Do you believe in man-made global warming?
I took it for granted. Like most people probably, Al Gore had me sold. Until this:
Before watching that the phrase “global warming propaganda” would have smacked of blinkered Republican rhetoric. As is pointed out in the film, there is a great global warming juggernaut brimming with funding for scientists that is very hard to slow down now. Even Bush conceded! (Wouldn’t it be funny if his stance on man-made global warming redeemed him in the end.) I think this is a very important film to legitimize the other side of the debate. I wonder is it having much effect?
I don’t know about you, but having a previously certain belief shattered by what looks like good science gives me a really good feeling. This science stuff is pretty awesome. 
After more reading around, it seems the documentary was a bit misleading, including theories which have been discussed in the literature and found to have problems, and not including some theories that have been put forward to explain the data presented. Check out this detailed response. Nevertheless it’s good to have some counterpoint to Al Gore. Now maybe we can meet in the middle?
March 26th, 2007 at 5:24 am
Why would you want to meet in the middle between junk science and real science? I’m all for keeping an open mind - it’s a requirement for serious scientific inquiry. But what’s the point in working out a compromise with something that’s already been shown to be discredited? It would be like trying to find the truth somewhere between the geocentric and Copernican models of the solar system. One is right, the other is wrong. You don’t need to work out a compromise.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:38 am
Hey Josh, I don’t think every single thing in the film has been discredited (for example: the claim that non-human controlled processes like volcano eruptions and emissions from the sea emit much more CO2 than humans). I haven’t read any other criticisms of Al Gore’s film, have you? I’m assuming that the scientists that appear in the Durkin documentary have problems with some of his evidence given that they disagree with his conclusion. Is everything in The Inconvenient Truth “right”?
These things are naturally simplified to appeal to a broader audience. They are a bundle of assertions and theories. By “meet in the middle” I mean take the bits from both that hold up to scrutiny and come up with another coherent picture to present to people.