Continuing the systemic thinking theme...
I've never seen a revolution that was overtly started from the top. That's why I've been so skeptical about Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth-backed environmental movement. Have you seen all the publicity that documentary has received? How about the Live Earth concerts? I'm sorry, I don't buy it. As much as I'd like to think that Gore and Co. care, I just can't hack it. Same goes for most of us Americans. I don't believe for a moment that all of a sudden we really truly care about the environment. If we - the most selfish nation on Earth - really cared, we'd be doing something about Darfur. Those people are dying today. We are too busy watching sports, American Idol, movies, working, shopping, dieting, and wondering what's going to happen with the recent collapse of the stock market to give a damn. Environment? Darfur? Please. Give me a break.
That's why when I read that Canadian Economist Steve McIntyre has exposed the fact that the global temperature data produced by James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has been faked I'm not surprised. This is the same data that was used by Gore in Inconvinient Truth.
NASA is siliently trying to clean up its act and has re-released the correct data. This is not the first sign pointing to all the faults found in Gore's documentary. Maybe the only "Inconvenient Truth" Gore has to deal with now is how his climate-change based hedge fund Generation Investment Management is going to convince investors.
Don't believe the hype, question it!
First of all, I'm surprised that nobody has commented on this post.
I finally watched An Inconvenient Truth last night. I've been following Al Gore's campaigns over the past year and so, was shocked to read about the discrepancy in the data that was used for the documentary. I wonder what Gore's response was when he found out about this.
From what I understand (and correct me if I'm wrong) the correct data ambiguates the relationship between CO2 emissions and Global Warming. Steve McIntyre also says that the exact nature of the relationship has not been proved but he does acknowledge its existence. Fine. But does that really take away from the core message that Gore is trying to convey? In addition to just this data from NASA, Gore also cites global phenomena that are attributed to climate change and human impact. The idea that 'human interests are at collision with the planet' still holds true. He creates awareness and calls upon people to act, to reduce impact and work towards to sustainability. How is that bad? Is he trying to make money off of this venture of his? Maybe. And so what?! If you can get rich by encouraging sustainable development, what better way to make money?
IF it is proved beyond a doubt that CO2 emissions have nothing to do with Global Warming or that Global Warming is an erroneous conclusion to a more complex problem, I would expect that the masses be made aware of the actual problem at hand. Feeding off false fears is immoral. However, the fundamental message of reduce, reuse and recycle still holds. And THAT is not something people should be allowed to forget.
Posted by: Ritwik Dey | January 08, 2008 at 11:21 AM