Watch the link on climate change. Any thoughts?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&am p;q=global+warming

This blew me away, I had to share it. I always knew something was stinking about it, I just couldn't figure out what it was.

• Report

by Captain Birdseye on March 13th, 2007

"This is an issue we should entrust to those who seriously study it. All of them think we should be worried about global warming." The video disproves this assertion. It gave the views of many scientist who disagree with the contention that we cause global warming. So, obviously, not ALL scientist who study climate change think that we should be worried about it.

• Report

by Glenn Blaylock on March 12th, 2007

No you are right. By the same token there are a few maverick historians (David Irving for example) who question the official version of the Holocaust. Nonetheless in the absence of any deep personal conviction on the subject, I tend to go with the majority of historians who believe around 6 million died. Similarly on this issue I go with the mainstream scientific view.

• Report

by DavidHume on March 12th, 2007

I prefer the example of how the large part of the scientific community denied that the continents move.

• Report

by Glenn Blaylock on March 12th, 2007

Well indeed. That is a better example, and I've used it myself. I agree we always have to be sceptical on any scientific theory, but I also think some are better than others. One might say the prognosis for continental drift always looked good; a look at a map of the world makes it look obvious. GW scepticism on the other hand always makes me wonder at the motives of the tiny minority who want us to believe their alternative theory. Hence the comparisons with holocaust deniers and tobacco companies.

• Report

by DavidHume on March 12th, 2007

Moon hoax conspirators are another one where I think we are closer to agreeing that the official theory is better than the alternative ones.

• Report

by DavidHume on March 12th, 2007

Thanks for the answer David. I thought the video answered that question, in that is is not the minority of maverick scientists who disagree with the theory, rather it is the majority who keep quiet about the reality, in order to benefit from billion dollar research grants. If you're being given billions every year, the last thing anyone would do is say they don't need it any more.

• Report

by Captain Birdseye on March 13th, 2007

Ah, the good old silent majority. I admit I didn't watch the entire video, but I've seen things like that before. I've also (many times) heard appeals to the silent majority. If a majority is silent, it isn't really a majority. Going by published work (the only sane way to judge it), the vast majority of serious scientists do believe that GW is a threat.

• Report

by DavidHume on March 13th, 2007

David, as you admit that you did not watch the entire video, I have a question for you. How do you explain the graph of temperature vs. Atmospheric CO2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg)? Note that changes in CO2 level actually lags behind changes in temperature. If it is CO2 level that cause temperature changes, then they should lead the changes or, at least occur at the same time. The fact that the temperature changes lead the CO2 changes indicates that, if any thing, the temperature changes drive the CO2 changes rather than the other way around.

• Report

by Glenn Blaylock on March 13th, 2007

I have no idea. Do you, truly?

• Report

by DavidHume on March 13th, 2007

I know that the result of something must follow the cause. The sexual act that creates a baby cannot come after the baby is conceived. The bullet fired by a gun cannot leave the gun before the charge in the casing is detonated. If CO2 drives temperature changes, then changes in CO2 have to come before temperature changes, not after. Therefore, the fact that temperature follows the CO2 changes implies that changes in CO2 are caused by the changing temperatures. According to the video this can be explained by rising ocean temperatures. Warmer water can hold less CO2 than cold water. So, as the waters of the oceans warm, they release CO2. As they cool, they absorb CO2. The thing is, water temperature changes much more slowly than air temperatures. Additionally, the deep ocean circulation takes about several hundred to a thousand years to turn over the oceans. These two factors can account for the lag-time between atmospheric temperatures and CO2 levels.

• Report

by Glenn Blaylock on March 13th, 2007

By the way, the underlying suppositions of this explanation fit with what I learned about ocean circulation and solubility CO2 in water in my geology classes.

• Report

by Glenn Blaylock on March 13th, 2007

Ok, I'll do you a deal. I watched the first five minutes of that video and evaluated it as worthless propaganda. I will watch it all if you will watch Gore's film. Try to watch with an open mind and I will too.Deal?

• Report

by DavidHume on March 13th, 2007

Actually, believe it or not, I have listed Gore's movie as one the my students can watch for extra credit (along with this one). I am not nearly as closed minded as you seem to think that I am. I have seen the arguments of both sides and have made up my mind as to which I find more credible.

• Report

by Glenn Blaylock on March 13th, 2007

Oh, and you might want to take a look at the following article from the New York Times (http://tinyurl.com/2judz6). I would just add to one of the points of criticism of an Inconvenient Truth. Gore claims that rising temperatures would cause a spread of malaria. However, I have read accounts of how this disease was quite a problem in southern Nebraska back in the 1840's, when temperatures were much colder than they are now. Note that at this time malaria was called ague. I would also submit to you the following sources (http://tinyurl.com/y6ewrw http://tinyurl.com/3dy2u7 http://tinyurl.com/2qt6z7). So, it is obvious, that it is not the climate that controls the distribution of malaria, despite what Gore claims.

• Report

by Glenn Blaylock on March 13th, 2007

Glenn, I'm awfully pleased that you think you're not as closed minded as you think I think you are! I'll stand corrected and assume you've viewed Gore's film (which I have criticisms of too), and promise to watch your link soon, like in the next 24 hours. I've been rather busy in real life and this has precluded me giving an hour to this, but tonight should work. I'll report back with my thoughts. Best wishes

• Report

by DavidHume on March 14th, 2007

Why the -5?

• Report

by DavidHume on March 15th, 2007

My pleasure.

• Report

by Captain Birdseye on March 13th, 2007

Before watching the programme I wondered why scientists were not discussing these things. But like it said, they're getting billions in research grants by keeping their mouths shut, so why would they talk about it out loud?

• Report

by Captain Birdseye on March 12th, 2007