An Inconvenient Truth

[Concillian]

Thank you for the information. It appears that the quote you cite was indeed misleading. Does that mean the scientists critical of the movie are not to be trusted since they take sides? If so, I imagine that the contributions of the scientists in Al Gore's movie are likewise suspect.

Scientists who take sides should not be trusted... they should not be considered scientists.

Such a 'hot topic' has so much political interest that I personally feel it's impossible to convey truth. NASA research that is publicized is highly edited by whatever administration is in power. Republicans squelch the issue, democrats amplify it. Politics have tainted the issue to the point that science has little meaning anymore in the discussion of global warming... it's like if little green men landed in your backyard. You could have pictures of them and their craft, but all the evidence in the world will not convince the skeptics.

If there is an issue, I believe it will only be adequately conveyed once it is too late, beacuase of the poitical taint to the issue. My standpoint is that it really doesn't matter whether the hypothesis is correct in this scenario. I demonstrate this by looking at the actions each "side" would take and consider the case where their hypothesis was incorrect.

Consider the case that global warming is not a true issue, but we take appropriate steps to counter it anyway:
- increased usage of alternate energy sources (this is probably a good thing, even if global warming is not an issue... it will have to happen at some point)
- increased importance of preserving vegetation for increased capacity of CO2 --> O2 conversion
- Overall increased air quality

Then consider the case where global warming is a real issue but we do not take any steps to counter it:
- potential disaster that may or may not happen even if we did take preparations
- Lesser emphasis on environmental impacts, which could potentially cause other unforseen issues, but are not likely to have beneficial side-effects.

I ask people to add to these lists. As things get added, I think my point will become apparent. The conequences for preparation, even if the scientists predicting human influence on global warming is a significant problem are totally incorrect, are not really all that bad in the long term.

I honestly don't know which "side" is correct. But if you take a "side" you are already looking at the issue from a perspective that one "side" needs to be correct. I don't think it matters whether one side is correct or not. If there is a correctible issue, the earlier we work to help correct it, the cheaper it will be and the happier we will be as a society as a whole. Even if the corrections are not necessary to fix the issue, they still have overall beneficial side-effects, when looked at from the perspective of vision for the long term.