Michael Crichton on Environmentalism

[Luke T.]

Does everyone understand I am not disputing that humans have had an effect on the environment? My only dispute is with the predictions based on those effects and what we should do about it.

I have no idea if global warming is going to end civilization as we know it in the next hundred years, or will melt the top of Mount Kilimonjaro off five years from now, or whatever. I have not seen any hard proof of that. I have seen, and believe, proof that we have had some kind of impact on the global environment.

Just trying to get crystal clear here.

 

[Luke T.]

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.

I'm afraid you are not hearing me. I don't know what more to say.

 

[zakur]

"What would the earth be like without trees?"

PaveWorld, of course!

 

[Luke T.]

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?

Read my posts again. I am talking about the catastrophic prediction based on the global warming theory.

You are making the rather common mistake that there are two camps at work here, pro and con the reality of AGW.

No. I am making the very common statement that there are two camps, pro and con, about the reality of catastrophic predictions based on global warming. Read my posts again.

 

[Luke T.]

Is Nature magazine a respectable enough source for you EvilYeti?

From and article entitled "Making mistakes when predicting shifts in species range in response to global warming"

Many attempts to predict the biotic responses to climate change rely on the 'climate envelope' approach, in which the current distribution of a species is mapped in climate-space and then, if the position of that climate-space changes, the distribution of the species is predicted to shift accordingly. The flaw in this approach is that distributions of species also reflect the influence of interactions with other species, so predictions based on climate envelopes may be very misleading if the interactions between species are altered by climate change. An additional problem is that current distributions may be the result of sources and sinks, in which species appear to thrive in places where they really persist only because individuals disperse into them from elsewhere,. Here we use microcosm experiments on simple but realistic assemblages to show how misleading the climate envelope approach can be. We show that dispersal and interactions, which are important elements of population dynamics, must be included in predictions of biotic responses to climate change.

From

here.

And:

Lower atmosphere temperature may be rising
Controversial satellite data analysis fuels global warming debate.
12 September 2003

...
This will increase the pressure on policymakers for action on greenhouse gas emissions if it is accepted by the research community," says atmospheric scientist John M. Wallace of the University of Washington in Seattle.

That acceptance does not seem to be forthcoming. Frank Wentz' team at Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, California, estimates there is a small warming trend of around 0.01 ºC per year. And having scrutinized satellite data for more than a decade, John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville reckon that the troposphere's temperature has remained fairly steady.

From

here. That one's only two months old. Is that current enough for you?

I think it is interesting the scientist John Wallace is talking about policy making decisions when his data hasn't even been "accepted by the research community" yet!

"Fuels global warming debate." Guess the matter isn't proven as well as the theory of evolution yet. And the theory of evolution is still called a theory.

There is more on the site, except you have to have an actual paid subscription to their magazine to have full access. But you get the picture by now, yes?

 

[Luke T.]

One of the reasons I insist on calling it the Global Warming Theory is because no one has nailed down with any exactness the amount of influence that humans have had on this "global warming."

 

[Luke T.]

I also think the moment a climatologist or meteorologist begins to discuss predictions of effects on little furry animals, he is stepping outside his field of expertise. If this is what is happening, then these predictions are justifiably open to debate.

The same goes with a biologist who assumes a climate change is because of an automaking plant in Detroit.

 

[EvilYeti]

I'm afraid you are not hearing me. I don't know what more to say.

I've reading your links, many of which deny that AGW is a real phenomenon. If you don't endorse that position, why the hell are you posting the references?

 

[EvilYeti]

Is Nature magazine a respectable enough source for you EvilYeti?

You are learning, slowly.

Next we have to work on your comprehension skills, for example, the above article only discusses ONE possible outcome of AGW, namely the effect on ranges of species. This has little, if anything to do with the current discussion.

Here's a quote on some other possible outcomes of AGW, which the above article neglects to mention.

"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.

here. That one's only two months old. Is that current enough for you?

I think it is interesting the scientist John Wallace is talking about policy making decisions when his data hasn't even been "accepted by the research community" yet!

"Fuels global warming debate." Guess the matter isn't proven as well as the theory of evolution yet. And the theory of evolution is still called a theory.

There is more on the site, except you have to have an actual paid subscription to their magazine to have full access. But you get the picture by now, yes?

Oops, there goes the comprehension problem again.

I am well aware of the above research, unfortunately for you it supports the AGW theory. In fact, the sat. measurements were one of the final sticking points in the debate. I thought the NYT summed it up nicely:

One of the last gaps in the evidence pointing to a human cause for global warming appears to be closing.

A re-examination of 24 years of data from weather satellites has found that temperatures are rising in the lower layer of the atmosphere, called the troposphere, at a rate that is consistent with what has been measured at the earth's surface.

The finding is subtle but significant, experts say, particularly because previous studies of the same data, showing no warming, have been highlighted by opponents of curbs on heat-trapping smokestack and tailpipe emissions linked to recent warming.

You are getting better, one irrelevant paper on species migration and study that supports the AGW hypothesis. At least you picked quality sources this time.

 

[Luke T.]

You are getting better, one irrelevant paper on species migration and study that supports the AGW hypothesis. At least you picked quality sources this time.

I wish you would improve, too. You fail to see why a paper on species migration is relevant to a discussion on predictions as a result of global warming.

 

[Luke T.]

I've reading your links, many of which deny that AGW is a real phenomenon. If you don't endorse that position, why the hell are you posting the references?

I can see in only one of my links in which it was claimed that global warming did not exist. It that is your idea of "many," well....

And it serves to show that the spectrum of the debate over global warming is wide.

 

[Luke T.]

Starting from page one of this topic:

I agree with Crichton on at least one thing. The politicization of environmentalism. It has made figuring out the truth to global warming very difficult for this layman.

I also agree with Crichton about dire predicitons not coming true. All my life, there have been doom and gloom predictions from environmentalists and psychics. It is hard to tell the difference between the two. They both have about the same hit rate. So any more "the sky is falling" predictions are a real hard sell to me.

In the 70s, it was mostly about overpopulation and dwindling natural resources. We'd all be hungry or dead by now. There were some concerns about the number of Apollo space launches having an effect on the ozone layer.

I think the first time I remember anything about global cooling was the "nuclear freeze" scare of the 80s. Global thermonuclear war would bring an early ice age.

Current global warming predictions also say that after global warming reaches a critical point, we will be plunged into an ice age.

There is no way environmentalists could take credit for us not running out of natural resources or the overpopulation problems they predicted. Those were their biggest doom and gloom predictions.

My very next post contained a link to dire predictions from the 1970s.

The next post contained a link to more dire predictions from the 1970s.

My next post:

I found a very interesting link about global warming. Here is something that has always been on my mind about the predictions:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The models that employ the various scenarios are poor at replicat-ing past climate and even current weather conditions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Link3.

It seems to me if someone writes a computer model to project into the future, they should be able to play it in reverse and see if it matches up with actual historical patterns. I would think that would be a real test of the model's validity.

If you can't see the pattern here....

In fact you will find that only two or three of my posts in this entire topic do NOT contain the word PREDICT or PREDICTION or PREDICTIONS in them.

And you will NOT find that I deny global warming is taking place.

Geezus...

 

[EvilYeti]

I wish you would improve, too. You fail to see why a paper on species migration is relevant to a discussion on predictions as a result of global warming.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but its wrong. That one branch of AGW predictions has proven fallacious has nothing to do any other research. They are not connected.

Each prediction has to be examined independantly. Any single prediction can be correct or incorrect, unless they are interdependant the veracity of any particular one has no bearing on the others.

 

[Luke T.]

I understand the point you are trying to make, but its wrong. That one branch of AGW predictions has proven fallacious has nothing to do any other research. They are not connected.

Each prediction has to be examined independantly. Any single prediction can be correct or incorrect, unless they are interdependant the veracity of any particular one has no bearing on the others.

Okay. Now we are getting somewhere.

I agree with everything in the above quote. Now how about that?

The problem with predictions is that they are being used as reasons to change government policy, and it is why I said earlier "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."

edited to add: I don't agree with everything in the above quote. I don't believe the part that says I am wrong.

I think I am just being misunderstood. I am being interpreted wrongly.

 

[EvilYeti]

In fact you will find that only two or three of my posts in this entire topic do NOT contain the word PREDICT or PREDICTION or PREDICTIONS in them.

And you will NOT find that I deny global warming is taking place.

Then why did you say the following,

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

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

edited to add: The last line of the link:

And link to a Cato paper denying the reality of global warming? And then post a follow-up with more links to anti-AGW propaganda?

If you don't endorse the conclusions of those sites, why did you provide them?

 

[Luke T.]

Then why did you say the following,



And link to a Cato paper denying the reality of global warming? And then post a follow-up with more links to anti-AGW propaganda?

If you don't endorse the conclusions of those sites, why did you provide them?

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.

 

[Luke T.]

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 will still listen to an oil company lackey. But I will listen with the knowledge of who pays his salary.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Well, this thread sure exploded.

Luke, I've just spent 10 minutes googling and while I can find lots of sites which corroborate my understanding that a vast majority of climatologists view Global Warming as something approaching a fact, I haven't been able to locate a source whose independence is 100% unassailable. However, here is an excerpt from the Meteorological Service of Canada:

The vast majority of scientists studying climate change agree that the basis for concern is scientifically sound.

I could post similar from other national weather institutions.

From one of your posts:

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

I wasn't aware that it had finally reached this exulted status. It used to be a hypothesis.

You do realize, Luke, that the highest reachable status a scientific claim can attain is the status of Theory, right?

 

[Luke T.]

Well, this thread sure exploded.

Luke, I've just spent 10 minutes googling and while I can find lots of sites which corroborate my understanding that a vast majority of climatologists view Global Warming as something approaching a fact, I haven't been able to locate a source whose independence is 100% unassailable. However, here is an excerpt from the Meteorological Service of Canada:

I could post similar from other national weather institutions.

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. [/b]

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.

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.

There is an interesting tidbit which is most definitely testable in that link:

While there is uncertainty as to the magnitude and rate of climate change, particularly at the regional level, scientists generally agree that rates of change over the next decade will almost certainly be greater than anything experienced on earth during the past 10,000 years.

That link is dated:

Created : 2002-08-15
Modified : 2002-12-27
Reviewed : 2002-12-27

From one of your posts:
I wasn't aware that it had finally reached this exulted status. It used to be a hypothesis.

You do realize, Luke, that the highest reachable status a scientific claim can attain is the status of Theory, right?

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.

 

[EvilYeti]

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.

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.