Michael Crichton picks a fight with environmentalists

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What a lousy article.

It's central thesis seems to be: scientists were wrong abut the Drake equation and nuclear winter, so they are wrong about global warming, becuas scientifici consensus is always wrong.

Great reasoning there, Mike.

Thirty years ago it was OMG WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ICE AGE RUN FOR YOUR LIVES. Why should we pay attention now?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Btw, the last Clancy I read "Red Rabbit" was just shiite, that I didn't even finish and won't even dream of reading anything he writes after that. And I'm probably one of the few people who liked "Executive Orders" and "The Bear and the Dragon"

[alva]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Thirty years ago it was OMG WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ICE AGE RUN FOR YOUR LIVES. Why should we pay attention now?

Thirty years ago it was OMG DDT are good for you!! Drench your land with them else you gotta RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!.*

*forgot to use caps throughout.

[Kuciwalker]

So we should be skeptical of people pushing new products, too. So?

[Sandman]

Reading Critchton's views on environmentalism, it's increasingly clear he's a bit of a nut. Environmentalism isn't a religion, much less a 'perfect remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.' It's perfectly possible to hold religious and environmental beliefs at the same time, for example.

There's precious little reasoning behind his arguments; they revolve around talking up the similarities between religion and enviromentalism, often using strongly worded metaphors, and ignoring the differences.

I could just a easily claim that driving a car, or getting a haircut, is a religion.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
Its well established that (1) Human activity is rapidly incressing the CO2 level in the atmospher (2) this is raising the tempurature of the planet. The only things in question is how change is going to happen and how disruptive it will be for us. As long as he dosen't try to bash thouse 2 points then he wont be in the wrong.

(2) It is NOT well established that this is the main reason of rising temperature. As it is, temperature changes varies independently of the CO2 level.

I think if we get off with it equivilent of "bad" weather ever year (like a bad hurricane season or a bad rainfall meaning a year of weather that would normaly happen once every 10 years becomes the norm) then we could count outselves lucky and adjust with out too much trouble.

Despite of approx 100 years of manmade CO2 it seems that the weather hasn't discovered this fact. There are not more hurricanes, tornadoes, taifuns, 100 year waves etc. than there used to be. Admitted, some records has been broken according to windspeed etc, but that are based on 150 years of datacollecting. New record set in 1990'ies, well nobody knows if there has been worse before; it's not even sure that there hasn't been worse in the period where data has been collected - it's only in the last 30-40 years we have reasonly reliable data worldwide.

Some kind of doomsday senario like melting the Ice caps or enter an ice age is a rather wild conjecture at this point (but ofcorse the first 2 points I made were wild conjecture back in the 70's, more research needs to be done ofcorse).

Funny thing is that IF the temperature really are rising, it will not make the polar caps melt - actually it will make them grow. No, i'm not insane (my shrink tells me others, but who cares ). If temperature rises, evaporation rises. When this "wet" reaches the polar areas, it has only one way to go and that is as snow. If medium temp goes up by 5 degrees as the wildest guesses imply, then it means that the polar areas goes from -35 to -30 (celsius), which still are a bit from the melting point for ice.

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Eaters of the Dead (based on Beowulf, made into "Thirteenth Warrior" with Antonio Bandares):

The book is better than the film. The film has nice action, but the details in the book is better.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
While I think Chrichton is a great author, I've never liked his arrogance that he thinks he knows more than the experts in the field. It's like Sava arguing with MtG.

It's possible that humans aren't behind climate change, and that this is within normal varioations. The problem is, if you're wrong, by the time we find out, it will be too late to fix it. You're like the guy in the canoe being warned that the reason the canoe is going faster is because you're headed towards a waterfall, and you reply that variations in waterspeed are normal within a river and we should continue going full speed ahead.

You have a point, but the problem is that if you dare to suggest that maybe the speedup is caused by a more narrow path of the river, then the usual answer isn't : interesting theory, let's investigate ! No, the answer is that you have a personal interest in canoe building and therefore your opinion/theory are null and void - nothing but the waterfall theory are valid.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What a lousy article.

It's central thesis seems to be: scientists were wrong abut the Drake equation and nuclear winter, so they are wrong about global warming, becuas scientifici consensus is always wrong.

Great reasoning there, Mike.

Try read it again. It doesn't say anything about that scientifici consensus is always wrong when based on fact. It just states that if science is NOT based on fact but on consensus, then beware.

Originally posted by Agathon
I guess Crichton is smart enough to know how dumb the rest of us are.

How many films have you seen where the "experts" are proved wrong, despite having the best evidence, all because of some schmuck's "hunch".

Is there a more pervasive trope in late capitalist culture? Or one that is as silly?

Too many, but i will give Chricton some credit. I know it's fictional, but just dig up your copy of "The Andromeda strain". The plot isn't about a persons hunch that is against general knowledge, it's about how to handle something that doesn't fit into the known, and what could happen if you treat it as it was just the usual.

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
Though I agree with you in principle that the opinion of the majority has no effect on whats right its rather over simplified.


Science is the search for the "Best Theory" not Truth as many would erroniosly claim. Now something that most people dont realize is the fact that for any possible question their is ALWAYS a current "champion" theory no matter what. Even if we know the Theory is uterly impossible, rediculus, internaly contradictory and in poor agreement with observation. So long as its the best we can do it remains. A new theory needs to decicivly defeat the old theory and become "king of the hill" so to speak. Human beings need to judge this process, we cant simply put it into a computer and get a Yes/No response on it. Anything dealing with Humans is imperfect, their will ALWAYS be some hold outs who don't accept a theory. When people speak of a scientific consensus arn't talking 60/40 splits their talking 99.9%. Depending on who you include in the count you could probably find someone who diagrees with practicaly any theory, should we doupt something because their is a tiny hold out that dosen't accept it?

I highly disagree with your agreement percentages. Especially when we are talking about human impact on global warming. My guess is that's it not even 60/40 but maybe more like 30/70. The problem is that there are very little actual science in this, it has become a political issue. Of course there are science involved, but just try to state that there may be other reasons than human interference to the idea of global warming, then you will discover that wery few cares a Sh1t about your findings, but belivers in human guilt will do anything to spoil your reputation instead.

Originally posted by Berzerker
I did a little googling for ice cores and found something of interest. CO2 levels today are at their highest in 440,000 years.

Are you referring to http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/ ? If you do, then, what is the problem ? We are apparently at the peak of a cycle that has happend at least 4 times in the last 440.000 years. Another thing - looking at that graph, then the growth in CO2 comes after the growth in temperature.

Originally posted by Dissident
controversial statement ahead:

I really don't care if the human race wipes itself out by global warming. We deserve to be wiped out by planet. This is why I don't care about global warming. Once the pests (humans) are gone, planet will correct itself.

You are right, it's gods punishment to humankind.

Originally posted by Sandman
Reading Critchton's views on environmentalism, it's increasingly clear he's a bit of a nut. Environmentalism isn't a religion, much less a 'perfect remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.' It's perfectly possible to hold religious and environmental beliefs at the same time, for example.

There's precious little reasoning behind his arguments; they revolve around talking up the similarities between religion and enviromentalism, often using strongly worded metaphors, and ignoring the differences.

I could just a easily claim that driving a car, or getting a haircut, is a religion.

BS. Your haircut does in no way compare (well maybe, i don't know how bad your hair is ) to the way environmentalism works. Actually there are quite a number of similiarities between religion and environmentalism.

1) it is not proven scientifically
2) ad 1) you has to belive it's true
3) the gurus on the concept are right and may not be spoken against
4) if anyone dare to argue against these gurus, then don't attack them on their postulates, attack them personally

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Although wrecking your economy to do it based on suspect science might not be such a good thing.

OMG the sky is falling!!!!!

[Kuciwalker]

Uh, yeah, Ted, that's what the environmentalists are saying.

[Ted Striker]

On the extreme side, sure

But I think it's an exaggeration to keep pollution controls in place without, "wrecking the economy."

This, "we are a whore to big business at all costs," mentality needs to end.

[Kuciwalker]

On the extreme side, sure.

Uh, no. It's pretty much the standard claim that the sky is falling if we don't cut emmissions.

[Ted Striker]

Not really

You are arguing against something I'm not even talking about

Of course the sky isn't gonna fall if we don't cut emissions

What *I* am talking about is that pollution controls are a good thing, which doesn't include a sky is falling argument.

[Kuciwalker]

Which doesn't subtract one iota from the fact that we needn't cause undo harm to ourselves in pursuit of that goal.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Not really

You are arguing against something I'm not even talking about

Of course the sky isn't gonna fall if we don't cut emissions

What *I* am talking about is that pollution controls are a good thing, which doesn't include a sky is falling argument.

I quite agreee. There are no reason to pollute if there are an alternative, or a simple way to not pollute. Simple may be a small exaggeration - i don't mind if industry and common people are forced to reduce their pollution as long as it is sensible.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Which doesn't subtract one iota from the fact that we needn't cause undo harm to ourselves in pursuit of that goal.

With that line of thinking, we would still be using leaded gasoline and lead based paint.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by BlackCat


I quite agreee. There are no reason to pollute if there are an alternative, or a simple way to not pollute. Simple may be a small exaggeration - i don't mind if industry and common people are forced to reduce their pollution as long as it is sensible.

Well said.

The goals of business profit and clean environment can are not mutually exclusive.

My company is a manufacturer and grows at astonishing rates yet has outgrown every other comptetitor over the past 10 years.