OK, this is my Big Question, after watching half of "Inconvenient Truth" and all of "The Great Global Warming Swindle":

Al Gore says CO2 is dramatically higher now than it has ever been. A scientist in "swindle" says that CO2 has been dramatically higher in the past than it is now.

Who is correct?

That is what I want to know. The one thing in "Inconvenient Truth" that floored me, and that I have not heard a good explanation for, is the dramatically high CO2 argument. And now it has been blown away, along with a lot of other junk in "Truth". Or has it? Whose posse of scientists is the most reliable and genuine and uncorrupted? I'm asking, not telling, so don't assume I've chosen sides. The fact is, I am inclined to think that the planet probably is suffering from overexploitation by humans - but I'm not convinced that the "solutions" that are being called for will work, and I am very convinced that the politics behind the whole global warming movement is skewed and corrupt. Could be wrong. I'm not a zealot. I'm genuinely curious about the whole thing. And I am the first to admit that I may have missed some important nuance in either argument.

If you watch "Swindle" at least watch half of it. I mean, if you want to argue with me or correct me, at least watch half. I think that's fair, since I watched half of "Truth". I would have watched all of Truth, but smarmy Al Gore just makes me want to barf. If there's something in the second half that I really need to see, something that will blow "Swindle" out of the water, please comment and let me know.

Here it is. It's free. Might as well check it out.

And here is a letter from Monique Soares, co-creator of Scoutmaster Glick!

Saw this car during my lunch. Watsonville is full of anarchists I tell you, ANARCHISTS! This was handmade with real Home Depot stickers! Imagine the work it took to perfectly align those. I should've shaken the wierdo's hand.


Dear SO HUM, if you by chance happen to ever read this - THANK YOU for your terror prevention efforts. Your super ultra low emissions are an inspiration to us all. But may I make one suggestion? Lose the spoiler! That spoiler just SCREAMS "speed speed SPEED!" It is sending a mixed signal!


Monique said...

if he is "So Hum" about life, why would he go though all the trouble of purchasing and putting those stickers on his car? Another mixed message!

eeTeeD said...

i thought spoilers helped make cars more aerodynamic, which would in turn make them more fuel efficient. i could be wrong.

as for scientists, you need to know WHO is funding them before you can fully decide on their data.

BonzoGal said...

eeTeeD is right about that for sure- you need to know who is funding their research first.

Here's a pretty good rebuttal to that movie:

jed said...

That movie sounds fishy. I haven't seen either, but I happen to live with an ecologist, one Dr. Linville, and I'm taking her word on this global warming thing.

One thing that Dr. Linville has discussed with me on many an occassion has been her dealings with a variety of environmental agencies during her tenure at the State Water Board. It seems that there are entirely too few scientists among their ranks. Not that they're not often on the side of what's right and good, but, yes, like the spinmeisters behind that "swindle" movie I haven't seen, their agenda is first and foremost political. Sometimes they, like their oponants (who are even more specious in their pursuit of scientific precedent), will become fixed upon a position based more in ideology than fact.

As for Mr. Gore's documentary that I haven't seen: from all I've been able to gather, it seems as though his film was an honest attempt to inform, and he did consult many genuine bonafide scientists, and the scientific community at large has shown aproval for the way he's represented the known facts (consult link above).

This aside, here's one of the reasons why my politics tend to veer more towards one end than than the other: activism is at least, at it's core, active, while the alternative seems to be decidely passive. There's no real contrasting argument or sollution offered by the aposing side. When it's not about justifying and maintaining the status quo, it's about having free license to consume and blow up more stuff rather than less stuff.

So Mark, you admit, or at least imply that you're aware that things are going horribly horribly wrong. The thing is, no one on the right is really making any effort to do anything about it. You have to offer more than "by golly, you're wrong and I'll show you". If you admit that it's broke, and you think the people who are trying to fix it are full of shit, then the onus is on you to at least spend a little energy considering what other options there are.

Marky Mark said...

MO! YES, that guy is all over the map!

bonzogal and eeTeeD - I know, I know. Follow the money. That's a given.

You can show me a rebuttal to that movie, and I can show you a rebuttal to the rebuttal, and I can show you a rebuttal to Al Gore, and on and on and on. This just in:

Right now I just wonder which team of scientists has more realistic and unassailable data.

Jed - Watch both movies, then discuss. Or at least watch half. For now, I will only say that your advice to "do something, don't do nothing" is only good advice when you say it is good advice. If it is universally good advice, then going to fight terrorism in Iraq would be preferable to sitting on your hands and talking, talking, talking at he U.N. PLEASE NOTE: I'm not advocating either in this comment - just using that as an example of how your advice may be - uh - flexible?

No, I don't admit that things are horribly horribly wrong - yet. I do admit that things seem to be headed in the wrong direction. I was fretting over poor old Mother Earth when you were knee-high to a grasshopper, ya young whelp!

One more thing - nobody on the right is making any effort to do anything about it? That's a pretty broad, wild statement. Are you sure that's accurate?

Marky Mark said...

Well, hell, stupid Blogger ruined that link above. It's a link to the story in the March 13 NYT titled "From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype"

jed said...

I said consider what options there are, offer some ideas, anything, something constructive rather than just refute other people's arguments. Where's the right's strategies for conservation? The left tends to at least attempt constructive sollutions. So you're something as aposed to nothing argument doesn't hold water. That wasn't the point of my argument at all. It was something constructive vs. blowing things up, letting the free market sort things out, or whatever the fuck I want is Ok leave me alone you hippies.

Marky Mark: "nobody on the right is making any effort to do anything about it? That's a pretty broad, wild statement. Are you sure that's accurate?"

Me: Yes.

Also: I have my own scientist right here, buddy, which I think trumps your documentaries. A genuine ecologist. You want experts? I pack her lunch.

This is even more pointless than the E.C. Segar argument. It's just never going to end.

Marky Mark said...

Oh, Jeddy Jed Jed. Sigh...

OK, first of all, you refused to believe me when I said I have not chosen sides, and that I am just looking for an answer, and I fully admit I don't HAVE the answer. You accuse me of "By golly, you're wrong and I'll show you".

Second, you declare that "Truth" was an honest attempt to inform, while there are spinmeisters behind "Swindle", without even watching half of either.

And your ridiculous claim that NOBODY on the right is doing ANYTHING to address the problem... and that all they do proactively is blow things up...

Will you please calm down?

We agree about one thing - this is pointless if you are just going to cram your dogma down my throat. But I can see how it is probably frustrating to bonzogal to show me a rebuttal, only to hear me say I can find a rebuttal to the rebuttal. That truly is running in circles, so let me zero in tighter on what might shut me up.

I am simply wondering which scientists are correct about the comparison of alarming CO2 levels throughout history. I am just wondering if there is, somewhere out there. the actual list of scientist on one side versus on the other, with their credentials etc. I hear activist on BOTH sides yelling about "concensus" and "a huge number of scientists" etc... Who are these experts? Besides Dr. Linville, I appreciate her views and don't think I don't.

In closing, the onus that is supposedly on me: I'm not sure I agree there is an onus on me. Not everybody can spend time and energy on this thing. Some of us have to draw comics, some of us have to drive UPS trucks, some of us have to hobnob with Taylor Hicks.

I don't know if I accept your onus, but the fact is, I have spent a little energy considering what other options there are. Your assumption that I have not is just wrong. Perhaps you are not talking about ME, but the larger "right" - but since you began your paragraph "So Mark" I got the impression you are talking to me.

I'll go ahead and tell you part of my plan, if I were crowned King of the World. This may shock you - I agree with Al Gore that we all can live simpler, less wasteful lives. I do it, and not just because I'm poorer. We could afford to turn the heat up above 60-62 degrees in this house. We could afford a car that is nicer than this old klunker my wife keeps because it gets such amazing gas mileage. Big heros, huh? I admit it's not much, but it's better than the High Priests of Global Warming do.

Beyond that, as King of the World I'd work vigorously to reverse the whole "growth and expansion is GREAT!" mindset, in such a way that we all have abundant housing, medical care, play time, etc - more than enough for our dwindling (or at least not exploding) population.

BonzoGal said...

Hope this helps: First, an article from Science magazine (which is a respected, peer-reviewed journal) about the consensus of most scientists on the human component of global warming:

And an article from the Washington Post about the funding sources for some of the main scientists involved with the "Swindle" movie- mostly ExxonMobil and coal industries:

“In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. (Fred) Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association.”


“Numerous media outlets reported that one of the professors, Dr. Patrick Michaels, has accepted upwards of $150,000 from coal interests and coal-burning electric utility companies for his advocacy against the overwhelming consenus on global warming.”

jed said...

Ok. I've mischaracterized you Mark. You do not represent the right wing power structure. I agree with you, that we need abundant housing and medical care for all. I agree with you that we have a serious over population problem (and abstinance isn't gonna do it).

And yes, the onus isn't on you. That was unfair. Again I was unfairly levelling my accusation against you instead of the right in general, and the right in general, at least the right wing power structure, hasn't offered any genuinely viable sollutions to the problem.

The right wing power structure, by and large, is about free market expansion. I'm talking the guys on the right with the power to make decisions. You know, the President, his cabinet, the majority of the Republican congressmen and senators, those people. Not you, not Ted Nugent, not Ricky Schroeder or Ann Coulter or Al Capp.

As for their being no one on the right willing to do anything about it, you're right, someone, somewhere probably does. But name one person on the right in a signifigant position of power who is making this a priority.

I don't know of any actual numbers or lists of scientists who don't believe in global warming, but I have consulted my expert, and she says it is decidedly a minority, and it's her job to keep up on what's being published in the field. That's what she does. If you want actual figures, I'm sure she could generate them. I'm also sure that it would be a big unnecessary pain in the ass. Global warming exists. It's a theory just as much as evolution and carbon dating are theories.

And no I don't think you're as bad as Ann Coulter. Or Al Capp. Or Ted Nugent for that matter. Or Ricky Schroeder. But I'm glad, that, for the most part, you keep your politics out of your comics.

BonzoGal said...

"...not Ted Nugent, not Ricky Schroeder or Ann Coulter or Al Capp."

ROFL! What a scary list. At least Al Capp provided us with a fine comic strip. (My husband wears a Schmoo pin on his Giants cap!)

eeTeeD said...

ummm, al capp's ASSISTANTS and ghosts provided us with a fine comic strip.

and if people really feel the need to feed and change and bath and diaper and nurture, why don't they go to their local old age home. they are filled with people in need of all that.

jed said...

Yes, and Felinni's assistants and Kurasawa's assistants, and Scorsese's assistants, and Orson Well's assistants sure did get the shit end of the stick. I bet these so-called "directors" couldn't draw a decent Little Audrey to save their lives.


"and if people really feel the need to feed and change and bath and diaper and nurture, why don't they go to their local old age home. they are filled with people in need of all that."

What the fuck are you talking about? What are you, a tough guy? Do you hate grandmothers too? Does this have something to do with something? Because I think I missed it.

Marky Mark said...

bonzogal - THANKS for your calm rational input. You'd be great in a hostage crisis! And you deserve a calm rational reply.

I wouldn't argue with Science Magazine if they said the consensus is in, and here are the scientists who agree vs the ones who disagree. But they lose me when they pledge allegiance to the IPCC as their proof. I simply do not trust anything connected to the U.N.

As for scientists connected to "Swindle" being in the pocket of Big Oil, that is disturbing, but to me it is no more disturbing than IPCC scientists being in the pocket of Big Government. I do not trust the left to tax progress and use the money wisely, any more than I trust the right to do the same.

I know this sounds argumentative. Sorry about that, but it's just the truth, my honest reaction to that article. I really do appreciate the info, though. And it really is good food for thought.

Don't worry, I did not FREAK OUT at the sight of the acronym IPCC and stop reading. I also read "IPCC is not alone in its conclusions etc" and I respect the honest efforts of Science Magazine to report the facts.

Can we just leave it at that? I'm not really demanding that everybody join hands and hate Al Gore together. I'm just skeptical about a LOT of the Global Warming panic - but not all of it.

And I'd really like to see the stats on the scientists that say CO2 is alarmingly higher than ever now, vs the other opinion. I don't expect anybody here in the tiny land of jabberous to have that info, but hey - I got my free MP3 of "Ain't That Peculiar" just by asking here. It never hurts to ask!

HEY EETEED! I agree with Greg about you - "I wanta party with that guy!"

JED - I'm looking into it...

eeTeeD said...

jed said "...Orson Well's assistants sure did get the shit end of the stick..."
yeah, i'm guessing they did, cuz it sure looks like wells got all the ice cream end of that stick.

what the "fuck" i was talking about was in reference to the overpopulation problem. all these people who want to make babies INSTEAD should go to group homes for the eldery and help take care of the people who already on the planet.

me a tough guy? jed, you are the one saying fuck and reading popeye. i'm the little audrey fan.

jed said...

Oh. What you said. About the overpopulation thing. I though that was some kind of tree-hugger dig or something. My apologies.

Icecream? It was wine and frozen peas!

Marky Mark said...

MOVIN' ON UP! I hereby promote Jed from his current position of Senior Grouch to Official Jabberous Hair-Trigger. Effective immediately. CONGRATULATIONS, JED!

jed said...

I suppose I earned that.

BenT said...

I'm curious about how much effect the CONSTANT GROWTH OF THE ANDES is having on global Climate. I saw a documentary on PBS a couple weeks back that mentioned that the Andes have increased in height by about 100 feet in the last century.

Considering that they run the whole length North to South of a Continent, and are perpendicular to prevailing global winds, their growth has to have some impact on climate.