Mon, Apr 14, 2008
Brian Gordon is a Canadian Green Party member and candidate trained by Al Gore to present An Inconvenient Truth.
Take your pick, say the sceptics. I was once and still am a sceptic, though I like to think I’m an honest one: somebody makes a claim, I want to check it out. That’s what I did several years ago when I finally woke up to all the noise around this global warming ‘emergency.’
![]()
Image via Flickr
I read blogs and newspaper articles on both sides of the issue, and both sounded very plausible. The only way to determine the truth was to go back to the science. So, every time I read a claim either for or against, I tracked it back to its scientific source.
The result was that I go educated, and I got madder than hell. Because, whatever way you look at global warming, it’s a big deal. Either:
So what did I find?
- On one side are literally thousands of scientists from universities around the world and from organizations like NASA, and the national science academies, and reputable publications like Scientific American.
- On the other sides are people holding all kinds of different views. Some say global warming is real, but natural. Others say the earth is in a cooling period. Others say the science is not clear. Others say that the scientists have been wrong before, and on and on.
Had I noticed this right at the start, I probably would have saved myself a lot of time and just come down on the side of the scientists immediately. However, I discovered this as I investigated. I would read an article claiming the earth was in a cooling period, for example. Then, I would track back the source of the claim. In many cases where someone was denying global warming, I found that the person was part of a ‘think tank’ that was funded by oil and coal companies, but I investigated the claim anyway. After all, it was possible that the person was honest regardless of the source of his funds - though I found that, in general, those denying global warming also denied that scientists at universities could be objective.
But never mind, I checked the claim. And I started to get angry. The more I dug, the angrier I got, because I discovered that a lot of people are making crap up - and it wasn’t the scientists. Their data checked out. They published their findings in journals open to all. In fact, the science market is perhaps one of the freest markets we have: every idea, every finding, every conclusion is thrown open to the world for validation, modification, or rejection.
The deniers, on the other hand, fell into two camps: Dupes and liars. I was a dupe when I started out. I believed all the “hocum” I had been fed: there is no consensus, the market will solve any problems, scientists have been wrong before, etc., etc., etc. What I found was that there are some professional liars who are deliberately muddying the waters in order to stall action. In fact, some of the same crew had worked for the tobacco companies doing the same thing. The result in that case was that millions died while the tobacco companies stalled to get a few more years of profit.
And the reason I got so angry - and still am - is not simply that these corrupt individuals are pushing an agenda that suits certain vested interests. That’s bad enough. What makes it unforgivable is the consequences. The more I studied, the more obvious it became that we are in real trouble, and if anything, the scientists are being far too conservative.
And the idea that global warming is some sort of worldwide scientific conspiracy to impose a global socialist government? I found this to be so ludicrous that it amazes and depresses me that there are people who believe it. Think about it:
In the end, by the time I saw Al Gore’s movie there was nothing new in it for me. He was repeating what I had already found by checking the science. Because I feel a responsibility to leave my children a better world, I shook off my cynicism about politics, and I got myself trained to deliver Gore’s Inconvenient Truth presentation. And I decided that wasn’t enough, so I looked into the Canadian political parties and picked the Green Party. So for those deniers who think I hold my views on global warming because I’m a Gore fan or a Green Party candidate - you’ve got it exactly backwards. It happened the other way around.
And for those of you who are hard-headed sceptics like me, you can’t just read stuff that agrees with your views. If you want to be an honest sceptic, you are going to have to put aside what you want to believe and start digging. Here a source to get started: I listed several places that list the common arguments against global warming, why they’re not true - and explain why, with scientific references.
Be sceptical, but be honest about it.
If you want to keep up with Brian’s adventures in the Green Party, why not subcribe to our RSS feed? We’ll even give you a free album.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
The skeptics have diverse opinions because the term includes all opposition. Its very silly of you derive Skepticism simply because of the innate consequence of the terminology.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
What about defective data. In particular, temperature measurements at airports with the sensors located between buildings, right next to tarmacs, etc. It gets worse. Like the sensor box with a light bulb in it and those which “feel” hot air coming from air conditioning exhaust?
April 15th, 2008 at 1:22 am
I’m one of those skeptics that runs a blog on the subject and I still hold to the economic turmoil theory. It’s not just about a different kind of manufactured car; it’s about the imposed carbon taxes and increased food prices due to ethanol production and increased transportation costs (again, due to carbon taxes). Just recently, the MIT scientist that blamed hurricanes on global warming has reversed his position. Weather forecasters can’t predict weather a week out, but they can understand long-term trends?
Anyway, I enjoyed your article and I applaud you for the due diligence in studying this yourself. That took a lot and you should be commended for your effort.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:56 am
The science you don’t like:
“The deniers, on the other hand, fell into two camps: Dupes and liars. I was a dupe when I started out. I believed all the “hocum” I had been fed: there is no consensus, the market will solve any problems, scientists have been wrong before, etc., etc., etc. What I found was that there are some professional liars who are deliberately muddying the waters in order to stall action. In fact, some of the same crew had worked for the tobacco companies doing the same thing. The result in that case was that millions died while the tobacco companies stalled to get a few more years of profit.”
BUT
The science you like: Thousands of scientists, in dozens of countries, at hundreds of institutions from universities etc.
You really can’t find credible peer reviewed scienctific papers that disagree with your views? You haven’t looked very far. Lot’s of stuff from MIT and the Max Planck Institute, by the right wing Chinese government; even by NASA and some of the science referenced in the IPCC. The science is anything but resolved.
A little too much name calling on your part from someone so convinced of their position.
So far the cost of fighting global warming exceeds by a factor of thousands to any harm done by global warming.
Jim Berry
April 15th, 2008 at 2:56 am
Brian, you fail to note that the scale of deniers ranges from those who totally deny global warming is occuring to those who believe that it’s occurrence may not be due entirely or at all to the actions of mankind. Many, myself included, believe that the current warming trend (which seems to have plateau’d since 1998) is due to solar activity. Variations in the sun’s intensity caused the Medievel Warming Period and the Ice Age, and between those two extremes there is considerable variation from one century to the next. I just believe that we should not … you know something, Brian. I could tell from the start of your article that it was a small-minded hit piece, and I’m done with being bothered with it. Good Luck.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:01 am
You’ve had a very similar experience to mine. I started looking for global warming facts about 7 or 8 years ago. What I found was and continues to be, very frightening. Especialy when I Googled “antarctic ice core data”. You can see how global temperature and CO2 concentration are in lock step when in equalibrium over the last 600,000 years. Then when we get to the 1900’s, we’re completely out of sync. When we get back to equilibrium, what will it be like? Frightening! I feel bad for my children, who will be living in a changed world.
April 15th, 2008 at 5:39 am
According to one research the poorest people in the world’s poorest countries will suffer the earliest and the most from climate change, according to this year’s edition of the Environmental Review. The report says that, due to their geographical location, low incomes, and low institutional capacity, as well as their greater reliance on climate-sensitive sectors like agriculture, the poorest countries and people are suffering earliest and are poised to suffer most.
April 15th, 2008 at 9:34 am
I find many scientists working for universities without oil company grants with views that are counter to the global warming fans. I also find many scientists on the warming side who accept grants from government and various interest groups. There are also many millions or billions to be made selling carbon credits that do absolutely nothing but make you feel as if you’ve done something wonderful for the world.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Thanks Brian, that was an incredibly interesting rebuttal.
What has always seemed most perplexing is that even if you’re unconvinced as to the proof, given the potential magnitude of the situation it would surely be preferable to err on the side of caution. There are lots of little changes you can make - using energy efficient light bulbs, insulting your house etc - that make no difference to your lifestyle and actually save you money as you use less electricity.
There’s a charity I’m involved with called Together.com that is based around these principles. Some of the things you can do are so straightforward, and they’re also running a competition at the moment in which you can win a load of eco-friendly prizes. Seeing as its a “confess your eco sins” theme, even some sceptics might be interested…
April 15th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Brian,
I applaud your due diligence and open-mindedness. It is refreshing from an admitted member of the skeptical crowd. How any skeptic can doubt that pouring billions of tons of a greenhouse gas that remains for a hundred years or more in increasing amounts year-to-year into a paper-thin atmosphere has impact on the functioning of that atmosphere’s properties is difficult to fathom.
April 15th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Then how about you produce some links to these documents for review?
April 15th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Man Bear Pig is coming! MAN BEAR PIG!!
Haha. I can’t believe how superficial this article is. Imagine if soomeone had written an article that said “I used to believe in global warming. But I realized that the scientific community is an elitist group of liberal anti-industrial intellectuals that ostracizes and brands those who contradict it as being mentally inferior so as to ironically impose a sort of group think on itself. That’s why they all agree on this. That made me realize there is no global warming. That and I did some real research.”
That would be pretty retarded. I agree with someone who posted before me that the solar activity theory is the most compelling explanation out there.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Some interesting “rebuttals.” Unfortunately, they all seem to bear out the idea that sceptics want to believe something so much that they rationalise their way to it.
To Charlie H., for example: You think the scientists measuring temperature didn’t think that putting a light in a box might affect the reading, or that tarmac might be hotter than grass? I don’t think our educational system has fallen that far yet.
Thank you to Lulu Blue for pointing out a common failing of sceptics: they claim big names as being “against” global warming, yet rarely cite credible (or, in the case of Jim Berry, ANY) research that counters the consensus.
And thanks to all who have the courage to face up to the truth, no matter how frightening or painful.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:35 am
It’s unfortunate but true that people believe what is convenient. Here’s a common thread of logic:
There is no lack of evidence that shows our environmental trouble to be self-inflicted, but if I agree I might feel compelled to actually do something and I wouldn’t even know how to begin - it would take effort! - so I am going to work really really hard to cobble together some explanations, some sympathetic sources to cite, and some logical fallacies that sound good. And if I’m faced with someone who is educated enough to dismiss all of this and recognize what I’m trying to do it might at least keep them confused long enough for me to get away before they can point it out.
The sad thing? All of that effort could have been directed toward learning about the problem and starting to fix it, or even doing unbiased research. Biased research always delivers exactly the result it’s expected to.
October 5th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
trained by Al gore, oh no