"Remember kids, don't try this at home even if you have a bottomless pit in your backyard"
-- Construction Bob

« Previous | Next »

8 Comments »

1. huh? But Al Gore created the Internet. He of all people would know how to link it!

   Comment by Allen | 14 October 2007

2. Oh, duh. Why didn’t I remember that?

   Comment by Donnie | 14 October 2007

3. Although this isn’t a topic I know much about, does anybody else get the feeling that nobel prizes have become more political and less objective?(take arafats prize for instance.)

   I’ve heard and read some things that suggest global warming is due to something other than us, like the sun itself. and also that it isn’t going to progress as bad as al gore seems to think. why would we be causing similar effects on other planets as well like venus?

   global warming seems to be big money,(when watching cable at a hotel one time i kept getting hit up for money by advertisements encouraging me to fight global warming.) and maybe the politically correct stance for scientists to take if they desire funding. (although ive read that a recent survey indicated the majority no longer support the car emmision explanation.) It all just seems suspicious to me.

   Comment by l3rucewayne | 15 October 2007

4. al gore can’t hear you, he’s too busy snogging his award and giving his prize money to charity. but i bet he will post his blog award. thre’s no such thing as bad publicity.

   Comment by annie | 15 October 2007

5. @l3rucewayne: Belief in man-made global warming seems to strongly parallel political lines (at least in the States). It seems science can measure what’s been going on but is utterly inadequate for predicting the future.

   If mainstream science is correct, the battle to prevent global warming is lost and has been for decades. There seems to be little action, or even words about how to deal with a warmer planet. (As an aside, few people challenge the assumption that a warmer Earth is a net negative. There will be both negatively and positively affected populations.)

   The practical stance I take is this: there may or may not be man-made climate change. In either case, there’s no reason not to try to reduce pollution and energy use.

   @Annie: LOL. You’re right that he should post it, but there’s also something called ego involved…

   Comment by Donnie | 15 October 2007

6. That is one of the things I’m curious about, is this stuff still mainstream science? or is the media depicting it as mainstream science using out of date data? I liked one article I read talking about how this is a cyclical change and such warming periods have been traditionally good for mankinds health. So there is at least hope I think that the warming won’t be a net negative. I like your stance, now they just need to make hybrids cheaper:-).

   Comment by l3rucewayne | 15 October 2007

7. If it turns out that we aren’t going to melt or drown after all, that will rock.

   Anyway, Donnie, you nailed it. Politics aside, no reason why we shouldn’t try to harmonize a bit with the surroundings.

   Comment by Derek Slater | 15 October 2007

8. @l3rucewayne: If you look at the graph at the bottom of this BBC article, it’s rather interesting, and supports my instinctual belief. While the balance of probability is that there is a warming trend, there’s some cyclical stuff going on, too. I believe we’re due for a bit of cooling, but not at all confident that I’m right!

   @Derek: Media thrives on potential worst-case scenarios. Not that they’re impossible, but they tend to focus on the wrong ones–at least, before they happen.

   In case of unpredictability, practicalism trumps all.

   Comment by Donnie | 16 October 2007

Leave a comment

Name

e-Mail

Website