Really? So the fact that reproducible results in science in produce scientific consensus isn’t relevant? How does that work again? Does that mean Einstein was wrong because the consensus is that Einstein is right. Which of course comes not from mere consensus but the fact that relativity makes test able and reproducible predictions about nature. Just like the current “consensus” about global warming. Woe to our universities if you are a good example of what they produce!

Personally, I’ve read evidence from both sides, and I do believe that Global Warming is a real problem, and will continue to spawn additional environmental concerns. However, I also continue to believe (largely due to the random 10-minute “interlude” during “An Inconvenient Truth,” in which Mr. Gore indirectly comments – or perhaps “vents” – on his legal loss in the 2004 Presidential Election) that the recent attention to the current environmental crisis is largely politically motivated.

[Let me put this out there, while I'm thinking about it ... I often vote along Democratic lines, while considering myself a political Moderate. However, I find it hard to buy into the praise heaped upon Mr. Gore as a "prophet" during the recent Democrat-controlled Congressional Hearing. The man does know what he's talking about, as this is indeed an issue that he has studied since high school! But, still ... COME ON. Democrats patting Democrats on the back is no more a "consensus" or an admission of the seriousness of a given issue than Republicans saluting Republicans. If, say, a Republican Senator respectfully commented on Mr. Gore's personal crusade against Global Warming - a la John McCain's recent expression of support for Gore's cause - then I could take that a bit more seriously. After all, crossing party lines often suggests that an issue, political or otherwise, is serious enough to bring divergent thinkers together, no?]

One last comment: How in the world does anyone expect their side of the argument to be taken seriously when they take less than a minute to expose upon their own viewpoint before launching into blatant name-calling? This is not the fourth grade, folks. This is a discussion between adults – or, at the very least, between people with a vested interest in this particular topic – which can be handled responsibly and with some degree of patience. Making faces, pointing fingers, and spouting labels makes you sound like some uneducated moron at a zoo exhibit, rather than someone who feels compelled to make a legitimate point.

[Yeah, I said "moron," but the context of its usage doesn't make me a hypocrite. Jackass.]

On a closing note … I’m sorry, Deas, but I haven’t been able to take Michael Crichton seriously as a “scientifically valid source” since he wrote “Rising Sun” and convinced his readers that the Japanese hated America and had no business ethics, then backed it up with biased cultural pseudo-research. However, I know you personally, and I know that you’re far too intelligent to read one man’s take on this issue before arriving at a conclusion. (This is why I’m glad you cited a few other sources … but still, have you read anything else that backs up your view? It would be good to see listed here. Not that I need to see it, myself, but it might help the argument a bit. The same goes for the other “side” as well.)

To SSS – don’t call me a pompous ass with a gift for expelling hot air in large volumes in a long comment when all you want to do is call me a pompous ass with a gift for expelling hot air in large volumes. Just jump to the chase. Also – if I don’t believe in global warming because someone told me not to, why do you believe in it? And since when is it a dishonest thing to cite one’s influences (however credible or ridiculous they may be)? Cheers.

To “Michael Crichton” – you seem to have missed the point that I am not a scientist. I made that clear at the beginning. I’m just a young guy turning it over in my head. And my reliance on Michael Crichton’s speeches was quite true – it’s not a misrepresentation to say that he influenced me greatly. That doesn’t mean that I am asking you to accept what he says as gospel truth because he’s (in my opinion, and probably not yours) a smart man. It means I found his philosophy and his views about the politicization of science to be rather interesting. You might say I identified with them. No harm there. Just being honest. You can dislike him if you wish, but don’t just throw his arguments out the window because you think he’s not a person with enough credentials. Instead, do battle with his ideas. Also – this was not intended to be a persuasive essay. It was merely my attempt to put into words how I arrived at where I am. I assume that my thoughts are still shifting in the subject. I’m open to hearing other people’s ideas.

Both Suk and “Michael Crichton” have pointed out that I have relied rather heavily on pop-culture pseudo-science myself in my post. In retrospect, that’s true. I guess I need to think about that. But I suppose that just takes me back to the issue that got me stirred up in the first place. I am really angry about the hysteria over anthropogenic global warming – and how people on either side wind up being cheerleaders in a popularity contest. I don’t want to be one of them.

It’s interesting the kind of comments you get when you post your musings on something so touchy. Ha ha.

Although it is important to be skeptical about common belief, it it also important to be skeptical of the skeptics. This programme was shocking. Just look at the producers past work

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39

Heres the british MPs quote on the show
http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/default.aspx

Infact quite alot of the information was edited, a prime example was;

Carl Wunsch controversy

Carl Wunsch, one of the scientists featured in the programme, has said that he was “completely misrepresented” in the film and had been “totally misled” when he agreed to be interviewed.[9][3] He called the film “grossly distorted” and “as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two.”[10] Wunsch was reported to have threatened legal action[10], and to have lodged a complaint with OFCOM, the UK broadcast regulator. [11] Filmmaker Durkin responded, “Carl Wunsch was most certainly not ‘duped’ into appearing in the film, as is perfectly clear from our correspondence with him. Nor are his comments taken out of context. His interview, as used in the programme, perfectly accurately represents what he said.”[10]

In a letter written by Wunsch on March 15, 2007, he said that he believed in climate change and thought it “almost certainly has a major human-induced component”. He goes on to say that he had thought he was contributing to a programme which sought to counterbalance “over-dramatisation and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts”. He raised objections as to how his interview material was used:

“In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous – because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important—diametrically opposite to the point I was making—which is that global warming is both real and threatening.”[3]

Anyhows enough of that. The show was pretty poor, typical channel 4 “documentary”. Balances with the shoddy ways of Al Gores piece.

Ok I go, have fun in Korea

Suk

The short version: You don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming because the sources you read told you not to and you’re a pompous ass.