Michael Crichton on Environmentalism

[Luke T.]

While I'm not partial to Mr. Solomon's politics, his journalistic integrity is impeccable. If the truth show's your conservative buddies in a bad light, is it really fair to shoot the messenger?

If the messenger is barking mad, then he needs to be shot.

According to you, of course it is!

Like I said.

 

[EvilYeti]

Yes, it is. Shall we wager a one year JREF membership on whether September and October will be hotter next year?

Sorry, I don't speculate in volcano futures.

 

[EvilYeti]

Woooo! Perhaps it is you who needs to examine the truth again. Where are the melted ice caps? Where are the famines? Where is your evidence this year was exceptional for hurricanes, wild fires, etc., etc.???????

Nice strawman, Puke. I never made claims the ice caps would melt by 2003. I don't recall any scientists that have either.
If you accept that AGW this century is a real phenomenon, which claim to, then it has contributed to the severity hurricanes and dry spells. Thats what happens when you increase the energy in a non-linear system.

How about that wager?

How about you try posting some science instead of oil company propaganda?

 

[EvilYeti]

EvilYeti, you'll have to excuse me if I am completely underwhelmed if Solomon (who is described as a "progressive" and uses catch-phrases like "imperialism" and says that it is obvious to him that the police have infiltrated environmental groups and they are the ones who provoke riots) doesn't like a corporate-funded, conservative think tank and spends a lot of energy making sure no one else likes them either.

That doesn't change the fact that Cato is funded by energy companies to write propaganda on their behalf. Why don't you do some research of you own, since you obviouslly think Solomon is a liar.

You are starting to slip. You are on the edge. Cherry picking, rambling on about hurricanes and wild fires. You are just a nudge away from losing it and starting to rant about the next Ice Age being only 50 years away and it's Exxon's fault. I can smell it.

The only thing you smell is your own ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Don't you find it a bit hypocritical to start making predictions, especially regarding othe peoples behavior?

edited to add: Solomon is the kind of guy who won't be happy until there is no Right, and we all march lockstep into the fields of our collective farms. I wonder what they will do to keep warm? Can't burn wood. No sir. That's bad! Bad!

Now who's gloom and doom? Oh, the irony. You righy-wing whiners are so insecure about your own dogma that you are obsessed with slandering and silencing your critics.

Christ, I swear you conservative nutballs are no more than spoiled crybabys. No wonder you still need a tobacco pacifier.

 

[EvilYeti]

Let me use your logic here based on that data...

OH NO! Since 1998 we have been cooling down, it's global cooling!!! Quick, lets change the world economy and the way companies operate without investigating any further. What? No I'm not being alarmist, I'm just giving you reasonable conclusion here!!

More cherry picking from EvilYeti

1999 CLOSES THE WARMEST DECADE CENTURY OF THE LAST MILLENNIUM

Wow, warmest decade and warmest century in last 1000 years! Those cherries are getting pretty friggen big!

 

[EvilYeti]

If the messenger is barking mad, then he needs to be shot.

This is coming from a guy that links to John Daly's site?

Your calling for the murder of you critics is noted. Typical conservative tyranny.

 

[Luke T.]

Just saving some classics for any future viewers Yeti might want to impress with a link to "EvilYeti vs. Luke T."

After posting a link showing September and October were the "warmest on record," along with some statements about this year's hurricanes and wildfires and somesuch as evidence that global warming is already doing major damage, I offerred to put my money where my mouth is and suggested a wager of one year membership to JREF that September and October 2004 won't be even warmer, to which Yeti eventually replied:

Sorry, I don't speculate in volcano futures.

???

While I'm not partial to Mr. Solomon's politics, his journalistic integrity is impeccable.

If you are tuning in late, I used a link early in the topic to an organization called Cato, among many other links to other sites, all of which question the predictions related to global warming. EvilYeti came in guns ablazin, claiming Cato is an "oil industry lackey" and mixed in some nonsense about second hand smoke. This prompted an ad hominem battle between he and Grammatron. So I said I would drop Cato in the interest of bringing some order back to the conversation. But Yeti couldn't let it go. So I looked into his source which claimed Cato was "an oil industry lackey." It turns out his source is run by Norman Solomon. Very easy searches on the internet show Solomon to be on the extreme Left, and that he is very selective with his inquiries into accuracy of claims, which destroys any claims of integrity. A simple search on his name will more than prove this out.

I would say Cato and Solomon cancel each other out. That leaves a pile of other links and evidence I have provided which show the scientific community is split on what the implications of global warming are.

About Solomon and my uncovering of his background, Yeti asked:

If the truth show's your conservative buddies in a bad light, is it really fair to shoot the messenger?

My response:

If the messenger is barking mad, then he needs to be shot.

To which Yeti replied:

Your calling for the murder of you critics is noted. Typical conservative tyranny.

Note away, yeti. Note away.

Nice strawman, Puke.

Nice. Very nice. A powerful banner carrier for the skeptic movement.

 

[Grammatron]

More cherry picking from EvilYeti

1999 CLOSES THE WARMEST DECADE CENTURY OF THE LAST MILLENNIUM

Wow, warmest decade and warmest century in last 1000 years! Those cherries are getting pretty friggen big!

Anyhow...tell me, do you agree that current instrument stations for taking weather readings are better equipment and in more locations in the world and thus would make an impact on the type and quality of data that is being collected or am I completely offbase here?

 

[Luke T.]

I hate it when a topic sinks to the level of name calling, especially when I allow myself to get sucked into it.

I am going to outline my broad views of the environmentalist movement now, and show why I think it is appropriate that the topic is in the political section of this forum rather than the scientific one.

There appear to be some parallels between the environmentalist movement and the paranormal community. One example being that both have hijacked the hard work of scientists and twisted it to fit their belief systems. I don't know if anyone else has seen what the psychic believers have done to quantum mechanics, but it is a wonder to behold.

At the very core of the environmentalist movement is an anti-capitalist sentiment. A very powerful one. These are the last gaspers of the extreme Left. Political marxist ideals corroded and finally collapsed with the corrosion and final collapse of the Soviet Union. So when global warming came along, with its implications that it was being caused by factories, and the fact that the greatest economic successes were those of the capitalist West, well, it was just too irresistable.

And like the paranormal community, the environmental movement published wild and zany predictions for the future. And despite time having passed and none of these things coming to pass, they continue the habit, because like paranormal icons, they realized that the public has a short memory and will fall for it again and again and again.

The science has been left behind. It is not even a certainty that any of these predictions will come to pass, but there is much clamor for corporations to tie their own hands anyway. "Just in case." As someone said earlier in this topic; Pascal's wager.

Getting involved in this topic has actually caused me to begin to doubt that global warming is even caused by humans. I am more inclined to think that a political ideology is behind that belief more than a scientific one, and it has filtered down from the peaks of the hysterical icons down to the masses the way a widespread belief in paranormal events can be traced back to a hysterical few.

Now in no way have I said global warming is not occuring. But I am fairly confident that up until this paragraph, there are readers who were in full pounce mode to attack me for saying in this post that global warming is not occurring. I would ask these people to re-read what I have said again.

 

[Drooper]

So what does a climatologist know about the effect of global warming on insects, animals and crops and so on?

Climatologists aren't completely convinced by the AGW theory yet.

I've posted this before, but it just seems to become more and more relevant.

I thought I might add this to the thread. I posted this on a related thread in a political forum:

Everyone seems to have a view on what climatologists think about AGW. Why don't we consult some??

American Association of State Climatologists

Climate prediction is complex with many uncertainties – The AASC recognizes climate prediction is an extremely difficult undertaking. For time scales of a decade or more, understanding the empirical accuracy of such predictions – called “verification” – is simply impossible, since we have to wait a decade or longer to assess the accuracy of the forecasts.

OK, they seem to be saying that we should be a little bit cautious about climate predictions. Essentially, the climate is far too complex for us to be sure we are modelling developments with any accuracy at all.

This is really interesting. Let's read on......

The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction.

Human activities have an effect, that sounds sensible. Errr, but I think they are saying there that there are other things that we might be doing that give an illusion of GW. I assume they mean things like urbanisation, deforestation etc, that can lead to localised climate change.

What else do they say..???

Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends.

Let's see. It's that warning about lack of accuracy again. But what is that. I think they are saying that all the regular predictions of natural disasters due to AGW are spurious.

There is lot's of interesting reading here. What else...?

Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future.

What????? I don't believe it???? Did they say that the difficulty of prediction (they seem to go on on about that don't they??) AND the impossibility (strong word that!) of verification decades into the future allow for competing views of the long-term climate future.

Let's read that again.

allow for competing views of the long-term climate future.

Well, it seems that this group of climatologists aren't that convinced about the AGW debate. They are definitely keeping an open mind and continuing to investigate.

 

[Luke T.]

AGW. That reminds me of another trait of the paranormal community. The invention of scientific sounding terms in an attempt to sound more plausible.

Anthropogenic Global Warming.

"AGW" is a nice way to conceal what it is actually saying. Throw it around until it becomes common usage. Very clever.

 

[Kodiak]

AGW. That reminds me of another trait of the paranormal community. The invention of scientific sounding terms in an attempt to sound more plausible.

Anthropogenic Global Warming.

"AGW" is a nice way to conceal what it is actually saying. Throw it around until it becomes common usage. Very clever.

Personally, I prefer "HCGW"...(for the laymen and all)

 

[EvilYeti]

After posting a link showing September and October were the "warmest on record," along with some statements about this year's hurricanes and wildfires and somesuch as evidence that global warming is already doing major damage, I offerred to put my money where my mouth is and suggested a wager of one year membership to JREF that September and October 2004 won't be even warmer, to which Yeti eventually replied:

This is misrepresentation of the facts, a typical rhetorical cheat employed by junk science blowhards. Anyone who wants to can read back and see that I said last year was an "appetizer" of things to come. AGW contributes to all weather effects, great and small, as weather is nothing more than a manifestation of energy retained by our atmosphere. The more energy it retains (due to the sensitivity of the carbon dioxide molecule to infrared radiation) the more extreme weather events we are going to have. This year happened to have a siginifigant number of extreme weather events across a broad spectrum, hence I felt it was a good example of things to come. I never said that AGW was the proximate cause.

???

Puke, being perfectly ignorant of all think climatological, is unware of the strong role vulcanism has in global cooling. A single large eruption next year would release enough aerosols to effect a short-term cooling trend. Hence, the bet is basically on whether a volcano will erupt within the next 9 months. I have no idea what that has to do with the current debate, other than smoke-blowing.

Those that wish to learn more can read a primer here:

http://maps.unomaha.edu/Maher/climateseminar/week6/lecture6.html

I would say Cato and Solomon cancel each other out. That leaves a pile of other links and evidence I have provided which show the scientific community is split on what the implications of global warming are.

Except pointing out that Cato is a mainly coporate funded think tank is hardly a statement of opinion. For example:

Examples of Mainly Corporate Funded Think Tanks: Cato Institute

Unless Puke is claiming that I, along with Solomon and the WIO are liars?

About Solomon and my uncovering of his background, Yeti asked:

Yeah Puke, you are a crack undercover journalist! You really blew Solomon's cover! Quite the McSkeptic you are!

Nice. Very nice. A powerful banner carrier for the skeptic movement.

I'm the standard bearer for the neo-skeptic movement. We wear leather jackets, drive motorcycles and eat egg McSkeptics like yourself for breakfast.

 

[Luke T.]

I guess all we have to do to reverse global warming and save the planet is uncork a few volcanoes....

Sorry. You cherry picked and don't have the guts to put your money where your mouth is.

buh bye

 

[MoeFaux]

Oh man, do I really want to get into this?

I think most environmentalism is bull.
And maybe I should read a little more, but in the past I've agreed with Cato.

But, I don't read all those studies and I honestly just don't give a crap about the environment. So maybe I should just stay out of this.

Carry on, you angry posters.

 

[EvilYeti]

I hate it when a topic sinks to the level of name calling, especially when I allow myself to get sucked into it.

Your choice of avatar and name are unfortunate, to say the least.

There appear to be some parallels between the environmentalist movement and the paranormal community. One example being that both have hijacked the hard work of scientists and twisted it to fit their belief systems. I don't know if anyone else has seen what the psychic believers have done to quantum mechanics, but it is a wonder to behold.

Now this is odd, 100% of my references regarding GW are from peer-reviewed science journals, not wacko environmentalist sites. Yet you provide links to sites that employ astrologers? Who's the woo-woo here?

At the very core of the environmentalist movement is an anti-capitalist sentiment. A very powerful one. These are the last gaspers of the extreme Left. Political marxist ideals corroded and finally collapsed with the corrosion and final collapse of the Soviet Union. So when global warming came along, with its implications that it was being caused by factories, and the fact that the greatest economic successes were those of the capitalist West, well, it was just too irresistable.

That the anti-globalization folks have latched onto AGW has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the scientific reality of it. Again, notice that 100% of my references are coming from scientists with little, if any, political motivations. Climatologists (and scientists in general) are not "pro" or "anti" anything, other than doing science. Of course all individuals have biases, which is why we use a very strict peer-review process and focus so much on replicating each others work.

I'm sure you think all academics are left-wing socialists, but I'll care to remind you that the postmodernist movement was deflated by a liberal physicist, not a right-wing conservative think tank.

And like the paranormal community, the environmental movement published wild and zany predictions for the future. And despite time having passed and none of these things coming to pass, they continue the habit, because like paranormal icons, they realized that the public has a short memory and will fall for it again and again and again.

And many times the scientific community has made predictions and they HAVE come to pass! You have everything completely ass backwards, you are confusing the real science with environmental nut jobs and taking non-scientific research from questionable sources at face value. No one in the climatological community is making apocalyptic predictions, they are just pointing out that based on current trends there are very likely going to be rproblems down the road. Thats their job.

The science has been left behind. It is not even a certainty that any of these predictions will come to pass, but there is much clamor for corporations to tie their own hands anyway. "Just in case." As someone said earlier in this topic; Pascal's wager.

Again, you have astutely ignored the science in this debate. If you are interested in the science of AGW, I suggest you start reading what the climatologists, not the Cato institute, have to say about it.

Getting involved in this topic has actually caused me to begin to doubt that global warming is even caused by humans.

Hey, its a free country. Go ahead and doubt evolution and the moon landing as well. You might want to consider finding a new forum though, as this one caters to critical thinking.

I am more inclined to think that a political ideology is behind that belief more than a scientific one, and it has filtered down from the peaks of the hysterical icons down to the masses the way a widespread belief in paranormal events can be traced back to a hysterical few.

Thats a true statement, if you are discussing the efforts of the petroleum industry to discredit scientific research.

Now in no way have I said global warming is not occuring. But I am fairly confident that up until this paragraph, there are readers who were in full pounce mode to attack me for saying in this post that global warming is not occurring. I would ask these people to re-read what I have said again.

Since you claim to be so interested in science, why don't you read what some of the top climatologists in the world are saying about AGW? Don't you think they would have a better idea than Cato and John Daly?

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=Karl+and+Trenberth&sa=N&tab=wn

These aren't wacko leftists enviro-nazi's. These are Phd scientists, at the top of their field, with a career of sucessful research behind them.

Why won't you listen to what they have to say?

 

[EvilYeti]

AGW. That reminds me of another trait of the paranormal community. The invention of scientific sounding terms in an attempt to sound more plausible.

Anthropogenic Global Warming.

"AGW" is a nice way to conceal what it is actually saying. Throw it around until it becomes common usage. Very clever.

I know this might be hard to understand for a guy that swabbed decks instead of going to college, but "anthropogenic" is a real scientific word used by real scientists!

Scientists have a word we use to distinguish changes that people have introduced to the environment from processes which are natural -- anthropogenic. Consider the very fine particles of dust or smoke suspended in the atmosphere which we call aerosols. If we are talking about aerosols originating from, say, industrial pollution, we would call them anthropogenic aerosols. This indicates how they are different from aerosols originating in dust storms, volcanoes or natural burning.

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/edu/anthropodef.html

You really have no idea what science is, do you?

 

[EvilYeti]

I guess all we have to do to reverse global warming and save the planet is uncork a few volcanoes....

Ooops, except GHG emissions from vulcanism contribute to GW in the long term. The cooling effects are only temporary.

Isn't science fun?

Sorry. You cherry picked and don't have the guts to put your money where your mouth is.

buh bye

Here's a tip for future reference, taunts are more effective if you are not running away when you say them.

 

[EvilYeti]

Oh man, do I really want to get into this?

Depends, would you like to learn about the science behind AGW and the politics of the current debate?

I think most environmentalism is bull.
And maybe I should read a little more, but in the past I've agreed with Cato.

You should keep in mind that Cato is not a scientific research body but a conservative think tank. They are paid money to write position papers portraying their corprate backers in a positive light. For example, their recent "studies" that claim tobacco related deaths are over-estimated in American and that there is little compelling evidence to support the AGW hypothesis. As a skeptic you should be concerned that these were sponsored by special interests and are rife with questionable and in some case, fraudulent, conclusions.

I agree that the environmental movement is rife with whackos, but there is still such a thing as environmental science. Considering we only have one environment, its in all of our best interests to listen to what the experts on it have to say.

But, I don't read all those studies and I honestly just don't give a crap about the environment. So maybe I should just stay out of this.

As a skeptic and potential future scientist you should be concerned about how propaganda and junk-science can influence public policy decisions, regardless of the outcome.

 

[Luke T.]

I know this might be hard to understand for a guy that swabbed decks instead of going to college, but "anthropogenic" is a real scientific word used by real scientists!

Aw. Shucks. You gots me. I's just an ignint fool.

"Planetary" and "grid" are also words used by real scientists. That doesn't make the Planetary Meditation Grid real! Just cause you say AGW is real, doesn't make it so.

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/edu/anthropodef.html

You really have no idea what science is, do you?

And you seem to thing scientists are immune from being influenced by politics. Worse, you think only scientists who disagree with your position are being political. Your scientists are perfect. Immune.

A story about your pal, Trenberth here.

``The entire report was `skewed and spun' by the Environmental Defense Fund and Dan Rather.'' The entire environmentalist community is ``very antagonistic toward the satellite data,'' said Christy. The panel also had as members global warming proponents Dian Geffen, James Hansen, Benjamin Santer and Kevin Trenberth. Trenberth has attempted to denigrate the satellite data set for years and has been said by some colleagues to be ``arguing for the ridiculous.'' Another member of the panel, Frank Wentz, has his own research company and may be trying to exploit the situation, i.e. more research grants, etc.