Michael Crichton on Environmentalism

Luke:
There appears to be an equal number of peer reviewed articles that say it is not true.
Click to expand...
Not to my knowledge. Would you have a link?
The last article I linked is a very interesting read. Have you read it?
Click to expand...
Just had a very brief look. Could you summarize its findings?
 
Interesting.

The predictions of doom rely on the National Assessment of the impact of climate change, which the Clinton team concocted to help Al Gore. The National Assessment was subject to devastating criticism by a wide range of scientists.

Perhaps the best comment during the peer review process came from Dr. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia and the Cato Institute, who demonstrated that the two computer models used did a poorer job of predicting temperature record for the past 100 years than "a table of random numbers."
Click to expand...

Edited to add: Link 5.
 
Luke T. said:
Lots of anti-global warming concerns here.
Click to expand...
From your link of concerns:

"Below, find a listing of the studies, commentaries, books and media appearances by Cato scholars that address the issues surrounding global warming."

What am I supposed to gleam from this link, Luke? How does it address my question in any way, shape or form?
 
''There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing (or will in the foreseeable future cause) catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.''


The carping of an oil-industry flack? The ignorant mutterings of fringe antienvironmentalists?


No. It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry. The statement was circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine along with an eight-page abstract of the latest research on climate change. The abstract - written for scientists but comprehensible by laymen - concludes that there is no basis for believing (1) that atmospheric CO2 is causing a dangerous climb in global temperatures, (2) that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful, or (3) that human activity leads to global warming in the first place.


The cover letter accompanying the petition and abstract was penned by Frederick Seitz, a past president of the National Academy of Sciences. (All these documents are available online at www.oism.org/pproject.) The scientific ''consensus'' on global warming, it turns out, does not exist.


The Oregon Institute petition is no anomaly.
Click to expand...



Link 7.
 
Just showing you that your claim of "a majority of meteoroligists/climatoligsts around the world say that their evalution of the facts currently available is that human-induced Global Warming is quite possibly true" is questionable. Maybe you could back that up?

At the very least, you can see why my original statement that reasonable people have doubts about the global warming catastrophic predictions was made, can't you?
 
A survey of over 400 German, American and Canadian climate researchers conducted by the Meteorologisches Institut der Universitat Hamburg and the GKSS Forschungszentrum found that 67% of those surveyed either disagreed or were uncertain about the proposition that global warming will occur so quickly that lack of preparation could prove disastrous.
Click to expand...

Link 8.

How's that?
 
From the same link:

Claim: Thousands of scientists have signed letters and petitions alerting the public to the dangers of global warming.

Fact: One of the letters often cited to support this claim was issued by Ozone Action. A close examination of that letter revealed that only 10% of the letter's signatories had backgrounds in climate science. Worse, landscape architects, a gynecologist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine are among the signatories.
Click to expand...

and

Claim: 2,500 United Nations-sponsored scientists have concluded that human greenhouse gas emissions are warming the temperature of the planet.

Fact: This claim is based on the fact that the United Nations Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report suggesting a "discernible human influence" on climate change. While several thousand scientists were consulted in crafting the report, not all of them agreed with its conclusions. As Dr. John W. Zillman, one of these scientists noted: "[The IPCC was] meticulous in insisting that the final decision on whether to accept particular review comments should reside with chapter Lead Authors... Some Lead Authors ignored valid critical comments or failed to... reflect dissenting views..." The report was therefore the result of a political rather than a scientific process.
Click to expand...

Edited to add: So much for "peer review," DD.

A 1992 Gallup survey of climatologists found that 81 percent of respondents believed that the global temperature had not risen over the past 100 years, were uncertain whether or not or why such warming had occurred, or believed any temperature increases during that period were within the natural range of variation. Further, a 1997 survey conducted by American Viewpoint found that state climatologists believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon by a margin of 44% to 17%.
Click to expand...

Should I keep going?
 
All I know is that I bought Prey by Michael Crichton and I think he owes me 19.99 plus tax and an apology.
 
Luke T. said:

There appears to be an equal number of peer reviewed articles that say it is not true.

Thats your problem right there, Luke. You have not provided a single peer-reviewed science article in any of your links. Neither SEPP, Reason Magazine or the Cato institute are scientific research bodies. In fact, they all have strong ties to corporate interests, so can we really trust them to be unbiased with regards to research that would show those interests in a negative light?

Considering the track record of the tobacco industry and their position on cigarettes and cancer, I would be very wary of industry sponsored "science".

As a skeptic, wouldn't you agree?

The last article I linked is a very interesting read. Have you read it?
Click to expand...

Thats a position paper. Its opinion, not science. Notice it hasn't been published in a science journal.

What do you think about the quote I published earlier
Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability. The main source of global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition. These perturbations primarily result from emissions associated with energy use, but on local and regional scales, urbanization and land use changes are also important.
Click to expand...

It's the complete opposite of yours. Yet mine comes from two very well respected career climatologists and yours comes from an oil industry propaganda mill.

Who should we trust? Be honest.
 
corplinx said:
All I know is that I bought Prey by Michael Crichton and I think he owes me 19.99 plus tax and an apology.
Click to expand...

I take it you won't be going to see the movie Timeline then? :D
 
Luke T.
Just showing you that your claim of "a majority of meteoroligists/climatoligsts around the world say that their evalution of the facts currently available is that human-induced Global Warming is quite possibly true" is questionable. Maybe you could back that up?
Click to expand...
Youy have shown no such thing. Still, I'll back it up. I wonder how you can even think this claim is untrue, but I'll back it up. For now, though, it's past my bedtime.
At the very least, you can see why my original statement that reasonable people have doubts about the global warming catastrophic predictions was made, can't you?
Click to expand...
I can. But it has nothing to do with your links. As I said before, I'm not a 100% convinced. Given the stakes, though, and my lack of faith in world-wide conspiracies, I know which side of the fence I'll be on.
 
EvilYeti said:


It's the complete opposite of yours. Yet mine comes from two very well respected career climatologists and yours comes from an oil industry propaganda mill.

Who should we trust? Be honest.
Click to expand...

Which particular source is an "oil industry propaganda mill," and how do you know this?
 
DanishDynamite said:
Luke T.Youy have shown no such thing.
Click to expand...

"A 1992 Gallup survey of climatologists found that 81 percent of respondents believed that the global temperature had not risen over the past 100 years, were uncertain whether or not or why such warming had occurred, or believed any temperature increases during that period were within the natural range of variation. Further, a 1997 survey conducted by American Viewpoint found that state climatologists believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon by a margin of 44% to 17%."

That is your idea of showing no such thing? :confused:
 
Luke T. said:

Should I keep going?
Click to expand...

No, I think you have more than adequately diplayed that you have no understanding of the difference between science and propaganda.
 
Luke T. said:

Which particular source is an "oil industry propaganda mill," and how do you know this?
Click to expand...

Financial firms kicking in big checks to Cato include American Express, Chase Manhattan Bank, Chemical Bank, Citicorp/Citibank, Commonwealth Fund, Prudential Securities and Salomon Brothers. Energy conglomerates: Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company and Tenneco Gas, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation and Atlantic Richfield Foundation. Cato's pharmaceutical donors include Eli Lilly & Company, Merck & Company and Pfizer, Inc.
Click to expand...

source:http://www.accuracy.org/articles/cato.htm

Hey Luke, why bother quitting smoking? The tobacco industry says it doesn't cause cancer. And go ahead and exhale on the twins, it won't hurt 'em. Uncle Cato says so!

The Second-Hand Smoke Charade

Who needs science when you have biased corporate propaganda?

Way to be a creduloid, Luke.
 
EvilYeti said:




source:http://www.accuracy.org/articles/cato.htm

Hey Luke, why bother quitting smoking? The tobacco industry says it doesn't cause cancer. And go ahead and exhale on the twins, it won't hurt 'em. Uncle Cato says so!

The Second-Hand Smoke Charade

Who needs science when you have biased corporate propaganda?

Way to be a creduloid, Luke.
Click to expand...

Woah, slow down there buddy. We are talking global warming here not second hand smoke. However, since you chose to bring it up do you believe it(Second Hand Smoke) is harmful, if so where's your evidence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom