Bottom line - if you have a strong opinion on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth probably will not change your mind. But I believe it's worth watching, if only to continue to fuel discussion.

We (hopefully) don't rely on opinion to determine the speed of light in a vacuum, the acceleration due to gravity, or the number of hours in a day. We, hopefully, don't vote on such matters.

On the other hand, we do rely on social and political processes to determine our response to such results of scientific inquiry.

Einstein's theory of relativity was the topic of extraordinary popular interest when published. Most of the discussion -- now, if not then -- was along the lines of "do you understand relativity". It was NOT along the lines of "do you believe in relativity." A few decades after his seminal papers were published, the Manhattan Project and subsequent Cold War thrust the IMPLICATIONS of relativity (and the rest of the revolution in physics that these theories inititiated) into the public domain.

Suppose the US Government had taken a posture in, say, 1940 that "we don't believe in relativity and quantum mechanics." Suppose our government had steadfastly maintained, in the face of growing evidence to the contrary, that this new aspect of physics was a liberal conspiracy? As the German or Soviet threat loomed larger and larger, what would have been the outcome of an essentially religious refusal to face the mounting body of evidence -- not only of the emerging "theory", but of a clear and present danger to the US embodied by the German or Soviet weaponry based on this "myth"?

The potential threat to each and every American presented by global warming DWARFS the threat posed by the Soviets. Whatever uncertainty there might be in timing or probability, the stakes are so high that the risk quickly becomes correspondingly astronomical.

Our response to this threat is and should be both social and political. Just as our response to the threats posed by Germany and the Soviet Union during the twentieth century were both social and political.

I, for one, think we cannot afford to distract ourselves with arguments about whether or not the phenomena is real. The risks are already immediate and profound, the consequences of not acting are already horrific and worsening.

We must act and act soon.

Global warming is the biggest fraud ever puportrated on the american public. The earth was born out of catyclism, and everything has its cycle. For everyone scientist who touts global warming, there are 10 who say there is absolutely no evidence of it, of course the media creates it's own hysteria and then there's nut cakes al gore who should be fitted for a straight jacket.
You are telling people 2+2 = 5, and the stupid are buying it.

Jim,

You have it backwards. For every scientist who is a naysayer about global warming there are 100 scientists who recognize global warming as an imminent threat. Just google the names of the sceptics "+ Exxon" and see how one oil company funds the other side of the so-called debate.

BrooklineTom

Unfortunately, I used that word opinion very purposefully. I know you've read the comments on this site. Have you seen some from people whose minds will not be changed? I bet you have. That seems to be part of the nature of our society today. I've sure seen it in the political arena. And it's unfortunate, because in science, a willingness to be openminded important. It would help a little on the political front, too. JMO.

Unfortunately, I used that word opinion very purposefully. I know you've read the comments on this site. Have you seen some from people whose minds will not be changed? I bet you have. That seems to be part of the nature of our society today. I've sure seen it in the political arena. And it's unfortunate, because in science, a willingness to be openminded important. It would help a little on the political front, too. JMO.

I agree, Laura. The point I'm perhaps belaboring is that I think it's important, particularly in discussion about scientific matters, to distinguish between open-mindedness about facts and open-mindedness about our interpretation of those facts.

Being "open-minded" about facts means, in my view, being willing to follow evidence whereever it leads, regardless of our feelings about it. Most emphatically, it does not mean entertaining idle speculation or myth. An unwillingness to embrace and even celebrate disturbing or inconvenient research results is a serious flaw in a scientist and in a scientific discussion.

On the other hand, as I tried to say earlier, I think we have to be VERY willing to entertain discussion and a variety of viewpoints about our interpretation of facts, especially when it comes to political consequences.

Thus, I think that the facts very clearly say, for example, that we cannot continue to base our economy on the continued emission of CO2 at the levels we currently maintain. The discussion of how we deal with that reality is likely to be long, intense, and -- to use diplomatic terms -- "candid and frank."

A relatively minor increase in mean sea level is going to be devastating to coastal cities throughout the world. The consequences of that devastation will make the post-Katrina situation look tame by comparison.

What are we going to DO about that? What value do we REALLY place on the sanctity of life -- especially when the lives in question are poor people who live in, for example, bad neighborhoods in Miami?

Thank you, Laura. Unfortunate and opinion are indeed the crucial adjectives. Relativity was science debated vigorously among scientists: brilliant, ordinary, close-minded, open-minded, entrenched, up-and-coming, etc.. Global warming is a political issue debated vigourously by idealogues: trees are nice, oil wells are nice, NRA, Sierra Club, America kicks ass (right-on), America kicks ass (that's not nice). Any science for or against falls under the wheels of the bus. Hope of scientific fact penetrating to the public voter level will not occur because the people framing the debate could care less. It is akin to betting our fate on the outcome of a fist fight between Al Gore and Ken Lay. (I guess Ken Lay is dead now, but I wouldn't count him out against Al Gore!)

This circumstance is extremely unfortunate. We will learn the answers eventually, but at what cost: destruction of the earth, or destruction of the economy, both, neither?

John

thats true. There are some people from this blog who refuses to change their minds and opinions about global warming and i know they're more than free to do that. as a matter of fact there are more people on this site who refuses to believe that global warming is true or that humans have caused it . in fact, reading comments on this blog have affected me in a way. this blog has taught me to think twice about an issue before believing anything (which i believe is good and reasonable to do) and i am looking at both sides of the matter now. we can present facts on both sides to prove their claims and we cannot eliminate one from the other. i believe that the argument that humans have caused global warming is something that cannot be proven nor be disregarded. its somewhat like a theory: we can present facts and evidences about it to prove that the theory is correct but then it should be observed from all points of argument with measurable accuracy before it will become what science call a "Law". And the issue of whether or not humans have caused global warming is something immeasurable, why? because even our instruments are not accurate enough to measure the underlying complexities of this planet. we can only predict the weather but we cannot be so sure that our predictions will always be accurate; how much more about predicting the global climate? maybe the best that we can do for now is to prepare for any unwelcome change that can happen.

The Earth goes through changes. Glaciers are meant to melt. If they had never retreated from North America there would be no Canada or New England. Human expansion would have stopped at a line of latitude about equal to New Jersey. I also bet that there will be a time that the Earth begins to cool again and glaciers start to grow and advance. This will set off a new 'crisis' as cities are enveloped by advancing glaciers. I agree we should reuse and recycle and find new energy sources but humans are creatures of habit and it will take a long time to break the habit of going to the gas station and filling up. Humans have adapted to climate change before and we will do it again...or have we forgotten how to adapt. Each age come to an end. The age of the pyramids, the Roman Empire all came to an end. Maybe it is our turn.