Global Warming Debate
I have been thinking more lately about the global warming stuff lately, since the Scientific American podcast has mentioned it nearly every episode for the last couple months, and decided to check out a site I had linked to before: Michael Crichton's. His main page links a series of debates called Intelligence Squared US. He participated in a debate about the "crisis" status of global warming. I agree with the non-crisis issue of the debate, but the discussion largely does nothing to convince me either direction. I have attached the transcript to this post, and there is a podcast available of the debate. The audience was asked to vote before and after the debate, and the audience clearly was moved toward believing that the issue is not the crisis that many (Al Gore) would like us to believe. Acting now out of fear, using bunch of previously incorrect models, will cost billions of dollars that could be spent elsewhere. Crichton makes that point in the debate, and it is worth noting. Action is not free, and even people like Al Gore have a hard time spending the money necessary to eliminate his 'carbon signature'.
There is so much to talk about on this issue, and I have said much before. I would urge you (if you care about this) to look past the hype, and check into what is actually being said. These are the same models that proclaimed an ice age in the 70's, and destruction of our way of life. A key point for me in this debate is whether we can project what the effects will be even if our worst predictions come true? Scientists are guessing what the effects will be even more than the guess of what the warming cause is. Overall, most would agree that humans would benefit directly with warmer temperatures. More humans die from cold every year than heat. It seems as though the human impact is limited to those living in the coastal areas.
Like I said, I could post about this for pages if I elaborate on any of these thoughts, but for now, just a note that the hype will tell you that the conclusion is 'scientific' and that more scientists than ever agree that this is a crisis, but that has never been the best method in the past, and these climate predictions have been proven wrong more than right. Many very smart scientists have been wrong before. Let's not just believe what they say, assuming that scientists are not allowed to be biased. They most certainly are, and always have been.