Today I made an effort. One of the things that was pending was to see the famous documentary by Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, global warming, and already on the road, not particularly partisan myself, I found an eco-skeptic documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle , of the British Broadcasting Channel 4.
What I found far exceeds the level of disappointment I thought I would have. Overall, the two documentaries are guilty of the same, of manipulation, sensationalism and lack of rigor in many points. On the one hand, that of An Inconvenient Truth is a campaign-style of American politics, with the sensational elements to motivate the electorate. More a defense to global warming seems like a publicity stunt for Al Gore about his integrity, honesty ... but it is entertaining.
The other adult has seemed more focused on discrediting those who advocate global warming than anything else. No, you can not start discrediting the IPCC (the body charged with studying global warming to fall within the UN). Perhaps the United Nations is not as perfect as could be, but then to make such a great campaign to discredit ... (Because I promised not to talk politics "explicit" in this blog, but it reminds me horribly to other event in recent history). Also, also cast focus the environmental movement, calling them unconscious. It is true that not sympathize with them, I think some get too excited about their beliefs to be realistic. But the generalization made towards completely discredit them. They even insult the "prevention and precautionary principle." The precautionary principle is one of the principles which should be based environmental policies. There are other principles, like solidarity or responsibility. Prevention is contained when there is a risk that our action will harm the environment. If there is suspicion that a particular product will cause serious harm to ecosystems, prior to release, has While its effects be studied. Is not unique to the environment, something similar applies to trataminetos Medicine.
According to this adult film, the precautionary principle by the harmful effects of CO2 can seriously impair the development of third world countries could not use their own natural resources. Nothing is further from the truth. The approach of the Kyoto treaty is that reducing emissions will only be in developed countries, and will be permitted emission rates for developing countries. Poor countries can sell these emission rates to countries that want to emit more, leading to an injection of capital to economies less favored. It will be the market to regulate the price of these rates, ie if the country begins to industrialize underdeveloped want to use more of their own emission rates, fewer rights being free (which is how you call these rates). As there are fewer, the price of the same rise, so the more development in poor countries, the harder it will contaminate the rich, to reach some sort of trade which helps developing countries and the environment . At least that's how it would work if not the largest emitter of greenhouse gases not get into the market. This can have its political readings, but please do not.
There are two things you like enough to humanity, a position as the doctrines or ideas, both are conspiracies. So it is with the theme of global warming. This is something that has become fashionable in recent years. More and more the media bombardment launched by the journalists for Climate Change, whatever that is. And as any current hog the mainstream (or dominant thinking) always show dissent. The position is clear, or you're for or against. In the middle is what is most important: knowing the truth.
The second thing that people like him say they are conspiracies. There is always a conspiracy by big business lobbyists or political or religious groups maneuvering behind the opposite position. Global Warming supporters look askance at the oil majors, daughters of Satan, while the eco-skeptics look to the radical activists of Greenpeace, as if terrorists are treated, and like any terrorist financing needs, the hand that feeds is none other than nuclear power, which is bad because it pollutes a lot. Would not it be easier if all the indoctrination the cause to see hidden enemies? Of course there are economic interests involved, but the gregarious spirit we distorts reality.
If something needed done when it comes to Global Warming in documentaries, is that there is no objective point of view. Science is not about bringing charlatans who speak evil of the opposite, but in the event of conflicting opinions, where through honesty, respect for opponents and all the rigor, better sense prevails, which also usually one of the intermediate.
What is truth in all this? So basically we know little. The Earth is a tremendously complex system. The relationships between different variables are not always clear and little mistakes can make the most disparate conclusions. In addition, it is not easy to understand operation. Predictions are made using mathematical models. These are formulas, equations, and there are two circumstances, nor is it clear how those formulas, and are often easy to solve. To make matters worse, falsify the result is the simplest thing in the world, just not to mention how you have calculated. This makes the explanations and predictions that are based on the positions and motions of the different sides rather ambiguous. Do not really know much about the weather.
Yet some things do have them clear. There really is a Climate Change. This is indisputable, and we perceive every day. At night it gets colder During the day, one day may be raining and sunny the next, the seasons have different temperatures (well, all I said was weather, not climate). As we expand the global and temporal scale, there are dry years and hot, cold and rainy. There have been ice ages and periods of maximum heat. Weather on Earth is constantly changing.
Another thing that is clear is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and is partly responsible for the current temperature of the planet. You see, Venus and Mars have a distance from the Sun and a size close enough to Earth to give the same climatic conditions. But an atmosphere extremely dense and rich in CO2 causes the temperature on Venus reach 450 º C, while the low-pressure Martian atmosphere causes the temperature of several units below zero. In fact, making the Earth's energy balance, the average temperature on the planet should be about -18 º C, 30 ° less than there are on average (about 15 ° C).
But this warming is not only due to CO2, there are many other greenhouse gases such as nitrogen oxides, ozone, methane and water. In fact the water, because of its abundance and its ability to absorb energy is a major greenhouse gas, but unlike the others, is a gas regulatory capacity. If there is a lot of water vapor in the atmófera, heat and evaporate more water. If the humidity reaches saturation, forming clouds that reflect sunlight down the temperature.
The protagonist of the CO2 greenhouse effect is because its concentration has doubled in the last 200 years, and is considerably more abundant than the other greenhouse gases. This does not mean that the others are harmless. Methane, for example, in his broadcast experience a flood higher than that of CO2, and is 40 times more powerful, but it breaks easily.
One of the arguments that are based eco-skeptics is that the emission of CO2 by humans is significantly lower than the natural. Well, this is true, but what is also true is that the natural emission is reabsorbed by the biosphere and oceans, while we issue we are not entirely removed from the atmosphere. Yes, indeed, is the famous sink lost, but because it is lost, we do not know, and therefore can not predict how it will behave.
short, there is climate change, we know that the CO2 emitted by humans will have an impact on climate, need to know how much. The odds of that happening climatic catastrophes are as low as it does not happen anything. All our action has a consequence, so it is worth applying the precautionary principle will not be that (and forgive) the jodamos.
addition, the fight against climate change has other objectives. Climate change is just one of the consequences of indiscriminate use of fossil fuels. The most notable is that run out, and if you are exhausted, an entire economy based on them will sink. And I'm not getting catastrophic, it would not be the first energy crisis of humanity. One cause of the collapse of the Roman Empire was precisely the scarcity of energy resources for its economy: labor slave. And more recently, in the late seventies the world economy was affected by higher oil prices, a crisis that lasted several years and today still dragging one of its consequences.
research is needed in new energy sources but especially on new ways to manage energy, if not for global warming, if not for the oil pollution involved, if only for economic development itself.
PS: I would like to talk more about the documentary by Al Gore. It's fun, but quite partisan. Please do not take "An Inconvenient Truth" as a truth absolute.
What I found far exceeds the level of disappointment I thought I would have. Overall, the two documentaries are guilty of the same, of manipulation, sensationalism and lack of rigor in many points. On the one hand, that of An Inconvenient Truth is a campaign-style of American politics, with the sensational elements to motivate the electorate. More a defense to global warming seems like a publicity stunt for Al Gore about his integrity, honesty ... but it is entertaining.
The other adult has seemed more focused on discrediting those who advocate global warming than anything else. No, you can not start discrediting the IPCC (the body charged with studying global warming to fall within the UN). Perhaps the United Nations is not as perfect as could be, but then to make such a great campaign to discredit ... (Because I promised not to talk politics "explicit" in this blog, but it reminds me horribly to other event in recent history). Also, also cast focus the environmental movement, calling them unconscious. It is true that not sympathize with them, I think some get too excited about their beliefs to be realistic. But the generalization made towards completely discredit them. They even insult the "prevention and precautionary principle." The precautionary principle is one of the principles which should be based environmental policies. There are other principles, like solidarity or responsibility. Prevention is contained when there is a risk that our action will harm the environment. If there is suspicion that a particular product will cause serious harm to ecosystems, prior to release, has While its effects be studied. Is not unique to the environment, something similar applies to trataminetos Medicine.
According to this adult film, the precautionary principle by the harmful effects of CO2 can seriously impair the development of third world countries could not use their own natural resources. Nothing is further from the truth. The approach of the Kyoto treaty is that reducing emissions will only be in developed countries, and will be permitted emission rates for developing countries. Poor countries can sell these emission rates to countries that want to emit more, leading to an injection of capital to economies less favored. It will be the market to regulate the price of these rates, ie if the country begins to industrialize underdeveloped want to use more of their own emission rates, fewer rights being free (which is how you call these rates). As there are fewer, the price of the same rise, so the more development in poor countries, the harder it will contaminate the rich, to reach some sort of trade which helps developing countries and the environment . At least that's how it would work if not the largest emitter of greenhouse gases not get into the market. This can have its political readings, but please do not.
There are two things you like enough to humanity, a position as the doctrines or ideas, both are conspiracies. So it is with the theme of global warming. This is something that has become fashionable in recent years. More and more the media bombardment launched by the journalists for Climate Change, whatever that is. And as any current hog the mainstream (or dominant thinking) always show dissent. The position is clear, or you're for or against. In the middle is what is most important: knowing the truth.
The second thing that people like him say they are conspiracies. There is always a conspiracy by big business lobbyists or political or religious groups maneuvering behind the opposite position. Global Warming supporters look askance at the oil majors, daughters of Satan, while the eco-skeptics look to the radical activists of Greenpeace, as if terrorists are treated, and like any terrorist financing needs, the hand that feeds is none other than nuclear power, which is bad because it pollutes a lot. Would not it be easier if all the indoctrination the cause to see hidden enemies? Of course there are economic interests involved, but the gregarious spirit we distorts reality.
If something needed done when it comes to Global Warming in documentaries, is that there is no objective point of view. Science is not about bringing charlatans who speak evil of the opposite, but in the event of conflicting opinions, where through honesty, respect for opponents and all the rigor, better sense prevails, which also usually one of the intermediate.
What is truth in all this? So basically we know little. The Earth is a tremendously complex system. The relationships between different variables are not always clear and little mistakes can make the most disparate conclusions. In addition, it is not easy to understand operation. Predictions are made using mathematical models. These are formulas, equations, and there are two circumstances, nor is it clear how those formulas, and are often easy to solve. To make matters worse, falsify the result is the simplest thing in the world, just not to mention how you have calculated. This makes the explanations and predictions that are based on the positions and motions of the different sides rather ambiguous. Do not really know much about the weather.
Yet some things do have them clear. There really is a Climate Change. This is indisputable, and we perceive every day. At night it gets colder During the day, one day may be raining and sunny the next, the seasons have different temperatures (well, all I said was weather, not climate). As we expand the global and temporal scale, there are dry years and hot, cold and rainy. There have been ice ages and periods of maximum heat. Weather on Earth is constantly changing.
Another thing that is clear is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and is partly responsible for the current temperature of the planet. You see, Venus and Mars have a distance from the Sun and a size close enough to Earth to give the same climatic conditions. But an atmosphere extremely dense and rich in CO2 causes the temperature on Venus reach 450 º C, while the low-pressure Martian atmosphere causes the temperature of several units below zero. In fact, making the Earth's energy balance, the average temperature on the planet should be about -18 º C, 30 ° less than there are on average (about 15 ° C).
But this warming is not only due to CO2, there are many other greenhouse gases such as nitrogen oxides, ozone, methane and water. In fact the water, because of its abundance and its ability to absorb energy is a major greenhouse gas, but unlike the others, is a gas regulatory capacity. If there is a lot of water vapor in the atmófera, heat and evaporate more water. If the humidity reaches saturation, forming clouds that reflect sunlight down the temperature.
The protagonist of the CO2 greenhouse effect is because its concentration has doubled in the last 200 years, and is considerably more abundant than the other greenhouse gases. This does not mean that the others are harmless. Methane, for example, in his broadcast experience a flood higher than that of CO2, and is 40 times more powerful, but it breaks easily.
One of the arguments that are based eco-skeptics is that the emission of CO2 by humans is significantly lower than the natural. Well, this is true, but what is also true is that the natural emission is reabsorbed by the biosphere and oceans, while we issue we are not entirely removed from the atmosphere. Yes, indeed, is the famous sink lost, but because it is lost, we do not know, and therefore can not predict how it will behave.
short, there is climate change, we know that the CO2 emitted by humans will have an impact on climate, need to know how much. The odds of that happening climatic catastrophes are as low as it does not happen anything. All our action has a consequence, so it is worth applying the precautionary principle will not be that (and forgive) the jodamos.
addition, the fight against climate change has other objectives. Climate change is just one of the consequences of indiscriminate use of fossil fuels. The most notable is that run out, and if you are exhausted, an entire economy based on them will sink. And I'm not getting catastrophic, it would not be the first energy crisis of humanity. One cause of the collapse of the Roman Empire was precisely the scarcity of energy resources for its economy: labor slave. And more recently, in the late seventies the world economy was affected by higher oil prices, a crisis that lasted several years and today still dragging one of its consequences.
research is needed in new energy sources but especially on new ways to manage energy, if not for global warming, if not for the oil pollution involved, if only for economic development itself.
PS: I would like to talk more about the documentary by Al Gore. It's fun, but quite partisan. Please do not take "An Inconvenient Truth" as a truth absolute.
0 comments:
Post a Comment