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.