Why are other scientists so sure Michael Crichton is wrong?

[Ladyhawk]

What frustrates me about global warming and peak oil is that I am not well-versed in non-life sciences. I'm more of a biology / paleontology buff than anything, so I feel I don't have enough of a background in earth sciences to hold an opinion.

This interview with Michael Crichton sounds reasonable. OK, it sounded reasonable until Crichton defended the war in Iraq by saying we needed to get tougher on bad guys like Hussein. So, 3000+ dead soldiers plus 100,000+ dead Iraqis which will create untold numbers of terrorists...um, Michael, your math is wrong!

The rest of the interview sounded reasonable enough to someone like me:

"For after three years of painstaking research, the father of the techno-thriller believes he has reached a shocking conclusion: global warming is hot air...

"If you doubt Crichton’s research, he offers enough footnotes citing scientific journals to fill a hefty volume of their own. As a Harvard physician and at the age of 22 a visiting anthropology lecturer at Cambridge, he is in nobody’s intellectual slipstream. It is not so much that Crichton is being reactionary; rather, his view offends our almost religious veneration of green issues, a faith in mother earth which holds that driving to the bottle bank in a belching 4x4 is a profound act of worship...

"His second awakening was seeing that scientists had become so cowed by environmental activists and the media that they dared not proclaim what their research showed: that, so far, it appears global warming is hardly happening.

"'The global change in temperature that everyone is so excited about is one-third of a degree,' he asserts. 'The UK is doing better than most targets. It is extremely hard. In America, where we have had two of the coldest summers in the past century, they are underwhelmed by distressing notions of it getting warmer.'"

I've heard that "global warming" should be referred to as climate change and if so, maybe Crichton focused on the wrong set of numbers.

DU scientists, weigh in and explain this, if you want. I know the permafrost and glaciers in the arctic are melting, but are we sure this is due to man's activities? Enlighten me.

[Ian David]

1. Wow. Imagine that.

"'The global change in temperature that everyone is so excited about is one-third of a degree,' he asserts. 'The UK is doing better than most targets. It is extremely hard. In America, where we have had two of the coldest summers in the past century, they are underwhelmed by distressing notions of it getting warmer.'"

Gee, Michael Chrichton, who would have ever figured IT WOULD BE COLD IN THE WINTER!

[revree]

2. He is NOT a scientist and is a bigtime Bush supporter.

That is really all you need to know about this doctor turned writer's brand of scientific research. He is not a climatologist, a biologist, a geologist or anything else for that matter, and the scientists who DO agree global warming is real have something Crichton lacks - real credentials and NO POLITICAL AGENDA.

Just ask the native peoples in Alaska and the Arctic if it exists.Or the islanders in the Pacific, where water levels and warmer winters are creating devestation - HIGH TIDE is a good book about a reporter who traveled the world to find evidence of global warming and found it EVERYWHERE.

Crichton not only writes shitty books, but he is a right wing moron to boot and his politically motivated, and surely sales motivated, BS is only going to serve to hurt the planet even more by adding more ignorance to that which is already out there. I can't stand this arrogant prick.

[hatrack]

15. Oh, and the fact that's he's pimping his new book about "ecoterror"?

No, that couldn't have ANYTHING to do with it. :eyes:

[glitch]

23. I couldn't agree more with you both. He's an ass and his books suck

and the movies are worse than the books.

[Atman]

29. It happens to people with weak souls who come into millions

They start thinking about protecting the millions and making more of them, not protecting the people that are actually responsible for giving him those millions.

He is a sell out. But he got George Will to write a great op-ed about him, giving free PR to his book. Sell out. Remember, this is also the guy who wrote books about zoos full of cloned dinosaurs from tree sap.

Where are all the scientists lining up to invest in THAT hokum?

[Pepperbelly]

33. Not a Bush boy so's you could tell ... false.

Here are his donations. Not a gop on his sheet.

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=CA&last=Crichton&first=Michael

[Ladyhawk]

50. He had an "awakening" in 2002 that turned him away from his...

...liberal California ideals. At least that's what the interview says. I don't see any contributions to anyone past 1995 on that page. About the same time, I came to the opposite conclusion.

[satori]

53. I never heard of Michael Crichton before

Michael Crichton sounds to me to be just some writer that is supported by the corporate welfare literary community that panders to politicians whom got fired or are out of work.

[AZCat]

57. I don't think he's ever been a politician...

You might just not recognize the name, but his work has been fairly popular over the last thirty years. A number of his novels have been made into movies: Jurassic Park, The Andromeda Strain, Sphere, The Lawnmower Man... (several more)

His writing isn't bad - I've read most of his books - but neither being an M.D. or a popular writer (or both) doesn't make him right about this.

[satori]

68. He could just be a puppet for the military-industrial-complex

I was just saying in general that whom the major publications of books publish are failed politicians or academics whom have a political point of view that is in tune with the corporate and military-industrial-complex views, standards (or propaganda) that the militarists go by rather then real writers.

I generally just do basic research, and I while I was in college I think I read a book by a famous actor, and she said something about the movie production world as having a similar bad results as the book institutions concerning the quality of the modern day movies that we see.

She was saying that basically around I guess around 30 or more years ago, Hollywood got taken over by the managers of corporations whom just seen profit margins as more important then the quality of movies that are in movie houses so instead of having professional scriptwriters write movies the inexperienced managers of the corporations took over the entire process of movie making including writing and controlling the professional scriptwriters, and in some cases just firing the scriptwriters and then the corporate managers would write it.

In short they purchased and owned all the movie houses so they could then control the content of Hollywood. And she was saying the vast numbers of people when the go to see a movie just go for the diversion from their ordinary boring lives. And that it did not matter the quality of the movie because the PR advertising people would rate it for the sheeple that go to the movie houses even before they go to watch the movie, to brainwash them what was a good v. a bad movie because they owned all the TV stations, papers, and ad agencies and critics of movies.

[Nadienne]

73. Maybe he just can't differentiate between

fiction and reality.

And even if climate change is not affected by our activities, it still is not a bad idea to try to live in such a way that has minimal impact on the environment.

[ProfessorPlum]

114. He wrote one really really good book

many years ago. It wasn't even science fiction.

Read "The Great Train Robbery". Terrific, and based on true events.

Course, he's a hack nowadays. But, there you go.

[Placebo]

3. I love this part.

Two developments persuaded Crichton to abandon his Californian liberal world view. One was in 2002 having a gun held to his head by burglars, who tied up Taylor, his daughter, then aged 13. “They told me not to move and I figured it was best not to argue,” he says. It convinced him we must be tougher on bad guys, be they cat burglars or Saddam Hussein.

His second awakening was seeing that scientists had become so cowed by environmental activists and the media that they dared not proclaim what their research showed: that, so far, it appears global warming is hardly happening.

:eyes:

So burglars = KILL SADDAM. That's just insane.

[JaneDoughnut]

26. Loved it too

I have an acquaintance who justifies her racism that way, because her attacker was black. Crichton makes about as much sense.

[Ladyhawk]

45. Yeah, that part sort of made me roll my eyes, too. Sigh. n/t

[democracyindanger]

4. Well, I know

that Crichton's "3 years of research" culminated in a science fiction novel, not any sort of technical paper or article.

[pmbryant]

5. The scientists at RealClimate dismantle Crichton's stuff

See these links:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76

--Peter

[pmbryant]

12. Furthermore, Crichton is blatantly mistaken about at least one point

From the interview:

He ends his book with the sweeping assertion that green groups have done almost as much harm as big polluters, but surely it is grotesque to equate Greenpeace with, say, the company that gave us the Bhopal disaster? As an example of environmental do-gooding he says stopping bush fires in America’s national parks has been misguided — it has meant that dead wood has not been cleared allowing new growth and thus wildlife to flourish. “(It’s) arguably more disastrous than clear-cutting the forest. Wrong ideas, wherever they come from, are deleterious: I don’t want to know your intentions, I want to know your outcomes. Otherwise you are like the person who runs over your child and says, ‘I really didn’t mean to do that’: f*** off.”

This exposes Crichton's ignorance. Environmentalists and the environmental movement had absolutely nothing to do with the early-20th-century policy of suppressing all forest fires. The environmental movement didn't even exist back when that policy began back in 1910 or 1920.

EDIT: Furthermore, that misguided policy has been defunct for 10-20 years, at least in part due to the urgings of environmentally-minded people. Crichton is just blowing right-wing hot air.

--Peter

[Canuckistanian]

24. Fighting forest fires is about one thing only....

The protection of human property and life. It has been shown long ago that forest fires are BENEFICIAL and a NECESSARY part of a normal ecosystem.
Now, too many forest fires such as the ones caused by humans themselves should be controlled, but to say that ALL forest fires should be extinguished immediately is folly.

[Ladyhawk]

59. Thanks for the links. n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

6. Here is a thread that discusses his writing on the subject

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2893585

[Jesus H. Christ]

7. Well, for starters...

He's not a scientist. He's just a science fiction author. So he's just as qualified to talk about global warming as Gene Roddenberry.

[satori]

35. question

I am not a scientist I only have a BA in Asian Studies... but don't MD's often work with biological issues in the environment such as working with environmental epidemiologist (biologists, biometricians)to study pollutions in nature that may cause medical illnesses?

[Jesus H. Christ]

54. People with medical degrees can go into research.

Anybody with a PhD is technically a doctor.

Either a PhD or an MD in no way means you're in anyway qualified to speak about an unrelated field.

And if people are using their PhD's as an argument for authority in unrelated field, they're quacks.

Dr. Laura, for example, has a PhD in anatomy. Same deal with your quack biometrician.

[tsuki]

94. When was the last time he worked as an MD?

[satori]

95. I don't know

Sorry I don't know the answer to that question. This is the first time I ever heard of him or his movies or books.

[Undercover Owl]

41. yeah!

The same way George Clooney is not actually qualified to operate on people!

[Ladyhawk]

46. Gene Roddenberry is dead...or was that your point? :) n/t

[Warpy]

8. Crichton is a medical doctor

not a climatologist and is a right winger who is getting richer on lax pollution standards. He's out of his field and compromised ideologically.

Consider the source and avoid his diatribe.

[enki23]

19. read this one for the complete answer, all. nothing more need be added.

.

[illflem]

9. There seems to be plenty of evidence

that the Industrial Age is giving global climate change a kick in the pants. But I am realistic, and do not think there is anything substantial we as a people and a collection of nation states can do about it. The climate shifts will come, and civilizations will rise and fall as a result. Just nature taking it's course, perhaps correcting a mistake like the proliferation of Homo Consumptus?

[two gun sid]

10. Does any thinkin' person believe this shit

"His second awakening was seeing that scientists had become so cowed by environmental activists and the media that they dared not proclaim what their research showed: that, so far, it appears global warming is hardly happening.

Does it really make sense that a trained scientist would be afraid of criticism from environmentalists and journalists? Shouldn't a no talent hack like Mr. Crichton be afraid of the science community pointing out his obvious attempt at creating hype for his fucking books?

[hatrack]

13. I think they'd be more worried by censorship by governments

Kind of like the EPA report which, under Bush White House direction, simply omitted most of its conclusions on rapid climate change. :eyes:

[Ready4Change]

34. More worried about having their funding yanked.

Constant fear of any researcher.

[Tace]

11. What About Glaciers Receding And Ice Shelves Breaking Off?

[BrklynLiberal]

16. And the grass growing in Greenland????????????

[Canuckistanian]

31. And the thunderstorms in northern Canada?

I find it amazing that changes are happening so quickly and dramatically up there.
F'r instance:

1. As I mentioned, thunderstorms had been practically unheard of in the 55 degree latitudes and further north. Now there are regular thunderstorms in the summers up there. How unusual is this? The ancient Inuit (Eskimo) languages don't even have a word for thunder or lightning, let alone witnessed it.

2. The common American Robin has been spotted in communities around the Hudson Bay area lately. Again, no word in Inuit languages to describe this bird.

3. Polar bears are dying because there is no ice coverage to walk on. The bears need this to be able to hunt their main source of food - seals.

4. Strange glows in the winter skies that are supposed to be pure black. Some climatologists believe that it is moisture reflecting light from further south - moisture that's not supposed to be there. Some communities used to total darkness in the winter months find it strange and frightening, especially the older residents.

Now with all these events happening over the course of the last decade, is it not surprising that the Inuit have been the most vocal proponents of greenhouse gas regulation? These people LIVE in the environment, unlike a large segment of Americans whose only exposure to nature is the short walk between the 4X4 and the front door of their climate-controlled house?

[illflem]

18. Sure, there is no doubt glaciers are receding and

ice shelves are breaking off but whether it's human caused is the big debate. Personally I don't feel humans contribute much to climate change, but the petro pollution we spew is bad enough for other reasons that it must be discontinued.
Sort of makes the whole climate change argument mute.

[pretzel4gore]

14. stolen elections, corrupt media, criminals plot and seized power,

poisoning of the economic well in pursuit of 'privitization', gap between rich and poor growing and yet crackton sees 'gobal warmin' as the beeg issue worthy of his concern? he's a pos idiot, a bushevik mediawhore...a grasping hack who addicted to the good life his whoring has provided
btw thank god for global warming, if only to kill off crackton and his ghastly spawn (yech)

[satori]

17. World renowned biometrician-The Earth as a weapon in 21st Century of Wars

After the Bhopal disaster in 1984, Bertell (a biometrician and environmental epidemiologist) directed the International Medical Commission investigating the effects of the Union Carbide chemical spill that contributed to some 15,000 deaths.

_______________________________________________________________

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/hawa2.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/weapons.htm


Third World Network

By Rahab S Hawa

While scientists, governments and concerned groups worry about increased industrial emissions of greenhouse gases and its effects on the planet, the role of the military in climate change has been ignored.

‘When environmental crises occur, it is usually only the civilian economy that is called upon to rectify the balance, while military programmes are rarely taken to task,’ says Dr Rosalie Bertell, renowned scientist and nuclear activist.

At the Peoples’ Health Assembly in December 2000 in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Dr. Bertell revealed to a shocked and incredulous audience that ‘the latest weapons in the arsenal of the US military is the Planet Earth itself ... and weather will be one of the worst destructive weapons by the year 2025’.

Dr. Bertell was referring to how engineered earthquakes and tornadoes could wreak havoc on populations and nations.

[Jesus H. Christ]

20. Could you please stop spamming other wise decent threads...

with that pseudoscience bullshit?

[LiviaOlivia]

22. I second that.

Thank you JHC.

[satori]

25. Biometrics is about biology

The poster of the thread asked for any scientists that have knowledge from the biological perspective, concerning environmental weapons. And as far as I know from the Webster’s dictionary biometrics has to do with biology. I am not a scientist, but I thought that it would help the threads topic by providing articles about the topic from scientists and references that I have used that do have experience in biology and environmental weapons.

[Jesus H. Christ]

28. No shit.

But the stuff you're posting is bullshit, and you don't need to be a scientist to tell.

[The Magistrate]

64. Unfortunately, Mr. Satori

The person you cite has no more expertise in environmental weapons than you do....

[Donkeyboy75]

102. Believe me, you don't need to inform anyone you're not a scientist.

:eyes:

[seaj11]

117. "Seismic-terrorism"

AFAIK, there are no known devices of engineering earthquakes, volcanoes, and tornadoes. Such terrorism is mentioned in "The Core," a movie in which the earth's core stopped spinning. It was also mentioned in "Austin Powers." :)

[ChairOne]

21. Gee, Crichton on the one hand, versus scientists on the other....

... on a science issue.... Phew - so hard to adjudicate between the two...

As long as I'm not mistaken in the belief that mainstream scientists are essentially unanimous on both the claim that (a) global warming is a clear actuality, and also that (b) by far the largest single cause of it is the United States....

It's been awhile since I looked at this stuff - am I right on typical scientists' views on (a) and (b)?

[hatrack]

37. You're right on target

If anything, the consensus has grown even stronger over the past five years.

It is real, it is human-induced, it is accelerating and it's difficult to say what all the results will be.

[ChairOne]

39. Good 'nuff for me then! thanks! /eom

[ChemEng]

70. Sorry, you are wrong

Global warming is not actually a clear phenomenon. And if you read the fine print, most scientists have disclaimers about potential causes and effects.

Do your research as Crichton has, put aside your prejuidices, and maybe you will see the light.

[Jesus H. Christ]

84. "do your research as Crichton has"

LOL

[Solon]

90. Just because scientists claim some lack of knowledge...

in regards to observed phenomenon doesn't mean the phenomenon doesn't exist. We have little to no clue as to what happens past the event horizon of a black hole, but we have enough evidence to suggest they exist at the very least. As far as Crichton, I would put him up as the worst researcher in this regard.

[ChairOne]

99. Wow - ChemEng just flat-out prevaricates to my face... that's hardcore....

... So I got off my lazy ass and actually looked it up... (existence of dissent often motivates me in that manner)

Here's one of the best and most succinct articles I found:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

Show me the fine print, ChemEng, because I'm too prejuidiced (sic) to see it. Show me the fine print in those 696 articles.

Sheesh. Lying right to my face - right to my face I tells ya! lol

[Donkeyboy75]

103. And the crickets chirp.

Thanks for looking that up. I read it a bit ago and am glad I don't have to get off my ass to find it.

[ChairOne]

110. lol - you betcha - I was pleased as well - I hadn't see that study before

I like well-that-settles-that-argument articles - lol

[xpunkisneatx]

112. I must agree...

Crichton backed everything in that book with scholarly journal articles. Personally, I enjoy his writing, and i find him extremely intelligent, republican or not. Just because he is a repug does not mean that he is wrong. He is just looking at things in a different way. I commend him for writing the book because I am sure it is pissing a LOT of people off.

[Jesus H. Christ]

113. No, he hasn't.

In fact, the scientific community almost universally disagrees with him.

[amazona]

27. well because they're scientists and he isn't

Crichton is a life-long professional writer going all the way back to the Great Train Robbery.

He is not a scientist.

He is a storyteller.

He focuses on what stories will sell books. Scientists focus on scientific truth.

[ForrestGump]

30. MDs are not scientists. They are technicians.

Regardless of whatever labels we try to apply, though, the dude is just wrong.

Global warming is a verifiable fact. Not all of the ancillary studies are so confirmed, but it's a fact that temperatures have increased and it's also apparent (from many studies) that the rate of increase, and changes in other aspects related to overall climate change, is far, far beyond what is the natural cyclical scale of climate change. In other words, the process is natural but its scale (time and magnitude) is not.

We see the same thing in many natural systems -- they can recover from the same kinds of disturbances that we cause but sometimes our activities just come too hard and fast for any recovery to be possible. Global warming is happening and it's almost certainly happening as it is because of Homo sapiens.

I've enjoyed Crichton's books, no matter how faithful to real science they may be, but this time he's talking fiction out of his bottom and pretending it's truth. And people will believe him, even people who are not among the apparent majority of the American public that are irredeemable f***wits. I don't like that sort of thing very much.

[hunter]

89. Mr. Gump, Medicine is an art.

Good doctors are more like musicians and composers than technicians. To "practice" good medicine doctors most know their science.

Mr. Crichton quit medicine, probably because he thought he was better at the art of writing, or maybe because writing was easier and more profitable for him.

In any case, one needs to be much less of a scientist to write fiction than to practice the art of medicine, and Crichton really is much less of a scientist than a doctor.

I love science fiction, I have taught science, and I have always hated Crichton's writing. I would rather read Star Trek novels than suffer reading his crap.

[tsuki]

96. I once enjoyed science fiction, the wilder the more fun. There have been

some really strange premises out there in the past. But science fiction has evolved into the pseudo-science that all premises in SF must be factual and scientific and provable(thank to Damon Knight and his group.)

Now, the fiction writer has to prove what he writes is the truth and that he is a better scientist than the scientists with pages and pages of "proof."

So this is where it has led...even the SciFi Writer cannot distinguish between fiction and fact.

[hunter]

115. I read fantasy too...

I do not believe science fiction has rotted away into a pseudo-science. My own perspectives of Science Fiction are somewhere along the Axis of Ursula K. Le Guin and Stanley Schmidt, and on a plane defined by Philip K. Dick. Maybe you could call this plane the "humanist" tradition of Science Fiction.

Your "Damon Knight and his group" are simply out there in my sky somewhere and haven't had a lot of damaging influence within my own science fiction universe.

My first criticism of Micahael Crichton is that all his stories evolve by one formula. He picks some lame and poorly imagined monster and then he fleshes it out with buckets of pretentious techno-babble and swill. If you mixed together the creations of Steven King, Ian Fleming, and Gene Roddenberry and feed them to a horse, a Michael Crichton "thriller" would come out the other end.

Although a good Star Trek novel contains a lot of techno-babble it is not put there flesh out some paper monster. A good Star Trek novel is not about monsters -- it is an exploration of some intriguing facet of the human condition.

I can name many books, not in the past, that have "some really strange premises" and have not suffered any overt efforts by the author "to prove what he writes is the truth and that he is a better scientist than the scientists. For example, read almost anything by Greg Bear.

Before I brew and drink another cup of green tea, I'd better quit this. It's my opinion that Michael Crichton as a writer is a hack, that as a doctor he was probably a hack, and that as a self-described "scientist" he is most certainly a hack.

[oneighty]

32. He says

in stories of his very own life he and his fellow med students were playing football with a liver from a human cadaver in anatomy class. That ain't class. Screw him.

180

[FellowAmerican]

36. Because they get more money if they claim the sky if falling.

While some well intentioned scientists actually do believe in 'global warming,' the decades of research just can't seem to back it up with any solid facts. The majority of scientist from around the world simply do not see a threatening warming trend, but more like a warming cycle. Like so much of the earth, things come and go in patterns. We are seeing nothing more than a warming cycle which could last for 50 years and then begin to cool again. Nobody really knows for sure. But we are NOT heading for a cataclysmic warming disaster like some would like you to believe. The 'global warming' industry is dependent on governments and world bodies to fund their research - and them. It's a big money 'company.' They have been able to garner quite a following over the years and many a million people now are so completely absorbed into this mindset that even when presented with the facts they simply will not believe it.

And to answer the question about the glaciers melting - a volcano was just recently found to be bubbling underneath. They are doing more testing to see if there may be more.

http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/news/2004/052104-volcano.shtml

[JHBowden]

40. Climatology is not missile defense.

If you want billions in funding for no results, missile defense is the place to be.

[Solon]

42. OK, that may explain ONE Ice shelf...

However, what is the explanation for all the glaciers receding worldwide, in such disparate regions as the Andes, Rockies, Alps, and even the Himalayas? Also, most of the debate in the science community revolving around Global Climate Change is not whether it is happening, by mainly what the causes are, whether it is human caused, or at least contributed, or part of a natural cycle, either solar or atmospheric in origin.

[FellowAmerican]

62. But where are the true hard facts

to back up the 'human cause' for the changes on our earth? There was ten fold the pollution when the earth went through it's formation stages! There were ten fold the amount of dangerous gases when there were no people and no cars! One eruption - Mount Pinatubo (sp?), Mount St. Helen's for example - sent more toxic gases and pollution into the air then over 500 years of industry combined!

You are one that has feed into the idea of global warming, and you will not see anything different. Hey, it's hard not to be for the environment and to even accept the idea of global warming. I am for the environment - clean air, clean water, new and more efficient fuel sources, responsible recycling. Yes, I'm all for it. But I am not willing to buy into the global warming phenomenon when there is no science to back it up.

But this is just my opinion, and yes, it's different from yours.

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. During the earth's formation, it was an approximation of hell

so saying it's not as bad as that means nothing. Global wamrming isn't about the 'pollution' that volcanos produce - it's about carbon dioxide and methane levels. The CO2 levels are higher than they have been in 440,000 years, and have steadily increased over the past 45 years, with no noticeable change from Pinatubo or Mount St. Helens.

The science to back it up is here.

[Solon]

83. Thanks for backing up the point a little.

Talk about the wrong comparison, Earth today to Earth of 4.6 billion years ago. When the surface wasn't even solid yet, and it may have been more massive than today(only slightly). You know the moon came from somewhere! :)

[Solon]

85. I would like to make a point...

I never once in this thread said I believe that humans are the sole cause, nor even a contributing factor in Global Climate Change. Whether it is part of a natural cycle or human caused is not the point, the point is that for the past 30 years, mean global temperature has been rising, that is a FACT. It could be a simple coincidence that it coincides with the Industrial Revolution and worsening pollution worldwide.

[FellowAmerican]

87. You made a very good point

thank you. :)

[Solon]

88. I don't know what you need to thank me for...

I just said what that Global Climate Change is a fact of life. I don't think that our dumping millions tons of pollutants in the air is helping to prevent it. You seem to be arguing that it is all a farce, which it most certainly is not.

[hatrack]

118. It's not even millions of tons of carbon dioxide. It's billions of tons.

There is no doubt - none - regarding rapid increases in atmospheric CO2 since around 1750 AD, and modern scientific records (the Keeling Curve) are supported by pre-1958 ice-core and sediment records of CO2 content.

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-spl.htm

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/spo120e_thrudc03.pdf

Total net atmospheric anthropogenic carbon inputs were about six billion tons every year, and that was about five years ago. Since then, Mauna Loa and other observatories have noted annual increases in atmospheric CO2 of about 40% in 2002 and 2003. That is, annual CO2 increases went from about 1.5 ppm to about 2.5 ppm in those two years.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn4802

They're still working on just why this is, and trying to figure out if this will be a sustained trend - i.e. a positive feedback loop. Some of the NOAA and NCAR people believe that it's related to massive peat fires in Indonesia, thanks to an ill-advised agricultural drainage scheme in Borneo. The peat's been burning there for a couple of years now since fire's by far the easiest way to clear land, and (not surprisingly) it set the subsoil peat layer, which is huge, on fire. There may also be some connection to thawing permafrost soils, but they're still trying to nail that down.

[Donkeyboy75]

104. See post 99.

You aren't looking hard enough. The debate isn't centered around whether there is a phenomenon. Even energy companies will admit there is. The question is whether it is artificial in nature.

[ForrestGump]

43. Wrong

Sorry about that.

[Solon]

44. Oh look, from the same site, you cite...

(heh, I'm a poet and didn't even know it :))

http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/news/2004/100704-thin-ice.shtml

ON EDIT: and another:

http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/news/2004/120704climate.shtml

[FellowAmerican]

56. Sorry, but there is greater evidence that Arctic ice is ever moving

and shifting, not necessarily thinning. When researchers went back to parts of the Arctic ice mass, they were at first alarmed. It would have appeared that for all intensive purposes, the ice was thinning. This was the thinking for a number of years until researchers discovered the entire Arctic ice mass was actually moving and shifting and that it was impossible to determine the ice depth because it was constantly changing. The winds had allot to do with the density of the ice mass. Well, you can read for yourself:

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=513

Kind of like the whole in the ozone layer. When it was first discovered, scientist initially freaked out! And then a few years later they discovered that it was smaller, then bigger, then moved, then smaller, then bigger . . . see what I mean?

[Solon]

58. Big difference there...

While the ozone layer is seasonal, largely, in the fluctuation of its size, it has been determined that HUMANS caused the hole up there in the first place. Also, why do you think there are UV alerts in the southern hemisphere, there is good reason to freak out sometimes. Hence the call to action and the CFC ban, which were good things. Also, linking to a "Libertarian" magazine pretty much shot your credibility there.

Look at these:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/24/1066631611744.html?oneclick=true

Hey look, it may be good for shipping!
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/arctic-04n.html

[Jesus H. Christ]

60. The search function's your friend.

I think you're wasting your time, honestly.

[Solon]

69. I love having fun with Ideologes though!

Yes the search function is your friend, also good to check your sources too.

[FellowAmerican]

63. They have no idea how long the ozone 'hole'

was there! For all they know it was always there but did not discover it until the technology allowed it to be found! There are far worse gases emitted from an erupting volcano then 100 years of CFC. Nothing more than environmental sensationalism - it sells, it's a good story.

[Solon]

67. Sells what exactly?

Long sleeve shirts, and wide brimmed hats? That is sometimes required apparel when going outside in some areas of the Southern Hemisphere. Also, you comparison with a Volcano is of little to no relevance, CFCs are a host of artificial, i.e. not produced by nature, chemicals, have been known to travel to the higher atmosphere, break the bonds of O3 (ozone) atoms and have an extremely long life up there. I know of no chemicals in Volcanic ash or outgassing that have the same properties.

ON EDIT: Grammar corrections(slight)

[seasat]

109. That's a Rush talking point that is BS.

First volcanos put out about a 10th of a percent of the green house gases that human industry releases into the atmosphere each year.

2nd, during a massive eruption volcanos can release massive amounts of chlorine that may temporarily effect ozone levels. Chlorine combines with moisture in the atmosphere and rains out as hydrochloric acid. It has a residence time of a couple of years versus decades for CFCs and only will make it to the stratosphere under a massive eruption. Normal volcanic gas releases of chlorine never make it into the stratosphere to affect ozone.

(Link for the neoluddite)

[hatrack]

119. Tell me, what gases do erupting volcanoes produce that destroy ozone?

Please, thrill me with your scientific skills and knowledge!

[hatrack]

124. *Crickets Chirping As Night Drags On*

Well, I didn't think I'd actually get an answer, but what the hell, can't say I didn't try. :shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

126. He's tombstoned by now - not sure when it happened (n/t)

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

61. You should probably quote something more reliable...

than "Capitalism Magazine" in your defense of Chrichton's views.
Just a little friendly advice.

[Jesus H. Christ]

55. That's hilarious.

Those damn scientists and school teachers, driving around in their fancy italian sports cars and designer shoes!!!

[Redleg]

98. You are absolutely wrong on this. The majority of research articles

in peer-reviewed scientific journals over the last decade indicates that global warming is occurring, that it will spell serious problems for us in the future, and that our activities help promote it.

[bobbyboucher]

121. Baloney.

It is obvious that the warming climate poll is a landslide. If you think that millions of cars spewing hot gases every day has had no effect you are about as wrong as you can get.

Do this test, go start your car, walk around behind it and cup your hand, feel the heat, inhale your handful if you really want some nice air, then multiply that handful by about 500 times for the amount of time your car runs daily, and then multiply it by 50 million for a few other cars. Then multiply that by who knows how many days and how many countries.

Yeah, it has no effect, Crichton is a genious.

[Book Lover]

38. "Other scientists" ?

Crichton is a writer (or should I say a typist?) and collecting his underpaid research assistant's Lexis-Nexus search results and foisting them off as "enough footnotes ... to fill a hefty volume of their own" is a piss-poor substitute for real research.

[Ladyhawk]

47. He's a doctor. I thought doctors were scientists.

Also the interview says he's more of a scientist than a writer. I'm just telling you what it says, not that I necessarily agree with it.

[Book Lover]

49. Sorry that I wrote too harshly

However, medical doctors are not scientists. Medicine is an art, not a science. Again, I'm sorry that I sounded so nasty - certainly not my intention!

[Ladyhawk]

51. No, it's OK. I started the thread so I could learn some things.

There are already some good URLs.

Bush not believing in global warming doesn't impress me one iota. He has a completely political agenda, obviously.

[Donkeyboy75]

105. Actually, MDs CAN

be scientists. But they are very few and far between.

[satori]

48. The military-industrial-complex is why we have global warming

I read the article you cited. It was rather difficult to digest. I have my own personal opinion about Global warming. I think most of it was created as a result of the military-industrial-complex.

The scientific community at one time was one of the most powerful institutions on earth but then after the invention of the atom theory and the later nuke bomb, science changed especially the power that the ordinary scientists had in the political, economical, and educational worlds. Ralph Lapp was an outspoken nuclear disarmament activist that was also one of the original scientists working on the nuke bomb at the los Alamos laboratory in New Mexico.

He said in his books one of which was called Kill and Overkill and the other The New Priesthood: The Scientific Elite and the Uses of Power (New York: Harper & Row, 1965) that an enormous amount of pressure was put upon the scientific community right after the nuke was tested. This pressure became so great the military basically fired all the scientists that worked on the nukes originally and thus a power shift went from the scientists in our educational, political, and economic institutions to the militarists and the new elite scientists that were hired by the MIC (Military-Industrial-Complex).

So in short the scientific community was rewarded to not do scientific research and just basically do any project that the military-industrial-complex wanted.

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. There are good scientific reasons for believing it's carbon dioxide

and a few other greenhouse gases, such as methane, that are causing the overall warming of the atmosphere and oceans. Carbon dioxide absorbs some infra-red frequencies that would otherwise escape straight to space. The increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (nearly a third more than pre-industrial levels) is universally acknowledged. This increases the insulation the atmosphere provides, which means that surface level temperatures go up. The most advanced models have shown that, on top of natural variations we would expect to see, we have seen this insulating effect increasing during the past century (see http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figts-15.htm).

The only thing that could stop global warming is some as-yet unknown negative feedback machanism (eg global warming sceptics have suggest cloud formation, but have been unable to come up with a decent model of how it would work).

There is no reason to think it has anything to do with nuclear weapons, or the military. It's the amount of oil, coal and gas that we all burn.

[Solon]

71. Yeah, how clouds would affect it is a weak argument...

Most clouds form within the atmosphere, and I don't see how reflecting visible light and infrared would help if the Carbon Dioxide still absorbs it.

[ChemEng]

75. What about the sun?

Or is that off topic?

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. It's not off topic

if you look at the graphs I linked to from the IPCC, you'll see that graph (a) includes solar and volcanic forcing; (b) anthropogenic; and (c) all forcings. The model produces the best fit when all forcings are taken into account. In particular, the rise in the last 30 years is not predicted at all when only the natural focrings are looked at.

[satori]

76. You missed my point

I was saying that the scientists whom one would think were trained to detect global warming by impartial science techniques were in fact directly or indirectly ordered not to do scientific research which would rock the boat for the militarists in the corporate, economic, educational, and political institutions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. Ah, sorry, I do understand your point now (n/t)

[Emillereid]

52. Read "Boiling Point" by Ross Gelspan -- he's a real

science reporter (actually won a pulitzer). He says there is NO disagreement about global warming among the real scientists -- not the ones bought and paid for by the oil and coal industries. It's bad and it's getting worse -- he says that if human kind doesn't reduce its use of fossil fuels by 70%, civilization as we know it will end. He reckons global warming will bring us down before Peak Oil gets a chance! Peak oil could be the answer to global warming if it hits hard and soon enough!

Sad to hear how right wing Michael Creighton has become -- I used to have good chats with him at parties back in the early 80s before he got big.

[Jim__]

65. You say he sounds reasonable

He says:

“The global change in temperature that everyone is so excited about is one-third of a degree,” he asserts. “The UK is doing better than most targets. It is extremely hard. In America, where we have had two of the coldest summers in the past century, they are underwhelmed by distressing notions of it getting warmer.”

I'm not sure what 2 summers he's talking about; but, it's completely irrelevant. Global Warming is about an increase in the mean temperature of the earth. It's not about a daily weather, it's not about regional weather, it's not about seasonal weather. It's about the mean temperature across the entire earth. The citing of regional or seasonal variances is a right-wing talking point; but, if you pay attention, you will notice that they never talk about the mean temperature of the earth. Why? Why didn't Crichton talk about the mean temperature of the earth? That's what global warming is about and they won't mention it. What are the 10 hottest years on record?

He's not being reasonable; he's merely distracting attention from the real issue.

As to your question: I know the permafrost and glaciers in the arctic are melting, but are we sure this is due to man's activities?

The group of international scientists who put out the UN reports on global warming were sure that it is at least partly due to man's activities.

[ChemEng]

74. Really?

How many of those scientist were actual climate scientists?

How many were sociologists? Biologists? Ecologists? Etc? You need to know who these people are. I sure as hell wouldn't call a plumber to fix my car's brakes. So why are sociologists qouted concerning global warming?

My point is that most of the 6000 or so "scientists" were not climatologists. I personally believe Chrichton is bringing a dose of reality to the environmental debate. For instance, take the the use of DDT. Millions of people die every year because of malaria, yet DDT could solve that problem. But because of the dogma of the environmental movement, millions molre are doomed to die. What hypocrisy.

[Solon]

80. So you trust a Scifi author over these guys?

http://www.agu.org/

Here's the consensus of the AGU regarding Global Climate Change:

http://geology.about.com/library/bl/blaguclim.htm

[Jesus H. Christ]

82. Actual climate scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming.

Chrichton is a have and his arguments have been dashed to pieces if you read the links in this thread. Same thing with his/your DDT argument. Those people who could be saved from malaria could also be saved through many other means besides using toxic DDT.

[Viking12]

91. Wow, you're so confident! Why don't you explain DDT resistance...

in mosquitoes. More precisely how after several genrations (about six years of use) DDT is no longer effective in a treated area? While your at it, why don't you tell the truth about the DDT ban. For instance, how many millions of people have died in the US from malaria?

[bobbyboucher]

122. The guy is an obvious

Ruse Limpdick listener. He should have used quote marks.

[Blue_Tires]

123. how about we repeal the DDT ban for just YOUR hometown

and see how you and your neighbors like if after a few years

[roguevalley]

77. I'm sitting here in the rain, with 42 degrees out there and its

January in Alaska. Michael Crichton is an asshole. We are going to drown first because of global warming.

[Solon]

86. How bad is the melting permafrost there...

I heard many areas are sinking because of the thaw.

[bobbieinok]

79. discussion about global warming and ice age from DU science group

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=247x439

[Forkboy]

92. Could it be the earth isn't the only planet with drastic climate changes?

Hotter-burning sun warming the planet

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040718-115714-6334r.htm

Global Warming on Pluto

http://www.discover.com/web-exclusives-archive/gwpluto0903/

Pluto is undergoing global warming, researchers find

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html

Global Warming on Mars

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

http://www.mos.org/cst/article/80/9.html

Researcher predicts global climate change on Jupiter as giant planet's spots disappear

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/04/21_jupiter.shtml

MIT researcher finds evidence
of global warming on Neptune's largest moon

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/1998/triton.html

[pmbryant]

108. This is all extremely misleading

First, the evidence for climate change on Mars is complete junk. Extrapolating a change in the shape of ice pits in one area of the planet over the course of a single Martian year is not even close to evidence of long-term climate change.

Second, any "global warming" on Pluto is also not long-term, but rather seasonal. A single Pluto "year" is almost 250 Earth years. Any warming on that planet now is almost certainly due to the fact that it is near its closest approach to the Sun. It will be thousands of years before we have enough data (over many Plutonian "years") to indicate what any long-term Pluto climate trends may be.

Third, the "climate change" on Jupiter is just a prediction of one person's model, and is based on very different processes than those that affect Earth's climate.

Fourth, the warming on Neptune's largest moon is, like that on Pluto, merely seasonal. Like the warming in the United States between February and May of every year.

Finally, solar effects are accounted for in all reputable climate change models, and still the primary cause of recent and future warming appears dominated by man-made reasons.

--Peter

[Forkboy]

125. It was meant to be misleading

Instead of having the topic verboten it was explained nicely and succinctly.Imagine,a discussion board that actually discusses!

Thanks for saving me from having to explain my little point in posting this though.You helped me to perfectly illustrate how one can take valid science and make it sound like something it's not by picking and choosing choice quotes or headlines.

I'm glad someone besides me actually read the links I provided!!!

:thumbsup:

[baldguy]

93. "Larsen B Ice Shelf Collapses in Antarctica"

http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/larsenb2002/



Ice melts when it gets warm. DUH!

[Maestro]

101. No kidding

Really, Crichton what the hell is melting the ice caps? Too much de-icer in the oceans? :eyes: Seriously, so much fresh water is entering the Atlantic that within decades the warm water conveyer belt could be shut off and then we would not have to worry about global warming at all as we would enter a new ice age.

[Redleg]

97. Crichton is not a climatologist or other type expert on global weather.

EOM

[Zynx]

100. Uh, techno-wank AUTHOR, not SCIENTIST

And much of Chrichton's science is fantasy, not just fiction.

[SeekerofTruth]

106. Greenland was green 1000 yrs ago. Earth much warmer then.

So what caused global warming 1000 years ago when greenland was green? It wasn't manmade.

Many people don't study history, they only live in the here and now. They want to believe humans are evil. Evil, I tell you, evil.

[Jesus H. Christ]

107. Scientists are well aware of historical weather changes.

It's funny, it's science that studies what the weather was doing 1,000 years ago, and your fine with it. But it's the same scientists who are now saying we're causing global warming, and you ignore it. Probably for some political agenda.

Pick and choose. Pick and choose.

[Viking12]

127. Greenland was never green

It was given the name as a marketing ploy to lure settlers. If you buy the "Grenland was green" baloney, no wonder you repeat the industry PR BS.

[Johonny]

111. Hmm...

From Dec 3rd 2004 edition of Science:
a review of 928 abstracts from 1993 to 2003 on climate change. 75 % percent fell behind the explicitly or implicitly accept view on current anthropogenic climate change. 25 % dealt with paleoclimate change and took no position on current climate. 0 % agreed with Crichton. So either he's smarter than the entire scientific community or else he's out of touch with the data.

[seaj11]

116. It's an area of debate among scientists.

"I know the permafrost and glaciers in the arctic are melting, but are we sure this is due to man's activities?"

Some climatologists think that the Earth may be experiencing a natural climate change that is enhanced/aggravated by human activities. Human activities could affect this in two ways: the release of gases in large amounts that deplete the ozone layer and cause a hole to form (the hole is over Antarctica; this is generally thought to NOT be a natural occurence), and the release of gases that collect in the upper atmosphere and trap heat, hence increasing the planet's overall temperature (the greenhouse effect). The real debate, however, is over how much human activities have affected the ozone tear and the greenhouse effect, and what we can do about it. Answer: we can't do anything about the natural warming of the planet, but there are things we can avoid doing that speed up the process. The March 2004 issue of Scientific American has a good article on global warming, if anyone's interested in digging it up.

[ljm2002]

120. What a great thread you started!

Here are some things to think about:

Why ask about Michael Crichton vs. "other" scientists? Who says he's a scientist? It's clear he has an excellent grasp of science at a general level, that's why he can write such great fiction about science related topics. But that does not make him "a scientist". I don't think most MDs think of themselves as "scientists" so much as "practitioners" -- more analogous to engineers, who work on the human body, than scientists, who perform research to uncover fundamental truths about nature. And I second the question, when did he last practice as an MD, anyway?

As to the larger debate whether or not global climate change is or can be caused by human activities, answer me this: If there is even the possibility that humans are affecting the global climate, does it not behoove us to act cautiously? The strong attacks against the very idea of human caused climate change, merely demonstrate that there are vested interests who really, really don't want you and me to think about it. At all.

However many footnotes and references Mr. Crichton provides, what he does not tell you is this: for every paper he references that says global climate change is not human caused, there are several others that say our climate is changing at least partially because of human actions. It is the honest opinion of the majority of scientists who study and measure these things. As a matter of public policy, it makes sense for governments to listen to these concerns and to make reasonable attempts to moderate the effects of our activities.

One of the saddest things to me, is that true voices of moderation have been drowned out in our current time. Perhaps an unfortunate turn of phrase, given recent events; maybe the tsunamis, which by (almost) all accounts were *not* human caused, can provide some measure of human empathy that transcends national, political and religious boundaries. One can but hope...