can correctly define policy in any of those other areas--if there were then it would be easy enough to demonstrate it so that there would be no more skepticism--and I meaintain that "global warming" is no different. As such, every time a politician tries to say the "'global warming' debate is over," I feel like the Queen in Hamlet when she said "the lady doth protest too much, methinks" (from Hamlet): they're only saying that because they're afraid of actually having the debate.
I know I've already rambled, but I had one more question. You took issue with my complaint about Obama's logic, saying: "I do not consider Barack Obama a walking fallacy"
As I recall you also said: "what I don't like is when someone has the arrogance to state something as fact when their is evidence supporting the other side." My question to you--and I mean this honestly--is this: do you honestly believe that Obama doesn't ever do that...a lot? I'm not talking about typical liberal/conservative disagreement, either. I'm talking about him pretending like his position is "fact" while ignoring legitimate "evidence supporting the other side." You really don't think he doesn't do that?
One example comes to mind about his spending bill: "then you get the argument: 'well, this isn't a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill.' What do you think a stimulus IS?! THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!! No, seriously...that's the POINT!" You don't think there is ANY evidence to the contrary that he's ignoring? Mitt Romney, for one, who is somewhat of an expert on economics (more so than Obama to be sure), doesn't agree: "instead of spending money on a whole hoast of long-range programs that don't create jobs, he should've said: 'look, let's spend $450 Billion or so and let's use that money to do 2 things: 1) reduce taxes on a permanent basis for middle income Americans, and 2) spend money on urgent priorities of our nation, and not on thing that are going to do anything other than create jobs. Jobs, jobs jobs! That's what it's about." Now I don't expect you to agree with him, but isn't it unfair to completely dismiss him?
Now I could happily find more examples easily enough, but I'm honestly surprised that you wouldn't have noticed anything like that. To be fair, all politicians play word games and resort to semantical trickery at times on controversial issues, but there are varying degrees, and I submit to you that Obama does it not only more often most (despite claiming to be "above politics" and all that flowery campaign rhetoric), but that he also does it to a greater degree than most (with the possible exception of Bill Clinton). Try paying close attention to his speeches and I think you'll see what I mean--if not I can show you--and remember, just because most of the media has "tingly feelings" up their legs doesn't automatically mean he's spot-on.
Post a Comment