An Inconvenient Look

Wed  Oct 17, 2007  11:35 am

Craig writes:

"Since I have joined this group, I have really found out how insane it is to debate about Global Warming. It is as bad--or perhaps even worse than--arguing about religion. Everyone has their entrenched viewpoints, and rarely is anyone from either side swayed to see things differently."

JJ:

I do not see it that way at all. Unlike religion there is science and some hard facts to deal with when debating global warming. When looked at, the facts are so obvious that it is amazing there is much debate going on at all. Correction. Actually there is almost no debate. Instead this is the situation:

The orthodox global warming people do not debate but merely make proclamations and refuse to debate. Al Gore, for example, has been challenged many times to debate the subject and he refuses time and time again.

Just about everyone I know with my point of view are eager to debate because they are willing to deal with facts and present the facts without distortion or using the false statement "all scientists agree...". Many of those on my side who are willing to debate are legitimate climate scientists or meteorologists.

On the orthodox side I have never seen an actual scientist debate the issue or express willingness to do so. In fact the scientists do not even make the proclamations. This is done by politicians and news people. The only time I see a scientist speaking on behalf of orthodoxy is when he is interviewed by a believing news person and then his words are carefully edited to make sure they conform to the standard model.

Craig:

"So I am not going to debate about GW after this post anymore, as I think there are much better discussions we can have with everyone here that will actually bring new thoughts, new concepts, and new enlightenment to all parties involved."

JJ:

Actually, I haven't found one person capable of even debating this issue for orthodoxy. Bring on the most expert climatologist and I'll bet he will want to run after about two pagers of interchange.

I have made hundreds of points supporting my point of view and I do not recall even one of them being refuted or even anyone thinking they are refuted.

Craig:

"But I have this thought to share with JJ, a question I hope you might answer about a 'revelation' I had that may or may not be accurate: I was contemplating you the other day, knowing that you are an intelligent person, and trying to understand why you have the beliefs that you do about Al Gore, and Global Warming in particular. When I respect someone's intelligence, but cannot understand why they think in a certain way about something, I try to 'get in their shoes' if you will, and to think like they do, that I may understand where they are coming from.

"So, I had this 'ah-ha' contemplating you one night that I am hoping you can either validate or deny for me to let me know if I am anywhere near the truth regarding your thoughts on GW:...

"That is what I saw: that he was genuinely concerned and was doing his best to do something about it--regardless of how true or untrue his perception may be. Now, the thought I got when I contemplated you was that you had a very different reaction to the movie: Underpinning this was the understanding that a lot of times in our history politicians and those who try to control the masses will use what is called propaganda to keep people in fear and separated from something by taking advantage of an underlying truth and twisting it or exaggerating it to the point that it now becomes a falsehood and is blown up way out of proportion. So what I saw was that when you saw the movie, you saw Al Gore as the alarmist raising the all of the alarm bells he could muster, hyping up something that does exist on a small scale into something that is way bigger than what it is. That he was getting everybody all alarmed and in fear over something that shouldn't be such a concern and worth getting that hyped up over. And from that, I could see the line of thought that could ensue from that, as well as the differing line of thought that can ensue from the first viewpoint."

JJ:

As far as the character and my opinion of a person goes I usually sum it up about 15 seconds after hearing him speak. Throughout my life this has proved very accurate for me and I cannot recall changing my mind once or being wrong about the person once in my 62 years.

Seeing Al Gore's movie did not alter my opinion at all. It was exactly what I expected.

I can see your thoughts now -- "Ah-ha you viewed it with your mind made up."

No. My expectations were made up but I am always prepared to have my expectations proved wrong and my mind changed. If Al Gore could have presented even one piece of data without distortion that I did not know that would prove his case I would have been impressed indeed.

I was infuriated at some of the distortions which he had to know were distortions. For example he showed a large graph illustrating the idea that as CO₂ was released the temperature went up in the history of the world. BUT if you blow up the graph you see that first the temperature goes up and then the rise of CO₂ follows. This completely destroys his most important point. He had to know this if he has read anything at all about global warming, but obviously he was consciously distorting the data. Either that or he is just not very bright.

When watching the movie I was only looking at it to decipher what was right and wrong about the facts of the matter and what effect it will have on the world as a whole. I assume that Al Gore believes he is doing the right thing as most people do, but I also see that the solutions he is offering to something that is not the problem, would not be the solution if that something were a problem of hysterical proportions.

Craig:

"All right, that is what I saw. Maybe none of that is accurate. And you can call me crazy if I am totally off. But I would like to ask you this either way: I believe at this moment that Al Gore is getting the word out about Global Warming because he is genuinely concerned about the potential affects it could have in the future. That he is genuinely concerned about our environment, and is doing what he is doing in good faith. But I can also accept that the latter viewpoint could also be a possibility. I am wondering, if you tend to see him as the alarmist trying to hype up and keep people in fear using propaganda, are you able to also see the possibility of the first viewpoint, and that it is possible that he is doing the things he is doing just because he truly cares?"

JJ:

When Al Gore was first introduced to the global warming idea that it is caused by man-made CO₂ at Harvard by Dr. Roger Revelle in the Sixties I think he accepted it into his belief system and saw it is such a worthy cause that he has never entertained any thoughts to the contrary even though his mentor backed down on the idea. In the April 1991 issue of Cosmos Magazine, just three months before he died Dr. Revelle wrote:

"The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time."

Even though his mentor had a change of mind Gore was unaffected and pursued the global warming idea with more fierceness than ever.

I think that Al Gore has himself convinced that he is doing the right thing, but I also believe his belief system has caused him to filter out any data that contradicts his presentation. I think that deep inside he knows that there is error in his presentation. If he really believed it with all his heart he would present alternative solutions that could really work instead of those that will make no difference. For instance he supported Clinton in suppressing nuclear energy and canceling out research on the breeder reactor that could provide energy from nuclear waste that could power the United States for 1000 years with virtually zero carbon footprint. If the emergency exists that he proclaims there is no way that he would not support this unless he is out of his mind or has no mind.

Also if he really believed what he is preaching he wouldn't use 50 or more times the average carbon footprint in his three mansions and he would fly commercial rather than private jet.

It is the easiest thing in the world to preach to others to be frugal when you can get away with extreme waste.

It is ironic that Bush who is castigated by the environmentalists has the ideal green home. His Texas home is heated with geothermal energy and all his waste water is recycled and reused.

What a person does means a lot more to me than what one says I should do.

Copyright © 2007 by JJ Dewey, All Rights Reserved