Saturday, December 16, 2006
An Inconvient Truth...
So I just finished reading Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. I was aware that humans are not the most likely creatures to go easy on their environment, and that a whole lot of daily practices we have can be destructive, but I didn't realize how intense our climate issues have become. What struck me the most while reading his book was his comparison of how smoking was originally seen and how global warming is now seen. Smoking was never considered safe by medical science. Hardly anyone who knew anything about lungs felt that it was ok. The medical science community thought it was safe, but it was debatable among others and thus became a part of our lives when science signs pointed to it being quite stupid. Global warming, and the data collected about it points to a very grave situation presently, and the science community is in agreement that we must change the way we live to stop it from posing a serious threat to humanity. However, other interest groups outside the scientific community seem to think there is no problem, and their words cause doubt as to the seriousness of the issue. People need to know what the experts have to say. Smoking caused all sorts of fatal health problems in people, but it was limited to those who took part in it or where indirectly exposed to it. Global warming has the potential to completely destroy the environment we are dependant on. Seriously, how the hell can we ignore that for that sake of conveniently keeping our current habits??! For many, it's simply disbelief that there is an issue. It requires looking beyond our narrow view of our personal daily lives to the rest of the world. But I don't think it requires looking all that far anymore. The effects of global warming are getting more and more potent. Read An Inconvenient Truth for yourself and check out the data. And yes, it's by a politician, but no, this didn't all come out of his head. It is data found all over the scientific community from years and years of research. You don't have to read Al Gore's words; you can find the same thing all over. He's just done a great job of getting the word out. So anyhow, PlEASE look into the issue of global warming for yourself. You'll be surprised at how much we're hurting ourselves...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I've done quite a bit of reading on global warming, and I'm still very skeptical. I've seen most of Al Gore's film version of "An Inconvenient Truth" and have to say he makes a great presentation and a convincing argument. If he was as confident and comfortable in the 2000 election as he was in this film, he might be the president right now.
Having said that, Al Gore selectively used evidence to support his agenda, and has admitted to as much. The science behind global warming and climate change isn't in agreement, but it's being portrayed that way.
Here's a collection of other arguments:
* Gorey Truths - 25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore.
* Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
* The Real 'Inconvenient Truth' - Greenhouse, global warming - and some facts
* Don't Believe the Hype. Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.
I also highly recommend reading some of Michael Crichton's speeches on the subject. Being an author who has done extensive research on the environment, I'd say he's just as qualified as Gore, a politician.
* Environmentalism as Religion
* Fear, Complexity, & Environmental Management in the 21st Century
* Testimony of Michael Crichton before the United States Senate
* The Impossibility of Prediction
* Aliens Cause Global Warming
Now, as Christians and good stewards, I think we're obligated to take care of the planet by means of conservation, etc. I don't know how far we can/should go though. As you'll read in that 2nd Michael Crichton link above, humans have a terrible record when it comes to trying to "manage" the environment (see the example of early Yellowstone Park). I don't think we can actually do anything to reverse what's going on.
The truth is, the Earth is constantly changing - always has been, always will be. If humans can't completely understand something man-made like the economy, I have little hope that we can understand something as complex and dynamic as nature. Al Gore seems to be ignoring that fact in his argument.
Thank you for your comment on the issue of global warming. It’s good to hear from you. I hope all is well back up north. As far as your discussion and links on this subject, I will concede now, after spending a considerable amount of my free time lately reading articles and essays on global warming, that yes, skeptics exist in the scientific community. There is not a consensus within the scientific community on the issue to the degree stated in An Inconvenient Truth, by Al Gore. However, I still feel very strongly from my own study of the subject (which by the way did not start with the reading of Gore’s book) that there is enough of a consensus to merit a change in my own impact to the environment. I will take a personal stance, and every individual must make their own choice respectively. I personally do not believe that the human consumption of fossil fuels cannot have drastic consequences, considering the incredible rate at which it has occurred within a very short time period of our planet. I do agree with you, and the essays you shared from Michael Crichton that science research must be conducted within certain parameters, and should be documented in whole to avoid bias. It is easy to realize that not all deductions that have been made within the scientific community have been correct within the history of mankind. But it is also very easy to realize that we have made incredible progress as well. There will always be skepticism, and there should be in order to prevent mistakes as much as is possible. But there will be progress alongside, whether one hypothesis prevails or another. To reach the conclusion that we as humankind cannot effectively determine and manage a problem because we have faced debate and setbacks is not something I can accept. Setbacks and debate are part of how we learn.
I also feel a strong need to comment on the political ties to the issue of global warming, which by your support of Crichton’s speeches, I have little doubt that you have considered thoroughly. We live in a country of unity, but also of intense division. I believe that since Al Gore was the author of a book on global warming, it cast immediate doubt in many individuals/groups as to the validity of any of the science claims made within his work. It would be no different if George Bush wrote the book. When a man has political ties (and thus very public allies and enemies), he is intensely judged no matter what he says. People already have their minds made up that a politician speaks truth, or is a fool. In addition to the basic political party affiliation issues, the debate over economic implications of the global warming problem cause wild amounts of debate. So once again, it is easy for me to see where people may already have their minds made up based on their desire to protect what they see as the most intelligent treatment of the economy. To some degree of truth, the data you find when searching for information regarding global warming depends on how politically/economically liberal or conservative your data source is. (I think we’re in agreement there already based on some of your comments/links). In my opinion is that politicians, economists, scientists, and consumers alike must be open minded enough to observe the world objectively, and at times challenge their own comfort and beliefs when data merits such actions, in order to sustain our race. And yes, as a Christian, I do believe that God plays the ultimate role in whether or not man succeeds in their ventures, but I also believe he has created in us the duty of being trying as hard as we can to be stewards of the situations presented to us. This means not giving up because at the signs of setbacks or debate. I can go on, but I suspect that will happen anyway in future blogs. Thank you again for your input. I am in no way wishing for my opinion alone to be heard. One cannot understand an issue without hearing all sides.
Post a Comment