Michael Crichton on Environmentalism

[EvilYeti]

By the way, EvilYeti, if some of the links are from "oil company lackeys," or whatever you call it, and you can show that, then I appreciate it. I honestly do. If it doesn't aid in getting closer to the truth, it certainly aids in getting away from the false. I hope your reaction next time isn't so virulent. It might turn off the next guy from even listening.

I'm not going to turn down the volume anytime soon, as AGW-denying is one of the top junk science beliefs prevalent amongst self-described skeptics. Even luminaries such as Penn & Teller have fallen prey to right-wing woo-woo'ism on this topic. I plan on doing everything I can to prevent losing any more of us to the seductive dark side of pseudo-science.

 

[DanishDynamite]

(The forum has been acting up again. Hope this gets through.)

Luke:

Farther down that same link is this:
-------------------------------
I understand there are thousands of scientists who argue that we know too little about climate change, and that it is therefore premature to respond. Who are these dissenters and are they credible?
Response: The dissenting scientists are primarily located in the United States, although there are some in the UK, Germany, Australia and other countries. A few have sound academic credentials relevant to climate change, but most have backgrounds in nuclear physics, energy, oceanography, and earth sciences rather than atmospheric sciences. Their primary argument is that the human influence on climate is not yet apparent, and that the results of climate modeling are exaggerated. However, most generally agree with the fundamental science underlying the concern about climate change.
--------------------------------

And?

As I mentioned earlier today, it would make sense for a biologist to question the impact of global warming on furry animals, not a climatologist. So it makes sense for a wide range of scientific fields to be skeptical of the wisdom of policy decisions or judgements. One of the examples I linked from Nature demonstrates an example of non-climatologist types (biologists) who have a legitimate beef with global warming predictions.

I saw your quote. It had zip to do with whether man-induced global warming is occuring or not.

Still, if your point was that the various predictive models of the consequences of GW aren't in tune, then I agree completely. The predictive models aren't very good. However, this has nothing to do with with the evidence that humans are significantly affecting the climate of their only home.

Edited to add: If these climatologists are making predictions that cross over into other fields, then these other fields have the right to fire back.

Of course they do.

Cool. But it is generally stated simply as "global warming" which seems to imply that everything is settled on the matter, which it is far from being.

So it isn't a Theory? OK.

As far as "everything is settled", I haven't heard a single scientist ever state this.

 

[EvilYeti]

Many of the complaints in this thread seem to revolve around "gloom and doom" type scenarios of human extinction. I am unaware of any mainstream environmentalist or environmental scientist that is currently making any such claims. I'm sure you can find an ELF whack-job making such a proclamtion, but to tar the entire environmental movement based on the actions and opinions of a few is wrong.

Here is the full version of a quote I posted earlier, I think it nicely summarizes what we know about AGW and it's possible effects.

Two U.S. government scientists said Monday their research proves human activities are affecting global climate.

Thomas Karl, of the National Climatic Data Center in Camp Springs, Md., and Kevin Trenberth, head of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's climate analysis section in Boulder, Colo., said their research proves industrial emissions have been the dominant influence on climate change for the past 50 years. The most important of these emissions is carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps solar radiation and warms the planet.

CO2 levels have risen by 31 percent since pre-industrial times. Other human activities, such as emissions of sulfate and soot particles and the development of urban areas, cause significant but more localized climate effects.

"The likely result is more frequent heat waves, droughts, extreme precipitation events and related impacts (such as) wildfires, heat stress, vegetation changes and sea-level rise, which will be regionally dependent," the two scientists write in the Dec. 5 issue of the journal Science.

If current emissions continue, they said, the world would face the fastest rate of climate change in at least the last 10,000 years. This could alter ocean currents and change existing climate patterns radically.

Not quite "gloom and doom" is it? Potentially very serious, but not cataclysmic. At least we hope.

I like to point to 2003 as an "appetizer" for the AGW main course of the next 100 years. We saw fires, heat waves, hurricanes, record temps., etc. All of which were exacerbated by AGW effects. And as long as we maintain the status quo, its only going to get worse.

 

[Grammatron]

..snip...

I like to point to 2003 as an "appetizer" for the AGW main course of the next 100 years. We saw fires, heat waves, hurricanes, record temps., etc. All of which were exacerbated by AGW effects. And as long as we maintain the status quo, its only going to get worse.

Nice try there, it was hardly an appetizer unless you ignore facts. Most of Europe did not hit record temperatures with the heat waves, the hurricanes in the US was not the worst one even in a decade. The wildfires were the result of dumb environmental policy where we overplanted the trees, ban state parks from clearing the dry brush, then there was a problem with beetles killing lots of trees and add to that people just being stupid and not using proper materials to build their house and not maintaining enough safety distance between them and the forest. So all and all it was as bad as it usually is. Hardly anything to ponder over.

 

[Luke T.]

But the problem is you consider petroleum industry propaganda as equally valid as the scientific research! If you just look at what the climatologists are saying and filter out the oil industry goons, net nutters and astrologers the science is very easy to understand.

You might as well claim there is a "debate" on whether the Apollo landings were faked. Sorry Charlie, but anonymous internet nutjobs do not hold equal rhetorical weight with career scientists.

Nor are climatologists the only field of science exclusive to global warming.

In my last post to DD, I pointed out in his own link, this:

The dissenting scientists are primarily located in the United States, although there are some in the UK, Germany, Australia and other countries. A few have sound academic credentials relevant to climate change, but most have backgrounds in nuclear physics, energy, oceanography, and earth sciences rather than atmospheric sciences.

Sounds to me like they are trying to dismiss people who are quite legitimately involved in any discussion on global warming. And it appears they are trying to dismiss them because they don't agree with them.

 

[Luke T.]

Still, if your point was that the various predictive models of the consequences of GW aren't in tune, then I agree completely.

That is my point! It has been my point from my first post.

The predictive models aren't very good. However, this has nothing to do with with the evidence that humans are significantly affecting the climate of their only home.

Significantly? That is debatable.

So it isn't a Theory? OK.

I did a completely non-scientific google search on the phrase "global warming theory" and got 4370 results. And some of them have .edu in their domain name. I did another google on "global warming hypothesis" and got 1280 results. So you tell me.

As far as "everything is settled", I haven't heard a single scientist ever state this.

To suggest policies to the government to counteract the future effects of global warming is to suggest that the matter is settled and we need to do something to prevent their predictions from coming true.

 

[EvilYeti]

Sounds to me like they are trying to dismiss people who are quite legitimately involved in any discussion on global warming. And it appears they are trying to dismiss them because they don't agree with them.

No, they are dismissing them because they are speaking outside of their area of expertise. It's considered an appeal to authority fallacy to reference the opinion of a recognized expert on any topic other than what they have demonstrated experience in. A good example is the "carbon cycle" error Cato made. I've seen Phd physicists make this error as well. Not having any understanding of the interaction between plants and the atmosphere can cause otherwise knowledgeable people to make such an error. Randi has pointed out this problem before, demonstrating how scientists can be fooled by magic tricks.

 

[Luke T.]

No, they are dismissing them because they are speaking outside of there area of expertise. It's considered an appeal to authority fallacy to reference the opinion of a recognized expert on any topic other than what they have demonstrated experience in. A good example is the "carbon cycle" error Cato made. I've seen Phd physicists make this error as well. Not having any understanding of the interaction between plants and the atmosphere can cause otherwise knowledgeable people to make such an error. Randi has pointed out this problem before, demonstrating how scientists can be fooled by magic tricks.

Are you sitting there saying that oceanographers, biologists and earth scientists have no right to speak on the global warming theory?!?!?!

And I would guess a nuclear physicist is pretty up to date on computer modelling and the errors they are prone to as well.

 

[Luke T.]

I'm not going to turn down the volume anytime soon, as AGW-denying is one of the top junk science beliefs prevalent amongst self-described skeptics. Even luminaries such as Penn & Teller have fallen prey to right-wing woo-woo'ism on this topic. I plan on doing everything I can to prevent losing any more of us to the seductive dark side of pseudo-science.

There is a right way and a wrong way to point out someone's errors. I wish more skeptics would learn this. Calling people stupid or ignorant or speaking to them condescendingly is not the way to win friends or influence people. You just turn them off. Worse, you drive them even deeper into their own belief system.

The caped crusader approach is all wrong.

 

[Luke T.]

Many of the complaints in this thread seem to revolve around "gloom and doom" type scenarios of human extinction. I am unaware of any mainstream environmentalist or environmental scientist that is currently making any such claims. I'm sure you can find an ELF whack-job making such a proclamtion, but to tar the entire environmental movement based on the actions and opinions of a few is wrong.

Here is the full version of a quote I posted earlier, I think it nicely summarizes what we know about AGW and it's possible effects.



Not quite "gloom and doom" is it? Potentially very serious, but not cataclysmic. At least we hope.

The likely result is more frequent heat waves, droughts, extreme precipitation events and related impacts (such as) wildfires, heat stress, vegetation changes and sea-level rise, which will be regionally dependent," blah blah blah.

Let's see. The words "extreme precipitation events" doesn't sound gloom and doom to you? Frequent heat waves? Sea-level rise? Not gloom and doom? Holy smokes!

I like to point to 2003 as an "appetizer" for the AGW main course of the next 100 years. We saw fires, heat waves, hurricanes, record temps., etc. All of which were exacerbated by AGW effects. And as long as we maintain the status quo, its only going to get worse.

Talk about woo-woo...

 

[EvilYeti]

Are you sitting there saying that oceanographers, biologists and earth scientists have no right to speak on the global warming theory?!?!?!

No, but we should keep in mind that unless they have devoted a signifigant amount of study to the current research on the topic their opinion is worth little more than a layman's. Climatology is a complex subject and much of it can be counter-intuitive.

My background is in computer science and I've worked in the earth sciences, particulary geophysics. Yet I had a better understanding of AGW than many of my co-workers, as it was a topic of interest to me and I have studied it extensively.

And I would guess a nuclear physicist is pretty up to date on computer modelling and the errors they are prone to as well.

If they don't understand the mechanism's underlying the model their opinion is of little, and possibly negative, value. Ask the nuclear physicist about nuclear physics and leave the AGW questions for the climatologists. You wouldn't ask one of them how to build an a-bomb, would you?

 

[EvilYeti]

There is a right way and a wrong way to point out someone's errors. I wish more skeptics would learn this. Calling people stupid or ignorant or speaking to them condescendingly is not the way to win friends or influence people. You just turn them off. Worse, you drive them even deeper into their own belief system.

I have no interest in attempting to convert the religious. Its impossible. I can, however, harrass and belittle them to the point that they leave the forum, as I did with Diamond. Or at least shut them up, ala shanek.

Argue with my methods all you want, but you cannot dispute my results. I've recieved enough PM's and threads of support to know I'm on the right track. As a military man I would think you would understand the value of strict discipline while working to remedy incompetence.

The caped crusader approach is all wrong.

You ain't quoting the Cato institute anymore, are ya?

 

[EvilYeti]

Let's see. The words "extreme precipitation events" doesn't sound gloom and doom to you? Frequent heat waves? Sea-level rise? Not gloom and doom? Holy smokes!

Not particularly. None of those events, in and of themselves, pose a signifigant threat to humanity. They will end up costing alot, however.

Talk about woo-woo...

September 2003 was the warmest on record.

Woo-woo indeed.

 

[a_unique_person]

I provided them, along with the others, to show that the global warming debate is wide-ranging and nowhere near settled. You have some who deny human-induced global warming is happening, some who accept global warming is taking place but is not having an ill effect, some who accept human-induced global warming is taking place but is not having an ill effect, and some who accept human-induced global warming is taking place and is having an ill effect. With this kind of debate, my very first post sums up the problem. "It has made figuring out the truth to global warming very difficult for this layman."

I suspect it has made decisions on the part of policy makers very difficult as well. And if a politician hesitates to enact a policy that may or may not alleviate a future problem that may or may not even exist, that does not mean the politician is an enemy of the environment.

I have asked this before, are we just a bunch of w@nkers? We cannot do much more than ensure the scientific process is being followed. I have posted a link to one of the models that is used for GW, and I got lost very quickly.

I think you can take it for granted that scientists will be paid either way, if they come up with pro or anti GW.

I can condidently predict, however, that the likes of Cato, however, is only every going to publish the anti.

 

[Luke T.]

If they don't understand the mechanism's underlying the model their opinion is of little, and possibly negative, value. Ask the nuclear physicist about nuclear physics and leave the AGW questions for the climatologists. You wouldn't ask one of them how to build an a-bomb, would you?

Like I said, physicists know about computer modelling of complex systems. If AGW is based on computer models, a physicist would be able to examine the exactitude of such models.

 

[Luke T.]

No, but we should keep in mind that unless they have devoted a signifigant amount of study to the current research on the topic their opinion is worth little more than a layman's. Climatology is a complex subject and much of it can be counter-intuitive.

My background is in computer science and I've worked in the earth sciences, particulary geophysics. Yet I had a better understanding of AGW than many of my co-workers, as it was a topic of interest to me and I have studied it extensively.

You had a better understanding than other computer scientists? Good for you. What does that have to do with the qualifications of those people who work in the related fields I mentioned earlier? ANd now you want to discount them as unqualified without even knowing if they are. What is this obsession with trying to make the global warming theory the exclusive domain of climatologists? It is very bizarre.

 

[Luke T.]

have no interest in attempting to convert the religious. Its impossible. I can, however, harrass and belittle them to the point that they leave the forum, as I did with Diamond. Or at least shut them up, ala shanek.

Argue with my methods all you want, but you cannot dispute my results. I've recieved enough PM's and threads of support to know I'm on the right track. As a military man I would think you would understand the value of strict discipline while working to remedy incompetence.

You ain't quoting the Cato institute anymore, are ya?

It is more likely they got tired of putting up with you. This in no way advances the cause of skepticism.

PMs of support. Woo hooo! So popularity makes you right. As I said, I wish more skeptics would learn this method doesn't work.

Why are they only supporting you in private?

As for the Cato institute, I told you that I stopped using them because you and Grammatron had started on an ad hominem attack toward each other over it. Precisely my point about your approach. You did not prove anything to me except that you have a tendency to fly off the handle easily.

I have reserved judgement on Cato for later examination. I have not excluded them because of you, but I will examine them closer because of you, if that makes you happy.

You count running people off the forum as a victory? Man oh man...That's very sad.

 

[Luke T.]

September 2003 was the warmest on record.

Woo-woo indeed.

And January, February, March, April, May, June, July and August weren't. Not even close.

Cherry picking. Ever hear of it?

September. .01 centigrade scale. -53 to 73 for a grand total of variations from 1880 to 2003 of 1.26 degrees. My math must be wrong. Is that all?

Wow! And the ice caps haven't melted and flooded NYC yet?

 

[EvilYeti]

What is this obsession with trying to make the global warming theory the exclusive domain of climatologists? It is very bizarre.

It's called "respect". I have respect for someone that has chose to dedicate his/her life to the pursuit of knowledge in one particular discipline. It requires much work and sacrifice.

I reward that by giving them a much higher degree of trust in their word regarding their relevant area of study than one who has not.

 

[Grammatron]

September 2003 was the warmest on record.

Woo-woo indeed.

This proves it, EvilYeti knows nothing about statistics or mathematics or even the laws of averages for that matter. Why continue arguing if you keep posting pointless data that you cherry picked just to show you were right. Is that how you concluded there is GW and it was caused by humans?