Saw Al Gore’s film last night. Well worth watching. In my opinion, a sobering, well-reasoned look into the global warming situation.
And before people start diving for their respective fox-holes for yet another round of a battle that’s already been fought on this board, I’ll let you know I’m posting this more as a critique of the quality of the documentary then anything else.
Even as a liberal who believes that Bush and nearly everything about his administration was a very, very bad idea, I was pretty disgusted with Fareneheit 9/11. It was pure conspiracy theory, and flimsy at best. The Da Vinci code was based on more solid evidence, for God’s sake, and told better too. Most documentaries have a point to prove. That’s to be expected; if someone didn’t care about an issue, or see a problem in a situation, why would they go to the trouble of filming something about it? I don’t ask that a documentary be completely objective (there’s no such thing, anyway), I just ask that there be some semblance of fact, and that thrust of the film’s argument be derived from a cohesive, logical relationship to said facts.
I found “An Inconvenient Truth” to be such a documentary. Yes, there’s a little bit of biography about Al Gore himself, a little bit of heartstring-tweaking. But the majority of the documentary is simply him laying out a logical argument for his position in which every single time he makes a statement, he backs it up with scientific research. I don’t think he offers a single opinion without providing hard, measured findings from the scientific community.
So essentially, he’s looking at empirical evidence (very little of which, I believe, is in dispute by anyone in the scientific community), and using it to structure an honest argument.
I don’t know, that struck me as the sort of thing that would appeal to the bloggers on this domain.
My favorite kind of argument, the one most likely to change my mind, is where someone comes to me with statistics and evidence, then, without voices being raised, an appeal to a higher power invoked, or any person being demonized, presents it in a way that says “This is the conclusion I drew. Do you draw the same?” Extra credit for going on to say “This is a proposed solution to the problem.”
Matthew changed my mind about the Second Amendment with this particular type of argument on an old, old post on this board. I believe “An Inconvenient Truth” to be a similar sort of argument, and it receives my recommendation.
I’d, of course, be interested in hearing what anyone else who saw it has to say about it. Who knows? Maybe it is a horrifically manipulative film that makes Michael Moore by comparison look like David Hume, and I’m a dumb sheep who doesn’t realize it. 😛 But I don’t think so.
I think nearly everyone on this board has stated at some point that they are men and women of science and of reason, which is why I thought of you all when I watched this film. My own personal style of argument relies on drama, emotional manipulation, weaving a good story to take bits of the truth for my own end, and liberal use of subtle self-deprecation in order to disarm someone’s reservations (I might even be doing that RIGHT NOW, mwa ha ha). This did not look like the kind of movie I would have made. But it did look like a movie many of you would have.
Persuaded what?
If you don’t mind reminding me, what was your former position, and what was the argument which persuaded you? I think most of us already know that I’m pro-gun (though I don’t own one myself at the moment… something about airplanes being far more interesting), but I’m interested in what you found convincing.
As far as global warming goes, even the most rabidly pro-business conservative has to admit that it’s obvious that it is taking place. The disagreement today, vs. ten years ago, is whether or not this global warming trend is man-made or cyclical.
My suspicion is that it’s a little of both, with a heaping helping of fossil fuel consumption. But I also suspect that advocates of certain “solutions” to the global warming problem have other reasons for pushing their agendas. IMHO, it is far too late to stop the freight train of this warming trend. Virtually anything we do, short of banning fossil fuel consumption on a planet-wide scale, is like sandbagging against a rising river at a rate of a foot an hour, when the river is rising ten.
On the plus side, it’s still happening so slowly that we’ll all have plenty of time to purchase oceanfront property in northern Canada, and buy stock in ice-production companies. I look forward to seeing a burgeoning northern trade route between Canada’s Greenland harbors and Russia before I die.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Wrong direction
Careful Matt, the understanding I have is that previous ice ages were triggered by global warming periods. Might want to look for some property in Costa Rica.
Interesting to note that scientists also believe Mars and Jupiter are experiencing global warming. Given the complexity of the problem, quantifying the human impact on this planet is probably all but impossible. I won’t say people have to act on faith here, but they do have to act with very limited inputs into their rational decision-making process.
Haven’t seen the movie and I don’t want to ask for any spoilers, but does Al allow for the possibility that maybe humans aren’t as important as they think they are (i.e. this is all natural)? There was an interesting article about this in the WSJ last week, asserting that it feels better to think we have control and are screwing things up than to think that in 1 million years humans will just be another extinct species in an uncaring, mechanistic universe.
No spoilers, but Al does
No spoilers, but Al does address the possibility that this is just a natural trend. He doesn’t believe it to be true, but he does say “this is one argument against my case, and this is my answer to it.” So it’s not like he ignores the issue entirely because not mentioning it would make his point seem stronger.
Also, and this is more glib comment than actual serious argument here, but why is the Wall Street Journal doing an article on global warming? I don’t exactly go to Scientific American for advice on how to beef up my portfolio…
YWSJ?
The inputs may be scientific, but the decisions are all economic…
You don’t go to SciAm for investing ideas? Your loss :). I still remember this issue. (Don’t be misled by the date, they still regularly publish studies on trading behavior, etc.)
I agree
I think that we are more than likely overstating our effect on global weather. We currently predict the weather using computer models that are reasonably accurate for maybe 3 days.
3 days. And you want me to buy your prediction for 100 years?
Michael Crichton wrote a book named “State of Fear”. While it is a book and therefore entertainment, it did have a lot of footnotes from scientific sources and made some good points.
The main one was that the government is using global warming as a tool of fear to keep up in line. Meaning this: In the 60s-80s, we had a common enemy: Russia. We were living in fear of Russia, nuclear winter, etc, and that allowed the government to do things we would normally not allow in order to protect us. Then when the wall fell, we needed a new fear. Global warming fit nicely, so now we live in fear of rising waters and extreme weather. Now, we live in fear of terrorism.
Crichton produces statistics to say we’re actually safer now as a society then ever before. We live longer, there’s less violent crime, and have better health care than ever before, but the prevailing mentality is that the place is going to pot. Why is that? He theorizes that a populace is fear is much easier to predict and control than a populace otherwise, so we’re fed to think we’re not safe.
He also says that science is becoming biased, as the amount of research that is done without double-blind bias protection is growing, where the researchers know who’s paying for the research and what answers will give them more money to do research. Hw actually presented in front of Congress about this. Global warming may or may not be true, but it’s been a cash cow for scientists for the past 15 years. It gets them more money for more studies, glamourous media coverage, and a pedestal to feel important and powerful.
I tend to think that we’re do overemphasize our effect on the planet. We are affecting the planet, but probably not nearly as much as forces we just don’t understand yet. We predicted global warming, but didn’t predict global dimming, which is where our polution reduces that amount of sunlight that reaches the earth, there by keeping temperatures down. What else aren’t we predicting? What side effects are we missing?
We need to take care of our planet. I truly believe that. But what is “taking care” of it? Nature is a cruel beast by herself, she knocks species into extinction herself without our help. The status quo in a natural environment is that everything’s constantly changing. We tend to think it’s static and that just not true. If we really want to help the environment, we need to continue to study how the environment really works. I know dumping waste into a river is bad. That’s simple. But preventing forest fires, is that a good thing? From an anviromental standpoint, no, because fires give nature a chance to clear thngs out and start again. Economically, they’re bad, but environmentally, forest fires are a great thing.
We just now finished mapping our own DNA, and we don’t know how that works. We’re clueless about our brain. There’s 6 billion of us plus how many trillion other organisms out there, plus the inorganic players. And we think we have a clue how it works? Sorry, don’t think so.
My $.02 Weed
The old dilemma
There’s an old ethical quandary: Which is the worse sin? To intervene when you think that a situation is going horribly wrong, and end up making it worse because you didn’t understand the situation, or to let a situation that’s going horribly wrong continue unabated because you’re worried that your lack of understanding *might* make it worse?
It’s a tricky question. Many would argue that our involvement in Iraq has made the world, if anything, a more dangerous place, even though we went in with the intentions of making it better. On the other hand, to pull from the “sometimes the Emperor’s got nothing on” theory, it wouldn’t take a philosophical genius to figure that the situation in Germany during the Holocaust was just wrong, and it wouldn’t take a multicultural ethicist with a deep understanding of the national and sociopolitical history to say about said situation, “this should be stopped come hell or high water.”
Personally, I belive that it’s better to intervene with the intention of doing good, even if you mess up, then to stay aloof for fear of making things worse. I actually tend to disagree with Star Trek’s Prime Directive. I suppose, in one sense, that makes me in favor of going into Iraq, at least in principal. May my own liberal people tear me to shreds in their public forums, but I believe that the majority of our initial involvement in Iraq was based on truly good intentions, however wrong askew they may have been.
The question, then, is what category does Global Warming fall into? And, to borrow from Pascal’s Wager, which situation would we rather be wrong about? Taking action only to find out that it wasn’t that big a deal, or not taking action and then discovering that it was huge?
Also, regarding the use of fear as a manipulative tactic, you can be careful and mindful about a situation without being afraid. You can say “we should really keep on eye on this situation because there’s some very interesting numbers turning up in our research,” and that doesn’t automatically make you a “we’re all going to die in ten years” sort of person.
Close, but…
I see the quandry not quite the same as you. I am all for doing something about the environment. We need to do something because common sense tells us spewing CO2 in the air and chemicals into the water is bad. Statistics may show otherwise, but I have a gut feeling the wonderful smog and pollution around this area (NE MD) leads to a higher than normal cancer level. I’m ALL for taking action about this, requiring industry to be cleaner and innovating safer technology. Fuel cell cars, solar heating, dump money into the research and make it economically feasible.
However, I don’t like being “forced” into it by misrepresentation of the facts. Fix the environment because we’re treating it bad, not because some scientists predict doom and gloom in the form of rising waters. Misrepresenting the facts is lying, even though it’s done all the time in the world today to make a point, it seems. I bristle when told things that are true to try and make me afraid so I do what you want me to do. Global Warming, personal liberties, etc, etc.
Your last paragraph is absolutely correct, but which type of person does the media fall into about Global Warming? Careful and mindful? Hardly…
And one last thing, even though we’ve blogged it to death, is that I believe we got into Afghanistan for noble reasons. I think Iraq was calculated and opportunistic. I would feel better about invading Iran now than I do about being in Iraq, at least unless they start working with us about the nuclear situation.
My $.02 Weed
This makes sense
I do concede the point that the Media frequently takes the doom & gloom tactic with Global Warning. There are better ways to convince people.
Interestingly enough, we’re actually getting close to the point where we can rely on that old favorite of human motivations: the pocketbook, to push us towards the Green. Already we’re seeing it with the mad rush on Hybrids. People had no problem driving massive SUVs for the longest time; the environmentalists’ appeals to planetary altruism fell on deaf ears.
But as soon as gas crested 3 bucks a gallon? All of a sudden this country’s got more milage motivation than we’ve ever seen. So help me, skyrocketing oil prices is one of the best things that’s happened to us in a long time.
Pretty soon, as the cost of oil will continue to go up, I predict, we’re going to see that things like Wind and Solar power will become much more economically attractive options, as well.
Gas
With gas over $4 a gallon today — just two years later than this earlier comment — and pursuing $5 a gallon as soon as possible, the automakers are scrambling to meet the demand for compact vehicles.
I don’t think it’s a good time for me to buy that SUV yet. Winters have been so harsh here in Utah the past two years that the SUV demand is still the highest in the nation per-capita.
In that vein, though, I’ve been doing research lately on installing a new geothermal-based air conditioning in my house this winter to serve for next summer. At the cost of only a blower — around 1/10 the cost of running a compressor — I could refrigerate my home air to roughly the same temperature that our current air conditioner is blowing.
Next up after that: modest solar power to meet my needs in my detached garage. With only a small music studio, heating requirements for that small room, battery chargers for my airplanes, and intermittent use compared to the rest of my home, it might be an ideal location to see if I can run a building comfortably yet totally off-the-grid.
—
Matthew P. Barnson