For those saying Crichton wasn't an authority on the subject, he did freelance study of the subject and has used legitimate sources to make his arguments. Two on the "other side" have basically the same credentials, non-educational. So, why can't Crichton make points as well?
@slytown What are you talking about? Brenda Ekwurzel holds a PH.D in isotope geochemistry from Columbia University, Gavin Schmidt holds a PH.D in applied mathematics from the University College of London and is a climate modeler for NASA, and Richard Somerville holds a PH.D in meteorology from New York University. Is it just a habit for global warming deniers to lie?
One among the very few educated Americans I ever admired. Michael Crichton. Now who can write those novels like the ones he wrote. Wished he lived for another 30+ years. Really a great loss the world.
@itcanbecheezcaketime People can't believe that not regulating industries to death(or just driving them overseas where there are even fewer regulations) is a good idea without being paid by someone?
@Nightversionn Well, changing weather patterns don't constitute as climate news. Weather patterns are local phenomena and should not be used in the climate debate.
The solution of the global warming is called Vanco Dimitrov.
He is a Macedonian scientist. In 1996 for his invention "internal combustion engine without exhausting pipe" he was awarded with the GRAND PRIX EUREKA.
If you are interesting I can give you a link of video of him (the subtitle is needed)
climate change has been happening for millions of years - got nothing to do with human activity. We might improve the quality of human life if more of us practised birth control, and made affordable birth control available to poor people. We need kids to have a future, but we don't need 7 billion people.
It does, but what is happening is a fixation on just one part of it and lack of scrutiny on the real research going on. Urbanization creates a different climate. Deforestation creates a different climate. But this focus is on being indirect to where this is happening in terms of action, such as Brazil, Indonesia, China, and India. The course of action is both insufficient as well as easily politically motivated, not neccessarily untrue.
Contrary to this oft repeated Reagan energy-myth, only the rich used expensive whale oil. Camphene (a mixture of alcohol, turpentine, and camphor) out-sold whale oil in 1845 (New Englands peak year: 18 m gal) by 10:1. In 1854 whale oil accounted for less than 1% of US energy consumption. Biomass burning made up the other 99+%.
I think it is important to understand the IPCCs proof of man made global warming. There is no direct proof an increase of 100 ppm in CO2 has any effect on temp. Fact is an increase of 100 ppm CO2 has a no effect on temperature in the lab, none! You need to increase CO2 to about 200,000 ppm in the lab to see a 3 degree C change.
So there are some theories based on an idea of layers in 50,000 feet that tries to prove a 100ppm increase in CO2 increase temp a few tenths of one degree F. A few degrees F is an insignificant increase much less proof of man made global warming so the IPCC claims CO2 has an amplifying effect and then they rely on flawed global warming models which are grossly positive lookback biased so of course they are going to show an amplifying effect from a small amount of CO2 as they are built to do.
However the models have been proven wrong again as they predicted a .2 to .7 C temp rise the last ten years, however the temp did not go up at all and many say it went down .2 C not up, the models missed this completely and the leaked emails call it a travesty and the fix the numbers to hide the decline!
who goes on Fox to poke holes without significant counter arguments woven into his critique and without enough reference to the science. Beck, Fox, Hannity, Limbaugh are anti-intellectual toadies to their corporate sponsors and I do not trust them or their conclusions. On the other had, after years of study it is clear that the reasonable steps advocated to combat CO2 emissions have a great many correllary benefits to offset the fast decline of our ecology. MODERATION is relative, Americans
Listen, my friend; I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you, but I do not eagerly await the apocalypse. I love my life and I love the earth. I like camping and hiking and nature. I'm all for the preservation of crucial natural resources. But you have to look at the wider picture. Now you obviously know nothing about economics, so I'll explain the situation to you in simple terms. We cannot afford to cut carbon emissions to such an extent as is desired; we are a huge nation.
(Cont.) Furthermore, there is a lagging effect involved with cutting emissions. If we were to become a virtually carbon-free society tomorrow (no cars, planes, meat, trains, heat, etc.), it would take at least fifty years for it to show. Finally, our emissions would only constitute a small portion of CO2 output (others include dead vegetation, volcanic eruptions, breathing, etc). This means that we may make the earth about a half a degree cooler in 50 years, provided we halt all industry now.
(Cont.) Also, I should point out that there are scientists with special interests at heart. It may surprise you that many of those who advocate global warming and the buying of carbon credits OWN companies that produce carbon credits (see Al Gore). And to discuss religion, I truly despise it. I believe in rationality over mindless dogma. Global warming has become a religion, whereby there is a correct way to behave, there are heretics (deniers!), there was an Eden that we (humans) destroyed it.
Not all special interests are created equal. If you want to talk numbers, the OVERWHELMING majority of those on the editorial boards of National Geographic or Nature magazine argue for a very vigorous response to climate change without standing to profit by any significant margin should, for example, cap and trade policies be adopted. Accounting for the externalised costs of coal is FAR more likely to cause the coal industry to spin their science to the point of lobbyist advocacy/propoganda.
Wow, your grasp of economics startles -- Paul Krugman better watch out given the threat you pose to his tenure and NYT columnist posts. I note that you have no idea what I advocate in terms of emissions reductions. I note that your Chicago School cost-benefit-analysis for dummies is rife with normative assumptions, not the least of which is the "value" ascribed to the species and ecosystems that have been wiped, are being wiped out, and will be wiped out.
And what about the vampire bat? Or the saber toothed tiger? These species became extinct, obviously due to evil corporations. The policies of the Chicago School oversaw the greatest economic boom in American history. You seem to think that gvt. intervention will do an excellent job; yes, they've done fine with education and the post office, so they are the clear solution to this problem, huh? Paul Krugman is a fucking idiot whose outdated Keynesian notions have no place in the FREE market.
Um, there are relatively easy-to-implement free market based solutions, which involve accounting for what are now largely externalized costs, to climate change. You might want to do a bit of research before you run your uninformed potty mouth. The American economy has always depended on a Keynesian expansion of the GDP through its capitalization of an enormous defense industry. You might want to read Krugman's text book on economics -- it will help brighten your heretofore dimwitted analysis.
1. I see you have trouble distinguishing between meteors and natural caused catastrophic events and those that are human-made.
2. Nice argument by conclusion. The Chicago School's free market remedies created banana republics throughout South America, loosened govt reg of captial markets resulting in investment banks assuming untenable, catastrophy inducing risk, and ignored the need for government oversight to take the sharp edges off of short-term profit taking, "River Up" economics.
in the face of a radically contingent, assault on any sort of foundationalist claim, it would be hard to argue the non-contingency of the claim that the free market can no longer externalise costs associated with its massively detrimental affects on the survival of wide array of animal/ plant life. But I doubt you are a deconstructionist, you are just someone who does not want to be inconvenienced by transitions to better environmental practices through internalisation of environmental costs.
Whether the free market can internalize those costs or not is not a foundational claim, nor is it the one that I was referring to. I was referring to your implicit objection of the value ascribed to ecosystems.
If the free market cannot determine value, then it cannot internalize those costs. By denying value, you deny the very mechanism the free market would use to internalize costs.
Alternatively, a non-free market system, which lacks property rights and therefore a means of
determining value, of price discovery, then internalizing costs is totally impossible. This has demonstrated beyond doubt in places that lack(ed) free market systems. In those places environmental degradation is invariably far worse. Take a look at the dead and barren lakes of the former Soviet Union.
The environmental problem is a population problem, not an economic one. The only economic system capable of protecting the environment is capitalism.
Ahh, I see. So Michael Crichton, the same man who adamantly supported abortion at a time when it was under serious scrutiny, the same man who supports a tax on carbon emissions, "took a right-wing turn at some point."
It appears to me as though your mind is sealed; anybody who disagrees with your take on global warming is apparently evil and on the opposite end of the political spectrum. I have news for you: everyone is a "resource glutton." If you're not, then prove it. Give up your computer.
I for one choose to live in urban centers, have not owned a car for fifteen years and ride my bike everywhere, shut off lights, buy carbon offsets, etc.
How convenient that the causes of global warming are all things that leftist politicians oppose: industry, enterprise, foreign vacations, middle-class expenditure, and the Western World. I sense... something is afoot.
@ColtBarrettUSA Come on Colt, you'll never get liberal voters to research the evidence themselves if you continue to demonize them. Partisan bickering is altogether counterproductive if one wishes to prevent the cap-and-trade policy from expanding.
This isn't a conservative versus liberal issue, it's an elitist versus the middle class issue.
How even MORE convenient that the opponents of global warming also oppose scientific research that refutes their belief in Adam and Eve, think their are no externalised c osts to unfettered consumption capitalism, igore the role the OIL industry plays in funding "scientific" opposition to global warming conclusions.
Really? So, it would surprise you if I told you I was an atheist, as are many scientists who oppose the theory of huge-scale man-made climate change. I do believe that there are indeed negative external costs involved with pollution. My point is that it is not a catastrophe if the earth warms by roughly a single degree within the next hundred years. We have to adapt to the climate, not completely alter our lifestyles to change the weather from 32 C to 31 C. There are more important things to do.
You know what, I am pretty common sensical in my approach. We have ONE earth, we fuck it up it is game over. This doesn't bother those of an apocalyptic bent (Taliban, Fundamentalist Christians, etc), but I have grown rather fond of this planet. I respect FAR MORE the scientific analysis of the National Geographic Institute then I do by an Oil Industry Lobby sponsored "scientist"
Let me get this straight, Warren Buffett, a staunch supporter of a reasonable response to global warming and
" We have ONE earth, we fuck it up it is game over. "
You poor frightened little boy. You are actually living your life in fear that the Earth is being destroyed? You have more in common with those fundamentalists than you think. You all share Visions of The Coming Apocolypse. You're as dangerous as they are.
My visions are not of a "coming apocalypse" but of an all-too-obvious environmental degradation that sometimes scares the hell out of we pansie waist observors of fragile eco systems and threatened habitats and species.
Now go bravely and eruditely run along now to Abercrombie and Fitch to get your holiday shopping finished.
" We have ONE earth, we fuck it up it is game over. "-- is a factually accurate statement. Humans have been able to harm their environment to the point of harming their own health: automobile air pollution-asthma/lung disease, pesticides-birth defects, industrial water pollution-cancers, human caused toxic mercury levels in fish (food), etc. Given that Mr. Creighton was trained as a scientist, I think his point was to always question and think critically. Any harm in being overcautious?
Mankind produces only a small fraction of the CO2 in the atmosphere, more is created through natural mechanisms such as dying foliage. This is not science, but politics. Global Warming hysteria is a social movement, not a scientific truth. There is serious potential global catastrophes as a result of man's existence, but is global warming really one of them? I mean farting releases methane, a very serious green house gas supposedly, should we ban or tax farting?
Good point. Global warming has become something that the politicians have seized control of with very limited evidence to support the "end of all civilization." Is the earth warming? Yes, but by how much? Not a whole lot, as it turns out. This idea that the planet is at its optimum temperature now is foolish. Humans have lived in far warmer and FAR colder conditions than they do now.
"These same methane clathrates are present today in the Arctic permafrost as well as below sea level, and remain dormant until triggered by warming.
"This is a major concern because it's possible that only a little warming can unleash this trapped methane. Unzippering the methane reservoir could warm the Earth TENS OF DEGREES, and the mechanism could be geologically very rapid."
Search : Large Methane Release Could Cause Abrupt Climate Change As Happened 635 Million Years Ago
Crichton seemed really nervous, especially towards the end of the statement. Or perhaps he was just choked up a bit at the thoughts he was expressing.
Al Gore ownes four mansions, flies around the world in his private jet dumping massive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere, yet he is against third world countries developing their coal and natural gas resources which (denies more than two billion people basic electricity use) that seems altruistic!
Nicely said Michael. Sensible, level headed and sadly missed.
Many people, while agreeing with the possibility of manmade global warming, aren't suckers enough to be cowed by their respective governments into a chicken-little state. As Michael stated, when the governments really act in ernest then everyone else should follow them; until then i'll watch my car use and turn my heating down.
"The oceans have absorbed about 40% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by humans over the past two centuries. This has slowed global warming, but at a serious cost: the extra carbon dioxide has caused the ocean's average surface pH (a measure of water's acidity) to shift ... damaging key marine organisms such as corals and plankton ..."
The correct answer to your statement is: so what? I guess the Ph of the worlds oceans must have been changing for a long time in accordance to the small changes in the worlds atmosphere, so that must be nothing new.
"... major leaders in climate who clearly have no intention of changing their lifestyle, reducing their own consumption... If they're not willing to do it, why should anybody else?" -- Michael Crichton
"This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because (1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or (2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions."
The temperature here in Ottawa has increased by about 60 degrees centigrade over the past 5 months. If this warming trend continues, it will be about 90 degrees centigrade by October.
This is how environmentalists do their projections.
In 1912 Alfred Wegener proposed plate tectonics and scientists opposed him for decades until finally it became consensus. BUT that's how ALL scientific theories come about, NOT excluding global warming. In fact Global Warming was proposed in 1895 by Svante Arrhenius. No one believed him until the 1970s. Now there are a few scientists who STILL disagree with the theory. Somerville referenced those who disagreed with plate tectonics after it was consensus. Its Crichton who got it backwards.
Global warming was really first brought into the limelight by Hansen in '88. Svante Arrhenius proposed the greenhouse effect, not global warming, and used the greenhouse effect to explain the ice ages.
Consensus has never been the measure of good science - time is.
I stand by what I said. Arrhenius proposed that human industry would warm the climate by increasing atmospheric CO2. In his time, the theory was considered "implausible." But recently scientists began to agree, and now it has reached "consensus." Crichton and friends aren't Galileos, but are part of an increasingly small group of people who defend 100-year-old arguments. ...not that age effects the truth of these arguments, but, in this case, Crichton is being misleading.
you've got it backwards. michael crichton believed in global warming, then read the data, talked to the top scientists who support it, and came out with a different view. and that's usually the story sceptics tell when asked why they don't support the movement that in the end is supposed to lead us to sweet-smelling air, green fields dotted with daisies, and a ban on clearcutting. and what of the poor who might be able use the hundreds of trillions of dollars it'll take? fuck em'.
Thats funny, the story I usually hear is a scientist used to doubt global warming, but then supported it when the evidence became "overwhelming." Your statements don't contradict the fact that the number scientists supporting global warming is increasing.
And Mike Crichton is not a scientist, so thats really irreverent. The only scientifically credited denialists have been arguing against global warming for their entire careers. Including the two in this video.
Many of the scientists I've heard on the subject come from the opposite point of view - they accepted the alarmism until they began to look closely at the science. The scientific basis for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is very shaky indeed. There are plenty of obvious contradictions of the theory. For example, the warming period in which we current find ourselves began *before* the widespread release of anthropogenic CO2.
Well that says a lot about the scientists you are listening to doesn't it? They believed the alarmism until they looked closely at the data, as opposed to having studied the data for their entire careers. You obviously are not referring to any climatologists or meteorologists or any scientists involved in this debate.
Actually, I am. To name just two off the top of my head, I'm talking about Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark and his colleague Eigil Friis-Christensen who have not only developed a theory that explains the warming as natural phenomena caused by changes in the Sun, but elegantly accounts for aspects of global warming that have confounded the AGW alarmists (like why the antarctic is cooling as the rest of of the Earth warms). There is also N. Shaviv from Israel. Tim Patterson from Canada...
Svensmark, Friis-Christensen, and Shaviv are physicists. Their theories contradict with the fact that cloud cover has increased. Tim Patterson is a geologist. Also, if you look at Antarctica's temperature record on NASA's website, you'll find that it has been warming. I did read one article on newsbusters just now that claimed Antarctica was cooling, but it based this on the winter mean instead of the available year-round data.
I expected to you give me a climatologist or meteorologist. You gave me 3 physicists and a geologist.
As for Antarctica. I urge to look at the official temperature record for that region. When I look at it I see small inland portions are cooling, but the majority of it is warming.
Climatology is a soft specialty - especially since so many who claim to be experts aren't physicists but rather are mathematicians (hence their love of computer models). Svensmark et al are astrophysicists. Tim Patterson is a quaternary geologist - both ideally suited to studying the mechanism of climate - which is exactly what they've been doing.
As for the antarctic, your discussions of temperature anomalies to the side, the salient fact is that the ice is thickening.
Climatology is a specialty just like astrophysiology. Both require skills in mathematics and physics, and both make use of computer models. In my opinion, a climatologist's opinion is more relevant to climate than a physicist's.
The ice may be thickening, but I believe I referenced a claim that the winter mean for Antartica was getting cooler. This would make the ice thicken but it wouldn't prove that the region was cooling. The year-round temperature record is the only thing that can do that.
OK, so give me an example of a climatologist. Mann, Bradley & Hughes? Authors of the now-debunked "hockey stick" graph? Mann has a PhD in Geology from Yale. I can't find a CV for Bradley or Hughes online but Bradley appears to also be a geologist and Bradley is some species of botanist (hence his expertise on tree rings at the U of AZ). Mann and Bradley call themselves "climatologists". What makes them so?
Yes sir. An Astrophysicist studies astrophysiology. It's not a made-up word.
A climatologist or a meteorologist is one who specializes in atmospheric science. Only someone who holds a position in a department that specializes in atmospheric science, and has made atmospheric science the focus their career is a climatologist/meteorologist.
Technically Svensmark is the father of the field of cosmoclimatology. I'll concede that much to you. But I don't find his theories convincing.
Anyways, I'm saying Svensmark is not part of the official field of climatology, but he has invented a different theory aka cosmic rays. He is just as qualified, but he's outnumbered.
Svensmark states that earth has warmed because cosmic rays have created an environment with less cloud cover. I don't see how he could be right because cloud cover has increased in over the last 100 years.
I'm curious why someone who has to be reminded of the difference between physics and physiology is arguing about science.
As for Svensmark being "outnumbered". You also need to be reminded that scientific discoveries aren't made by committee. Scientific understanding is increased when a scientist finds a new theory that explains the world better than current theory and that's what Svensmark has done.
You're also wrong about cloud-cover. Low-lying clouds (the key factor) have decreased.
I have looked at his data and that's how I know what he's done. I'm curious why you're accusing me of doing something that it seems like you're doing.
I'm arguing the science because that's the only thing worth arguing. That's also why I don't buy into this AGW nonsense - because the science to back it up is so poor.
Well you said Antarctica was cooling. You made that up. You said cloud cover has decreased. You also made that up. I've looked very hard but i've never seen it recorded otherwise. I waste too much time on people like you.
Over the last 300 years the world is static in temperature, over the last five thousand it has cooled a fraction of a degree, about .18 deg C, don't tell me about these crazy dead scientists who didnt even have a good thermometer to take readings with.
Proxy data isn't accurate enough to confirm that the earth has cooled over 5thousand years by such a specific number. The modern recordings of temperature are only accurate to within .1degC, but they don't show a static temperature. If you know someone with better thermometers, you should have them write a letter to NASA and tell them how to fix their measurements.
I've seen some great specials on Discovery Science ch. One called "What If Oil Runs Out" & another was "6 Degree Could Change the World". I'm no scientist, but I'm no fool either. Please go watch it, folks, & tell me what you think.
He ends his take with a poor analogy of concern for poverty, stating that to be environmentally conscious was to turn your back on the poor. All of this doesn't correlate with his earlier statements, and it was difficult to comprehend his logic. To my disappointment, Mr. Crichton, whom I respect for the genius of his novels, didn't make a strong case for his skepticism, but he succeeded in creating the atmosphere of doubt.
Acutally it was to let people know that enviromental activists concerned for the planet are halting the progess of 3rd world nations due to their strict energy laws. Dont worry about the future lets take care of today. People in the future will be richer and better equipped to deal with AGW if its real.
Did anybody listen to what he said? He is on the side against the idea of AGW, yet his argument was Global Warming is real, the Greenhouse Effect is real, etc. Not a very convincing argument against AGW!
With no hard scientific data to back his claims, Crichton simply trivializes the entire debate. At one point he shamelessly said: "I think of my friends with the private jets...maybe all we have to do is...show an expression of concern on our faces, buy a Prius, drive it around for awhile, give it to the maid, attend a few fundraisers, and you're done...Because actually, all everyone needs to do is talk about it, they don't really need to do anything."
Actualy itskaikai, Michael Crichton is a scientist. He's an anthropologist and trained medical doctor. Being a Novelist is just how he makes money nowadays.
His closing statement is VERY misleading. How could being environmental consious make you ignorant to the pleas of the poor? This guy is just full of it. I am not even going to buy his novels anymore.
Its a question of opportunity cost and history. Historically environmental laws and regulations are short-sighted - look at the effects of removing DDT for malaria prevention. If we spend lots of money going "green" that's less money to give to developing nations - it also means that we have to spend more to help them (i.e. if we want to give an impoverished nation energy, we can't use coal).
I can't believe it when he said just talking about global warming and feign concern would suffice. Blantant disregard for the entire debate. He should be banned from other types of debates as he is no scientist, just a good noveler, but no scientist.
You fool: you uneducated fool. MC is a scientist as you now know ( too lazy to research); but - if he was not - you wish to ban his input. You have proved yourself a very stupid individual but i refuse to ban you : i look forward to your new learned contribution.
Dr. Crichton is correct. The biggest issue facing the planet is extreme poverty. Ignoring poverty as a causal factor in environmental issues exacerbates the problem.
Tell that to the elite bankers who perpetuates the class system. BTW, the oil tycoons are the ones responsible for the oil wars of Iraq + unwillingness to invest in alternative energies.
.....i am working my wat through your ignorance : you have been told many things, and believe them all. Wake up : the Iraq "oil war" does NOT help the oil business, and increases pressure for altenergy.
the unwillingness to invest in alternative tech...? its because its cheap we use it - if it were expensive we would switch to something else - that's the way the free market works you conspiracy kook!
One of the biggest issues between GW alarmists and GW skeptics is over the amount of temperature forcing that comes from increased CO2. I decided to put together a 5 minute tutorial to explain the contention over this issue. Put the dots in the blanks where needed, remove excess blanks, and read it for yourself.
mysticminutiae blogspot com / 2008 / 01 / idiots-guide-to-co2 html
I'm with Crichton. I'll begin cutting back my lifestyle when every single American with a higher standard of living lowers theirs to meet mine. But be forewarned: I live very frugally, by design. In fact, judging by the statements of the anthropogenic global warming crowd, I'm livin' the dream. Which is rather funny, considering I don't believe a word of it. I'll be waiting for you at the bottom, Mr. Gore.
I live in a one bedroom apartment, I live across the street from where I work, so I only drive once a week. All of this is by choice. I feel good about helping to lower our dependence on foreign oil, but I get sick to my stomach every time someone talks about the environment and does exactly what crichton says. You get a thumbs up, pal.
Although I did enjoy seeing & hearing this debate again, sadly, for some unknown reason, blackghost76 chose not to post the last & most important segment of the debate, showing that Dr.s Linzen, Crichton & Stott had won the debate over the warminista alarmist. To hear the ENTIRE 93 minute debate, go to NPR & search "Lindzen". Be sure to scroll down & choose "Hear the full debate".
decarbonizing is misleading. the total volume is the point, not where it comes from. many many more people live today, many many more factories exist than years ago so the volume of carbon going into the atmosphere per year is WAY up. that's the issue. they may have used more polluting materials in the pat but they didn't use anywhere near the volume of them to compete with use today.
The debate is not whether global warming is occurring or not. I'm pretty sure that it's universally acknowledged that the Earth's temperature has risen more than a dozen degrees since the last ice age.
For those who didn't see the actual debate, the topic was, "Is global warming a crisis?"
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
sorry, but this guy needs to pep it up. here's the deal. the sun's getting hotter, all the other planets (& this one) are getting hotter because of the sun. DUH! pollution sucks, yeah. how about we stop trying to go to war so we can use more oil. start using magnetic engines for energy. we can do it NOW. look it up.
"I think that most people who want to do something about global warming also want to end global poverty."
Yeah, right. Forcing the poorest of humanity to use the most expensive and unreliable sources of power is really helpul. They should thank us privileged first worlders as we throw money at their corrupt rulers and haul our loaves of bread around in SUVs.
I think that most people who want to do something about global warming also want to end global poverty. Saying that people want to stop global warming because they do not care about is an unfounded statement. And besides, most effects of global warming in the future are expected to be the worst in developing countries.
There are thousand of climate models, and they do not all "predict" the future. The main job of models is to help us understand the climate, including complicated factors such as the greenhouse effect, orbital angular precession, solar activity, etc. - models that attempt to predict a century into the future are in the small minority, and scientists always admit the degree of uncertainty to expect.
But the one the IPCC uses in their report do, or rather are supposed to. And pray tell, what type of scorecard or objective judging do they use to tell if these models are accurate.
Chrichton also makes an error with his statement that estimates of temp rise for the 21st century have fallen from 12, 6, to 4. First, the SAR put maximum warming at 3.5. The TAR put it at 5.8. The AR$ report put the true maximum range of 6.4, with 4 as a likely max. In fact, comparing AR4 to TAR or SAR is vacuous, as they present the temperature scenarios differently.
Why is this argument, "scientists have been wrong before, therefore don't take them as seriously now; believe us" given any credit? If you are going to prove a point, you can't appeal to the possible (but not probable) change that might happen in the views of the mainstream? That's close to an appeal to ignorance - a logical fallacy.
If you're referring to the "Global Cooling is wrong and so is this" argument it was more to point out how quickly "consensus" can change and how we should instead rely on facts. Global Warming predictions are mostly short on undeniable facts and instead rely on possibly unreliable models.
um, i'm pretty sure the debate is between 'man-made' global warming & 'natural' global warming. & if that's not the debate, it should be. i'm not talking about global cooling, but if i was, it's because the sun shoots out less energy/ heat. it's pretty simple. the global elite put out books explaining their plan to push the 'global warming scare' & create a 'global tax". watch. that's what's gonna happen
Because the scientists really don't know for certain what the climate's going to be like in fifty or hundred years. Combating this so-called problem isn't going to be cheap, in fact it's going to be quite costly. Going with the skeptics costs nothing.
Every living thing is carbon based. What's next, shall we kill humans because our bodies emanate to much CO2? Oceans are the main source of CO2 propagation in atmosphere. The other day i read in METRO newspaper from London that scientists opinion to cut down CO2 levels is to cut down forests (incredible). Don't believe everything is given to us by governments. Good job Mr. Crichton!!!
All life is carbon based. You are carbon based, plants are carbon based. The dead plants emits CO2 and so are the oceans. You clearly miss understood what i was saying. What you are saying is common knowledge of course, about the plants intaking CO2 and emitting O2, but the base structure of life is carbon. And I'm not an idiot. You don't know chemistry, otherwise you would of known what i was saying.
Though we are carbon C, CO2 is carbon with 2 molecules of Oxygen. We emanate CO2, my question is, shall we start killing humans because we emanate CO2? Of course i'm being ironic. But, it's true that this is what METRO newspaper said: Scientists have found a new way to reduce CO2, cut down entire forests.
excellent point, and very on target. Eugenics was the last major scientific issue to get into the political area prior to global warming. Look at the consequences of that...
"plants don't emmit CO2 you idiot they intake CO2 and emmit Oxygen"
They only do that during the day, at night they emit CO2 during the normal catabolic and anabolic processes. When they die they decay returning to their constituent components CO2, Nitrates methane etc.
The point that Michael Crichton is not a scientist is pertinent to the issue if he was to stake a claim in an area that he is not formally educated in. While it probably doesn't matter whether he's right or not, but it would give credibility to his statements in general.
I personally thought he was casting a bit too much doubts in future modelling but he did make a good point about the hypocrisy among some of these "global warming championing" scientists.
I work in research and development as a software engineer. My speciality is computer modeling. He's pretty much dead on about the models - they're judged, according to the IPCC report, with subjective criteria (i.e. yeah that looks right). There's no scorecard, no objective comparison. This doesn't seem like science to me. But I can't fault 'em too much - it is a non-linear coupled choatic system.
ad hominem. "the scientists aren't willing to change our lifestyles, so why should we". Attacking the person rather than the argument. Very little science content. The other "pro" scientists are actual experts. Why is Michael Crichton in this debate??
1. That's not what he said. He said "If they're not willing to do it, why should anybody else?", which is both ad hominem and fair comment - unless you think pointing out hypocrisy is somehow out of bounds.
2. What difference does it make whether he's a scientist? Either what he's saying is true, or it's false. You're appealing to authority.
Hypocrisy is never irrelevant. You've read too many books on logic, and not enough on psychology. If a person consistently says one thing & does another, he most likely doesn't believe what he says.
FUD campaign? The only ones spreading fear are the pro-AGW types. Uncertainty & doubt are vital to the scientific method.
It doesn't matter whether Al Gore believes what he says. Neither did it matter whether an actor like Ronald Reagan believed what he said. The psychology of the messenger is IRRELEVANT to whether the argument is sound.
If you're going to argue on behalf of using fallacies, then you're obviously out of your depth here.
It may not matter to you whether Gore is a hypocrite, but it matters quite a bit to most people. I'm not addressing Gore's psyche, but the listener's: blatant hypocrisy is repellant to most people, regardless of the topic. If he's right about AGW then he & his mansions & his new yacht are part of the problem. Shouting "Irrelevant! Tu quoque!" doesn't change that.
AGW theory cannot yet be verified NOR disproved with 100% certainty. Deductive logic is a beautiful thing, but it's not a panacea.
Well, most people are incapable of deductive reasoning. But the popularity of ignorance has no relevance to a scientific discussion -- because reasoning is an essential part of science. That's also why it's so ridiculous to see climate skeptics encouraging people to "decide for themselves" -- as if Joe six-pack could ever understand radiative forcing or even basic chemistry.
You're essentially justifying the emotional response that many people have to hypocrisy -- as if emotion were ...
... a valid part of scientific debate. But it isn't, and no amount of complaining will change that.
I never said that deductive logic was a panacea; that's your straw man. Yes, logic is no salve for an emotional response. Neither is emotion ("I hate Al Gore and his hypocrisy") a valid response to logic. It would be similar if one of the debaters stood up and spoke about Michael Crichton's failure to help poor people with his wealth.
AGW theory is at least 95% certain, and that's sufficient.
"Well, most people are incapable of deductive reasoning."
That is an elitist & nonsensical statement. Joe Six-Pack is not as stupid as you think. He may not be interested in basic chemistry; that doesn't mean he's incapable of understanding it.
If the debate were purely scientific, I doubt so many people would care on either side of the debate. It is precisely because your side proposes POLITICAL solutions that Joe's opinion becomes relevant. Calling him stupid is no way to get his vote.
I stand by the assertion that most people are incapable of understanding chemistry. The same goes for any branch of science requiring mathematics.
You incorrectly assume that I am on a particular "side" in the political struggle. My primary interest in politics is to oppose the Exxon disinformation campaign. I don't support many of the "solutions" proposed by Democrats, but at least they're not trying to misrepresent science.
I likewise stand by my assertion that you are spouting elitist nonsense. By all means, do continue: Joe Six-Pack will see the light if you keep implying he's a moron, I'm sure.
You don't support a particular side of the political debate? You have no agenda whatever regarding AGW? All 6 of your favorites relate to that very topic. You certainly have chosen sides. Logically speaking, if you don't support MANY Democratic solutions, you do support SOME. Welcome to politics.
Jerry Cantrell? From Alice in Chains? I love the band, but looking to a musician for political guidance is like asking a plumber whether you need surgery.
You decry Crichton for attacking the person and not the argument and then attempt to impugn his credibility on the issue by questioning his personal credentials. What hypocrisy.
BTW, the other 2 debaters in favor of the motion are 1.) a professor of meteorology from M.I.T. and 2.) a professor of Biogeology from the University of London.
Th EARTH MOTHER is wounded by our indifference. We kill animals and plants to satisfy our selfish appetites. Eat only raw plants and animals that have died a natural death. Learn to breathe properly, avoid exessive activity that causes you to exhale too much toxic CO2.
For those saying Crichton wasn't an authority on the subject, he did freelance study of the subject and has used legitimate sources to make his arguments. Two on the "other side" have basically the same credentials, non-educational. So, why can't Crichton make points as well?
slytown 1 month ago
@slytown What are you talking about? Brenda Ekwurzel holds a PH.D in isotope geochemistry from Columbia University, Gavin Schmidt holds a PH.D in applied mathematics from the University College of London and is a climate modeler for NASA, and Richard Somerville holds a PH.D in meteorology from New York University. Is it just a habit for global warming deniers to lie?
crocop60 1 month ago
One among the very few educated Americans I ever admired. Michael Crichton. Now who can write those novels like the ones he wrote. Wished he lived for another 30+ years. Really a great loss the world.
usr027 4 months ago
all that anti-regulation talk started to make me wonder about who pays this man.
Not that I don't agree with him or anything, but it kinda made me wonder. But he did a good job, I think.
itcanbecheezcaketime 5 months ago
@itcanbecheezcaketime People can't believe that not regulating industries to death(or just driving them overseas where there are even fewer regulations) is a good idea without being paid by someone?
I suppose someone owes me a lot of money....
bighitter42 3 months ago
talking about adhominem falacies...
shreder89 7 months ago
Oh my god, what the fuck was that?
socrstreets 7 months ago
Al Gore, doesn't he make salsa? I get my climate science from the night clerk at the Holiday Inn... doesn't everybody?
rapauli 1 year ago
some climate news...
Farmers urged to adjust to changing weather patterns
The government has called on farmers to adjust to changing weather patterns and become more scientific in their approach to agriculture.
HARARE HERALD
ZIMBABWE
March 13, 2010
Nightversionn 1 year ago
@Nightversionn Well, changing weather patterns don't constitute as climate news. Weather patterns are local phenomena and should not be used in the climate debate.
neoldd1 1 year ago
@neoldd1 Climate is also local. It is just an average on wheather, on a timeframe that best matches your argument.
TheSnorb 1 year ago
@Nightversionn Quoting anything from Zimbabwe is pretty funny....
bighitter42 3 months ago
It's only about power and money. Same things as usual.
soslinio 1 year ago
The solution of the global warming is called Vanco Dimitrov.
He is a Macedonian scientist. In 1996 for his invention "internal combustion engine without exhausting pipe" he was awarded with the GRAND PRIX EUREKA.
If you are interesting I can give you a link of video of him (the subtitle is needed)
ladomiroff 2 years ago
climate change has been happening for millions of years - got nothing to do with human activity. We might improve the quality of human life if more of us practised birth control, and made affordable birth control available to poor people. We need kids to have a future, but we don't need 7 billion people.
1forestcat 2 years ago
It does, but what is happening is a fixation on just one part of it and lack of scrutiny on the real research going on. Urbanization creates a different climate. Deforestation creates a different climate. But this focus is on being indirect to where this is happening in terms of action, such as Brazil, Indonesia, China, and India. The course of action is both insufficient as well as easily politically motivated, not neccessarily untrue.
suemorphplus2009 1 year ago
Quoting:
"Any harm in being overcautious?"
Commenting:
Yes, one can destroy the economy that allows us to be environmentally correct.
As a stark example, we could go back to the 1800's when we used very little fossil fuel. Back then we used Whale Oil. You good with that, bubba?
geophys55 2 years ago 2
@geophys55
Contrary to this oft repeated Reagan energy-myth, only the rich used expensive whale oil. Camphene (a mixture of alcohol, turpentine, and camphor) out-sold whale oil in 1845 (New Englands peak year: 18 m gal) by 10:1. In 1854 whale oil accounted for less than 1% of US energy consumption. Biomass burning made up the other 99+%.
JuanVoyce 2 years ago 2
I think it is important to understand the IPCCs proof of man made global warming. There is no direct proof an increase of 100 ppm in CO2 has any effect on temp. Fact is an increase of 100 ppm CO2 has a no effect on temperature in the lab, none! You need to increase CO2 to about 200,000 ppm in the lab to see a 3 degree C change.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
@MissingGWdotcom IPCC is a joke. They've been proven frauds. Research Climategate.
soslinio 1 year ago
Right, but I have read the IPCC 4th report several times and know why, how about you?
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
So there are some theories based on an idea of layers in 50,000 feet that tries to prove a 100ppm increase in CO2 increase temp a few tenths of one degree F. A few degrees F is an insignificant increase much less proof of man made global warming so the IPCC claims CO2 has an amplifying effect and then they rely on flawed global warming models which are grossly positive lookback biased so of course they are going to show an amplifying effect from a small amount of CO2 as they are built to do.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
However the models have been proven wrong again as they predicted a .2 to .7 C temp rise the last ten years, however the temp did not go up at all and many say it went down .2 C not up, the models missed this completely and the leaked emails call it a travesty and the fix the numbers to hide the decline!
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
He didn't address the issue.
somethings90 2 years ago
who goes on Fox to poke holes without significant counter arguments woven into his critique and without enough reference to the science. Beck, Fox, Hannity, Limbaugh are anti-intellectual toadies to their corporate sponsors and I do not trust them or their conclusions. On the other had, after years of study it is clear that the reasonable steps advocated to combat CO2 emissions have a great many correllary benefits to offset the fast decline of our ecology. MODERATION is relative, Americans
bertinotti 2 years ago
Listen, my friend; I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you, but I do not eagerly await the apocalypse. I love my life and I love the earth. I like camping and hiking and nature. I'm all for the preservation of crucial natural resources. But you have to look at the wider picture. Now you obviously know nothing about economics, so I'll explain the situation to you in simple terms. We cannot afford to cut carbon emissions to such an extent as is desired; we are a huge nation.
ColtBarrettUSA 2 years ago 2
(Cont.) Furthermore, there is a lagging effect involved with cutting emissions. If we were to become a virtually carbon-free society tomorrow (no cars, planes, meat, trains, heat, etc.), it would take at least fifty years for it to show. Finally, our emissions would only constitute a small portion of CO2 output (others include dead vegetation, volcanic eruptions, breathing, etc). This means that we may make the earth about a half a degree cooler in 50 years, provided we halt all industry now.
ColtBarrettUSA 2 years ago
(Cont.) Also, I should point out that there are scientists with special interests at heart. It may surprise you that many of those who advocate global warming and the buying of carbon credits OWN companies that produce carbon credits (see Al Gore). And to discuss religion, I truly despise it. I believe in rationality over mindless dogma. Global warming has become a religion, whereby there is a correct way to behave, there are heretics (deniers!), there was an Eden that we (humans) destroyed it.
ColtBarrettUSA 2 years ago
Not all special interests are created equal. If you want to talk numbers, the OVERWHELMING majority of those on the editorial boards of National Geographic or Nature magazine argue for a very vigorous response to climate change without standing to profit by any significant margin should, for example, cap and trade policies be adopted. Accounting for the externalised costs of coal is FAR more likely to cause the coal industry to spin their science to the point of lobbyist advocacy/propoganda.
bertinotti 2 years ago
Wow, your grasp of economics startles -- Paul Krugman better watch out given the threat you pose to his tenure and NYT columnist posts. I note that you have no idea what I advocate in terms of emissions reductions. I note that your Chicago School cost-benefit-analysis for dummies is rife with normative assumptions, not the least of which is the "value" ascribed to the species and ecosystems that have been wiped, are being wiped out, and will be wiped out.
bertinotti 2 years ago
And what about the vampire bat? Or the saber toothed tiger? These species became extinct, obviously due to evil corporations. The policies of the Chicago School oversaw the greatest economic boom in American history. You seem to think that gvt. intervention will do an excellent job; yes, they've done fine with education and the post office, so they are the clear solution to this problem, huh? Paul Krugman is a fucking idiot whose outdated Keynesian notions have no place in the FREE market.
ColtBarrettUSA 2 years ago
Um, there are relatively easy-to-implement free market based solutions, which involve accounting for what are now largely externalized costs, to climate change. You might want to do a bit of research before you run your uninformed potty mouth. The American economy has always depended on a Keynesian expansion of the GDP through its capitalization of an enormous defense industry. You might want to read Krugman's text book on economics -- it will help brighten your heretofore dimwitted analysis.
bertinotti 2 years ago
@bertinotti
Keynesian economics is pure bunk. Money has no intrinsic value.
pigeatinginfidel 2 years ago
1. I see you have trouble distinguishing between meteors and natural caused catastrophic events and those that are human-made.
2. Nice argument by conclusion. The Chicago School's free market remedies created banana republics throughout South America, loosened govt reg of captial markets resulting in investment banks assuming untenable, catastrophy inducing risk, and ignored the need for government oversight to take the sharp edges off of short-term profit taking, "River Up" economics.
bertinotti 2 years ago
@bertinotti
And your "normative assumptions" are more valid...why??
pigeatinginfidel 2 years ago
in the face of a radically contingent, assault on any sort of foundationalist claim, it would be hard to argue the non-contingency of the claim that the free market can no longer externalise costs associated with its massively detrimental affects on the survival of wide array of animal/ plant life. But I doubt you are a deconstructionist, you are just someone who does not want to be inconvenienced by transitions to better environmental practices through internalisation of environmental costs.
bertinotti 2 years ago
@bertinotti
Whether the free market can internalize those costs or not is not a foundational claim, nor is it the one that I was referring to. I was referring to your implicit objection of the value ascribed to ecosystems.
If the free market cannot determine value, then it cannot internalize those costs. By denying value, you deny the very mechanism the free market would use to internalize costs.
Alternatively, a non-free market system, which lacks property rights and therefore a means of
pigeatinginfidel 2 years ago
@bertinotti
determining value, of price discovery, then internalizing costs is totally impossible. This has demonstrated beyond doubt in places that lack(ed) free market systems. In those places environmental degradation is invariably far worse. Take a look at the dead and barren lakes of the former Soviet Union.
The environmental problem is a population problem, not an economic one. The only economic system capable of protecting the environment is capitalism.
pigeatinginfidel 2 years ago
@randomconcepts:
Your version of science is seriously flawed.
aurayon 2 years ago
Ahh, I see. So Michael Crichton, the same man who adamantly supported abortion at a time when it was under serious scrutiny, the same man who supports a tax on carbon emissions, "took a right-wing turn at some point."
It appears to me as though your mind is sealed; anybody who disagrees with your take on global warming is apparently evil and on the opposite end of the political spectrum. I have news for you: everyone is a "resource glutton." If you're not, then prove it. Give up your computer.
ColtBarrettUSA 2 years ago
I for one choose to live in urban centers, have not owned a car for fifteen years and ride my bike everywhere, shut off lights, buy carbon offsets, etc.
bertinotti 2 years ago
How convenient that the causes of global warming are all things that leftist politicians oppose: industry, enterprise, foreign vacations, middle-class expenditure, and the Western World. I sense... something is afoot.
ColtBarrettUSA 2 years ago 4
Well, partlly right. The Leftists are all going on a foreign vacation to Copenhagen in December, paid for by their taxpayers.
sdcoyote70 2 years ago 3
@ColtBarrettUSA Come on Colt, you'll never get liberal voters to research the evidence themselves if you continue to demonize them. Partisan bickering is altogether counterproductive if one wishes to prevent the cap-and-trade policy from expanding.
This isn't a conservative versus liberal issue, it's an elitist versus the middle class issue.
capemaychange 2 years ago
How even MORE convenient that the opponents of global warming also oppose scientific research that refutes their belief in Adam and Eve, think their are no externalised c osts to unfettered consumption capitalism, igore the role the OIL industry plays in funding "scientific" opposition to global warming conclusions.
bertinotti 2 years ago
Really? So, it would surprise you if I told you I was an atheist, as are many scientists who oppose the theory of huge-scale man-made climate change. I do believe that there are indeed negative external costs involved with pollution. My point is that it is not a catastrophe if the earth warms by roughly a single degree within the next hundred years. We have to adapt to the climate, not completely alter our lifestyles to change the weather from 32 C to 31 C. There are more important things to do.
ColtBarrettUSA 2 years ago
You know what, I am pretty common sensical in my approach. We have ONE earth, we fuck it up it is game over. This doesn't bother those of an apocalyptic bent (Taliban, Fundamentalist Christians, etc), but I have grown rather fond of this planet. I respect FAR MORE the scientific analysis of the National Geographic Institute then I do by an Oil Industry Lobby sponsored "scientist"
Let me get this straight, Warren Buffett, a staunch supporter of a reasonable response to global warming and
bertinotti 2 years ago
" We have ONE earth, we fuck it up it is game over. "
You poor frightened little boy. You are actually living your life in fear that the Earth is being destroyed? You have more in common with those fundamentalists than you think. You all share Visions of The Coming Apocolypse. You're as dangerous as they are.
TheTypicalGirl 2 years ago
My visions are not of a "coming apocalypse" but of an all-too-obvious environmental degradation that sometimes scares the hell out of we pansie waist observors of fragile eco systems and threatened habitats and species.
Now go bravely and eruditely run along now to Abercrombie and Fitch to get your holiday shopping finished.
bertinotti 2 years ago
" We have ONE earth, we fuck it up it is game over. "-- is a factually accurate statement. Humans have been able to harm their environment to the point of harming their own health: automobile air pollution-asthma/lung disease, pesticides-birth defects, industrial water pollution-cancers, human caused toxic mercury levels in fish (food), etc. Given that Mr. Creighton was trained as a scientist, I think his point was to always question and think critically. Any harm in being overcautious?
athinkr 2 years ago
Mankind produces only a small fraction of the CO2 in the atmosphere, more is created through natural mechanisms such as dying foliage. This is not science, but politics. Global Warming hysteria is a social movement, not a scientific truth. There is serious potential global catastrophes as a result of man's existence, but is global warming really one of them? I mean farting releases methane, a very serious green house gas supposedly, should we ban or tax farting?
MatthewBissonnette88 2 years ago 3
Also, C02 takes up less than %5 (MUCH less) of the air in Earth's atmosphere, most of it is Water vapor and Nitrogen
kristofor12345 2 years ago
@kristofor12345
Our atmosphere is actually:
78% nitrogen
21% oxygen
almost 1% argon
all other gases are trace.
0.03% CO2
MindlessWonder 2 years ago
Good point. Global warming has become something that the politicians have seized control of with very limited evidence to support the "end of all civilization." Is the earth warming? Yes, but by how much? Not a whole lot, as it turns out. This idea that the planet is at its optimum temperature now is foolish. Humans have lived in far warmer and FAR colder conditions than they do now.
ColtBarrettUSA 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
ScienceNews
"These same methane clathrates are present today in the Arctic permafrost as well as below sea level, and remain dormant until triggered by warming.
"This is a major concern because it's possible that only a little warming can unleash this trapped methane. Unzippering the methane reservoir could warm the Earth TENS OF DEGREES, and the mechanism could be geologically very rapid."
Search : Large Methane Release Could Cause Abrupt Climate Change As Happened 635 Million Years Ago
goog2k 2 years ago
poverty is a huge issue.
we need to fix poverty. i believe poverty is the biggest issue. and poverty contributes to overpopulation.
curingaging00 2 years ago 5
Crichton seemed really nervous, especially towards the end of the statement. Or perhaps he was just choked up a bit at the thoughts he was expressing.
Bless his soul. We lost him way too early.
milesian1 2 years ago 2
One of the smartest men I know.
davo171 2 years ago 7
'And because I go looking for trouble...' - Michael Crichton
A brilliant man; the world needed him.
segisaurus 2 years ago 5
Al Gore ownes four mansions, flies around the world in his private jet dumping massive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere, yet he is against third world countries developing their coal and natural gas resources which (denies more than two billion people basic electricity use) that seems altruistic!
IGORYESMASTER 2 years ago 41
Comment removed
St37One 2 years ago
Such a fucking shame. He was taken too young.
DantesDump 3 years ago 41
Nicely said Michael. Sensible, level headed and sadly missed.
Many people, while agreeing with the possibility of manmade global warming, aren't suckers enough to be cowed by their respective governments into a chicken-little state. As Michael stated, when the governments really act in ernest then everyone else should follow them; until then i'll watch my car use and turn my heating down.
tannagra 3 years ago 8
Why are all of these Michael Crichton videos no longer available??
sarahnichole87 3 years ago 3
Comment removed
akuhaslfukahsdf 3 years ago
You're an idiot.
dtpark1213 3 years ago 5
Human emissions of carbon dioxide have also begun to alter the chemistry of the ocean:
sciencedaily. com/releases/2008/07/080703140716.htm
"The oceans have absorbed about 40% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by humans over the past two centuries. This has slowed global warming, but at a serious cost: the extra carbon dioxide has caused the ocean's average surface pH (a measure of water's acidity) to shift ... damaging key marine organisms such as corals and plankton ..."
nancidrew4 3 years ago
The correct answer to your statement is: so what? I guess the Ph of the worlds oceans must have been changing for a long time in accordance to the small changes in the worlds atmosphere, so that must be nothing new.
81broncoman 3 years ago
"... major leaders in climate who clearly have no intention of changing their lifestyle, reducing their own consumption... If they're not willing to do it, why should anybody else?" -- Michael Crichton
That's the "you too" fallacy:
nizkor. org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html
"This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because (1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or (2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions."
nancidrew4 3 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
The temperature here in Ottawa has increased by about 60 degrees centigrade over the past 5 months. If this warming trend continues, it will be about 90 degrees centigrade by October.
This is how environmentalists do their projections.
dragknuckle 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Gwynne66 absolutely worked this HappyAppleFilms character over. LOL He's an "astrophysiologist."
bighitter42 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
as Michael Crichton has - we all need to come to terms with reason. flippin cool dude
jrrphoto 3 years ago
Michael Crichton is a big bowl of hardcore bad ass.
amb85 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LOL yes indeed.
bighitter42 3 years ago
In 1912 Alfred Wegener proposed plate tectonics and scientists opposed him for decades until finally it became consensus. BUT that's how ALL scientific theories come about, NOT excluding global warming. In fact Global Warming was proposed in 1895 by Svante Arrhenius. No one believed him until the 1970s. Now there are a few scientists who STILL disagree with the theory. Somerville referenced those who disagreed with plate tectonics after it was consensus. Its Crichton who got it backwards.
HappyAppleFilms 3 years ago
Global warming was really first brought into the limelight by Hansen in '88. Svante Arrhenius proposed the greenhouse effect, not global warming, and used the greenhouse effect to explain the ice ages.
Consensus has never been the measure of good science - time is.
cmyersnbt 3 years ago
Wrong.
I stand by what I said. Arrhenius proposed that human industry would warm the climate by increasing atmospheric CO2. In his time, the theory was considered "implausible." But recently scientists began to agree, and now it has reached "consensus." Crichton and friends aren't Galileos, but are part of an increasingly small group of people who defend 100-year-old arguments. ...not that age effects the truth of these arguments, but, in this case, Crichton is being misleading.
HappyAppleFilms 3 years ago
you've got it backwards. michael crichton believed in global warming, then read the data, talked to the top scientists who support it, and came out with a different view. and that's usually the story sceptics tell when asked why they don't support the movement that in the end is supposed to lead us to sweet-smelling air, green fields dotted with daisies, and a ban on clearcutting. and what of the poor who might be able use the hundreds of trillions of dollars it'll take? fuck em'.
osmaldz 3 years ago
Osmaldz,
Thats funny, the story I usually hear is a scientist used to doubt global warming, but then supported it when the evidence became "overwhelming." Your statements don't contradict the fact that the number scientists supporting global warming is increasing.
And Mike Crichton is not a scientist, so thats really irreverent. The only scientifically credited denialists have been arguing against global warming for their entire careers. Including the two in this video.
HappyAppleFilms 3 years ago
Many of the scientists I've heard on the subject come from the opposite point of view - they accepted the alarmism until they began to look closely at the science. The scientific basis for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is very shaky indeed. There are plenty of obvious contradictions of the theory. For example, the warming period in which we current find ourselves began *before* the widespread release of anthropogenic CO2.
Gwynne66 3 years ago
Well that says a lot about the scientists you are listening to doesn't it? They believed the alarmism until they looked closely at the data, as opposed to having studied the data for their entire careers. You obviously are not referring to any climatologists or meteorologists or any scientists involved in this debate.
HappyAppleFilms 3 years ago
Actually, I am. To name just two off the top of my head, I'm talking about Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark and his colleague Eigil Friis-Christensen who have not only developed a theory that explains the warming as natural phenomena caused by changes in the Sun, but elegantly accounts for aspects of global warming that have confounded the AGW alarmists (like why the antarctic is cooling as the rest of of the Earth warms). There is also N. Shaviv from Israel. Tim Patterson from Canada...
Gwynne66 3 years ago
Svensmark, Friis-Christensen, and Shaviv are physicists. Their theories contradict with the fact that cloud cover has increased. Tim Patterson is a geologist. Also, if you look at Antarctica's temperature record on NASA's website, you'll find that it has been warming. I did read one article on newsbusters just now that claimed Antarctica was cooling, but it based this on the winter mean instead of the available year-round data.
HappyAppleFilms 3 years ago
Of course Svensmark, et al are physicists... did you expect them to be gynecologists?
The reason Svensmark's theories are so compelling is because they conform better to observable facts than do the theories of the AGW alarmists.
You're wrong about antarctica as well. Small areas of it are warming, but the inland portions are cooling and the ice is thickening.
Gwynne66 3 years ago
I expected to you give me a climatologist or meteorologist. You gave me 3 physicists and a geologist.
As for Antarctica. I urge to look at the official temperature record for that region. When I look at it I see small inland portions are cooling, but the majority of it is warming.
HappyAppleFilms 3 years ago
Climatology is a soft specialty - especially since so many who claim to be experts aren't physicists but rather are mathematicians (hence their love of computer models). Svensmark et al are astrophysicists. Tim Patterson is a quaternary geologist - both ideally suited to studying the mechanism of climate - which is exactly what they've been doing.
As for the antarctic, your discussions of temperature anomalies to the side, the salient fact is that the ice is thickening.
Gwynne66 3 years ago
Climatology is a specialty just like astrophysiology. Both require skills in mathematics and physics, and both make use of computer models. In my opinion, a climatologist's opinion is more relevant to climate than a physicist's.
The ice may be thickening, but I believe I referenced a claim that the winter mean for Antartica was getting cooler. This would make the ice thicken but it wouldn't prove that the region was cooling. The year-round temperature record is the only thing that can do that.
HappyAppleFilms 3 years ago
Seriously dude... "astrophysiology"?!
OK, so give me an example of a climatologist. Mann, Bradley & Hughes? Authors of the now-debunked "hockey stick" graph? Mann has a PhD in Geology from Yale. I can't find a CV for Bradley or Hughes online but Bradley appears to also be a geologist and Bradley is some species of botanist (hence his expertise on tree rings at the U of AZ). Mann and Bradley call themselves "climatologists". What makes them so?
Gwynne66 3 years ago
Yes sir. An Astrophysicist studies astrophysiology. It's not a made-up word.
A climatologist or a meteorologist is one who specializes in atmospheric science. Only someone who holds a position in a department that specializes in atmospheric science, and has made atmospheric science the focus their career is a climatologist/meteorologist.
Technically Svensmark is the father of the field of cosmoclimatology. I'll concede that much to you. But I don't find his theories convincing.
HappyAppleFilms 3 years ago
I think you need to check your dictionary. An astrophysicist studies the physics of stars and planets (e.g. climate).
Physiology is, on the other hand, the study of the structures and processes of living organisms. Are stars and planets living organisms?
By your definition, Svensmark and the others are just as qualified to study climate change as people like Mann and Bradley.
I don't doubt you find Svensmark's theories unconvincing... they contradict your preconceptions.
Gwynne66 3 years ago
well your right. I meant to say astrophysics.
Anyways, I'm saying Svensmark is not part of the official field of climatology, but he has invented a different theory aka cosmic rays. He is just as qualified, but he's outnumbered.
Svensmark states that earth has warmed because cosmic rays have created an environment with less cloud cover. I don't see how he could be right because cloud cover has increased in over the last 100 years.
HappyAppleFilms 3 years ago
I'm curious why someone who has to be reminded of the difference between physics and physiology is arguing about science.
As for Svensmark being "outnumbered". You also need to be reminded that scientific discoveries aren't made by committee. Scientific understanding is increased when a scientist finds a new theory that explains the world better than current theory and that's what Svensmark has done.
You're also wrong about cloud-cover. Low-lying clouds (the key factor) have decreased.
Gwynne66 3 years ago
Svensmark hasn't done that. I'm curious why someone who hasn't looked at any data is arguing science.
HappyAppleFilms 3 years ago 4
I have looked at his data and that's how I know what he's done. I'm curious why you're accusing me of doing something that it seems like you're doing.
I'm arguing the science because that's the only thing worth arguing. That's also why I don't buy into this AGW nonsense - because the science to back it up is so poor.
Gwynne66 3 years ago
Well you said Antarctica was cooling. You made that up. You said cloud cover has decreased. You also made that up. I've looked very hard but i've never seen it recorded otherwise. I waste too much time on people like you.
HappyAppleFilms 3 years ago 3
Over the last 300 years the world is static in temperature, over the last five thousand it has cooled a fraction of a degree, about .18 deg C, don't tell me about these crazy dead scientists who didnt even have a good thermometer to take readings with.
81broncoman 3 years ago
81broncman,
Proxy data isn't accurate enough to confirm that the earth has cooled over 5thousand years by such a specific number. The modern recordings of temperature are only accurate to within .1degC, but they don't show a static temperature. If you know someone with better thermometers, you should have them write a letter to NASA and tell them how to fix their measurements.
HappyAppleFilms 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
MC really kicked ass in this video
sonofthedestroyer 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
they should have stopped the debate just then, he murdered the opp. lol
Riggro 4 years ago
I've seen some great specials on Discovery Science ch. One called "What If Oil Runs Out" & another was "6 Degree Could Change the World". I'm no scientist, but I'm no fool either. Please go watch it, folks, & tell me what you think.
itskaikai 4 years ago 2
He ends his take with a poor analogy of concern for poverty, stating that to be environmentally conscious was to turn your back on the poor. All of this doesn't correlate with his earlier statements, and it was difficult to comprehend his logic. To my disappointment, Mr. Crichton, whom I respect for the genius of his novels, didn't make a strong case for his skepticism, but he succeeded in creating the atmosphere of doubt.
itskaikai 4 years ago 2
Acutally it was to let people know that enviromental activists concerned for the planet are halting the progess of 3rd world nations due to their strict energy laws. Dont worry about the future lets take care of today. People in the future will be richer and better equipped to deal with AGW if its real.
usmcphrog46 4 years ago
Did anybody listen to what he said? He is on the side against the idea of AGW, yet his argument was Global Warming is real, the Greenhouse Effect is real, etc. Not a very convincing argument against AGW!
SelectedNaturally 4 years ago
With no hard scientific data to back his claims, Crichton simply trivializes the entire debate. At one point he shamelessly said: "I think of my friends with the private jets...maybe all we have to do is...show an expression of concern on our faces, buy a Prius, drive it around for awhile, give it to the maid, attend a few fundraisers, and you're done...Because actually, all everyone needs to do is talk about it, they don't really need to do anything."
itskaikai 4 years ago 2
Actualy itskaikai, Michael Crichton is a scientist. He's an anthropologist and trained medical doctor. Being a Novelist is just how he makes money nowadays.
NatakuOtaku 4 years ago
I guess graduating from Harvard Medical School and doing post-doc work for Salk just isn't credentials enough anymore ;-)
cmyersnbt 4 years ago
His closing statement is VERY misleading. How could being environmental consious make you ignorant to the pleas of the poor? This guy is just full of it. I am not even going to buy his novels anymore.
itskaikai 4 years ago
Its a question of opportunity cost and history. Historically environmental laws and regulations are short-sighted - look at the effects of removing DDT for malaria prevention. If we spend lots of money going "green" that's less money to give to developing nations - it also means that we have to spend more to help them (i.e. if we want to give an impoverished nation energy, we can't use coal).
cmyersnbt 4 years ago
I can't believe it when he said just talking about global warming and feign concern would suffice. Blantant disregard for the entire debate. He should be banned from other types of debates as he is no scientist, just a good noveler, but no scientist.
itskaikai 4 years ago
You fool: you uneducated fool. MC is a scientist as you now know ( too lazy to research); but - if he was not - you wish to ban his input. You have proved yourself a very stupid individual but i refuse to ban you : i look forward to your new learned contribution.
haldenver 4 years ago
When did Michael Crichton become an expert on global warming?
itskaikai 4 years ago 3
Dr. Crichton is correct. The biggest issue facing the planet is extreme poverty. Ignoring poverty as a causal factor in environmental issues exacerbates the problem.
joebogarde 4 years ago
Tell that to the elite bankers who perpetuates the class system. BTW, the oil tycoons are the ones responsible for the oil wars of Iraq + unwillingness to invest in alternative energies.
itskaikai 4 years ago 2
.....i am working my wat through your ignorance : you have been told many things, and believe them all. Wake up : the Iraq "oil war" does NOT help the oil business, and increases pressure for altenergy.
You are a genuine fool.
haldenver 4 years ago
the unwillingness to invest in alternative tech...? its because its cheap we use it - if it were expensive we would switch to something else - that's the way the free market works you conspiracy kook!
cmyersnbt 4 years ago
One of the biggest issues between GW alarmists and GW skeptics is over the amount of temperature forcing that comes from increased CO2. I decided to put together a 5 minute tutorial to explain the contention over this issue. Put the dots in the blanks where needed, remove excess blanks, and read it for yourself.
mysticminutiae blogspot com / 2008 / 01 / idiots-guide-to-co2 html
vsaluki 4 years ago
I'm with Crichton. I'll begin cutting back my lifestyle when every single American with a higher standard of living lowers theirs to meet mine. But be forewarned: I live very frugally, by design. In fact, judging by the statements of the anthropogenic global warming crowd, I'm livin' the dream. Which is rather funny, considering I don't believe a word of it. I'll be waiting for you at the bottom, Mr. Gore.
phoobaar 4 years ago 2
I live in a one bedroom apartment, I live across the street from where I work, so I only drive once a week. All of this is by choice. I feel good about helping to lower our dependence on foreign oil, but I get sick to my stomach every time someone talks about the environment and does exactly what crichton says. You get a thumbs up, pal.
cmyersnbt 4 years ago
Although I did enjoy seeing & hearing this debate again, sadly, for some unknown reason, blackghost76 chose not to post the last & most important segment of the debate, showing that Dr.s Linzen, Crichton & Stott had won the debate over the warminista alarmist. To hear the ENTIRE 93 minute debate, go to NPR & search "Lindzen". Be sure to scroll down & choose "Hear the full debate".
justtex1975 4 years ago
decarbonizing is misleading. the total volume is the point, not where it comes from. many many more people live today, many many more factories exist than years ago so the volume of carbon going into the atmosphere per year is WAY up. that's the issue. they may have used more polluting materials in the pat but they didn't use anywhere near the volume of them to compete with use today.
TacticusPrime 4 years ago
The debate is not whether global warming is occurring or not. I'm pretty sure that it's universally acknowledged that the Earth's temperature has risen more than a dozen degrees since the last ice age.
For those who didn't see the actual debate, the topic was, "Is global warming a crisis?"
KuiperDesu 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
sorry, but this guy needs to pep it up. here's the deal. the sun's getting hotter, all the other planets (& this one) are getting hotter because of the sun. DUH! pollution sucks, yeah. how about we stop trying to go to war so we can use more oil. start using magnetic engines for energy. we can do it NOW. look it up.
brokenlenspro 4 years ago
wow you're pretty eloquent
ZapRowzdower 4 years ago
"I think that most people who want to do something about global warming also want to end global poverty."
Yeah, right. Forcing the poorest of humanity to use the most expensive and unreliable sources of power is really helpul. They should thank us privileged first worlders as we throw money at their corrupt rulers and haul our loaves of bread around in SUVs.
SAJse 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
shit eater
llvvkk 4 years ago
I think that most people who want to do something about global warming also want to end global poverty. Saying that people want to stop global warming because they do not care about is an unfounded statement. And besides, most effects of global warming in the future are expected to be the worst in developing countries.
art1vand3lay 4 years ago
Best thing to help the third world is to get them of word-burning and give them electricity and clean water.
edpoor 4 years ago
There are thousand of climate models, and they do not all "predict" the future. The main job of models is to help us understand the climate, including complicated factors such as the greenhouse effect, orbital angular precession, solar activity, etc. - models that attempt to predict a century into the future are in the small minority, and scientists always admit the degree of uncertainty to expect.
art1vand3lay 4 years ago
But the one the IPCC uses in their report do, or rather are supposed to. And pray tell, what type of scorecard or objective judging do they use to tell if these models are accurate.
cmyersnbt 4 years ago
Chrichton also makes an error with his statement that estimates of temp rise for the 21st century have fallen from 12, 6, to 4. First, the SAR put maximum warming at 3.5. The TAR put it at 5.8. The AR$ report put the true maximum range of 6.4, with 4 as a likely max. In fact, comparing AR4 to TAR or SAR is vacuous, as they present the temperature scenarios differently.
BeachofDreams 4 years ago
Why is this argument, "scientists have been wrong before, therefore don't take them as seriously now; believe us" given any credit? If you are going to prove a point, you can't appeal to the possible (but not probable) change that might happen in the views of the mainstream? That's close to an appeal to ignorance - a logical fallacy.
BeachofDreams 4 years ago
If you're referring to the "Global Cooling is wrong and so is this" argument it was more to point out how quickly "consensus" can change and how we should instead rely on facts. Global Warming predictions are mostly short on undeniable facts and instead rely on possibly unreliable models.
ZapRowzdower 4 years ago
um, i'm pretty sure the debate is between 'man-made' global warming & 'natural' global warming. & if that's not the debate, it should be. i'm not talking about global cooling, but if i was, it's because the sun shoots out less energy/ heat. it's pretty simple. the global elite put out books explaining their plan to push the 'global warming scare' & create a 'global tax". watch. that's what's gonna happen
brokenlenspro 4 years ago
Because the scientists really don't know for certain what the climate's going to be like in fifty or hundred years. Combating this so-called problem isn't going to be cheap, in fact it's going to be quite costly. Going with the skeptics costs nothing.
amb85 3 years ago
We are stardust, we are golden
We are ten billion year old carbon
And we got to get ourselves back to the garden
ccmctrdd 4 years ago 3
Every living thing is carbon based. What's next, shall we kill humans because our bodies emanate to much CO2? Oceans are the main source of CO2 propagation in atmosphere. The other day i read in METRO newspaper from London that scientists opinion to cut down CO2 levels is to cut down forests (incredible). Don't believe everything is given to us by governments. Good job Mr. Crichton!!!
brav0wing 4 years ago
plants don't emmit CO2 you idiot they intake CO2 and emmit Oxygen
italia88888 4 years ago
All life is carbon based. You are carbon based, plants are carbon based. The dead plants emits CO2 and so are the oceans. You clearly miss understood what i was saying. What you are saying is common knowledge of course, about the plants intaking CO2 and emitting O2, but the base structure of life is carbon. And I'm not an idiot. You don't know chemistry, otherwise you would of known what i was saying.
brav0wing 4 years ago
You don't believe me, check CARBON BASED LIFE WIKIPEDIA, then.
brav0wing 4 years ago
Though we are carbon C, CO2 is carbon with 2 molecules of Oxygen. We emanate CO2, my question is, shall we start killing humans because we emanate CO2? Of course i'm being ironic. But, it's true that this is what METRO newspaper said: Scientists have found a new way to reduce CO2, cut down entire forests.
brav0wing 4 years ago
"shall we start killing humans because we emanate CO2?"
Perhaps start sterilizing the mentally diasabled - it has happened before so we should be careful.
gerjanp 4 years ago
excellent point, and very on target. Eugenics was the last major scientific issue to get into the political area prior to global warming. Look at the consequences of that...
cmyersnbt 4 years ago
oh, yes, we should be carefull
brav0wing 4 years ago
"plants don't emmit CO2 you idiot they intake CO2 and emmit Oxygen"
They only do that during the day, at night they emit CO2 during the normal catabolic and anabolic processes. When they die they decay returning to their constituent components CO2, Nitrates methane etc.
gerjanp 4 years ago
Like a sci-fi writer, who admitted to plagiarizing, is to be believed on this topic.
SardonicusRexx 4 years ago
The point that Michael Crichton is not a scientist is pertinent to the issue if he was to stake a claim in an area that he is not formally educated in. While it probably doesn't matter whether he's right or not, but it would give credibility to his statements in general.
I personally thought he was casting a bit too much doubts in future modelling but he did make a good point about the hypocrisy among some of these "global warming championing" scientists.
crazycoolidge 4 years ago
I work in research and development as a software engineer. My speciality is computer modeling. He's pretty much dead on about the models - they're judged, according to the IPCC report, with subjective criteria (i.e. yeah that looks right). There's no scorecard, no objective comparison. This doesn't seem like science to me. But I can't fault 'em too much - it is a non-linear coupled choatic system.
cmyersnbt 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
do not read this
If you do not copy and paste this onto 10 videos your mom will die in 4 hours... I hate these things, I really do
2oJ4M13o7 4 years ago
ad hominem. "the scientists aren't willing to change our lifestyles, so why should we". Attacking the person rather than the argument. Very little science content. The other "pro" scientists are actual experts. Why is Michael Crichton in this debate??
bryantulsa 4 years ago 2
1. That's not what he said. He said "If they're not willing to do it, why should anybody else?", which is both ad hominem and fair comment - unless you think pointing out hypocrisy is somehow out of bounds.
2. What difference does it make whether he's a scientist? Either what he's saying is true, or it's false. You're appealing to authority.
molyuk 4 years ago
"unless you think pointing out hypocrisy is somehow out of bounds"
Hypocrisy is IRRELEVANT to the merits of any argument. That's why pointing to hypocrisy is a logical fallacy.
nizkor. org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html
But that won't dissuade the dimwits of the FUD campaign from continuing to parade such fallacies.
nancidrew4 3 years ago 4
Hypocrisy is never irrelevant. You've read too many books on logic, and not enough on psychology. If a person consistently says one thing & does another, he most likely doesn't believe what he says.
FUD campaign? The only ones spreading fear are the pro-AGW types. Uncertainty & doubt are vital to the scientific method.
molyuk 3 years ago
It doesn't matter whether Al Gore believes what he says. Neither did it matter whether an actor like Ronald Reagan believed what he said. The psychology of the messenger is IRRELEVANT to whether the argument is sound.
If you're going to argue on behalf of using fallacies, then you're obviously out of your depth here.
nancidrew4 3 years ago 3
It may not matter to you whether Gore is a hypocrite, but it matters quite a bit to most people. I'm not addressing Gore's psyche, but the listener's: blatant hypocrisy is repellant to most people, regardless of the topic. If he's right about AGW then he & his mansions & his new yacht are part of the problem. Shouting "Irrelevant! Tu quoque!" doesn't change that.
AGW theory cannot yet be verified NOR disproved with 100% certainty. Deductive logic is a beautiful thing, but it's not a panacea.
molyuk 3 years ago
Well, most people are incapable of deductive reasoning. But the popularity of ignorance has no relevance to a scientific discussion -- because reasoning is an essential part of science. That's also why it's so ridiculous to see climate skeptics encouraging people to "decide for themselves" -- as if Joe six-pack could ever understand radiative forcing or even basic chemistry.
You're essentially justifying the emotional response that many people have to hypocrisy -- as if emotion were ...
nancidrew4 3 years ago
... a valid part of scientific debate. But it isn't, and no amount of complaining will change that.
I never said that deductive logic was a panacea; that's your straw man. Yes, logic is no salve for an emotional response. Neither is emotion ("I hate Al Gore and his hypocrisy") a valid response to logic. It would be similar if one of the debaters stood up and spoke about Michael Crichton's failure to help poor people with his wealth.
AGW theory is at least 95% certain, and that's sufficient.
nancidrew4 3 years ago
"Well, most people are incapable of deductive reasoning."
That is an elitist & nonsensical statement. Joe Six-Pack is not as stupid as you think. He may not be interested in basic chemistry; that doesn't mean he's incapable of understanding it.
If the debate were purely scientific, I doubt so many people would care on either side of the debate. It is precisely because your side proposes POLITICAL solutions that Joe's opinion becomes relevant. Calling him stupid is no way to get his vote.
molyuk 3 years ago
I stand by the assertion that most people are incapable of understanding chemistry. The same goes for any branch of science requiring mathematics.
You incorrectly assume that I am on a particular "side" in the political struggle. My primary interest in politics is to oppose the Exxon disinformation campaign. I don't support many of the "solutions" proposed by Democrats, but at least they're not trying to misrepresent science.
nancidrew4 3 years ago
I likewise stand by my assertion that you are spouting elitist nonsense. By all means, do continue: Joe Six-Pack will see the light if you keep implying he's a moron, I'm sure.
You don't support a particular side of the political debate? You have no agenda whatever regarding AGW? All 6 of your favorites relate to that very topic. You certainly have chosen sides. Logically speaking, if you don't support MANY Democratic solutions, you do support SOME. Welcome to politics.
molyuk 3 years ago
My preferred Presidential candidate didn't make it past the primaries this year. Maybe Jerry Cantrell will run again in 2012.
nancidrew4 3 years ago
Neither did mine.
Jerry Cantrell? From Alice in Chains? I love the band, but looking to a musician for political guidance is like asking a plumber whether you need surgery.
I'll assume that was a joke.
molyuk 3 years ago
Joe Sixpack is very stupid indeed; the average person is a drooling, slack-jawed ape.
polymath7 3 years ago
"Think about how stupid the average person is and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that!" - George Carlin
Gwynne66 3 years ago 8
oh shit whitey he got you! how about we tally the logical fallacies for each side and see who has the most!
charlieonehorse 4 years ago
You decry Crichton for attacking the person and not the argument and then attempt to impugn his credibility on the issue by questioning his personal credentials. What hypocrisy.
BTW, the other 2 debaters in favor of the motion are 1.) a professor of meteorology from M.I.T. and 2.) a professor of Biogeology from the University of London.
tabber87 4 years ago
more and more scientists are refuting the al gore theory of global warming. Piece by piece the global warming scam is being dismantled.
forkeat 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(10 seconds ago) marked as spam
Th EARTH MOTHER is wounded by our indifference. We kill animals and plants to satisfy our selfish appetites. Eat only raw plants and animals that have died a natural death. Learn to breathe properly, avoid exessive activity that causes you to exhale too much toxic CO2.
GreenRespect 4 years ago
You are a NUTJOB. My god, you are a complete idiot.
cmyersnbt 4 years ago