Forums » Off-Topic
I'm familiar with Michael Crichton and enjoyed his earlier novels but his days as a doctor and in a lab were back in the '60's so he was hardly what could be called an expert in the field. In any case, it should be remembered that Crichton was not completely unbiased when it came to discussing the environment as a quick perusal of the list of speeches on his website reveals. I actually agree with his opinion that turning environmentalism into a belief system is counter-productive (I've had my own share of run-ins with eco-nazis) and that environmental policy should be based on sound science and not ideology; but that works both ways.
Here's a well-sourced rebuttal of the most common scientific arguments made by skeptics.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_skeptics/common_claims_and_rebuttal
There is little scientific debate that the Earth is getting hotter, the "debate" is over to what degree human activity is contributory and what to do about it. The fact that there are scientists who have doubts about a theory doesn't invalidate a theory; that's simply a part of the scientific method.
P.S. After reading Crichton's "The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming," I have to admit I was disappointed by the number of flaws and inconsistencies in his argument considering his background. If you wish, I could do a point-by-point of his speech but barring that I think you can find more cogent proponents of your position.
Here's a well-sourced rebuttal of the most common scientific arguments made by skeptics.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_skeptics/common_claims_and_rebuttal
There is little scientific debate that the Earth is getting hotter, the "debate" is over to what degree human activity is contributory and what to do about it. The fact that there are scientists who have doubts about a theory doesn't invalidate a theory; that's simply a part of the scientific method.
P.S. After reading Crichton's "The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming," I have to admit I was disappointed by the number of flaws and inconsistencies in his argument considering his background. If you wish, I could do a point-by-point of his speech but barring that I think you can find more cogent proponents of your position.
I'll give that link a look.
You're right, Crichton's not an expert, and he's not unbiased, but he's well-spoken (his other speeches are good, too), and while there are more cogent proponents of my position those speeches are more readable by most people.
There is scientific debate on whether the Earth is getting hotter. It all depends on what your timeframe is. The last ten years have been a definite cooling trend, matching the solar cycle. The past 100 years have been getting warmer, but there's even debate over how much of that is urban heat island. In the past couple hundred thousand years we've been getting warmer; glaciers that used to cover most of North America have receded, but you can't blame that on fossil fuels. Once you start getting into geologic time, the Earth has rarely been colder than it is today. There have been very few times in Earth's history that there have even been polar ice caps. In fact, looking at the geologic record, times that the Earth has been warmer than today have been the times that life has flourished the most. So don't tell me that global warming will kill the Earth. It's probably the best thing that can happen for it. The Earth is a very efficient, robust, self-maintaining system. I am of the school of thought that while we can do great harm to our environment locally, the global environment doesn't even notice us. We weren't cooling the Earth in the 70s like they thought, we aren't warming it now. I wouldn't worry about it if it weren't for scams like carbon credits and gas taxes that threaten my wallet.
The fact that there are scientists that do believe a theory doesn't validate it. Shutting down debate by marginalizing the other side is not science. There is not a consensus on this issue, far from it. The issue has been hijacked by the media and government, and debate has been smothered.
You're right, Crichton's not an expert, and he's not unbiased, but he's well-spoken (his other speeches are good, too), and while there are more cogent proponents of my position those speeches are more readable by most people.
There is scientific debate on whether the Earth is getting hotter. It all depends on what your timeframe is. The last ten years have been a definite cooling trend, matching the solar cycle. The past 100 years have been getting warmer, but there's even debate over how much of that is urban heat island. In the past couple hundred thousand years we've been getting warmer; glaciers that used to cover most of North America have receded, but you can't blame that on fossil fuels. Once you start getting into geologic time, the Earth has rarely been colder than it is today. There have been very few times in Earth's history that there have even been polar ice caps. In fact, looking at the geologic record, times that the Earth has been warmer than today have been the times that life has flourished the most. So don't tell me that global warming will kill the Earth. It's probably the best thing that can happen for it. The Earth is a very efficient, robust, self-maintaining system. I am of the school of thought that while we can do great harm to our environment locally, the global environment doesn't even notice us. We weren't cooling the Earth in the 70s like they thought, we aren't warming it now. I wouldn't worry about it if it weren't for scams like carbon credits and gas taxes that threaten my wallet.
The fact that there are scientists that do believe a theory doesn't validate it. Shutting down debate by marginalizing the other side is not science. There is not a consensus on this issue, far from it. The issue has been hijacked by the media and government, and debate has been smothered.
The problem is perhaps not global warming (the vote on that is not in yet). The problem is the fact that relying on non-renewable fuels (within a useful period), be they radioactiveor hydrocarbon materials, is simply stupid, and will not work with the ever-increasing population of earth.
Funnily, the supposed ability of the market to govern itself has proven fallacy (obviously), because it only allows those who already have capital (us) to exploit those who do not (the others), and does nothing about the true problems currently present.
Without we experience a severe drop in life standard, there won't be a sustainable solution to the problem, and that probably won't happen, because people (me included) are essentially unwilling to give up their lifestyles (understandable).
That said, I'm inclined to to my own thing and just watch and see how it turns out, dirtily grinning and whispering "Told you so." when it turns out I was right.
If I wasn't, I'll be happy. But as it stands now, I'm fairly cynic, jaded, and full of contempt. Must be the getting older thing. Get off my lawn!
Funnily, the supposed ability of the market to govern itself has proven fallacy (obviously), because it only allows those who already have capital (us) to exploit those who do not (the others), and does nothing about the true problems currently present.
Without we experience a severe drop in life standard, there won't be a sustainable solution to the problem, and that probably won't happen, because people (me included) are essentially unwilling to give up their lifestyles (understandable).
That said, I'm inclined to to my own thing and just watch and see how it turns out, dirtily grinning and whispering "Told you so." when it turns out I was right.
If I wasn't, I'll be happy. But as it stands now, I'm fairly cynic, jaded, and full of contempt. Must be the getting older thing. Get off my lawn!
/me bangs head against desk.
The free market is not the problem, the government is. When it appears the market has failed, you can typically find reckless government intervention at the root of it. The only place the government has in the market is to keep people honest, never to dictate how anyone's money should be spent. And now they're spending money that isn't even ours, it doesn't even exist. We're in the early phases of what happened to Zimbabwe.
You know it's bad when Russia and China have to warn us about the dangers of too much government control:
"Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence is another possible mistake.
True, the state's increased role in times of crisis is a natural reaction to market setbacks. Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent.
The concentration of surplus assets in the hands of the state is a negative aspect of anti-crisis measures in virtually every nation.
In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.
Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state."
- Putin
I'm glad you can at least see the global warming debate isn't over, toshiro; too many think it's settled as the media would like us to believe. Impending disaster sells papers. In reality, I think the balance is starting to shift toward the skeptics, at least in the public arena if not among policymakers. That's one reason Bush's numbers were so low; global warming was one point of contention between Bush and those like myself who voted for him twice.
The free market is not the problem, the government is. When it appears the market has failed, you can typically find reckless government intervention at the root of it. The only place the government has in the market is to keep people honest, never to dictate how anyone's money should be spent. And now they're spending money that isn't even ours, it doesn't even exist. We're in the early phases of what happened to Zimbabwe.
You know it's bad when Russia and China have to warn us about the dangers of too much government control:
"Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence is another possible mistake.
True, the state's increased role in times of crisis is a natural reaction to market setbacks. Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent.
The concentration of surplus assets in the hands of the state is a negative aspect of anti-crisis measures in virtually every nation.
In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.
Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state."
- Putin
I'm glad you can at least see the global warming debate isn't over, toshiro; too many think it's settled as the media would like us to believe. Impending disaster sells papers. In reality, I think the balance is starting to shift toward the skeptics, at least in the public arena if not among policymakers. That's one reason Bush's numbers were so low; global warming was one point of contention between Bush and those like myself who voted for him twice.
I have no wish to quash debate; in fact, I encourage doubt in all things. However, I would argue that there *is* consensus within the scientific community regarding Global Warming
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html
as represented by the reports of the IPCC.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
However, less clear is the appropriate response to Global Warming; that is the venue of policy wherein the costs and benefits of any solution, such as they are, should be vigorously debated.
Sadly, you are quite correct when you say that the whole issue has been politicized to the point where the science is obscured by the various agendas of interested parties. Hopefully, reason will prevail and the truth will out. Cheers!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html
as represented by the reports of the IPCC.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
However, less clear is the appropriate response to Global Warming; that is the venue of policy wherein the costs and benefits of any solution, such as they are, should be vigorously debated.
Sadly, you are quite correct when you say that the whole issue has been politicized to the point where the science is obscured by the various agendas of interested parties. Hopefully, reason will prevail and the truth will out. Cheers!
The free market is *part* of the problem, Chaos. To artificially elevate it (the free market) so that it becomes a self-serving purpose is not wise, in my opinion. Basically, a totally free market is impossible, and to propose such a system is naive.
Putin ought to be doing other things than warning the US of excessive government control, when a large part of Russia is controlled by organized crime (hello entrepreneurial spirit! They found a nice niche). It is not a matter of blind faith in the government, but rather the fact that a 'totally free system' within an otherwise rather tautly, if heterogenically controlled space can only thrive at a heavy disadvantage to the rest of it.
As for politicians or media harping on the global warming strings: I'm fairly sure that, as you said, the topic is being used to make headlines. Ironically, the press is part of the above problem too, partially because it is possible to say a lot of things (which is a good thing if used with self-restraint), but this liberty is being irresponsibly used, and that, the irresponsible use of liberties, is why most 'freedoms' are so difficult to handle, including a free market. At least that is how I see it.
Putin ought to be doing other things than warning the US of excessive government control, when a large part of Russia is controlled by organized crime (hello entrepreneurial spirit! They found a nice niche). It is not a matter of blind faith in the government, but rather the fact that a 'totally free system' within an otherwise rather tautly, if heterogenically controlled space can only thrive at a heavy disadvantage to the rest of it.
As for politicians or media harping on the global warming strings: I'm fairly sure that, as you said, the topic is being used to make headlines. Ironically, the press is part of the above problem too, partially because it is possible to say a lot of things (which is a good thing if used with self-restraint), but this liberty is being irresponsibly used, and that, the irresponsible use of liberties, is why most 'freedoms' are so difficult to handle, including a free market. At least that is how I see it.
except subject; not Luxembourg but 550 km in the south in one of the wonders of the world: The Léman Evian France
Bah we lack a good old war .. advancing schmimblick Banzaiiiiii
tertior bad Joke
Bah we lack a good old war .. advancing schmimblick Banzaiiiiii
tertior bad Joke
Daare, I missed your post earlier, I just noticed it now.
I've seen many many news reports like that one in the Washington Times. Not too far back Time Magazine I think it was had a very lengthy issue that began along the lines of "the debate is over!" The media reports a consensus that does not exist. Skeptics are portrayed as a minority of kook fringe doubters on par with the Flat Earth crowd or whatever, and their opinions are not given the same weight as the alarmists. They are vilified and accused of being the tools of "Big Oil". No one looks at the vast amounts of grant money that exist for scientists willing to report what those with the money want to hear.
A consensus within the IPCC is not a worldwide scientific consensus. The IPCC is made up of scientists appointed by governments, and no one looks at the agendas of those governments. You only have to look as far as such things as the Kyoto Protocol to see how much money there is to be had by being on the politically correct side of this issue. Even those scientists in the IPCC are not all part of a consensus. The vast majority within that organization are, but not all, and the dissenters have their names beside the rest as having been on board. Some have gone to very great lengths, not always successfully, to have their names removed from the report. They are ignored by the media because they are inconvenient. To top it off, no one reads anything but the Summary for Policymakers, which is the point. This Summary is not written by scientists (not entirely), but by politicians, and many of them have no idea what's in the actual report.
As for the report itself, I haven't looked closely at the fourth report, but I read the Summary for Policymakers of the third, and much of the actual report itself, and it's mostly nonsense. They achieve the result they look for because they don't look farther than what they expect to see. They use the discredited hockey stick graph, ignore recent cooling, use a timeline that is convenient to show a warming trend, and completely ignore water vapor that isn't airplane contrails. No one knows how to properly simulate cloud cover, which is a huge deal, and yet we have the hubris to think we know what the climate will be in 100 years. There is at least a 400% margin of error in the predictions, which to me means "we don't know anything, but we're going to make a guess that sounds impressive".
There is no consensus, and in fact I believe we are approaching a tipping point as more and more skeptics are growing the spine to actually speak out and not be afraid of losing tenure or grant money, and public opinion is tipping, too as people are tired of hearing all the BS.
Oh, and the last sentence of that article you linked says it all:
"The chatter of skeptics is distracting us from the real issue: how best to respond to the threats that global warming presents."
This is how we skeptics are marginalized. What we have to say is merely chatter, whatever facts we may have behind our argument. And if all else fails, you can just point out that I am pursuing a career in the oil industry, and feel good about yourself while completely ignoring the substance of any argument I make.
I've seen many many news reports like that one in the Washington Times. Not too far back Time Magazine I think it was had a very lengthy issue that began along the lines of "the debate is over!" The media reports a consensus that does not exist. Skeptics are portrayed as a minority of kook fringe doubters on par with the Flat Earth crowd or whatever, and their opinions are not given the same weight as the alarmists. They are vilified and accused of being the tools of "Big Oil". No one looks at the vast amounts of grant money that exist for scientists willing to report what those with the money want to hear.
A consensus within the IPCC is not a worldwide scientific consensus. The IPCC is made up of scientists appointed by governments, and no one looks at the agendas of those governments. You only have to look as far as such things as the Kyoto Protocol to see how much money there is to be had by being on the politically correct side of this issue. Even those scientists in the IPCC are not all part of a consensus. The vast majority within that organization are, but not all, and the dissenters have their names beside the rest as having been on board. Some have gone to very great lengths, not always successfully, to have their names removed from the report. They are ignored by the media because they are inconvenient. To top it off, no one reads anything but the Summary for Policymakers, which is the point. This Summary is not written by scientists (not entirely), but by politicians, and many of them have no idea what's in the actual report.
As for the report itself, I haven't looked closely at the fourth report, but I read the Summary for Policymakers of the third, and much of the actual report itself, and it's mostly nonsense. They achieve the result they look for because they don't look farther than what they expect to see. They use the discredited hockey stick graph, ignore recent cooling, use a timeline that is convenient to show a warming trend, and completely ignore water vapor that isn't airplane contrails. No one knows how to properly simulate cloud cover, which is a huge deal, and yet we have the hubris to think we know what the climate will be in 100 years. There is at least a 400% margin of error in the predictions, which to me means "we don't know anything, but we're going to make a guess that sounds impressive".
There is no consensus, and in fact I believe we are approaching a tipping point as more and more skeptics are growing the spine to actually speak out and not be afraid of losing tenure or grant money, and public opinion is tipping, too as people are tired of hearing all the BS.
Oh, and the last sentence of that article you linked says it all:
"The chatter of skeptics is distracting us from the real issue: how best to respond to the threats that global warming presents."
This is how we skeptics are marginalized. What we have to say is merely chatter, whatever facts we may have behind our argument. And if all else fails, you can just point out that I am pursuing a career in the oil industry, and feel good about yourself while completely ignoring the substance of any argument I make.
Your career plans had zero impact on what I wrote since I had no idea what they were until you just told me. Nor am I attempting to marginalize anyone out of hand; all I ask is that if you have a counter argument that you present your hypothesis and the data to back it up. I've linked to sources so you can look at what convinced me that Global Warming is real; one test of a good scientific model is its ability to account for existing data which the current climate model does within a reasonable margin of error. Show me the data that disproves it and you may change my mind; questioning assumptions and reevaluating theories based on new data is how science advances.
P.S. You point to recent cooling and in the same sentence say we need to use a timeline that ignores current trends; this is very confusing.
P.S. You point to recent cooling and in the same sentence say we need to use a timeline that ignores current trends; this is very confusing.
I'm being lazy right now, I'll read your link and put something together later.
I never said we need to use a timeline that ignores current trends, I merely point out that your timeframe makes a difference. The IPCC uses a very convenient timeframe to show warming. Geologists in general tend to lean more heavily toward the skeptic side of the debate because it's nothing to us to consider 4 billion years of history all at once, and the geologic record shows that the Earth is unusually cool at the moment and that life flourishes most when the Earth is significantly warmer than it is now. I point to recent cooling because news reports often emphasize record high temperatures and mild winters, but do their best not to notice any trend of unseasonably cold temperatures; and more importantly, the cooling trend correlates very well with the current solar cycle. Since the Sun is the source of energy in the hydrologic system, it makes sense that fluctuations in solar radiation would have the greatest effect on climate. Solar cycles are given very little weight in the IPCC reports, almost as little as cloud cover.
I knew you didn't know what career I was pursuing (some here may have, I may have mentioned it before), but "ties to Big Oil" is probably the most frequently tossed around reason to discredit a global warming skeptic without looking at the substance of his argument. I meant it as a broader statement about skeptics in general.
I never said we need to use a timeline that ignores current trends, I merely point out that your timeframe makes a difference. The IPCC uses a very convenient timeframe to show warming. Geologists in general tend to lean more heavily toward the skeptic side of the debate because it's nothing to us to consider 4 billion years of history all at once, and the geologic record shows that the Earth is unusually cool at the moment and that life flourishes most when the Earth is significantly warmer than it is now. I point to recent cooling because news reports often emphasize record high temperatures and mild winters, but do their best not to notice any trend of unseasonably cold temperatures; and more importantly, the cooling trend correlates very well with the current solar cycle. Since the Sun is the source of energy in the hydrologic system, it makes sense that fluctuations in solar radiation would have the greatest effect on climate. Solar cycles are given very little weight in the IPCC reports, almost as little as cloud cover.
I knew you didn't know what career I was pursuing (some here may have, I may have mentioned it before), but "ties to Big Oil" is probably the most frequently tossed around reason to discredit a global warming skeptic without looking at the substance of his argument. I meant it as a broader statement about skeptics in general.
what.... Who says the World isn't flat?
it is flat! It just happens to wrapped around a big ball..
thank you... Now back to something irrational
It's not irrational to say that the world is a disc, it's just singularly unobservant and wrong...
What do you mean Tosh? Next thing you are telling me that the elephants and good ole A-Tuin is wrong too?;)
Hehe, well... since in Pratchett's novels, the world is a disc, it's not wrong, it's consistent with perceived reality, whereas on this rotational hyperboloid earth, it would be wrong.
But both statements would not be irrational ;)
But both statements would not be irrational ;)