Michael Crichton on Environmentalism

[Luke T.]

EvilYeti!

Rather than see this thread fall into an ad hominem debacle, I will completely disregard Cato.

That leaves a few other links which show that the majority of climatologists and meteorologists don't buy into the global warming theory doomsday scenario.

So, DanishDynamite, if you are still out there, I don't know how we can prove how many peer reviewed global warming theory papers there are, but if a majority of the people in the field don't buy it, then it is obvious they didn't write papers in favor of it. And it is a safe assumption that some have written papers against it.

And that is what it is, and what it should be called. A Global Warming Theory.

When a majority of the people in the field don't buy the theory, it is not only pretentious, but downright irresponsible for anyone to call on the government to enact policies based on that theory that will affect millions, if not billions, of people, and cost ungodly amounts of money.

 

[Luke T.]

Another link.

In 1992 - at the height of the global warming scare - Greenpeace International conducted a survey of the world’s 400 leading climatologists. Greenpeace had hoped to publicise the results of that survey in the run-up to the Rio summit, but when they completed the survey, they gave very little publicity to its results. In response to the survey, only 15 climatologists were willing to say they believed in global warming, although all climatologists rely on it for their employment. Also, the Leipzig Declaration disputes the IPCC assertions about man-made global warming. It was drafted following the Leipzig Climate Conference in November 1995 and has been signed by over 1,500 scientists from around the world.

 

[Luke T.]

These can't all be oil company lackeys, can they?

Yet another link.

In 1996 a survey of climate scientists on attitudes towards global warming and related matters was undertaken by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch. The results were subsequently published in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Vol. 80, No. 3, March 1999 439-455. [1] The paper addressed the views of climate science, with a response rate of 40% from a mail survey questionnaire to 1000 scientists in Germany, the USA and Canada. Almost all scientists agreed that the skill of models was limited.

The abstract indicates an "incompatibility" between the "state of knowledge" and calls for "abatement measures":


The international consensus was, however, apparent regarding the utility of the knowledge to date: climate science has provided enough knowledge so that the initiation of abatement measures is warranted. However, consensus also existed regarding the current inability to explicitly specify detrimental effects that might result from climate change. This incompatibility between the state of knowledge and the calls for action suggests that, to some degree at least, scientific advice is a product of both scientific knowledge and normative judgment, suggesting a socioscientific construction of the climate change issue.

 

[Luke T.]

I think there's a real "boy who cried wolf" aspect to the predictions of environmentalists. In the 60's and 70's, they shot their wad, and if they were right, we'd all be dead by now.

Instead, things are better than they've been in a long time The Thames river and Lake Erie have fish in them, and they have the normal number of eyeballs. This was not true when I was a kid.

Of course, it could be argued that some of the improvement has been due to the pressures of environmentalists, and there has certainly been some of that, mostly to the good (with a few exceptions like wildfires due to overzealous prevention of forest fires).

Yet a the same time, I think that due to ignorance or stupidity, environmentalists have largely voluntarily given up their credibility, by having no sense of when they should shriek at the top of their lungs and when they should not. Which is quite dangerous, because there are certainly environmental considerations that do need to be dealt with, but there's no way to distinguish them from the rest by the shrieking. When you shriek at the top of your lungs, people tend to tune it out.

A low point in public perception of environmentalism came when Carl Sagan, an otherwise mostly sane individual, elected to play press-release science about the Iraqi oil well fires using a 30-cell, one-dimensional atmospheric transport model that completely ignored convection. This bugged me, because at the time I was working at one of the leading centers for atmospheric and oceanic transport models. We were the first to demonstrate that spiky updrafts did occur in thunderstorms and that oil spills posed a significant threat not only to the surface but to fairly deep coral reefs, and we were the only group correctly to predict the direction of travel of an oil spill off Tampa Bay while it was happening. But nobody, including environmentalists, seemed to care at all.

Outstanding post. Thanks.

 

[hgc]

Isn't it more than a little egotistical for someone to predict The End Of The World?

I appreciate what some environmentalists have done. If it weren't for them, some companies would still be dumping lead or mercury or what-have-you into our rivers and streams and Lake Erie would be still burning. So we owe them a debt of gratitude.

And we need somebody out there to keep a weather eye on things. Make sure we don't slide backwards.

These predictors of gloom and doom only introduce cynicism and reluctance to the equation. I suppose in the beginning of the movement, they felt it was necessary to scream very loudly to halt the momentum of destruction that was occurring and get it turned around. Maybe they got used to the attention and felt making stuff up was okay after a while. I don't know.

I think the predictions of global warming are unproven. It needs to be studied without the histrionics attached. For example, if a politician expresses doubt about the validity of global warming disasters, we don't need them labelled as a monster or enemy of the environment. That is just plain crap.

Many level-headed people have doubts about the predictions.

Hi Luke,

I'm just getting back to this thread today, and I wanted to address this post before anything else.

I'm a little disappointed in what you've said here. This is a completely emotional argument, and as such, useless. I couldn't care less about what is allegedly egotistical or cynical or histrionic. I'm interested whether what we do as humans to make this planet uninhabitable, and how we can reverse that trend. Yeah, sure many predictions of doom haven't born out. Many have too. And our ability to make predictions gets better all the time, based on our experience of raping (big emotion word!) the Earth and seeing the consequences, and on the general advance of scientific knowledge.

The impact of humans on the environment goes back a long way (and indeed, other plant and animal populations also can have an impact). For instance, I don't know how many thousands of years you have to go back to when new human migrants to Australia wiped out much of that continent's forest and created the Australian desert. But they didn't know any better. We do. That's the real pity. We actually have a lot of information about what we can do and not do to avoid disaster, but instead petty short-term economic concerns, or religious lunacy, or whatever, often gets priority. Now that's really cynical.

 

[Luke T.]

Hi Luke,

I'm just getting back to this thread today, and I wanted to address this post before anything else.

I'm a little disappointed in what you've said here. This is a completely emotional argument, and as such, useless. I couldn't care less about what is allegedly egotistical or cynical or histrionic. I'm interested whether what we do as humans to make this planet uninhabitable, and how we can reverse that trend. Yeah, sure many predictions of doom haven't born out. Many have too. And our ability to make predictions gets better all the time, based on our experience of raping (big emotion word!) the Earth and seeing the consequences, and on the general advance of scientific knowledge.

The impact of humans on the environment goes back a long way (and indeed, other plant and animal populations also can have an impact). For instance, I don't know how many thousands of years you have to go back to when new human migrants to Australia wiped out much of that continent's forest and created the Australian desert. But they didn't know any better. We do. That's the real pity. We actually have a lot of information about what we can do and not do to avoid disaster, but instead petty short-term economic concerns, or religious lunacy, or whatever, often gets priority. Now that's really cynical.

I think the emotion is coming from the environmentalist side. They are the ones predicting the end of the world, after all.

There is an expression we had in the Navy. "Don't sh!t in your own nest." I don't dispute that we have done that very thing. I mentioned Lake Eerie catching on fire. I hope the day comes when our grandchildren will be debating whether or not that is a fairy tale or actually happened.

I am sorry that my pointing out that the environmentalist community is prone to histrionics disappoints you. It doesn't make it not true, though. My pointing out others' emotions doesn't make me emotional.

I think the only emotion I expressed here was actually one of gratitude toward the environmentalist community of all things!

And what is wrong with questioning how we should spend our money and our time? Why shouldn't we question if it is a waste of money and time? What if we enact a policy that does no good whatsoever at the expense of actually doing some good?

We need hard information. We don't need histrionics. A lot of environmentalists have lost credibility with their constant sky-is-falling predictions, and make the job so much harder for those who base their conclusions on hard facts and real science.

 

[Luke T.]

Geez, it took ten minutes for that last post to get posted. The forum must be acting up again. I hesitate to make another one.

Anyway, I just wanted to add that I guess I must be honest and admit to the emotion of being cynical toward the environmental community as well. But since here we are, in 2003, and we are all still here, with oil coming out our ears, and fat to the point of it being the biggest health threat our nation faces, can you really blame me?

So I am grateful and cynical at the same time. Go figure.

 

[hgc]

I think the emotion is coming from the environmentalist side. They are the ones predicting the end of the world, after all.

There is an expression we had in the Navy. "Don't sh!t in your own nest." I don't dispute that we have done that very thing. I mentioned Lake Eerie catching on fire. I hope the day comes when our grandchildren will be debating whether or not that is a fairy tale or actually happened.

I am sorry that my pointing out that the environmentalist community is prone to histrionics disappoints you. It doesn't make it not true, though. My pointing out others' emotions doesn't make me emotional.

I think the only emotion I expressed here was actually one of gratitude toward the environmentalist community of all things!

And what is wrong with questioning how we should spend our money and our time? Why shouldn't we question if it is a waste of money and time? What if we enact a policy that does no good whatsoever at the expense of actually doing some good?

We need hard information. We don't need histrionics. A lot of environmentalists have lost credibility with their constant sky-is-falling predictions, and make the job so much harder for those who base their conclusions on hard facts and real science.

We're all for saving the Earth, and that's good. Let me be clear, my arguments are not meant to put forth or bolster any histrionic, Chicken Little predictions. I'm interested in hard science and the predictions we can make using it, and I recognize that our abilities in that area are imperfect. Just because some environmentalists are histrionic doesn't change the cold hard reality (as best we can judge scientifically) that we're killing the goose that laid the golden egg (fun with metaphors ).

I don't favor wasting time and money, except that I would rather err on the side of doing too much to save the Earth than doing too little, as the risk of doing too little is far, far greater.

 

[Luke T.]

I don't favor wasting time and money, except that I would rather err on the side of doing too much to save the Earth than doing too little, as the risk of doing too little is far, far greater.

Unfortunately, we don't have unlimited money. Decisions sometimes have to be made whether it is worth our time to save the cuddly panda, or to save some poor ugly unphotogenic creature/organism that may be more important to the environment. That is when emotions must be eliminated.

 

[hgc]

Unfortunately, we don't have unlimited money. Decisions sometimes have to be made whether it is worth our time to save the cuddly panda, or to save some poor ugly unphotogenic creature/organism that may be more important to the environment. That is when emotions must be eliminated.

I hate to belabor this thread, but this is getting ridiculous. On the one hand, I'm talking about what it takes to keep this planet habitable for human existence. You can't just dismiss that by taking swipes at cuddly pandas. On the other hand, there's a lot to be said for going out of our way not to destroy the habitat needed for the less adaptable species around us to continue in existence. I may not believe in God-on-High, but I sure believe that humanity has a responsibility toward "God's creatures," over which we exercise the power of life and death. For instance, we may get some benefit in the short term, in lumber and jobs, by clear cutting the forests of the NW U.S., but the jobs will disappear in less than a generation, and the spotted owl will be gone FOREVER. It's not worth it.

 

[EvilYeti]

Another link.

I was waiting for you to reference Daly. Were you aware that one of the cheif contributors to his website is a "research astrologer"? How's it feel to be a woo-woo Luke?

The Leipzig Declaration is debunked here:

http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let08.html

Maybe you should do some fact-checking before you post in the future?

 

[EvilYeti]

These can't all be oil company lackeys, can they?

Yet another link.

They are discussing predictive models of future global warming effects. No one, myself included, disputes that.

This is a completely seperate issue from whether the last 100 years human GHG emissions domindate climate change. Could you try and stick to one discussion at a time, please?

 

[EvilYeti]

Rather than see this thread fall into an ad hominem debacle, I will completely disregard Cato.

That's a step towards developing some critical thinking skills, good work.

That leaves a few other links which show that the majority of climatologists and meteorologists don't buy into the global warming theory doomsday scenario.

We aren't discussing that, we are discussing whether AGW is real or not. Working in the earth sciences, I can assure there is unanimous agreement on this.

So, DanishDynamite, if you are still out there, I don't know how we can prove how many peer reviewed global warming theory papers there are, but if a majority of the people in the field don't buy it, then it is obvious they didn't write papers in favor of it. And it is a safe assumption that some have written papers against it.

Thats a complete and total lie. The vast majority of climatologists, a near-unanimous majority in fact, accept AGW as a reality. I know this because I used to work with them. I'm sure you can find websites that say the contrary, as well as proof the moon landing was faked, but it doesn't mean its true. How bout a 'lil critical thinking, Luke?

And that is what it is, and what it should be called. A Global Warming Theory.

Of course, just like the "theory" of evolution. You doubt that as well? There is as much evidence for it as there is for AGW!

When a majority of the people in the field don't buy the theory, it is not only pretentious, but downright irresponsible for anyone to call on the government to enact policies based on that theory that will affect millions, if not billions, of people, and cost ungodly amounts of money.

Again with the lies. The clear majority endorses AGW as a valid model for the last 100 years of climate change, there is mountains of evidence to support it . The mechanisms behind it are clear and well understood.

 

[Luke T.]

They are discussing predictive models of future global warming effects. No one, myself included, disputes that.

This is a completely seperate issue from whether the last 100 years human GHG emissions domindate climate change. Could you try and stick to one discussion at a time, please?

This, coming from the guy who brought up second-hand smoke in an environmentalist topic????

The discussion was whether or not the majority of climatologists and meteorologists think the world is coming to an end via global warming, or if they even agree what should be done about it if the globe is warming. They don't. My links attempt to show that.
I used a variety of links from a variety of sources to show that. If some of them are connected to woo-woos, it does not negate the other sources. I'll wager you the environmentalist movement has more woo-woos in it than most scientific fields.

 

[Luke T.]

Again with the lies. The clear majority endorses AGW as a valid model for the last 100 years of climate change, there is mountains of evidence to support it . The mechanisms behind it are clear and well understood.

I think what we have here is a lack of communication.

This whole line of argument was prompted by my statement, "I think the predictions of global warming are unproven. It needs to be studied without the histrionics attached. For example, if a politician expresses doubt about the validity of global warming disasters, we don't need them labelled as a monster or enemy of the environment. That is just plain crap.

Many level-headed people have doubts about the predictions."

You see, I was talking about the predictions based on the Global Warming Theory. It is these predictions that are in question by the majority of climatologists and meteorologists. So it would be irresponsible to commit time and money to projects that aren't even verifiable as being efficacious to eliminating a predicament that may not even exist.

 

[hgc]

I think what we have here is a lack of communication.

This whole line of argument was prompted by my statement, "I think the predictions of global warming are unproven. It needs to be studied without the histrionics attached. For example, if a politician expresses doubt about the validity of global warming disasters, we don't need them labelled as a monster or enemy of the environment. That is just plain crap.

Many level-headed people have doubts about the predictions."

You see, I was talking about the predictions based on the Global Warming Theory. It is these predictions that are in question by the majority of climatologists and meteorologists. So it would be irresponsible to commit time and money to projects that aren't even verifiable as being efficacious to eliminating a predicament that may not even exist.

If there's one thing more disturbing in all this than the histrionics associated with the environment movement, it's the cynicism of the people that have the power over our future (politicians, think-tankers and their pay-masters) who would gladly sacrifice our long-term prospects for a short-term payoff in jobs and profits. But, I'm not looking to the "movement" such as it is for my guidance in trying to understand these things; I'm looking to working, thinking scientists in this area of study (not synonymous with "the movement"), among whom there is near universal agreement that humanity is causing global climate change.

 

[Luke T.]

I hate to belabor this thread, but this is getting ridiculous. On the one hand, I'm talking about what it takes to keep this planet habitable for human existence. You can't just dismiss that by taking swipes at cuddly pandas. On the other hand, there's a lot to be said for going out of our way not to destroy the habitat needed for the less adaptable species around us to continue in existence. I may not believe in God-on-High, but I sure believe that humanity has a responsibility toward "God's creatures," over which we exercise the power of life and death. For instance, we may get some benefit in the short term, in lumber and jobs, by clear cutting the forests of the NW U.S., but the jobs will disappear in less than a generation, and the spotted owl will be gone FOREVER. It's not worth it.

hgc, I get the feeling you and I aren't so far apart in opinion. Certainly not as far apart as this apparent friction we are building toward one another warrants.

I wasn't taking a swipe at the panda. I would like to see the panda saved. What I am saying is that human emotion plays too big a part in the debate. I can't say I blame the environmental movement for using the panda as their poster-child. After all, it is hard to get the public interested in saving some butt-ugly creature that may be more vital to the environment. That is just reality. But to expect a politician to yield to emotions instead of what is really important is being irresponsible.

We need to save the environment by priority, not by public relations. If there is enough time, money and resources available after rescuing the really important things, then hell, yeah, save the panda.

I am using the panda as an example without any idea if it is vital to the survival of the environment. It is just a hunch that the panda isn't vital.

The argument that lumber is temporary and spotted owls will be gone forever is a good one. But it can be argued the lumber will not run out with proper land management. And it can also be argued that without lumber, we won't have toilet paper to wipe ourselves.

Spotted owl or Charmin? Tough call.

edited to change the second sentence of this post so it made more sense.

 

[Luke T.]

If there's one thing more disturbing in all this than the histrionics associated with the environment movement, it's the cynicism of the people that have the power over our future (politicians, think-tankers and their pay-masters) who would gladly sacrifice our long-term prospects for a short-term payoff in jobs and profits. But, I'm not looking to the "movement" such as it is for my guidance in trying to understand these things; I'm looking to working, thinking scientists in this area of study (not synonymous with "the movement"), among whom there is near universal agreement that humanity is causing global climate change.

Okay. But how large is that change? The amount has come down as the science has improved. And what effect is it having? How much of this change is caused by humans and how much is caused naturally? These are the questions no one can satisfactorily answer.

edited to add: By "the amount has come down" I meant the estimated amount.

 

[Igopogo]

Going back to the original topic for a sec.

Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost.

I find these comments by Crichton to be surprizing. Was there ever a time in history when science wasn't politicized? I'm always amazed when people hold up the term "science" like it's a positive force. It's 'neutral' (I'd argue that ignorance is neutral as well), it's politics that spins it positive or negative, depending entirely on your viewpoint and beliefs.

 

[EvilYeti]

This, coming from the guy who brought up second-hand smoke in an environmentalist topic????

Second-hand smoke is far enough away from AGW that the intent of satire is clear. Mixing up the real history of AGW with possible future doomsday scenarios does nothing but cloud the issue.

The discussion was whether or not the majority of climatologists and meteorologists think the world is coming to an end via global warming, or if they even agree what should be done about it if the globe is warming. They don't. My links attempt to show that.
I used a variety of links from a variety of sources to show that. If some of them are connected to woo-woos, it does not negate the other sources. I'll wager you the environmentalist movement has more woo-woos in it than most scientific fields.

But you also provided links that made the claim that AGW over the last 100 years HAS NOT HAPPENED. Thats junk science! And ALL the links you provided are from websites with specious motivations. Not a single modern reference, primary source or science journal. Why is that? If so many climatologists doubt AGW, shouldn't you be able to find hundreds of modern refernces to support that?

You are making the rather common mistake that there are two camps at work here, pro and con the reality of AGW. That is a false assumption. There are two camps here, science and not science. The anti-globalization eco-nazi's and the petroleum interests are in the "not science" camp. The scientists are in the "science" camp. The scientists are not motivated to do anything other than uncover the truth, whatever that may be. They aren't trying to "prove" AGW. They are just pointing out that the preponderance of evidence supports the theory.

Again, lets look at quote from some leading climatologists on AGW. These are folks at the top of their field speaking about the best current evidence we have:

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. Although there has been progress in monitoring and understanding climate change, there remain many scientific, technical, and institutional impediments to precisely planning for, adapting to, and mitigating the effects of climate change. There is still considerable uncertainty about the rates of change that can be expected, but it is clear that these changes will be increasingly manifested in important and tangible ways, such as changes in extremes of temperature and precipitation, decreases in seasonal and perennial snow and ice extent, and sea level rise. Anthropogenic climate change is now likely to continue for many centuries. We are venturing into the unknown with climate, and its associated impacts could be quite disruptive.

Whats the deal, Luke? Are they liars? Eco-nazi's? Speaking for a tiny minority of earth scientists? Full of sh!t?

How much evidence do you need? Considering your dogmatic world view, there will likely never be enough.