My first reply, please bear with me, and, be kind.
I'm just a mid-30's kid from Canada, sitting in what is usually a pretty neutral
position in the world, eh?!
But, I have set aside my maple syrup and back bacon, because I am angry.
As an educated person, who does understand the scientific method, I applaud what
this website (which I have only just discovered today) reports to stand for.
Unaltered facts and science, without political or moral interpretation.
But, after 4 hours of steady reading (no joke, I have such a headache now, and
just took two Advil for it)... I can find no clear message, nor summary of
facts, for the person who is educated enough to seek facts, but has no PhD, nor
the time to read 400 scientific journals.
You guys seem to like blogs, and endless debate.
I'm an IT guy, the source of the blog, and I have no use for them. They're like
a lot of people in a room, all shouting at once.
Debate and discussion, requires moderation, if it's ever going to produce
anything worthwhile.
But, anyhow, see? I'm off topic already.
I am angry.
You people, pure scientists, have the gift of knowledge and intellect, yet you
seem to prefer to sit in your ivory towers and debate. (I'm trying to draw an
obvious comparison, bear with me)
I, on the outside, a person not without influence in the world, wish to do the
right thing, in most areas of my life, and could possibly make a difference.
But, I, no longer have a CLUE what that "right thing" is, when it comes to this
climate change global warming heap of dung.
Since my youth, I have always enjoyed the PBS channel documentaries. Later, my
Discover magazine, TLC (before it sold out to home makeover shows), the
Discovery channels, History Channel, you name it.
Always seeking more wisdom, that I could fit into my real-world schedule. (see
my comment earlier about reading scientific journals)
I watched Al Gore's movie, and truly thought here is a compelling summary, of
some not half bad ideas.
The USA is a leader in pollution, so if this leads to reductions in that area,
more efficient cars, cheaper and cleaner power, etc, I'm all for it.
The greenhouse gasses stuff, all came across as just a bit fluffy and glossy,
for me to swallow it, just "as is presented" with no references.
Then there's the fact that this guy wants to be president again... so much for
his claims on motivation... we know he's going to need SOMETHING to cling to, if
he's going to beat out Hillary. :-)
Then, add to that, I get friends and colleagues, all saying; "Wow, have you seen
Al Gore's movie? The TRUTH is finally out there! We can save the planet!"
And, I become even more skeptical.
Why?
Because hype is never right.
-sigh-
Now, I know, that given the battle Al Gord has taken on in the USA, he has to go
a bit overboard in one direction, to get his point through a lot of thick
skulls.
But, to regular guys like me who have a clue, I have to shake my head a bit and
look away.
So what, so I'm not his target audience, I can accept that, and move on.
Problem is, that the popular media, now regard him as the new god, and that
academy award didn't help the matter any.
They have everyone whipped into such a frenzy, that they're ready to shut down
the economy, and do everything else anyone can name -- whether there is any
proof it will do anything for us -- or not.
"Inaction, is the only wrong choice."
How many more times will I have to hear that?
Then, last week, I got to see "The GGW Swindle".
I will NOT claim to be a fan for fear of reprisal, but, I did sit for an hour
and 15 minutes straight. I reflected upon some things that hit home, some that
sounded fishy, and others that addressed my concern over knee-jerk reactions to
problems.
Is it 100% correct?
Of course not.
But is Al Gore 100%?
Of course not.
So, today I sought out more truth... and found you guys, among other sites. But
you got the last 4 hours of my time...
Your premise, as I started with, strikes a chord with me, and I'm "with you",
from that point.
But as an engineer, raised by two generations of engineers, they always said;
"don't complain, unless you're ready to do something about it".
I want to fix it, but I don't think I have all of the facts.
The science and debate is great, but can we get a rolling summary somewhere?
A scale that the rest of us can work with?
In business, it's not uncommon to say; "I'd rather act today, on 90% of the
knowledge, than wait for 100% to be available."
I could live with a plan, if I thought we had more than 70% of the data... but
it doesn't feel like it.
It feels like we're around 40-50%.
We (Canada) signed Kyoto, so what.
We haven't met a single target, and spent the decade since it was signed, buying
up credits from other countries, rather than trying to meet our targets.
But, when the new Prime Minister suggests that Kyoto isn't the solution, he
takes abuse from people everywhere.
Yet, they don't want to hear about alternative plans either, assuming if he
isn't 110% for Kyoto (which we know doesn't work), he's a danger to the
environment.
In an effort to quantify this for people, is there some reason that this group
here, through moderation and simple math, can't come up with some sort of
scoring system, on climate change?
A rolling total, that adjusts as new proofs, papers, or 12,000 page documents,
make weight in either direction, without bias?
Something that those of us who care to check in when we have the time, can look
at, as a measuring stick on the real scientists in the world?
Something, that responsible journalism can keep tabs on?
Distortion?
In the GGWSwindle, there was a real person, telling me that he had to threaten
legal action, to have his name removed from the ICCC report. Was he lying?
I didn't see anything he said, that could have been misinterpreted, or taken out
of context.
So, if that's true, why was his opinion discounted.
I also have a cousin, who just returned from a six-month volunteer duty, in
Africa, in the regions mentioned in the film. The stories she told me, about the
people there, and the suffering, make the film's depiction of life there seem
cheery by comparison... so I know they're not making that up.
You guys point out here, that developing nations are exempt from Kyoto, yet, the
average media piece, or nay-sayer on the street, points the finger at these
places, and says they THEY are the cause of man-made GG.
DO you see where my anger comes from?
There is this flurry of debate, and the media lives for a flurry, because of the
inevitable conflicts that arise.
I want to do the right thing.
I no longer have a clue what that is.
I want to see the peoples of the world, improve their lives.
If we don't want them to use coal to do so, why don't we buy them CANDU
reactors?
(for the uninitiated, you can't make WMD from CANDU reactor byproducts, in fact,
the byproducts of 3rd gen CANDU, will actually feed 4th gen CANDU reactors)
But, if you want to pay for that, for them, to avoid the coal, we can't stop our
economies in their tracks, like some would have you believe.
In Canada, they say we should shut down Alberta (kind of the Texas of Canada,
for oil production)... but, for example, for every $1 that goes into the economy
in Alberta from the oil, $1.60 goes into the economy of other provinces, in
trickledowns.
So, if you want to not have the coal in Africa, you gotta leave something alone,
somewhere else! (if you see my drift)
-sigh-
I'm not so angry now, as much as sort of sad.
(thanks for reading, if you have, this far)
So, here's my drift, that I sort of keep swinging around to.
Can we come up with some sort of almost statistical summary of the climate, GG
(man made and non man made), sunspots, oceans, ice, phytoplankton, and whatever
else... and work them into a summary page?
Something, in this volatile and ever changing scientific world, that keeps a
running tally, on where things are at?
A score sheet?
Which things influence the climate, and to what degree?
Which are more important today, and what they are doing?
Something that balances out studies that favour one mindset, over another, in a
way we can all understand and agree on.
Something that helps us understand, which are important, and which are not. (in
a relative sense)
So, for example, if you have 30 studies on sunspot activity effect on global
warming, and 25 say yes, in effect, 5 say no... you can report on the numbers.
Obviously, there is more than a yes or no, in EACH AND EVERY one of those
studies, but, so, you come up with a scoring system. -5 for strongly disputes
the fact, +5 for strongly supports the fact.
Anyhow, as you move down through the topics, maybe you can come up with a
consensus, of where we are at, TODAY. It may adjust tomorrow.
I mean, if for example, at the end of all of that... you ended up with something
like this:
- let me use my +5/-5 analogy.
+5 sunspots
+2 vegetation
+3 natural cycles
+2 co2 triggered by reaction to temp
-3 cows farting
-2 3rd world industry
-5 aliens from space
+1 man made co2
(yes, I got silly, but so did al gore using clips from Futurama)
If that's where the global warming debate score card landed today, by a
reproducible agreed to system, I could digest that, and so could most of the
public.
OBVIOUSLY for each area you select, you'd then link to and list all of the
relevant resources, articles, papers, research data, etc.
But, I could now swallow it all, and still buy in, that I am actually having an
effect. Not drastic (in my example only), but still an effect, therefore I need
to act... but not act insane.
People need a course of action, that they can live with, and reasonable proof,
that they can count on. Not this blind religious devotion that most
environmentalists expect the masses to buy into.
Your idea of Michael Moore, or Clint Eastwood, is a nice one, but a live
scorecard that everyone could understand, may be the more achievable goal.
It's also one, that you can show, and sell to politicians.
For example...
I have a connection, through volunteer work, with a sitting MP. (member of
parliament)
I can tell you first hand, that there is NOTHING more frustrating to him, than
the inaccuracy and hype in the media, over something that private polling tells
them, is actually #5 or #6 on the average person's personal priority list.
He wishes, there was stable enough data, that they would actually have a few
minutes to breathe, and take some concrete action, that might really mean
something.
But not just GG, clean air, water, etc... those things that are being ignored in
favour of GG.
Because you know what? He has a family, kids, and everything else that the rest
of us care about too...
So, hey, maybe there is a place.
Maybe this is the place?
No idea.
Maybe I just wasted an hour of typing... but at least I have given the Advil
time to work, and my head does feel better.
Thanks, to anyone who is still reading.
Andrew