Wake up, Freak out, then get a grip
Great video on climate change, and how the positive feedback mechanism could take us from a short man made adjustment to huge temperature changes out of our control.
It also explains the ice age / habitable continuum well, in my opinion.
It’s cute and tells a good message – it’s not inevitable if we act soon / now!
Wake Up, Freak Out – then Get a Grip from Leo Murray on Vimeo.
Comments(6)
I have been reading a lot about Climate-Gate… and here is an excellent article on the truth of Climate Change.
I’m not sure that can be called the ‘truth’ – opinions and analysis maybe. Here’s a piece from the Union of Concerned Scientists on ‘Climate-Gate’.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html
I am not sure you had time to read the article… it isn’t opinion — simply analysis of the same data that was shown to be skewed through Climate-Gate.
The evidence is simply not there, as shown by the analysis.
All of a sudden, when the stolen emails call into question the interpretation of the data from this group, the rest of the scientific backers of the Copenhagen conference cut ties with that group. But had the emails NOT surfaced, would anyone have debunked or even questioned their analysis? I think they would have been welcomed into the swell of “evidence” for Global Warming.
Contrary to the letter I read in your link, this DOES call into question the other supposed “evidence” based upon the proxy reconstructions that are being used by climate change “experts”.
I guess I disagree then with his analysis. I don’t believe it has been peer reviewed, while all the data he talks about has been analyzed in other ways in peer reviewed journals and those point to climate change already occurring and caused by human actions.
Yes, I am aware that the peer review process isn’t perfect, but I believe in it as the best way to make sure other knowledgeable people review your theories and analysis. Personally, I don’t have the expertise to do this myself, so I will let the scientific community do this, not the media nor economists nor lobbyists.
Why do you disagree with his analysis if you don’t want to review theories and analysis yourself? His analysis starts with the methods used to interpret the data — do you agree with his assessment of the methods used – particularly the proxy reconstructions?
If that is really true, that you wish to have the scientific community do the review, then what if there are dissenting voices? Do you just go along with the majority?
Frankly, when I look at the evidence, a large number of scientists that warn of global warming seem to have only looked at data that supports their position. This is not an exact science, I know, but they “believe” in global warming, and therefore find evidence that supports that belief. They will refuse to even consider other conclusions, even in the face of contrary evidence! To me, that is NOT the scientific method! Neither is the way that they harass those with conflicting theories, or the way that the peer-review is influenced by “acceptable” results only. When someone gets defensive and belligerent in that manner, they are either guilty of something, or are scared of the alternative, and in this instance, worried that funding will go away.
To me, I remain suspect of motivations then, and wonder why they would state that “Global warming is a Fact” when there is absolutely no certainty of it! And I wondered why Al Gore jumped on the bandwagon, until I found out that he stands to make BILLIONS of dollars through companies he founded that will provide products and solutions if global warming legislation passes. Hmmm…
For me, I am not saying that I do not want to do my part to protect the environment — We recycle, we compost, we strive to be very responsible for our actions. One of our long term goals is for us to be self-sustaining on the farm by: 1. Water conservation using our cisterns – both collecting rainwater and re-using Gray water, 2. Wind Turbine, 3. Solar Panels, 4. Large Gardens, 5. Chickens/Goats/Cows/Pigs?/Rabbits/etc.
BUT. I am not interested in being caught up in the contrived “crisis” that blames human activity for global warming, NOR do I wish to be taxed for my supposed “carbon debt”. I think a healthy dose of moderation is necessary here, as well as a much better look at how to be environmentally responsible (And WHY – our commitment to the command to care for the world).
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/16/the-great-hoax
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html
You say:
“Frankly, when I look at the evidence, a large number of scientists that warn of global warming seem to have only looked at data that supports their position. This is not an exact science, I know, but they “believe” in global warming, and therefore find evidence that supports that belief. They will refuse to even consider other conclusions, even in the face of contrary evidence! To me, that is NOT the scientific method!”
Who told you that? The media? People who are dissenters? Of course they’ll say that.
Yes, coming from a science background, I trust the body of science. There are many dissenters within it and that is how theories get refined and adjusted.
I also trust many personal friends who are ethical and respectable scientists who have had the time to read and look at the data and who conclude the same as most scientists on this matter. (which is not what is concluded in your article at the beginning)
I also have seen climate changing and the poverty it causes, and the poverty our over consuming lifestyle has created.
I’m more concerned about justice, and to get there, WE, the west, has to change.
I’m glad you’re making personal lifestyle changes, and I am too. The debate over the cause or the ‘fact’ of the crisis means that structurally we’re not changing fast enough, and that is such a waste of time we could be spending on making the world better, not propping up old systems. I ask that you don’t perpetuate the conspiracy hoax rhetoric as it just fuels more wasting of time.