Global Warming- 2

I believe this antiglobal warming video contains better science and is more rational than the Al Gore speech.

The views of the scientists do coincide with what I have learned this semester. I learned that CO2 makes up little of the atmosphere, yet does much to warm the environment. But the warming the environment receives from CO2 is nothing compared to the warming the earth receives from the Sun. The scientists point out excellent flaws that can result from invalid testing methods. For example, different people have done testing that shows warming of the environment occurred far earlier than Al Gore's research suggested. The warming actually began around 1940. Al Gore used ice core data in his speech, yet ice core data from geological material that leaves valid dates for recording climate suggests a link that contradicts his assertion completely. The link is the wrong way around. These scientists revealed that Co2 doesn't drive temperature change, but follows temperature change. Based on what I've learned, that is a very correct assertion. The biogeochemical patterns display this temperature increase and slow CO2 increase. In addition to their suggestion that CO2 rises from everything on earth and human production of CO2 is in the single digits about 6%, it is easy to believe the scientists' assertions.

The weakest point the scientists made came in the last portion of the message. They go into detail about the poor in third world countries. While most of what they said was correct, I could not trust the point because it did not support their reasonings very well. Their point was that politicians are trying to keep people in third world counries in squalor. However, the way the point was presented, it wasn't strictly scientific.

As persons, I tend to trust scientists far more than politicians. What do scientists (excluding environmental scientists) have to gain from lying about ecology in comparison to politicians? Politicians have far more motivaton for lying or neglecting significant truths.

On a gut level, I find Al Gore to be a biased representative of climate change, while the scientists are more unbiased. Al Gore is rather repulsive to me as a man and seems pretty untrustworthy. I picked up on more depth of reason and integrity in the scientists.