Non-global warming?
-
FunkyDragon — 17 years ago(June 30, 2008 07:13 PM)
"he appears to inadvertently (Or advertently, I don't know) to side himself with Big Industry and Big Tobacco"
As someone else said, he isn't really big-industry, as his villains are often large corporations or affiliated with such. As for Big Tobacco, Al Gore is much more aligned with them than Crichton. It's as simple as former tobacco farmer vs. med student. -
mr_skandl — 19 years ago(March 29, 2007 01:37 PM)
Here's an inconvenient truth for you: Al Gore is an idiot. Read "State of Fear". It will rescue you from having to squandering money on a fiction-based DVD, thus preventing the former VP from obtaining the sufficient capital required to power his ginormous enviornmentally-unfriendly homestead.
"He was trying to fool, Lloyd Braun!" -
mr_skandl — 18 years ago(November 02, 2007 06:38 PM)
The White House is only playing up to it because it's the current popular thing. But your right, it is real. In fact it's been going since the birth of our planet, long before we made an appearance.
&1354quot;He was trying to fool, Lloyd Braun!" -
puirt-a-beul — 18 years ago(November 29, 2007 05:54 PM)
Oh c'mon mr_skandl, that's disingenuous.
Yes
, there's evidence that the planet has cycles its own kind of seasons, if you like, that occur over (what seems to us) a very long period of time.
But many researchers are increasingly of the opinion that there's
also
evidence that what we've been doing to the planet has disrupted those natural cycles, perhaps accelerated them and kicked them into a different pattern one which could have disastrous consequences
and
one that we can't just assume the planet as an ecosystem has the resources on its own to recover from.
The researchers could be in error, of course, and that's why intelligent debate is necessary.
But to try to negate the latter concerns by simply pointing out the existence of the underlying natural cycles is just fatuous misdirection, and does nobody any service.
You
might
very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment. -
shanep-2 — 17 years ago(June 19, 2008 01:17 PM)
"But many researchers are increasingly of the opinion"
And many are not. So?
That's the wonderful thing about science. It doesn't(or if it's not been poisoned by politics, shouldn't)hold authority sacred.
The lone scientist can crumble previously held hypothesis or ideas.
That's what I hate so much about the current debate: It smacks of elitist majoritarianism of the worst kind.
The enemy of scientific debate and thought. -
puirt-a-beul — 17 years ago(June 19, 2008 06:53 PM)
"But many researchers are increasingly of the opinion"
And many are not. So?
So, it's not the clear-cut "this is truth, that is fanaticism" fad that people on the "baahh humbug" side like to try to make it out to be. So far, I don't think anyone can definitively say "this is so" about this matter.
Closing the question off with endpoint claims like "there have always been trends of warming and cooling; this is just another one" may seem comforting, but it may or may not be accurate. It's as much an assumption or subjectively emotive response as those expressed by those who are over-concerned, and ignores any inconvenient evidence that there
may well
be more than that happening.
That's what I hate so much about the current debate: It smacks of elitist majoritarianism of the worst kind.
The enemy of scientific debate and thought.
You're surely not suggesting that the "you're all sheep and aren't listening to the
real
scientists" point of view put forward by the anti-human-influenced-global-warming tribe *
isn't- elitist? And "majoritarian" in its own way? (Just a little more grumpy, because it isn't, actually, in the majority. For the moment, anyway.)
They're two highly emotive and subjective terms to use. It's only when one's own opinion isn't in the apparent ascendancy that phrases like "elitist" come out, but I can't really see how it applies here. And nobody minds being part of a majority, if they feel the majority happens to be right on an issue (ie share one's own opinion). Here, I'm personally not sure that they are, but I also feel it's an insufficient response to dismiss ideas that one has subjectively, emotively chosen not to share, with such a sweeping response.
It's just as politicising, surely, to accuse others of having a certain belief simply for political motives? And especially about something for which let's face it there at least appears to be some evidence to support concern?
If you're going to accuse the people you don't agree with of "elitist majoritarianism" as the reason for why they see things the way they do, then that's an "enemy of scientific debate and thought" right there.
You
might
very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
- elitist? And "majoritarian" in its own way? (Just a little more grumpy, because it isn't, actually, in the majority. For the moment, anyway.)
-
filmklassik — 14 years ago(December 19, 2011 03:20 PM)
Ummm, Crichton has acknowledged that. And ummm, his novel STATE OF FEAR even says as much on numerous occasions throughout the book, that the earth's5b4 temperature is definitely rising. But ummmm, Crichton never thought of the situation as anywhere near as dire as the alarmists were indicating.
Ummmm, get the picture now? That's ummmm, where his thinking was on the issue before he died. -
Mithrandir-Olorin888 — 18 years ago(January 08, 2008 12:57 AM)
Watch Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement
www.RonPaul2008.com
America's Last Hope for Freedom!!!! -
AdventureClub — 17 years ago(June 12, 2008 09:47 AM)
Although Endgame is a good documentary, I don't remember it having anything to do with global warming.
The Great Global Warming Swindle is a good documentary concerning this subject. You can find it on google video. -
inspectors71 — 17 years ago(November 05, 2008 10:28 AM)
Crichton was a great scientific mind. He believed that human actions influenced the climate, but that the hysterical link perpetrated by agenda-driven scientists that humans were somehow destroying the planet was invalid. Read "State of Fear" to get a real feel for how science should and shouldn't be conducted.
By the way, I refer to Crichton in the past tense because the news services are reporting his death this morning. He, and his razor-sharp mind will be missed.
"You eat guts."Nick Devlin -
fgooshd — 17 years ago(November 06, 2008 03:16 PM)
Which TSI data are you using? Perhaps we can compare our trend analyses. I suspect (and in fact know) yours are woefully incorrect, if even done at all.
The melt on Mars is a regional phenomenon, not a global climate change (See
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7039/full/nature03561.html
).
Which glaciers? Have a look at the numbers, when you can (See
http://nsidc.org/
). Try the Sea Ice Index. What do the trends in extent show?
If you actually had something useful to contribute you would have painstakingly analyzed what data are available, written a paper detailing why tens of thousands of scientists have been so very wrong, and submitted it to a relevant journal (try Nature or Geophysical Research Letters). But you know better than to open yourself up to such well deserved ridicule.
I b68genuinely hope you're not involved in a scientific discipline or any enterprise where capable analysis is required.