more trash talk
Posted by Sherry on May 10, 2007
I created quite a stir. I want you to know I haven’t stopped recycling; it’s a habit now—a good habit, and as long as we continue to pay Waste Management to provide a separate container to collect our recyclables, we’ll keep hauling it to the curb every other Tuesday night. I even got complimented on my recycling habits by those who empty the trash at work. Impressive, huh?
My two favorite words are balance and stewardship. I use them to figure out just about any problem or uncertainty. Both words apply to the global warming issue. There’s probably a balance somewhere between “The sky is falling!” and “Who gives a rip?” And there are no doubt ways we can all improve our stewardship of the resources entrusted to us even if it means we simply carry paper from one end of the house to the other or take five-minute instead of 15-minute showers.
Do you think balance and stewardship will help me like or respect Al Gore? [insert smiley emoticon here]
Check this out or a little balance on the causes of global warming:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170
“… For a little balance…” , sorry.
I’ve only watched the first 10 minutes of this video and had a few thoughts. Many of the interview snippets with the so-called experts never even mention Global Warming or CO2 in what they say. These people could have been talking about anything.
One clear lie in this movie is that CO2 levels have been higher in earth’s history. This is such a blatant lie as to make me feel the entire film isn’t even worth watching. If there is one fact which almost all climate scientists agree worldwide (and no peer-reviewed scientific article/journal exists which refutes this) is that CO2 is in fact higher now than the last 600,000+ years as measured in antartic ice cores.
The “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” were both regional climate changes, primarily in Europe and were not a global change.
I can comment more later as I watch, but I’m not impressed so far.
I’m not sounding very balanced am I?
Watch all of it. They address it pretty thoroughly.
While I find the video interesting, the wealth of data and articles available refuting most of the claims presented is large. Two of the most obvious are completely falsified information (graphs extended past the point where data exists. Maker of the film quoted: “There was a fluff there”) and scientists in the film suing the producer for misrepresentation.
I’m sorry, but this piece does not appear to be any more a documentary than that “Borat” mess. Al Gore’s movie definitely isn’t bulletproof and there are some problems (CO2 over 800,000 rises after temperature) with some of the claims he makes as well, but CO2 levels are rising as a result of human forces… But that doesn’t necessarily translate directly to anthropogenic global warming.
The Wikipedia Entry seems a pretty balanced overview of the claims and some of the problems with the video.
The Independent tried to get to the bottom of some of the issues.
This blog supplies some more answers, but I don’t know about the credentials ofthe person doing the answering.
It’s a fact of daily life in the media, in industry, science, in academia, that statistics and data can be manipulated to prove any point you want. Call it playing fast & loose with the facts, call it selective sampling, call it biased interpretation – the truth is that just because someone cites a lot of statistics doesn’t mean they are indisputable.
This is why I try not to get too emotionally invested in causes, because when it comes right down to it, what I believe about an issue like global warming is determined by whose credibility I choose to accept. Since I cannot do the research and interpret the data for myself, I have to depend on others whose credibility I trust. The question I ask myself, then, is why do I – why does anybody – choose to accept one person’s credibility above another? There can be dozens of answers to that, and they’re likely going to be different for me than for you.
The first filter I apply – rightly or wrongly – is my observation over the years that truth rarely, if ever, travels in large crowds; it is usually found trying to push its way through the crowd in the opposite direction. You see the advert banners everywhere: “x bazillion lovers of whatever we’re selling can’t be wrong!” Well, yes they can, and often are.
The second filter I apply – again, rightly or wrongly – is what I know about the people involved. In the early campaigning leading up to the 2000 presidential election, I turned on my car radio one morning on the way to work just in time to hear a comedian imitating a politician, spouting and exaggerating every empty, meaningless political cliché I’d ever heard. It was one of the funnier bits I’d ever heard on PBS, but the longer I listened, the more puzzled I was, because it went on and on, and even though you could hear crowd noise, no-one was laughing. Finally it was over, and the program announcer said “That was Senator Al Gore addressing … last evening”. Needless to say, from that point on, it has been very difficult for me to take seriously anything he is associated with.
Sherry, I feel like I hijacked your blog for personal statements. My apologies…