Environmentalism speech by Michael Crichton and second hand smoking

[Mark]

The issue enlightens the rhetorical student in many ways:

• In science, you don't question the source. You question the facts, the analysis, the study protocols. In politics, almost always, the real reason behind the issue is not the bare-faced arguments lain on the table.
  
• The physical consequences of the issue are even more in dispute -- will the seas actually rise very much? Isn't increased carbon dioxide leading to an explosion of plant growth? More land area becomes plantable, not that that's a problem. Etc. But big and scary oven in shall we live...
  
• What to do about it is even murkier still. Per the Julian Simon link above, perhaps the quality of life will decrease with massive government intervention so much that it more than offsets any penalties from the physical consequences of global warming. This is not a trivial point, and is the key difference between economists and environmental scientists. Last century was replete with hundreds of "experiments" that all showed the more government intervention in the economy, the lower the quality of life for the people. (One of my sayings, what good is free AIDS treatment in the year 2070 if a more capitalist society had had it cured for 20 years already?)

Let's see...first conservatives scream there is no global warming at all. Then they say OK, there is gw, but it is not man made. Now they say, OK, there is gw, it is man made, but it is good for you.

Meanwhile, here in the very early stages, the forests all across the Southwest are dying. I guess that's a good thing, too.

Whatever.

 

[brodski]

Let's see...first conservatives scream there is no global warming at all. Then they say OK, there is gw, but it is not man made. Now they say, OK, there is gw, it is man made, but it is good for you.

Meanwhile, here in the very early stages, the forests all across the Southwest are dying. I guess that's a good thing, too.

Whatever.

Sir Humphries' 4 stages of political inaction.
STAGE 1: There is no situation.
STAGE 2: There is a situation, but nothing needs doing.
STAGE 3: Something needs doing, but nothing can be done.
STAGE 4: Something could have been done, but it is too late.

(from "yes (Prime) Minster" )

 

[Mark]

Sir Humphries' 4 stages of political inaction.
STAGE 1: There is no situation.
STAGE 2: There is a situation, but nothing needs doing.
STAGE 3: Something needs doing, but nothing can be done.
STAGE 4: Something could have been done, but it is too late.

(from "yes (Prime) Minster" )

Love it!

I remember for the longest time Bush said it was too soon to do anything about gw. Then, all of a sudden, he started saying it was too late. Where was the window for action? And how long was it? 5 minutes?

 

[corplinx]

I watched the PT BS episode about second hand smoke last week. Can't believe noone has brought it up here.

 

[Cleon]

I watched the PT BS episode about second hand smoke last week. Can't believe noone has brought it up here.

Probably because it was fairly weak. The entire episode can be summed up as "a study thought to be authoritative on second-hand smoke was flawed."

Which is great...But doesn't get us very far.

 

[a_unique_person]

I assume you're alluding to tobacco interests. Well, it seems they only funded the last 11-12 years of the 40 year study.

Do you think it's possible the American Cancer Society and the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program might have stopped their funding because the study data wasn't showing what they expected? It's something you might want to consider.

It's something you might want to offer evidence for.

 

[Edufer]

Not a problem for some of us.

But your "verifications" come from an Argentine "organization" with an axe to grind set up under a free web site. It refers to global warming as a "fraud." You're basically checking anti-GW claims against...Anti-GW claims.

Yep--I'm certainly convinced. Nothing says unbiased and scientific like a site like that.

Could you state which kind of axe has the Argentinean website for grinding?

For all I know it is not a free website (free websites have advertising at the top), and the website is a paid one (about $12.95 a month).

The website refer GW as what thousands of scientists in the world also do: a complete FRAUD.

But try no to kill the messenger and concentrate on the message being delivered.

 

[Cleon]

Could you state which kind of axe has the Argentinean website for grinding?

For all I know it is not a free website (free websites have advertising at the top), and the website is a paid one (about $12.95 a month).

The website refer GW as what thousands of scientists in the world also do: a complete FRAUD.

But try no to kill the messenger and concentrate on the message being delivered.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Edufer]

EPA: , NOAA, DOE/Scripps

Your relying in those organizations is like relying in Philip Morris for supporting the lack of risk of second hand smoking. All of them have huge axes for grinding.

 

[Cleon]

Your relying in those organizations is like relying in Philip Morris for supporting the lack of risk of second hand smoking. All of them have huge axes for grinding.

"Having an axe to grind" is the phrase, and it is not synonymous with "they said something I didn't like."

 

[Edufer]

Thank you for proving my point.

Which was your point? That $12.95 a month websites cannot give accurate information? Or that they might be more biased than say, the Pew Center for Climate Change with a $5000 a month website?

 

[Edufer]

"Having an axe to grind" is the phrase, and it is not synonymous with "they said something I didn't like."

You got the meaning. What are you complaining about then? What's the use of making mock of people that their native language is not English? Just sick pleasure?

 

[Cleon]

You got the meaning. What are you complaining about then? What's the use of making mock of people that their native language is not English? Just sick pleasure?

I'm not making fun of you.

 

[jj]

Which was your point? That $12.95 a month websites cannot give accurate information? Or that they might be more biased than say, the Pew Center for Climate Change with a $5000 a month website?

The money proves what?

 

[varwoche]

The website refer GW as what thousands of scientists in the world also do: a complete FRAUD.

That's funny and welcome to the forum. Between you and Lucifuge, here is the evidence that has been offered:

1. A link to some inane babbling from Michael Crichton
2. A link to an unheard of Spanish language website without so much as a commentary or quote accompanying the link. (How vague can one get?)
3. Comical, unsupported proclamations

Scroll up and read the NOAA, EPA, DOE, and Scripps articles and hopefully realize that GW denial is nearly on par with moon=cheese.

(Maybe you meant to post in the paranormal section?)

 

[varwoche]

Your relying in those organizations is like relying in Philip Morris for supporting the lack of risk of second hand smoking. All of them have huge axes for grinding.

Huh?

These are reports from federal agencies under the Bush administration. To state that Department of Energy under Bush has a pro GW agenda is surreal.

Saying that you are 180 degrees wrong falls stunningly short.

The moon is made of cheese.

 

[Cleon]

These are reports from federal agencies under the Bush administration.

The same Bush Administration, I should point out, that has been caught trying to silence scientists who are actually researching GW because it didn't fit in with the Party Line.

The moon is made of cheese.

Yes, but what kind of cheese? Personally, I'm a Reformed Mozarellaist.

 

[varwoche]

I can't resist getting these two statements together in one post, colored text added...

But try no to kill the messenger [an unheard of Spanish language, fee-based site] and concentrate on the message being delivered.

Your relying in those organizations [DOE, NOAA, EPA, Scripps] is like relying in Philip Morris for supporting the lack of risk of second hand smoking. All of them have huge axes for grinding.

 

[Edufer]

Global Warming denial? Not me. My knowledge is that warming has occurred many times in Earth’s geological history, as we see how many Dansgaard-Oeschger and Heinrich events followed the Older and Younger Dryas, and how the planet had cooled after the warming, and then warmed again, to cool again once more… glaciers went and came back and went away again.

When we analyze a world global temperature chart for Earth's recent history (say from year 1 AD to 2006 AD) we see a line going up and down, and up and down again like a roller coaster, showing that climate change is the norm in Earth’s history. So what is this fashion now of trying to tell the people that the present warming trend (observed until 1998) is abnormal, that climate should be uniform and not changing (as Mann's infamous Hockey Stick, branded as the Holy Truth implies) and it is caused by human activities?

Take a look to any NASA/GISS satelite temperature chart and see that temperatures have been going down since 1998, despite all the data manipulation NASA/GISS, CRU, and other have been doing. They claim 2005 was the warmest year on record (since they started to keep records in Hoehenpeissenberg in 1741 or central England around 1656), but satellite temperature measurements tell otherwise: it was cooler than 1998.

 

[Edufer]

Huh?

These are reports from federal agencies under the Bush administration. To state that Department of Energy under Bush has a pro GW agenda is surreal.

Saying that you are 180 degrees wrong falls stunningly short.

The moon is made of cheese.

Which kind of a thermos are you living in? Ever heard about Hansen complaining about the government trying to gag him? They "gag" people who talk too much invoking a representation nobody has given them -and Hansen has been talking a lot since 1988 when he lied to the USA Senate when presenting his "catastrophic warming" scenario.

And present DOE officials come from prior administrations (mostly Gore friends) and they surely have "an axe to grind". (is it right now?)

And you believe in Santa Claus.