Monday, April 30, 2007

Polemic to my Global Warming Thoughts

Recently I received a polemic email in response to a friendly notification that there is another side to the Global Warming debate. My email was triggered by the Glenn Beck special this week on Wed. I have the points listed because I believe they are worth sharing. Sometime questioning, debate, and argumentation or confrontation leads to a clarification of misunderstandings and can help get to the real truth, which is always good. Fundamentally, I hope to at least encourage critical thought on the matter in a quest for the truth and to stifle unneeded over-reaction in which I see as an open scientific debate.

  • My source(s) were questioned because I listed one with a link to You Tube, however, I think this source is valid and compelling (The Channel 4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" by Martin Durkin of Channel 4 BBC but made from an independent house, Wagtv). Recommendation came from CBN previously and it was mentioned on Glenn Beck's radio show. I have other sources on my spaces live blog from a Canadian PHD Climatologist and a Climate Change organization, and a Christian physicist and a rational faith based minstry called Reasons to Believe. See my other blog postings.
  • "The Great Global Warming Swindle" by Martin Durkin was presented as a polemic in the debate vs. the other side according to Wikipedia and Channel 4 according to Carl Wunsch of MIT in the film. This makes sense to me from observing it but that doesn't mean it's not have validity but it perhaps presents it in a way that will polarize and bother some. I recently heard the director refute criticism of this. The points of criticism: 1. he used an older IPCC CO2 chart and 2. Carl Wunsch was saying he was misrepresented in it. Carl Wunsch has a very interesting response about the program (click here). Maybe a misunderstanding, possibly the film went too far, or Carl buckling under professional pressure put on him (or a combination).
  • Carl Wunsch said that we shouldn't go to either extreme necessarily and backs up that a debate should be ongoing. He said about Al Gore: "I am often asked about Al Gore and his film. I don't know Gore, but he strikes me as a very intelligent man who is seriously concerned about what global change will mean for the world. He is a lawyer/politician, not a scientist, who has clearly worked hard to master a very complicated subject and to convey his worries to the public. Some of the details in the film make me cringe, but I think the overall thrust is appropriate. To the extent that he has gotten some things wrong, I mainly fault his scientific advisers, who should know better, but not Al Gore. "
  • "Thousands of Scientists world-wide have recognized that the cause of Global warming is greenhouse gases." said my friend. I don't deny that many scientists are in agreement of the theory of man made global warming but I know of many scientists that would say otherwise too. Let the debate ensue without what I see from one side trying to close it, I say.
  • "There is also a movie called the Inconvenient truth thats theme is global warming; I have not seen it yet" said my friend. I said: " I have seen it and it was referenced in my message. Al Gore's movie I found one sided and condescending to any skeptics. It's good to have an alternate view in a debate, that's why I referenced it and the Glenn Beck TV special next Wed. I encourage you to see the special and the Channel 4 special I referenced and watch Al Gore's video if you want to do more research on this."
  • "Al Gore is trying to draw attention to the issue because it is important. Don't necessarily knock him cause he is a Democrat. : )" was said, my reply: "Believe me, this is not about Al Gore, the Democrat, it's about the truth, and the debate, he's using science I refute and disagree with the forceful political and social pressure he is applying. He may have good intentions, I can't know his heart on this, but I believe he's wrong in his ways and scientific conclusions. He's preaching this like it's a moral obligation and there is no room for debate. In fact he personally won't debate it I understand. I believe that he is immoral in this because because there is a strong alternate view that I believe is more credible and it's not right to the truth and to science to politicize it too soon."
  • "What do you mean by "natural explanations"?" was said, my reply: "Natural variations in climate that happen over the Earth life. The sun affects the earth temperature more than anything else: When the sun is hotter the Earth is hotter for example. The Channel 4 video talks about this. "
  • "What do you mean by having a Biblical World-view? I believe God wants us to protect our environment and that would be to try to reduce the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.... no matter what the cause!!!!" was said, my reply: "I also believe that a Biblical world view includes environmental protection (as we need to be good stewards of it) but this issue I don't feel is yet an environmental issue it's being made out to be by one side. Greenhouse gases are good and important part of our environment. The complexity of this isn't fully understood (especially the man made component of this). Note: Water vapor is the largest and CO2 is created by every living thing, mostly by the oceans (and including volcanoes). The man made component understand is very small part of a small part of our green house gases. I'm glad someones looking at this but I don't think we have the understanding to implicate man and enact draconian regulation. If it's natural we can't do anything to change things. Let's seek the truth... that's what I'm referring to with the Biblical view. The worldwide, social, political and economic consequences of acting out of order could be very damaging to people."
  • "God wants us to be good stewards of what he has given us. There is also tons of anecdotal evidence (from people) who are reporting that temperatures are going up!" was said, my reply: "not only do I agree in being good stewards, I believe in climate change.... as one who knows more than the average about science and loves the truth and I speak to you. I'm still learning more so I can update you and everyone else as I learn more..."

I admit that I may be biased on the side that says man doesn't factor into the Global Warming cause because of the economics and social implication of draconian political action (as I think that all of us should be). Economically I want to be strong and my country strong, and I want to see others coming up in the world economically. If we are wrong we could be hurting us all. Sen. Inhofe was a man-made global warming proponent until he looked at the economics of it. Then he discovered that the science backed up the other side well. Now he's coming at it from the other side which I appreciate very much. My other blog entry address this more. To be presented with a campaign based on false science is wrong but that's what I think we may see soon as Al Gore said it was coming. The truth should be all of our goals and when it's not conclusive we should be open to debate.

Friday, April 6, 2007

Global Warming - I'm Deeply Moved

I'm finally posted again on this issue after learning more. It's getting under my skin and angering me. We have the Supreme Court ruling 5 to 4 that CO2 is a gas to be regulated by the government, setting up some things I believe is wrong. I've learned a lot recently about this from discussion, the media (and my sources are quite varied). I have learned a lot from my favorite conservative sources but I've seen some of the liberals speak on this as well. I saw Al Gore on CSPAN in a congressional environmental committee very recently and have been continuing to do research since. I've heard arguments against Man made Global warming from Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma. Recently I watched a video called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (Click here for the: You Tube link to abridged video) as recommended by the Christian Broadcasting Network today (700 Club). It's a British documentary with good sources, with science, history, and explanations.

While I have a lot of information to share that isn't going to be published, I felt it was time to update the blog. Here's some of what I know for certain:

1. The Earth Climate is changing and we in are warming cycle since the 70's according to scientific consensus. I have heard that speaking heads on shows we haven't had any warming for 10 years and hear it said that it's expected we'll have global cooling in 5 years.

2. Al Gore declared the debate to be over he also said "Our world faces a true planetary emergency"and "The planet has a fever" and talks about the planet like it's our child. He claims that the the leading scientist of Popular Science backs this up. His belief that our behavior is the problem, man-made CO2 from the industrialized nations. He has presented extraordinary doomsday claims about this with his movie, no doubt will motivate people by fear. For example we have 10 years before we are doomed. 20 foot rising sea levels?! I'm sorry the computer simulations are very disputed. I've heard one talking head said that it's only 2 feet (as one who agree with man made CO2 global warming obviously).

3. Al Gore lacks the credibility to ask people to make a change in there lifestyles as he is a hypocrite, as I have heard on Conservative talk radio and on Hannity and Colmnes and CSPAN. Sean Hannity and others have said he uses 20 times the CO2 as the average American. He flies around the country frequently in private jets, has a mansion in TN and 4 large homes total. On his grounds was a Zinc mine that he had made money on which now is a superfund site with mercury and cadmium contamination. Do a search on WSJ Gore Zinc or click on this

3.5. Sen. Barbra Boxer is charge of the committee that Sen. Inhofe was leading (Environment and Public Works Committee) and she said that the nay sayers are like the those that said the Earth is flat and said she's not going to debate anymore as she knows it happening. Then claimed that the science is behind it says, 11 national academy of scientists, and scientists at USA today, and wants to move on to legislative action, no doubt what Gore suggests.

4. Gore suggests eliminating CO2 production, taxing for CO2 usage, and global initiatives. The UN Kyoto Accord comes to mind which is global socialism (USA would loose) which I'm against.

5. The effect of following through with the legislation will be a tax on the average American, increase in energy costs, taxation and increased cost good and services, Inhofe said $2750 / average family of 4. 10 times the biggest American tax increase. The poor will be most affected obviously. Many can profit from this, like Al Gore who has a company he pays to maintain a "carbon neutral lifestyle". The cost of lost jobs and national (and worldwide) economic recession related to these changes could be much worse than anything I've mentioned.

6. We would keep developing nations without cost effective electricity, keeping them from increasing there lifespans and becoming healthier (smoke from heating/cooking by burning dung or wood is much worse than the effect of electricity for there health).

7. I don't agree about the scientific consensus on CO2 as man made because of all the trusted people speaking against it, most importantly the scientists, quoted research, polls. I don't trust the mainstream media, however, I'm open to truth. I don't see the consensus. Sources to come in the future perhaps.

8. It makes complete sense, I agree that the sun is the main contributor to global warming (see the video). One day the planet will be scorched according to Revelations as one of the "Left Behind" authors mentioned recently on Glenn Beck. This is perhaps from solar flares in the tribulation. There is nothing we can do about that with regulation other than perhaps laws protecting morality and actions against the anti-Christ to to delay this event perhaps.

9. What I'm saying that the media, politicians, businesses, lobbyists, some scientists, are involved in a conspiracy of fear based on junk science. Some have to know it but I think most people believe in it like a religion. Like Barbra Boxer "she knows it". People are labeled heretics in the scientific community if they come out against the man-made CO2 idea. Politicians can get votes and funds and get there way using this cause (both parties), businesses can make money for their shareholders (media, alt. energy companies, or companies that want to gain by legislative), all can gain by latching on to the bandwagon. Also worldwide the US can be taxed and share the wealth via a treaty like the Kyoto Accord. There is a lot of momentum and money to be made or lost. The video does a great job of explaining how scientists can get funding if they mention Global Warming and are rewarded for being alarmist.

10. The UN, who formed the IPCC, has been pushing this and they came out with a political policy report before the scientific reports but I don't trust them to come up with anything that is out of line with the assumption of man-made global warming. I've heard that those out of line with that assumption are asked to leave the organization. One of the scientists on the IPCC was in the video. Sounds like someone is pulling the cart before the horse without care for the truth.

To learn more about the dangers of mixing politics with science check out this: Michael Creighton from his book “State of Fear” shows how bad science was politicised and it lead to millions of deaths. Eugenics is the science of killing people based on protecting the gene pool, based on evolution and thus immoral discrimination. It was practiced in Germany and help lead to the death camps. “Eventually, this program was expanded into a vast network of concentration camps located near railroad lines, enabling the efficient transport and of killing ten million undesirables.”

The science is the key, another blog is needed for that. Let the truth be known before we do anything drastic but I fear it's going to be getting more uncomfortable to be living in these times. I am all for the scientific process as an honest Engineer and science minded individual.