Michael Crichton on Environmentalism

[Luke T.]

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

Here's a tip for you. Taunts are ineffective at best, and damaging to the taunter's case at worst.

 

[Luke T.]

Another quality similar to paranormalists. Claim the ability of one's talent by saying they had predicted a past event.

The White House will announce on Monday that according to an analysis by government scientists, El Niño joined the Earth's continuing overall warming trend to break global temperature records in each of the first five months of 1998.

And then before anyone can challenge you to make a prediction for the future, hedge your bet:

El Niño has faded, drastically so in the last three weeks, so it is questionable whether the records will hold up for the rest of 1998.

1998 New York Times article.

 

[EvilYeti]

A story about your pal, Trenberth here.

Except it turns out Trenberth was right about criticizing the satellite data. Even Dr. John Christy, the original author, admits this now.

Ooops!

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/18/1069027115562.html

That's what you get for posting three year old stories. Scienctific progress moves quick these days, blink and you'll miss it!

Thanks for the propaganda anyways, the "Dan Rather" consipiracy was news to me.

 

[EvilYeti]

Another quality similar to paranormalists. Claim the ability of one's talent by saying they had predicted a past event.

And then before anyone can challenge you to make a prediction for the future, hedge your bet:

1998 New York Times article.

Wow, you have an UNCANNY ability to single out the crank websites on the internet! Lets read what "The Skeptic's Dictionary" has to say about junkscience.com:

In short, the Junk Science page has some valid analyses sprinkled amongst its propaganda, but overall the page is deceptive. There's nothing wrong with having a political agenda, and there is certainly nothing wrong with being concerned that the government is spending its resources on the wrong projects, and there is nothing wrong with being critical of the work of scientists, but there is something wrong with pretending to care about science and truth, while labeling scientists who produce work contrary to your agenda as doing junk science. But don't take my word for it. Just look at the list of scientists that Mr. Milloy considers to be junk scientists: nearly every person on his hit list has done a study with potential political implications that offend his political agenda.

Oooops! Is it impossible for you to produce any reference that doesn't come from a right-wing propaganda mill?

And, as usual, science moves quick and much progress has been made in predictiong El Nino's, which you would know if you bothered to research anything.

El Nino Predictions Up To Nine Months Ahead

 

[Luke T.]

Wow, you have an UNCANNY ability to single out the crank websites on the internet! Lets read what "The Skeptic's Dictionary" has to say about junkscience.com:


Oooops! Is it impossible for you to produce any reference that doesn't come from a right-wing propaganda mill?

And, as usual, science moves quick and much progress has been made in predictiong El Nino's, which you would know if you bothered to research anything.

El Nino Predictions Up To Nine Months Ahead

Uh, Yeti? That was a New York Times article....that happens to reside on that site.

 

[Luke T.]

Even Dr. John Christy, the original author, admits this now.

The one who says in the article, "We've had enough years of this human-induced forcing to get some boundaries on it, and it's just not going in the dramatic and catastrophic direction."

Ooops!

 

[Luke T.]

As much as I would like to keep this topic going until the September and October 2004 temperature figures come out, Yeti, I think we passed the line of diminishing returns two or three pages ago. I'm walking away. You can spin that to mean whatever you want.

I stand by my very first post in this topic.

Auf Weidersehen.

 

[EvilYeti]

The one who says in the article, "We've had enough years of this human-induced forcing to get some boundaries on it, and it's just not going in the dramatic and catastrophic direction."

Christy also venhemently endorsed specious data and slandered Trenberth for having problems with it. He said, and I quote, that Trenberth had been "arguing for the ridculous". And it turns out he was right all along!

You'll forgive me if I take his further opinion with a large grain of salt.

 

[EvilYeti]

I'm walking away. You can spin that to mean whatever you want.

How about, "throwing in the towel"?

I stand by my very first post in this topic.

The hallmark of the extremist conservative, an absolute inability to modify one's behavior and beliefs despite being faced with overwhemling evidence.

This is why you can never be a skeptic and will never quit smoking.

 

[MoeFaux]

This is why you can never be a skeptic and will never quit smoking.

Oh, EY, that's a little low.

 

[EvilYeti]

Oh, EY, that's a little low.

You're right, as usual.

Luke, I apologize, that was out of line. I tend to get a little carried away in the political discussions.

Do consider that the compulsive smoking may be a symptom of a deeper problem and consider some form of counseling. Not all of addiction in physiological in nature.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Luke:

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.

I'm curious. What exactly is this "environmentalist movement"? Does it include any environmental advocacy group? The World Wildlife Federation? The Sierra Club?

Who is the spokesman for the "environmentalist movement"?

EvilYeti:

Not all of addiction is physiological in nature.

Not to derail this thread, but do you have any evidence for this?

 

[EvilYeti]

EvilYeti:Not to derail this thread, but do you have any evidence for this?

There is much debate in the psychological community over "behavioral addictions". Some prefer to diagnose any addiction without a chemical dependency (like chronic gambling) as a kind of compulsive behavior and not a true addiction. I find the difference to be largely academic, as the symptoms and treatment (and lack of effectiveness) are shared among both. That said, the DSM-IV still does not acknowledge behavioral addictions, so keep that in mind.

In my opinion, the vast majority of substance addictions have both a physiological and psychological component. I do believe behavioral addictions exist and similar to chemical addictions, albeit without a well-defined physiological mechanism.

Its and interesting subject and well deserving of a thread in the Science forum, if you would like a more in-depth discussion.

 

[DanishDynamite]

EvilYeti:

In my opinion, the vast majority of substance addictions have both a physiological and psychological component.

But aren't psychologic components also physiological? I mean, isn't it a given that anything that happens in your brain is physical in nature, and hence physiological?

Its and interesting subject and well deserving of a thread in the Science forum, if you would like a more in-depth discussion.

Indeed. Sorry for interrupting the flame-fest.

 

[Luke T.]

Luke:I'm curious. What exactly is this "environmentalist movement"? Does it include any environmental advocacy group? The World Wildlife Federation? The Sierra Club?

Who is the spokesman for the "environmentalist movement"?

If you look to who makes the wildest doomsday predictions about the future of the environment, I think you will find a pattern of politics that are well to the Left. I don't know about where you live, but here in the U.S., the Greens are considered a faction of the left.

 

[Luke T.]

You're right, as usual.

Luke, I apologize, that was out of line. I tend to get a little carried away in the political discussions.

No problem. I'm on Wellbutrin, so I don't care.

Do consider that the compulsive smoking may be a symptom of a deeper problem and consider some form of counseling. Not all of addiction in physiological in nature.

I would consider it except for the fact that I am an alcoholic and have been sober for over 8 years. So it is within my power to beat an addiction.

My spiritual program, if you will, is quite solid. I have stated on this forum more than once I am the happiest man I know, perhaps one of the happiest on Earth.

Nicotine appears to be more addictive than even alcohol.

I would say that an alcoholic is more in need of counseling than a cigarette smoker. Cigarettes aren't really all that mood altering, whereas it could be argued an alcoholic is self-medicating.

 

[EvilYeti]

EvilYeti:But aren't psychologic components also physiological? I mean, isn't it a given that anything that happens in your brain is physical in nature, and hence physiological?

In psychology, "physiological" refers to actual physical changes in brain chemisty. A heroin or alcohol addiction is considered "physiological" because the addicts actual brain chemistry is altered. Another term would be "chemical dependency".

There may be brain chemistry changes in a behavioral addiction, this is an ongoing field of study in fact. But there is no physical interaction between the brain and the activity. I see your point, but the common usage in the medical community is a little different.

 

[Luke T.]

THis would be a good topic over in Science. Addiction topics always interest me as a recovering alcholic.

My contributions to such a topic would be purely anecdotal, however.

 

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by LukeT
If you look to who makes the wildest doomsday predictions about the future of the environment, I think you will find a pattern of politics that are well to the Left. I don't know about where you live, but here in the U.S., the Greens are considered a faction of the left.

And if you look to who makes the greatest squeals of denial in the face of environmental concern I think you'll find a pattern of politics that are well to the right. Pouring scorn upon the environmental movement is a feature of conservative thought. Much of big business and many political conservatives have a vested interest in not buying into the environment...after all, they make lots of money out non-environmentally friendly activities, so the prejudices are not on one side. Trying to label environmentalism as some sort of leftist conspiracy is just a political tactic and a huge distraction from the problem. It could just as easily be argued that environmental disregard /denial is a rightist conspiracy propogated by vested interest. So what does this political stereotyping serve?

Despite your links Luke, if you take Creightons advice and look past left and right politics and go direct to the science, the overwhelming weight of credible evidence is on the side of environmental concern. BIG concern.

 

[Drooper]

... if you take Creightons advice and look past left and right politics and go direct to the science, the overwhelming weight of credible evidence is on the side of environmental concern. BIG concern.

How can that be so, when the political environmental groups have such an appalling record.

I think the problem we have today is that the big well funded political envirnmental groups have so much power. Years ago, groups like Greenpeace could be as contriversial as they liked. They performed a useful function as the conscience of society. They had sufficient profile to bring issues to the public, but not the power to push policy. Now it is a different story. WWF and Greenpeace are hugely wealthy organisations that swing a lot of political clout. However, they are still at the extreme of many issues. I think this is dangerous combination.