O maior cético, sobre o aquecimento global
Enviado: 22 Nov 2007, 09:10
MEA SOMEWHAT CULPA
Last week's initial item on the subject of Global Warming (http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-03/032307tx.html#i1) brought me a great deal of criticism from readers all over the world. I plead guilty – guilty with an explanation, which follows. Perhaps fired up from my recent attendance at the TED conference, during which I was submerged in an atmosphere of trust and acceptance, I may have chosen to easily allow myself to be beguiled by Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth." I’ve paid close attention to those readers who directed me to other sources of information, and I will list and discuss some of these here for you, though not in the depth required to thoroughly explore such an important matter:
“The Great Global Warming Swindle,” a UK video production, runs one hour and 13 minutes – perhaps more information than you require, but worth the investment of time. It can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU. I’ve not had the time to examine and evaluate every detail of this document, and it needs much more attention. However, in a remarkable book just brought to my attention, “The Cult of the Amateur,” by Andrew Keen, I offer you this excerpt, which is, I believe, very pertinent to the situation I am attempting to clarify here:
Truth… is being "flattened," as we create an on-demand, personalized version of the truth, reflecting our own individual myopia. One person's truth becomes as "true" as anyone else's. Today's media is shattering the world into a billion personalized truths, each seemingly equally valid and worthwhile. To quote Richard Edelman, the founder, president and CEO of Edelman PR, the world's largest privately owned public relations company:
In this era of exploding media technologies there is no truth except the truth you create for yourself.
This undermining of truth is threatening the quality of civil public discourse, encouraging plagiarism and intellectual property theft and stifling creativity. When advertising and public relations are disguised as news, the line between fact and fiction becomes blurred. Instead of more community, knowledge, or culture, all that Web 2.0 really delivers is more dubious content, from anonymous sources, hijacking our time and playing to our gullibility.
Need proof? Let's look at that army of perjurious penguins – "Al Gore's Army of Penguins" to be exact. Featured on YouTube, the film, a crude "self-made" satire of Gore's pro-environment movie An Inconvenient Truth, belittles the seriousness of [his] message by featuring a penguin version of Al Gore preaching to other penguins about global warning.
But [this film] is not just another homemade example of YouTube inanity. Though many of the 120,000 people who viewed this video undoubtedly assumed it was the work of some SUV-driving amateur with an aversion to recycling, in reality, the Wall Street Journal traced the real authorship of this neo-con satire to DCI Group, a conservative Washington, D.C. public relationships and lobbying firm whose clients include ExxonMobil. The video is nothing more than political spin, enabled and perpetuated by the anonymity of Web 2.0, masquerading as independent art. In short, it is a big lie.
Randi comments: The 120,000 viewers cited above by author Keen in the “bound galley” version of his book that I received at the TED Conference earlier this month, has reached 517,746 in the 3 weeks since…!
The “political spin” Keen refers to here, will be discussed up ahead. Back to Keen’s book:
Blogs too, can be vehicles for veiled corporate propaganda and deception. In March 2006, the New York Times reported about a blogger whose laudatory postings about Wal-Mart were "identical" to press releases written by a senior account supervisor at the Arkansas retailer's PR company. Perhaps this is the same team behind the mysterious elimination of unflattering remarks about Wal-Mart's treatment of its employees on the retailer's Wikipedia entry.
Similarly, the data found at http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/ind ... roject/126 originated with "Sense About Science," a UK group which describes itself as
…an independent charitable trust promoting good science and evidence in public debates. We do this by promoting respect for evidence and by urging scientists to engage actively with a wide range of groups, particularly when debates are controversial or difficult.
I've seen many previous contributions from these folks, on other matters, and they've always impressed me. One important factor that is emphasized in this documentary, is the simply monumental task of anyone, any committee, or any study, coming to a conclusion through examining the evidence – millions of data-points, opinions, measurements, trends, and observations – and arriving at a statement about whether any observed change in global temperatures is discernibly due to human activities. The natural cyclic changes, geographic and solar, seem – to me – to be so variable and large, that the effect of Man on the entire picture, cannot be sorted out as easily as measuring CO2 concentrations, as Al Gore tries to do.
And, as an admitted amateur, I’m well aware of the fact that the massive amount of energy stored up as petroleum, natural gas, and coal since the Carboniferous Age, has only recently – only in the last 200 years – been tapped, in exponentially-increasing amounts, and converted back into heat energy. Yes, that must add to the rush of calories we now experience…!
Furthermore, statistical “models” based on past- and probable-behavior should not be mistaken for systems that can predict the future. Al Gore seems to often assume this error. Such models are useful and interesting, yes, but not necessarily predictive. I do not see, from my now somewhat better-informed perspective, and even judging from the smog I have personally experienced over many major cities across the world, the science behind a claim that humans – alone – are causing global climate change. I lived in London during the period that the individual chimney-pots were suddenly, legally, forbidden, and the resulting cessation of wood- and soft coal-burning fires – often a chimney-pot per room! – brought about a startling change in the smog situation, a change that was evident within a matter of weeks. However, that was a local phenomenon, which though dramatic, cannot be applied globally.
Even if humans don't impact the global environment to the degree claimed, there's no reason not to adopt some of the more Earth-friendly policies that many are suggesting. But let’s face it: we messed up. Unknowingly, innocently, from our own ignorance of the total picture, we messed up when we launched the Petroleum Age. The question is, what can we now do about it? I sure don’t have the answers, but buying Hummers isn’t part of it…
At ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070226_monckton.pdf, is a criticism that makes many possibly good points, all worth knowing about, but it is, in my perception, poorly organized.
Reader Clive van der Spuy, of Johannesburg, South Africa, observes that in his opinion – and I concur –
…the science involved [is] very slippery – apparently multi-disciplinary, largely probability-driven with multi-factorial functions of who knows what resulting in prognostications with wild variations in significance and import. I have concluded that this is a scientific area fraught with inherent epistemological difficulties. I have also concluded that it is situated right in the middle of an arena of social policy where various factions pull in very many different directions and where they exploit the foggy aspects of the science to maximum effect.
However, reader Roy Fisher, of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, suggested that I should check out http://www.realclimate.org, a climate science web site run by “genuine climate scientists.” I did, and found it fascinating and informative, especially in its added commentary from previous readers. As Mr. Fisher wrote:
While solidly on the side of Global Warming Exists (and that it's Man-Made, and that We Need To Do Something About It), they call out sloppy science on both sides of the debate. For example, they decry the tendency for people to suddenly believe in Global Warming because of an unusually hot summer – and while mostly approving of "An Inconvenient Truth," they don't hesitate to note the (few) parts it got wrong. Other articles run the gamut from mathematical climate models (explaining to laymen like me exactly why we know they work), melting glaciers, and Michael Crichton's "State of Fear."
I’ll close this item with a March 20/07 letter to The New York Times from the president-elect of the American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], a response to what he perceived to be misinformation in a Times article that questioned Al Gore’s conclusions:
The National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorology Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements stating that climate change is: a) occurring, b) largely caused by humans and c) likely to continue with large negative consequences for natural and human socioeconomic systems unless we rapidly decarbonize our global energy systems.
People who have evidence that contradicts these statements can publish their findings in scientific journals, after which the public might expect to see this work discussed in Science Times. In the meantime, if you feel obligated to publish what are simply opinions, please use the opinion pages rather than the science section.
– James J. McCarthy, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
I know this is a lot of material to go through, and that's something that I should've done before innocently – and rather naïvely – embraced the Gore contribution so quickly, but I think this matter is something about which we should all be at least somewhat informed.
My present opinion – as always, subject to correction and/or adjustment – is that the CO2 effect on our environment is a reality, but has been over-emphasized as a dangerous factor. Al Gore, in his documentary, is perhaps guilty of some data-searching and data-selecting – both common errors of amateur scientists, and sometimes purposeful tools used to prove a point or mislead consumers. And, I also cannot ignore the fact that the present US administration is loathe to admit of any criticisms that might threaten Big Business or the enthusiastic pursuit of the Dollar; politics plays a very heavy role in this discussion.
I sincerely thank the many readers who feverishly hammered out their comments to me following last week’s item. I believe I was overly-enthusiastic in my premature reaction to "An Inconvenient Truth," and for that I apologize. Frankly, I’m not at all convinced either way. Yes, Al Gore has excellent points to make, but I’ll ask philosopher Immanuel Kant [1724-1804] to take me off the hook. He said:
Enthusiasm is always connected with the senses, whatever be the object that excites it.
http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-03/032307hope.html
_________________________
Provavelmente o tom relutante em desmascarar essa farsa toda é porque ele está sendo pressionado pela conspiração que ameaça sua carreira como ilusionista e cético. Se não for isso, ele é ateu, e logo imoral. Quem melhor que um ilusionista para corroborar uma mentira?
_________________________
ISSO na minha opinião é ceticismo não-negacionista.
Last week's initial item on the subject of Global Warming (http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-03/032307tx.html#i1) brought me a great deal of criticism from readers all over the world. I plead guilty – guilty with an explanation, which follows. Perhaps fired up from my recent attendance at the TED conference, during which I was submerged in an atmosphere of trust and acceptance, I may have chosen to easily allow myself to be beguiled by Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth." I’ve paid close attention to those readers who directed me to other sources of information, and I will list and discuss some of these here for you, though not in the depth required to thoroughly explore such an important matter:
“The Great Global Warming Swindle,” a UK video production, runs one hour and 13 minutes – perhaps more information than you require, but worth the investment of time. It can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU. I’ve not had the time to examine and evaluate every detail of this document, and it needs much more attention. However, in a remarkable book just brought to my attention, “The Cult of the Amateur,” by Andrew Keen, I offer you this excerpt, which is, I believe, very pertinent to the situation I am attempting to clarify here:
Truth… is being "flattened," as we create an on-demand, personalized version of the truth, reflecting our own individual myopia. One person's truth becomes as "true" as anyone else's. Today's media is shattering the world into a billion personalized truths, each seemingly equally valid and worthwhile. To quote Richard Edelman, the founder, president and CEO of Edelman PR, the world's largest privately owned public relations company:
In this era of exploding media technologies there is no truth except the truth you create for yourself.
This undermining of truth is threatening the quality of civil public discourse, encouraging plagiarism and intellectual property theft and stifling creativity. When advertising and public relations are disguised as news, the line between fact and fiction becomes blurred. Instead of more community, knowledge, or culture, all that Web 2.0 really delivers is more dubious content, from anonymous sources, hijacking our time and playing to our gullibility.
Need proof? Let's look at that army of perjurious penguins – "Al Gore's Army of Penguins" to be exact. Featured on YouTube, the film, a crude "self-made" satire of Gore's pro-environment movie An Inconvenient Truth, belittles the seriousness of [his] message by featuring a penguin version of Al Gore preaching to other penguins about global warning.
But [this film] is not just another homemade example of YouTube inanity. Though many of the 120,000 people who viewed this video undoubtedly assumed it was the work of some SUV-driving amateur with an aversion to recycling, in reality, the Wall Street Journal traced the real authorship of this neo-con satire to DCI Group, a conservative Washington, D.C. public relationships and lobbying firm whose clients include ExxonMobil. The video is nothing more than political spin, enabled and perpetuated by the anonymity of Web 2.0, masquerading as independent art. In short, it is a big lie.
Randi comments: The 120,000 viewers cited above by author Keen in the “bound galley” version of his book that I received at the TED Conference earlier this month, has reached 517,746 in the 3 weeks since…!
The “political spin” Keen refers to here, will be discussed up ahead. Back to Keen’s book:
Blogs too, can be vehicles for veiled corporate propaganda and deception. In March 2006, the New York Times reported about a blogger whose laudatory postings about Wal-Mart were "identical" to press releases written by a senior account supervisor at the Arkansas retailer's PR company. Perhaps this is the same team behind the mysterious elimination of unflattering remarks about Wal-Mart's treatment of its employees on the retailer's Wikipedia entry.
Similarly, the data found at http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/ind ... roject/126 originated with "Sense About Science," a UK group which describes itself as
…an independent charitable trust promoting good science and evidence in public debates. We do this by promoting respect for evidence and by urging scientists to engage actively with a wide range of groups, particularly when debates are controversial or difficult.
I've seen many previous contributions from these folks, on other matters, and they've always impressed me. One important factor that is emphasized in this documentary, is the simply monumental task of anyone, any committee, or any study, coming to a conclusion through examining the evidence – millions of data-points, opinions, measurements, trends, and observations – and arriving at a statement about whether any observed change in global temperatures is discernibly due to human activities. The natural cyclic changes, geographic and solar, seem – to me – to be so variable and large, that the effect of Man on the entire picture, cannot be sorted out as easily as measuring CO2 concentrations, as Al Gore tries to do.
And, as an admitted amateur, I’m well aware of the fact that the massive amount of energy stored up as petroleum, natural gas, and coal since the Carboniferous Age, has only recently – only in the last 200 years – been tapped, in exponentially-increasing amounts, and converted back into heat energy. Yes, that must add to the rush of calories we now experience…!
Furthermore, statistical “models” based on past- and probable-behavior should not be mistaken for systems that can predict the future. Al Gore seems to often assume this error. Such models are useful and interesting, yes, but not necessarily predictive. I do not see, from my now somewhat better-informed perspective, and even judging from the smog I have personally experienced over many major cities across the world, the science behind a claim that humans – alone – are causing global climate change. I lived in London during the period that the individual chimney-pots were suddenly, legally, forbidden, and the resulting cessation of wood- and soft coal-burning fires – often a chimney-pot per room! – brought about a startling change in the smog situation, a change that was evident within a matter of weeks. However, that was a local phenomenon, which though dramatic, cannot be applied globally.
Even if humans don't impact the global environment to the degree claimed, there's no reason not to adopt some of the more Earth-friendly policies that many are suggesting. But let’s face it: we messed up. Unknowingly, innocently, from our own ignorance of the total picture, we messed up when we launched the Petroleum Age. The question is, what can we now do about it? I sure don’t have the answers, but buying Hummers isn’t part of it…
At ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070226_monckton.pdf, is a criticism that makes many possibly good points, all worth knowing about, but it is, in my perception, poorly organized.
Reader Clive van der Spuy, of Johannesburg, South Africa, observes that in his opinion – and I concur –
…the science involved [is] very slippery – apparently multi-disciplinary, largely probability-driven with multi-factorial functions of who knows what resulting in prognostications with wild variations in significance and import. I have concluded that this is a scientific area fraught with inherent epistemological difficulties. I have also concluded that it is situated right in the middle of an arena of social policy where various factions pull in very many different directions and where they exploit the foggy aspects of the science to maximum effect.
However, reader Roy Fisher, of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, suggested that I should check out http://www.realclimate.org, a climate science web site run by “genuine climate scientists.” I did, and found it fascinating and informative, especially in its added commentary from previous readers. As Mr. Fisher wrote:
While solidly on the side of Global Warming Exists (and that it's Man-Made, and that We Need To Do Something About It), they call out sloppy science on both sides of the debate. For example, they decry the tendency for people to suddenly believe in Global Warming because of an unusually hot summer – and while mostly approving of "An Inconvenient Truth," they don't hesitate to note the (few) parts it got wrong. Other articles run the gamut from mathematical climate models (explaining to laymen like me exactly why we know they work), melting glaciers, and Michael Crichton's "State of Fear."
I’ll close this item with a March 20/07 letter to The New York Times from the president-elect of the American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], a response to what he perceived to be misinformation in a Times article that questioned Al Gore’s conclusions:
The National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorology Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements stating that climate change is: a) occurring, b) largely caused by humans and c) likely to continue with large negative consequences for natural and human socioeconomic systems unless we rapidly decarbonize our global energy systems.
People who have evidence that contradicts these statements can publish their findings in scientific journals, after which the public might expect to see this work discussed in Science Times. In the meantime, if you feel obligated to publish what are simply opinions, please use the opinion pages rather than the science section.
– James J. McCarthy, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
I know this is a lot of material to go through, and that's something that I should've done before innocently – and rather naïvely – embraced the Gore contribution so quickly, but I think this matter is something about which we should all be at least somewhat informed.
My present opinion – as always, subject to correction and/or adjustment – is that the CO2 effect on our environment is a reality, but has been over-emphasized as a dangerous factor. Al Gore, in his documentary, is perhaps guilty of some data-searching and data-selecting – both common errors of amateur scientists, and sometimes purposeful tools used to prove a point or mislead consumers. And, I also cannot ignore the fact that the present US administration is loathe to admit of any criticisms that might threaten Big Business or the enthusiastic pursuit of the Dollar; politics plays a very heavy role in this discussion.
I sincerely thank the many readers who feverishly hammered out their comments to me following last week’s item. I believe I was overly-enthusiastic in my premature reaction to "An Inconvenient Truth," and for that I apologize. Frankly, I’m not at all convinced either way. Yes, Al Gore has excellent points to make, but I’ll ask philosopher Immanuel Kant [1724-1804] to take me off the hook. He said:
Enthusiasm is always connected with the senses, whatever be the object that excites it.
http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-03/032307hope.html
_________________________
Provavelmente o tom relutante em desmascarar essa farsa toda é porque ele está sendo pressionado pela conspiração que ameaça sua carreira como ilusionista e cético. Se não for isso, ele é ateu, e logo imoral. Quem melhor que um ilusionista para corroborar uma mentira?
_________________________
ISSO na minha opinião é ceticismo não-negacionista.
