Global Climate Destabilization – A Conversation

 

 

The Global Warming debate is, needless to say (but I’m saying it anyway to further this blog post), a contentious one. As Greg the Science Teacher Guy says, a more accurate term is Global Climate Destabilization. So whether you think humans are causing the planet to warm or not, or whether you even believe that the planet is even warming, this video gets a potentially important conversation going. It also frames the debate properly, not in whether the problem does or does not exist, but what are the costs or benefits to acting or not.

This video, entitled "How It All Ends" (hyperbole . . . or not?), is important not only from the global implications of the debate itself, but also because of the educational importance of science and the scientific process. This debate is what science is all about – a theory, presentation of data, peer review, skepticism, finding holes in the theory, lather, rinse, repeat.

Greg’s video makes me want to investigate more and see all the arguments for and against. I can form my opinions from people presenting evidence, but I always have more questions and I usually ask "what if they’re wrong?" Take for instance this video by the world renowned and well respected Sir David Attenborough:

 

 

Entitled "The Truth About Climate Change", it lays out (literally) the graph of the warming that’s occurring, but I’m left feeling like "that’s it, but I have so many questions?" Don’t just tell me it’s THE truth. So here’s another question. Can scientists possibly present ALL the arguments and evidence for ALL of us to be convinced one way or the other? I think this is an admirable attempt (though, as I write this I haven’t watched anywhere near all the videos) to open this debate to the public in an intelligent and scientific way. I think it’s worth my time.

Hat tip to Karl Fisch.

2 Comments

  1. It is a good one….(I delicioused it to you and many others about a month ago, btw).

    In answer to your questions, no and no, in reverse order. No, of course not ALL will be convinced about anything through rational discussion and/or science (‘We never landed on the moon’, young earth creationism, controlled demolition of WTC, Elvis lives, “They’ll still find the WMD in Iraq”, etc.). it’s a problem I’m not sure this or any other society will overcome. Let’s just try to keep them in a very tiny minority.

    And no, scientists can’s present ALL the arguments and evidence–science/evidence accumulates slowly over time, each scientist (or more likely, group of scientists) contributes a little piece here and a little piece there. Then a big picture emerges. What needs to happen better is instruction at the elementary and high school level about the nature of science so that people can cope with thinking about the big picture of scientific evidence.

    Darnit, this topic always riles me up!

  2. Patrick has already said it quite well.

    Even though I’m sure you read a plethora of blogs already I would suggest checking out No Impact Man. Even though his experiment is over the old posts are worth perusing and I think he makes great arguments on why global warming is something we should really be concerned about.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

© 2017 And He Blogs

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

css.php