Friday, December 21, 2007

Global Warming - We Must Act Now - Maybe

So, I have my own opinion about the whole global warming thing, but I'd like to intentionally withhold it. I'd like to approach the global warming thing on this blog from the point of view of an average guy (or gal) who doesn't have any presuppositions about it and hasn't made their mind up... someone who likes to try to keep up on and browse the latest major news stories regarding current events, but doesn't have the time and is not interested in making the time to explore every possible scientific study about the subject... as if I the layperson would be able to grasp the minutia of the science anyway. This will be the first in what I'm sure will be several global warming posts.

We must acknowledge global warming, and act tells me that:
  • "The evidence for human-driven climate change is overwhelming..." and
  • "Those who continue to deny climate change muddy the waters of action and delay the urgent measures we so desperately need."
Oh crap, I don't want to muddy the waters of action and be so irresponsible as to contribute to delaying urgent measures that are so desperately needed. One thing I'm curious about though, what resources are we (and what exactly does 'we' mean - my state, my country, my earth?) planning on using to act? Like who is going to do it, and more importantly, who is going to pay for it? Ergh... this article makes me feel like crap.

But wait, I'm hearing something completely different from the folks responsible for this U.S. Senate Report. They tell me stuff like:

  • I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting - a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number - entirely without merit," Tennekes wrote. "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."
  • Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution.

Holy crap, what's going on here? It's possible the idea of global warming could be without merit? And what's this business about the scientists fearing retribution for speaking out publicly about their opinions? I don't understand that at all. Why would that possibly be happening?

Hmm... it sounds like maybe this second group is just 'muddying the waters'... and the first group warned me about that. But, then, the first group is pretty much being called out by the second as a bunch of 'sky is falling' weenies.

Well, I haven't solved the global warming problem (in my mind that is) yet. I guess I'll just have to leave this attempt and trying to understand whether I should be concerned or not undecided. Hopefully more info that can help me make my decision will come to the forefront soon.

No comments: