Saturday, January 13, 2007

Global Warming Shocker: Common Sense Out of Seattle?

Well, not exactly.

A Seattle school board has "restricted showings of Al Gore's movie on global warming" on the basis that it is a "cockeyed view of what the truth is" according to a parent in the district.

This is true; but these parents object, not because the Global Warming Hysteria is inferior science, but because "[t]he Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD."

[Thanks to and for the images, which I have combined and tweaked.]

Well, I'll take his conclusion, even if it comes out of wrong thinking.

On the other side of the aisle, you have the movie's co-producer Laurie David speaking in equally strange tongues:

'"I am shocked that a school district would come to this decision.... There is no opposing view to science, which is fact, and the facts are clear that global warming is here, now."'

This statement in and of itself is enough to raise the hair on my neck. First of all, science is nothing BUT opposing views. There are no "facts" in true science. There are only debates about the usefullness of descriptions in attempting to acquire a better understanding of the "facts" that in and of themselves are unknowable by the very nature of knowledge as it is defined by science. This statement applies to all sciences, whether it be physics, economics or climatology.

The importance of the Global Warming debate is humongous on several levels. The first is the climatology level. (See this post and this post to see my opinion about this.)

The second is the methodology level, applicable to all the sciences. It is very important to realize that the scientific method is a very carefully debated and refined procedural outline that applies to all learning. Science is learning; nothing more. There is no such thing as "truth" or "fact" in science. The fact that Ms. David makes the above statement reveals her (and probably Mr. Gore's) ignorance of what science is. (Read this to find more information about the scientific method.)

The third is the economic level, and that's why I include the subject in this blog. It is important for the public to realize that: (1) The goals of Kyoto (the intergovernmental agreement to reduce global warming over time) are useless, by the admission of the very "scientists" who have stirred up this hysteria; (2) They would cost the world untold trillions and would set us back a century or two; (3) They are unenforceable; (4) They pretend to solve a problem that no one can agree exists, because there are as many reliable climatologists who do not agree with the GW Hysteria as there are that do, only the skeptics' arguments are not as newsworthy so you haven't heard their argument. (For a great summation of the skeptic position, go to this set of four videos and watch them to the end. No cheating.)

Poor science leads to hysteria of the likes of Global Warming; and what happens to climatology is also happening to economics. Sometimes even the scientists themselves get lost in the maze of their own thoughts and desires, which usually have an excessive smattering of personal ambition in them.

The word "science" is bandied about all too freely by people who would like to think of themselves as an elite, but who are really nothing more than attention-seekers. Al Gore is the epitome of this type of person.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Al Gore has done tremendous damge to science. The assertion that their is no opposing view which is now echoes by the others is dangerous. Al Gore is NOT a scientist but a preacher.

8:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find your points lack basis:
1-you say that the “goals of Kyoto are useless, by the admission of the very ‘scientists’ who have stirred up this hysteria.” Frankly, based on my readings, scientists overwhelmingly support Kyoto or its intent.
2- “they would cost the world untold trillions” and “set us back a century or two”. Hmmm, I wonder if we (USA) could have just spent some of the hundred of billions wasted on Iraq to develop new technology to improve fuel efficiency and work on new technology to replace fossil fuels. Do you think doing so would have sent us back a century or two?
3- you say “they are unenforceable” and that’s true. Nothing is! People and corporations will continue to break the laws as long as the benefits exceed the costs.
4- “They pretend to solve a problem that no one can agree exists…” I find your point difficult to disagree on. Who’s right, the blind man who thinks he’s hearing the flapping wings of birds or the deaf mute who’s watching a national geographic special on the pelican on TV?

“Poor science leads to hysteria of the likes of Global Warming.” What gives you the authority to judge whether the science is good or poor. As far as I can see you are knowledgeable in economics, and therefore subject to the pseudoscientific voodoo phenomenon.

It would be best if you stuck to areas you are familiar with instead of spewing opinions about subjects you lack expertise.


9:02 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home