In my research I came across another blog kept by Lubos Motl, a former associate professor of physics at Harvard. Motl is a bold critic of global warming; one of his arguments against it can be found by going to the link below.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-dioxide-and-temperatures-ice.html
Basically, he's saying that in the graphs showing co-relation between temperature and levels of CO2 and methane, it was temperature increase that caused the rise in these gas levels, not the other way around. One reason why is because there is an 800-year lag between when temperature rises and when gas levels rise. And when the seas heat up because of this, the gases dissolved in them escape into the air (recall: gases dissolve better at lower temperatures).
I found his argument pretty interesting and convincing so I decided to do some research on the man himself. He taught at Harvard so he must be quite knowledgable, however I find his personality kind of questionable. From reading more of his blogs, I found he was sometimes more subjective than objective. For one thing, you can tell he's not particularly fond of Al Gore (he seems to find George Bush a more trustworthy human being), and he said "most proponents of the global warming theory are crackpots." I don't think provoking people with insults is the best way to have them pay attention to your argument, but tha's just my oppinion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree with your statement of the skeptics technique of "provoking people with insults" as being not only obnoxious but ineffective. I also came across a skeptic, John Stossel, who is an ABC news reporter. Unlike you're Harvard professor, Stossel provides scarce scientific evidence to back up his allegations that climate change is a hoax. However, he is not dry on his insults as in the below linked video, he states that “It’s important that you make the effort to get through that dumb layer, Some of you are brilliant scientists, but you can’t talk worth a damn".
ReplyDeleteHe also alludes to Al Gore and questions his climate change hypothesis. He also goes further to say that buying a Prius or changing a lightbulb wouldn't have any effect if there really is climate change.... have a look at his speech yourself if you are interested:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/blog/entry/458/?gclid=CLPF65XsiJ0CFc5L5QodxmlobA
Hm..."dumb layer" huh? Honestly, I mean some of the skeptic arguments I've read so far do seem worth considering, but gosh do they honestly expect that provocation and hostility toward the people you are supposedly trying to convince is the right way to go? Sometimes I feel like those snide remarks are more to unite skeptics against a common enemy rather than for spreading the "truth" about global warming. Am I the only one getting this vibe?
ReplyDelete