I find it funny people think Michael Crichton denies that humans are having a negative impact on the environment...he DOESN'T deny that! MC is only criticizing the methods in which we use to try to save the environment, which he argues isn't actually doing anything despite millions of dollars poured in. That's his criticism. If you ever bother to read State of Fear, he made it clear in the end: he acknowledges that environment is changing , and humans play a role in it.
This guy is entirely out of touch with what environmentalism is. crazy ramblings that no-one can learn ANYTHING FROM 2.00 Salvation? what the jeffrey is he on about? hey ho, we get the final laugh! Carry on with your eco-illiteracy you fucking yanks. wake up; everyone else in the world cares about our environment, even if you dont. were doing our bit, so catch up. USA, in this respect at least, is behaving like a third world country. sort it, its embarassing
Most of those people there probably have never heard a dissenting view, I certainly didn't until I looked for the facts myself. To me, Michael Crichton articulates exactly what modern environmentalism is and the more you look into it the more it looks like a religion.
It's interesting to me how the ignorance of the female questioner is revealed in her loaded, naive question about "his predjudice against environmentalism."
It is clear that he is speaking against Environmentalism, and that his views are negative. But to believe one is demonstrating prejudice or *is* prejudiced because they have or express negative views or speak against something is to not understand that "pre-judging" (prejudice) is what we do without thinking. He clearly has mused on this.
catharsis = watching crichton smack that bitch down, and keep his cool. I couldn't do that. I'd say, "are you actually claiming the moral & intellectual high ground against me?!" note also that while she impunes him for being "prejudiced" against environmentalism, seh ignores the answer to her own question...BECAUSE it has become religious. is it a practical matter or a religious practice?
This is really fascinating...i'd no idea he spoke on this topic, bravo Michael Chrichton...the metaphor of religion is interesting, I'm not sure it has to be taken absolutely literally...
@frank0067 The young lady accused him of being "prejudiced" against environmentalism. Seems as if he has not pre-judged it at all, but has studied the movement and found it wanting. She, on the other hand, seems to blindly accept that the environmentalist movement is True and Righteous Altogether. In other words, she has pre-judged it and found it to be good.
wow excellent point he made ..environmentalism IS a religion.. because they seek salvation in sustainability .. they are a liberal cult in fact.... they are promoting only certain values that which protects the new world order agenda and the BIG internations networks that assist and are aligned with this agenda... they say nothing.. but they pick and choose who and what to go after .. based on these religious ideals.
Hmmmm..... Seems to me like the tea party could also fit into the category of "religion" under his definition.....as could the libertarian movement. Think about it....
Changes in the environment can actually be empirically seen, a supernatural divine entity cannot. Come on now, even as a layman I can easily distinguish this shit. Stop skewing the denotation of the words environmentalism and religion. Come up with better assertions and stop denigrating something you are clearly dubious of.
His premise draws some loose parallels about the supposed behavior of adherents, but ignores the central premise which is religion is based on faith and facts are antithetical to the purity of that faith. Climate change is based on science and it's proponents are constantly revising their opinion based on the discovery of new facts.
No comparison, but I doubt that will affect the opinion of you flat earthers.
@foujj You obviously didn't even watch the video. Just because science revises things constantly doesn't make it right...it actually makes it wrong. For example, science currently doesn't believe that aliens exist right now because there is no proof of it. If people believe that aliens exist, it doesn't mean they are wrong.
@VJWU But that doesn't mean new facts always revise opinions and disprove the central theory at the same time. New facts change an opinion to a more likely one, but that doesn't mean the central idea is disproven by proxy. Global Warming still has clear proof that it has been happening and there is a clear correlation between our industries and CO2. Rightists just want to cover that up so we become cows heading for slaughter while they rake up our money.
And if you use 1 line as evidence you aren't giving a good argument. Igf you want to prove hes proving it; put all of what he says up as evidence and the context around it as evidence not 1 single line.
leaving out part of a line means that your cherry picking and that's a fallacy of argument; checkmate you lose.BTW if you leave out a line with ........ you clearly are hiding a contradicting part of the line.
I'm all for a clean environment but don't force this eco bullshit down my throat unless u can prove it with evidence i can read that came from a non biased source.
"Republicans and the Koch brothers hired physicist Richard Muller in yet another attempt to disprove climate change.
And then the exact opposite happened and he ended up proving that it exsists.
Michael Crichton apperently has a good cult following himself. Global climate change or not you people are absolute idiots if you think that we shouldn't be concerned with air and water quality.
@Sugardaddy501 No he did not prove it wrong as a matter of fact his findings were very similar to others. Do some research on his recent report to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee
Dr. Muller said "We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups…I believe that some of the most worrisome biases are less of a problem than I had previously thought."
The Lord has put these wicked heathens in my path to test me, I know this, but they are so incredibly misguided and evil it's getting difficult to withstand their twisted tongues. The Lord has given us the system of Capitalism, environmentalists wish to hamper corporate progress through regulation and laws that will keep them from growing and reaching their true potential because of the 'environment' it's witchery and sorcery, paganism to 'love' the Earth above Capitalism. The Lord weeps.
@MarcusErection Excuse me, but are you out of your mind? Please tell me what I'm nugget of knowledge and wisdom am I suppose to glean from your incoherent ramblings?
I am not a Michael Crichton fan but he does give enviromentalism what it deserves. It is high time for this cult called enviromentalism to be discarded.
Micheal Crichton's books have changed my life and my understanding of science. He is my favorite author and even though im still in high school, i can appreciate the books he writes and i pray he will keep up the great works. Prey is my favorite of his. If you haven't read it, go read it right NOW.
enviromentalism has been hijacked into a religion. it is used to rob people of their life liberty and property without just compensation. it is a relgion in many respects because it puts earth as god and our actions are to serve it's interests. who decides what is right or wrong wtih regards to the enviroment? preists of the earth? who can you trust to be honest about the science whether it is fact or emotion based in order to achieve a hidden agenda not related to save the earth thing?
Crichton missed a massive parallel which is that "global warming" takes the place of God as the omni-ever-present-everything, gigantic invisible entity that will destroy the World if it is not appeased through sacrifice. Also since this took place there was the "Climategate" e-mails which VERY IRONICALLY leftists responded to using the SAME EXACT argument that religious people use to defend quotes from the Bible, stating that they were taken out of context.
@regresseur ..dont worry..Crichton didnt miss it..just read between the lines...he IS answering a question about environmentalism....global warming during the time of video = environmetalism
@regresseur He actually didn't miss it, although you may be referring to him not mentioning it here. Haven't watched the vid yet. At the end of A State Of Fear he talks about how it is something that people use like religion.
@regresseur I have always thought that way about conspiracy theories in general. Instead of the omnipresent God, it is the secret organization that pulls the strings of everything. It is a way of simplifying the world for comforting purposes.
@regresseur ya good point! but he didn't need it :P environmentalism is so fundamentally religious that proving it to be a religion doesn't even need its most religious aspect, thats when you know.
I have 3 Heroes in this life aside from my father:
1) JFK
2) Ron Paul
3) Micheal Crichton
Micheal Crichton is a logic machine that crushes the ignorant with his mind. Your books changed my life and I miss your writing. When I was 10 I read Jurassic Park for the first time and it enveloped me and I have not stopped reading since.
@JohnnyMac2237 Spooky. Those are three heroes of mine, and I also read Jurassic Park when I was 10. It was my first actual novel, and I consumed every word.
@JohnnyMac2237 I agree with you mate ....not the best story teller but the amount of reaserch he does is amazing . Shame they bumped him off for blowing the whistle on weather being used as a weapon in State of Fear
@JohnnyMac2237 That reeks of contradictions. I tell you, if JFK, who was a hardcore liberal, were alive, he would have been a hardcore advocate of environmentalism. He would have been like Al Gore.
@vincentrand100 Not really, JFK was essentially a conservative Democrat which is why I've never understood why hardcore liberals love him so much. Today his views would be closer to that of the moderate (more socially liberal/tolerant) wing of the Republican Party than the modern day Democrat mainstream.
WEC 2010 and their site energy2point0 is the place we all should be debating in order to get all stakeholders around a same community energy2point0 The only way to have a constructive debate... AND the big GUYS WILL LISTEN...
WEC 2010 and their site energy2point0 is the place we all should be debating in order to get all stakeholders around a same community energy2point0 The only way to have a constructive debate... AND the big GUYS WILL LISTEN...
What most don't understand is the enviromental movement is a kin to the eugenics movement of the 1930's part of trhe excuse people use to exterminate others.
There are some that advocate population reduction as much as 94% to around 500 million that means 1 in 16 of us get to live and my guess is if you reading this you are not likely to be that one... check out the Gerogia guide stones!!!
@nextthought So right. And this is what many don't (or don't want to know) about the environmentalism-as-religion agenda that Crichton talks about. If you follow the logic of the environmentalists, then 90% of Earth's population is "excess". So what does that mean? Get rid of the "excess"! And it ain't gonna be academics, or the wealthy or the "intelligent"--because they are the "true believers" of this "religion". It's gonna be ordinary schumcks like you and me who are "going to have to go".
@frantic1971 Well hopefully people will start to reconize that there is an extreme side to this movement and see it more clearly... Given all facts I believe the average man chooses the path of common sense.
His definition of religion is far to broad. The idea that environmentalism posits that there was some sort of eden that we have ruined is flawed beyond belief. The basic premise is that we have to live within the limits of the planet. This is essentialism, simplifying a complex and varied set of beliefs form a wide range of people who are not in agreement on all things and saying they are all essentially one thing. That would be the same as saying all Christians are fundamentalists.
@rugbyguy59 I agree, his definition of religion is too broad. According to him, biology, physics, economics, etc are all religions. Such semantical discussions aren't helpful either, but I'd define religion as social groups that gravitate around a belief set that they accept without evidence (only faith).
I used to be part of an environmental group, and I'd agree not many there showed skepticism towards any new eco-threat. It felt like a religion indeed, which is why I departed.
@picapauengracado Good points and your definition has appeal. Even if it doesn't absolutely fit religion (it may) it is what we are talking about. Environmentalists can, like any group, fall for this trap and many do. Proper scepticism is something we are in short supply of these days. However I know many environmentalists and groups that are not so blind. My objection is the portrayal of environmentalism as uniform
I hope that while you have left your group you haven't left the true cause
Under that definition nationalism, humanism, sport, could also be considered as a religion. Animism and paganism are religious because they posit spirits and supernatural forces to natural forces, whereas environmentalists don't.
@jemmre You are correct. Any extreme nationalism, humanism and athletic idol worship does constitute as religion. This poses true for Darwinism. You don't have to believe in the supernatural to be religious.
@MartinLuther444 Nationalism is hideous in any form, hard or soft. It is saying that some people are better by virtue of being born within some human-made division of land.
Extremism coupled with rationalism isn't necessarily bad. Abolitionists, feminists, etc were all extremists. You should show skepticism of anything different than the status quo (moderates), but you should still think through extreme positions.
@MartinLuther444 If by Darwinism you mean someone who thinks Darwin had a perfect understanding of evolution and we need to go no further (a person who has faith in his work no matter what further evidence shows) then you are right. However I don't know of anyone who fits that description.
If you are talking bout Darwin's theory and/or the modern theory of evolution then you are wrong. Those theories are based on mountains of evidence. Non-belief would perhaps qualify as a religion.
@rugbyguy59 I understand the circumstantial evidence that shows evolution through out the ages but two points still bother me. One, Macro-Evolution (a new species with no ability to produce viable offspring w/parent species) has never been observed occuring naturally. Two, no lab in the world, despite all the equipment, has ever induced sponteanous, self replicating life despite being able to custom tailor the conditions. Without observation of these events, its still just a theory.
@pyrewyrm If we are going to classify it as circumstantial evidence then it is still an overwhelming case. The shear volume of evidence from the fossil record and now genetics is too strong. The theory will continue to develop and be modified but the chances of it being overturned is extremely remote. Not only that but the evidence precludes ID or creationist models. There is a point where even if something remains a theory it is so strong it is a de facto fact.
@rugbyguy59 An "overwheling case of circumstantial evidence does not conclude certainty... it may be enough to convict a individual of a crime, but it does not make a theory fact. As far as facts precluding creationism, the bible (the only creation story I am terribly familiar with) has nothing in it contradicted by science except age of the earth. And ofcourse the source of life. ID is also not been disproven by evidence that I have read, but I am behind by two years or so.
@pyrewyrm Check out The Evolution List. You'll find a long list of documented "macro evolution." But if that isn't strong enough then continue to wait for more evidence with the attitude I'm not sure yet. However don't fall for the faith based alternative that if we can't explain something it must be god. In the few years available we have not replicated the origin of life, but in the millenia available for believers there has been no evidence, not even circumstantial, of a god. ID is pure faith
@rugbyguy59 Not precisely true. If the Bible is honest, then there have been numerous miracles unexplainable by medicine or science. There was a time (and to some extent still is) when historians doubted the veracity of the Bible's account of events... but Now we're finding evidence showing at least some parts to be true. Besides, that's the whole point of faith... you believe... If God just stuck his head out and said hi, what effort would there be on our part?
@pyrewyrm Big if. The bible is a propaganda document. Very few would say nothing in it happened. Almost certainly it is based on a true story. Sort of like a Hollywood movie, based on a true story but altered beyond recognition. That doesn't mean there isn't some value to it. There is wisdom there but only if read in the context of what it is and when it was written.
Why do people consider faith a virtue? I think it's just a way to justify holding unproven beliefs.
@rugbyguy59 But I have a return question... If Evolution is so lock tight solid, then why are so many scientists so up in arms about someone teaching a competing theory. I fully believe science when it says the there are littler parts than electrons and protons... But if someone created another theory which fully explained all known phenomena and gave supporting evidence, I am not going to all teachers to reject their duty to teach it all. Anything else smacks of censorship.
@pyrewyrm Real scientists? Science has moved on beyond straight Darwinian evolution but there isn't any real question about evolution. When you get to a point the theory is constantly refined but the chances of a complete rewrite is next to nil. If some evidence of god's hand is found then we'll change the theory but not before. Scientists who are teaching ID are following faith not evidence.
@rugbyguy59 And yet so many believe evolutionary theory is fact without it being proven... They have faith in scholars who have written down and codified the tenants and salient that organize and give body to the theory... This sounds to me more like religion than science... Science constantly should be questioning itself... And yet when I read a new article stating errors or contrary evidence in evolution or "climate change", it is attacked and ridiculed. The so called leading scientists
@pyrewyrm attack the unbelievers (doubters) and cast them out of their society (black listing) and move against their sources of sustainment, even call them criminals. It looks more like the behavior of a few hags at the local baptist church, rather than what should be scientific squabbling. And the masses are told to believe in the theories for they will be proven true! If the various doubting scientists are wrong, simply open the data for the world to see, gather new facts, and prove it.
@pyrewyrm The data is available for all to see on evolution and climate.
I have a level of faith in science, but that faith is based on real life experiences with how the process has worked. It is also tempered with healthy scepticism because that is the basis of the process. However to compare faith in science to religious faith is disingenuous. While many may accept the words of the experts the essential proofs are available for all to see.
@rugbyguy59 What might change is the mechanism by which evolution works, although much is known about that. However the chances of evolution as a general process being overturned is about as remote as finding out the sun doesn't actually circle the sun. (something we've actually never seen happen either)
Dissenting scientists are not blacklisted. What they do have to do is produce viable science. Something climate deniers and evolution deniers have failed to do.
@rugbyguy59 When scientists openly say their research work is rejected by major science journals because "the debate is settled", that is blacklisting. When CRU scientists openly discuss calls to journals regarding other researchers contrary work, that is blacklisting. When CRU scientists openly discuss in emails withholding RAW data from others, the data in not available. When they discuss destroying documents to prevent the British equivlient of FOIA requests, the data is not available.
@pyrewyrm Peer review doesn't publish work just because someone submits it. If it doesn't pass muster then it does not get published. Skeptical articles get published every year. This puts the lie to the rejected because they're blacklisted line. They don't get published because their work fails the most basic test. Looking at how bad some of the ones that do get published (Soon and Baliunis 2003 or Lintzen and Choi 2009) it doesn't surprise that many fail on merit.
I never would want work that fall short to be published... on the other hand, the hushing of cross the board data (on the whole) of temperatures failing to continue the upward trend since between 1999 and 2002 (and actually falling) while continuing to bleat about AGW and frustratingly trying to rework the models to explain this turn...
@pyrewyrm Hushing? Now we dip into the clandestine world of conspiracy theory, eh?
No one has any problem with falling temperatures over a few years. There are a variety of things that affect climate: El Nino's, La NIna's, solar variation, etc. The air is the least dense and so the most variable. Look at the graph the yearly temps go up and down but the long term trend is just up. And only by using the most blatant cherry picking can you even pretend their is a downward trend.
@pyrewyrm The emails did discuss calling a journal but they didn't do it. Instead they wrote and presented a paper that refuted the work. The fact that the main editor and several reviewers quit the journal because of the way the one editor allowed the paper in question be published without proper review tells where the real fault was.
They do talk of withholding data. If you'd had to deal for years with people who dishonestly used your data for political reasons you might too. (cont.)
They discussed calling but didn't? Says who? Those who quit, acording to a quick search, were all avid believers-erm, avidly convinced of AGW... so now its he said-she said, you're baised.. not you are....
Sounds more like a 5th grade play ground than grown adults.
@pyrewyrm Avid believers? According to whom? The editor who allowed the paper has also done the same with creationist papers because he was a true believer.
It wasn't the perspective that was the issue. The journal had published contrarian papers before. What caused the resignations was the complete lack of standards the editor and publisher were showing by publishing papers that had no scientific merit whatsoever.
@pyrewyrm In the end they gave the data. Except the data they did not own and were contractually not allowed to provide. Of course that data was available from the original source; something many uniformed people are not aware of.
If you read the emails you will see that there were extensive conversations and acts of cooperation between genuinely scientific skeptics, such as Michaels, and the CRU. Their vitriol is reserved for a couple of idiots whose work has never passed muster.
Ah... no they didn't... they handed over the "refined" (to use a polite word) data... not raw. If someone handed you refinced data, how do you know the executed proper method in culling statistical flyers, or removed whole data sets, which they admitted to removing certain data sets due to irregularities.. and that is perfectly fine if research and examination show the data is bad... but who checks their work?
@pyrewyrm They handed over the data they were asked for, minus what they couldn't.
Scientists are supposed to check the work of others by collecting the data themselves. If you do your work based upon another persons data then you simply confirm the errors they may have made. That is how proper scientists work.
@pyrewyrm Otherwise, it seems as if more a religion and less a theory. Believe or else? This isn't science. Finally, you may call the Bible a propaganda piece if you like but it is no more disproven than the primordial soup has been proven to give forth life... But neither position has stopped people from believing. Evolution is constantly being refined? Okay. But the starting point remains unproven. And if it is not proven, then nothing about evolution that excludes God or any ID theory.
@pyrewyrm Why do people consider faith a virtue? Why do others consider theory fact? Why do they insist we all believe in it? Faith is all around you. when you write to me now, you have faith that the scientists have done their work with due attention to accuracy and detail. And yet, I read stories of coverups, destroyed/witheld data, conspircay to obstruct the law... And I feel science hasn't been honest. It makes me doubt the "consensus". Suddenly the skeptics don't seem so irrational...
@pyrewyrm So as long as Creationists and ID scientists are open and present data for review, I welcome their attempts to forge a different theory. I also welcome evolutionists to present their data openly to prove their theory and refute others... But closed doors, whispered emails, blacklistings and midnight phone calls to journals only make me think the environmentalists and the evolutionists are not so sure of their work and seek to suppress dissent.
@pyrewyrm They are irrational when you look beyond the surface of the emails. It is even more irrational when you look how small a piece of the puzzle the CRU is, not to mention that their work is independently confirmed by a variety of other methods.
Theory becomes as close to fact as a complex thing can get when it is supported by mountains of data that track independent lines of enquiry. Evolution does that. So does AGW although evolution is the stronger of the two. It is not faith.
You mean the mountain of data that gave us the "hockey stick"? The mountain of data that stated we were going to freeze and then said burn? the mountain of data that has had to change its name again to "climate change" because the earth stopped cooling years ago? the mountain of data that frequently takes data from cities (despite considering the "heat island" effect) and from amateur stations that were posited in places like parking lots and next to barrels used to burn trash?
@pyrewyrm Yeah, the hockey stick verified by the NAS and duplicated by 12 other independent studies. The name hasn't changed, climate change and global warming are used. Climate change is better but it's caused by warming. They do consider heat islands. Where is most of the warming occurring? Far North, not many cities.
And go reread your source about the stations. They weren't amateur. Then read Menne 2010. He used Watt's data and showed the stations had no effect.
sure... surface stations dot org. They're up to 80% of US stations examined.. MORE THAN HALF have a estimated accuracy of +/- 2deg C... or four times the estimated average warming over the 20th century. Another problem is so few stations have been in the same place over the past century. Down at the bottom shows how poor information sources can influence climate data. In statistics, when the error>difference btween compared data sets, there no statistical difference determinable.
@pyrewyrm And Menne (2010) thanked them for their work. He then took their data and ratings of site quality and looked at the data from the stations. The analysis showed the poorly sited stations actually gave temps a little cooler than the well sited stations. Not significant enough to say they hide the warming, but they don't present unrealistic warming.
Yes individual stations have the error bars you state, but when you average out thousands of them things cancel out.
@pyrewyrm And yes poor data sources can influence data, that's why you should find a more scientific source than surface stations or Watt's up with that. They don't care what their data shows (Menne, 2010) just what they think they can use it for.
Now that is a lie, whether you know it or not... Michael Mann refused to release the source calculations and stated on the record The Wall Street Journal that "giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people employ."
@pyrewyrm You can have all the complaints about Mann, his methods and personality, you like. There are a dozen other studies in paleoclimate done using similar and completely different techniques. They all get hockey sticks. Yes the shaft is a bit more crooked, so was Mann's second version, but they are all essentially hockey sticks. And as I said the NAS examined his work, basically said he was not the nicest man but still said his work was solid.
@rugbyguy59 I mean really? This is the hockey stick that ignores the little ice age 400 years ago and depicts most of the last 1000 years as a flat line? Please....
@pyrewyrm The first one didn't find that. Why does that mean ignore? The data at the time didn't support a global LIA. More recent versions have a LIA affect. Welcome to science.
@rugbyguy59 the mountain of data that only actually showed warming in the nw hemisphere, while SA showed record cold? The mountain of data that "tells" us organisms can mutate into more complex entities but has yet to explain why observed higher order mutations are overwhelmingly harmful & those that are not often give no benefit or are recessive & dissappear from the pool? (quick scan of evo list "examples" revealed most were sterile, many were engineered & others were only fertile w/parent)
@rugbyguy59 The point is statistically significant. If a vast majority of the time you fail at the basic level multi-cell organisms then the probability of higher order mutations yielding beneficial results goes up by orders of magnitude. Even side stepping (no benefit%2C no harm) mostly results in sterilism. You run into more problems when you deal with species which have homocidial prejudice against genetic drifters.
@pyrewyrm No wonder you've trouble with science. you don't understand the difference between a study or two and a "mountain of evidence." AGW and evolution are supported by thousands of studies along multiple lines of evidence. What is your fibre citation. I doubt it's true. Acid Rain was documented by NAPAP (1991) as having made some lakes uninhabitable, causing chemical changes in soil, and damaging buildings. If you wish to pretend to be skeptical at least pretend to doubt the doubters.
Uhh... got NAPAP '91 study, here in front of me (alumni electronic library access pwns btw), concluded that acid rain "was not damaging forests, did not hurt crops, and caused no measurable health problems".
@rugbyguy59 For scientists to claim systems as complex as life and the climate have been conquered enough to state that they are pretty much fact (which both still remain theories) but don't look close because our models still aren't quite right and can't explain why the earth is cooling and life doesn't sponteanously appear in our vats. Sorry. I have patience. If evolution is right, humanity waiting 500 years to prove it changes nothing and forcing down our throats makes us suspicious.
@pyrewyrm Conquered? Straw man alert. Certain processes are understood. Evidence of AGW is direct and relatively simple physics. Understanding the earths energy budget isn't and not everything is understood. If the earth was cooling you might have something. There are natural processes that are involved that make the warming uneven, but there is no evidence whatsoever of cooling.
The only problem with the models is ice and sea level is rising faster than predicted. That's not good.
simple physics says watert vapor is twice the "greenhouse gas" (great misnomer used by various alarmists and some scientists but not quite accurate) that CO2.... where's the push to regulate water vapor?
Sea levels rising faster than predicted is not good? says who? what defines good or bad sea levels? If science were really so serious about this, why is there such an opposition to nuclear power?
@pyrewyrm Actually the term greenhouse gas is a misnomer but it predates any significant discussion of global warming by many decades. If you regulate CO2 you regulate water vapour. Learn the difference between a forcing and a feedback. H2O is a feedback. It is transitory and unevenly mixed in the atmosphere. CO2 is long term and doesn't fluctuate greatly over very short periods of time. More CO2 equals warmer planet, equals more evaporation, equals more H2O vapour. Less CO2 = less H2O vapour.
@pyrewyrm The tens of millions of people who live at or near sea level might think sea level rise isn't good. Not to mention the huge areas that produce food that are at sea level or the billions of dollars in infrastructure. Practicality defines optimal sea levels.
The opposition to nuclear is based on old issues. It has reduced significantly. However the better option long run is to begin to shift to wind, geothermal, and sun.
@rugbyguy59 Likewise, if human-effect climate change is true, how come not one prediction has come to pass? First cold.. then hot. Why do they feel the need to exaggerate their predictive capacity constantly? Each year, I read that the models are perfected & yet the recent BBC experiment proves just how complex it all is & just how little we do know. I have yet read where a .5deg C rise is actually a factually bad thing, if the MA warming period is any indication of the earth's performance.
@pyrewyrm Who says the models are perfected? Give me one name of one scientist.
Cold and Hot? What are you talking about?
What caused the MA warm period? If it exists why would it matter. If it did exist it actually indicates we have a bigger problem than currently thought because it means high level of sensitivity.
.5 rise not that big an issue. 3-4 degree rise thats a different matter.
if .5 isn't a big issue, then why is there so much hooplah? Because the most recent adjusted averages for the 20th century IS, in fact, .5 C.....
Second, the MA warming period is what gave European farmers the best weather in atleast 1000years to grow more crops. Some history buffs credit MA with giving Europe a leg up to grow & make advances in many fronts, including science. All because alittle warmer weather, milder winters, & more wet made more food so others could tinker.
@pyrewyrm Your points are moot as we are already above MWP temps and are still rising. Yes warming can cause benefit but it can also cause problems. The rising temp is already related to droughts and more erratic weather. Yes the MWP was good for Europe but the hoopla is because we are passed that point and rising. Not only that but the rate of increase has accelerated in the past 40 years.
The other key factor is rate of change. The MWP was very slow to come by comparison.
If you were going to testify today honestly to (fill in governing body) that it was neccessary to gut the economy for the next 50 years because your data says the temperature is rising, just how sloppy or perfected a model would you feel comfortable with, especially if you know the model hasn't been able to predict the last decade's average temps? That is the implicit statement you make when you tell someone to do something drastic. "My data is good enough to justify saying this."
@pyrewyrm My testimony would not be we don't have to gut the economy. But rather we have to change energy sources very quickly. That would likely require a temporary alteration similar to rationing during WWII as we focus our energies on a great task over the short term. That wasn't great on the home front but it wasn't really that bad.
But why do the deniers even come up with this red herring of a "gut the economy" argument? It is foolish.
@pyrewyrm The expectation of exact predictions is also a straw man. The models make projections because there are a variety if things that we can't predict (e.g. volcanoes) that affect year to year data. Events have followed the projections made by models just fine.
And the last decade should have worried you. We were in deep solar minimum and yet the temperature trend remained unchanged. It should have cooled but it warmed.
@rugbyguy59 I vote science cools its heels (since the temp record makes it evident we're not burning up this decade or any in the near future decade) & simply goes along plugging the numbers, collecting data, sharing it with everyone, including those who are skeptical (after, once upon a time consensus said Darwin was wrong), & see where we turn out in 50 years... Who knows? maybe someone will stir up alittle vat of life? Or the earth might slip into another ice age & make it all moot.
@pyrewyrm Of course the anti-Darwin consensus was based on blind faith in the bible.
Hang on to the vat of life bit all you like. The most it you get is a god to spark life. But he's unneeded afterwards. No need for god at any level. According to Hawking and Moldinow not even for the big bang.
No scientist will wait for you to catch up before they use evolution to advance knowledge. Maybe you should wonder why so many experts in the field don't have your questions. Hint- your q's aren't valid
where did the matter/energy come from for the big bang? That vat of life? "The beginning fortells the end."
I don't care to have science wait for me. But I don't care to have science tell me what I will/will not believe simply because of a theory. I won't have them telling my neighbors or their kids that mommy and daddy are liars and there is no God... as if they have proven this as fact. Until science disproves God, it has no right to belittle those of faith.
I don't tell people god doesn't exist. I tell them I don't believe he does and I am happy to explain why.
We shouldn't belittle belief. But anyone that holds that strong, unswerving faith in something is good, especially when the only reason for the faith is a lack of alternate explanations, is naive at best. I can admit I might be wrong. Can you or those of faith accept they might be wrong too?
Should parents be able to force belief on their children?
@rugbyguy59 The fact is, the two tenants that one must accept with the theory are also the two tenants which have never been demostrated as factual possibility without intelligent intervention (species genetic drift/isolation/selection/etc) or even with it (sponteanous creation of life from chemical soups). All the circumstantial evidence in the world still doesn't explain the start. Without a proof of the factuality beginning, how can I accept the rest? Faith?
I think I am done for now. I will continue to read some of the material you put forward. But I will not continue to post replies here. I hope you & others keep an open mind that theory has been overturned time & again; I urge you all to keep a critical eye instead of simply nodding along to any person or group who claims that their theory is all but proven & not to question it anymore. The beauty of science is that if you are right, you will be vetted in time. Not before.
@pyrewyrm A critical eye means you honestly look at all the data and not nit pick about minor details. It is easier to understand the big picture and over time the details get worked out. And give us a few million years and we'll produce life from scratch. It took nature or god that long to accomplish it. I don't expect or ask for miracles just good science.
Did you see the look on her face? It was almost like she started thinking about it for the very first time. No disrespect to her, it's very hard to remove all that brainwashing. Michael made it look too easy.
"Did you see the look on her face? It was almost like she started thinking about it for the very first time"
Michael Crichton never caused anybody to think. He also believed in spoon bending and clairvoyance. His critique's of science are bizarre and illogical. What's that look on YOUR face?
Readers may understandably take away some misconceptions from his book. To clear up these misconceptions, we (UCSusa) have selected some representative cases to discuss; the list below, however, is not intended to be an exhaustive list of the errors in Crichton's book.
I`m reading Crichtons book "Next" right now. Holy s**t is that thing freaky as hell. It`s about transgenetics, animals fused with human DNA. Monkeys and birds with human brains. One scene he has this group walking through a jungle and they come upon a group of Orangutans and one is barking at them sort of weird and they realize he is saying words to them in Dutch, telling them to f**k off, calling them assholes. A human in a monkey body .Freaky stuff.
Environmentalism is a religion and Al Gore is the messiah. The percentage of CO2 in the earths atmosphere is only 0.038% which you can literally call zero point zero, but everyone believes we have too much CO2. Zero is too much. Yeah, that makes sense.
@JamesTKirkCobain "The percentage of CO2 in the earths atmosphere is only 0.038% which you can literally call zero point zero, but everyone believes we have too much CO2. Zero is too much. Yeah, that makes sense.
JamesTKirkCobain 1 month ago "
----CARBON MONOXIDE KILLS YOU AT ZERO POINT ZERO ZERO ZERO ONE PERCENT
@dinokralt4 not strange , but very imformative .shows the true united states of hypocracy , obama and a democrat colled congress were in so environmentalists blame bp and commend obama for making them "clean up they're own mess but why does british petroleum care about our shores ? they dont if bush was in he'd be hung and it would be all about bush and his big business big oil cronies.just once i'd like to see the media/population hold a democrat to the same candle thet hold republicans too
Gullible Green Gaia cult it is not religion but a destructive anti human cult. A bunch of gullible people that believe anything that is on TV fell for the whole Globull warming scam.
What a pathetically dishonest person. He was never anything but someone who wrote some trash novels, but he really disgraced himself with this.
He cynically ignores that the difference between religion and science is BASIS IN EVIDENCE, the same as clowns who say people have "faith" in evolution or atheism, things where faith is obviously not an issue. He simply equates "belief" in delusionary ideologies with "belief" in reality and science.
Crichton isn't ignoring scientific evidence for problems in the environment. He, and many other people, have a problem with hyped-up propaganda that many environmentalist groups utilize to get people to change their ways. What they're doing is not unlike the oil companies that tell you pollution is a myth. That's what he's calling religion.
What's vile and contemptible is your lack of understanding in what science can and cannot prove.
@pchwang /Your/ lack of understanding that science is a practice of radical doubt - rather than one of absolute certainty - blinds you to the reality that science will never be able to answer all of our questions about what climate change may or may not bring in the future. We can only act on discernible trends.
Also, note the qualitative difference between 'hyped-up' environmental organizations and oil companies. Oil companies want profit. ENGO's, instead, pursue policy change.
I never said science is absolutely certain. Rather, I'm saying that there is not enough evidence to go crazy over the hype. There have been heat waves in the past. There is no way to test what is the true cause of climate change recently.
Your view on environmental groups pursuing policy change over profit is incredibly naive. The people who control and have invested interest in these groups have an incredible amount to gain should their legislation succeed.
In addition, even beyond all of this, you misunderstand Crichton.
I sincerely doubt that Michael Crichton is against research for alternative energy and lessening our dependence on oil. What Crichton is saying, and what I advocate as well - is that there is no need to live in fear of an "climate-caplyse" that a lot of the media seems to be pointing at.
Should we go greener? But hype from propaganda from ENGO's OR Big Oil is bad - only Oil isn't trying to scare people to death.
@pchwang Big oil, in my opinion, is very bad. Research Rockefeller and Standard Oil. Don't get me wrong, I'm not really for or against the resource of oil, I'm talking about the companys.
The girl in this video is such an unfortunate soul whose empty head has been filled by idiot celebrities and idiot teachers who have her believing in something that does not exist. I'll bet she just got over believing in the Easter Bunny. They got her at the right time. From the Easter Bunny to global warming.
Because Maurice Strong created this religion of climate change so that there would be a common crisis that man could rally around in order to be CONTROLLED for the totalitarian world gov't. The elitists want the planet for themselves and this is how they will get rid of us 'useless eaters'. CRIMINAL!
Actually Environmentalism is nothing new to the mankind. Just take a look those bunch of old eastern religions: Hinduism, Buddhism or Paganism. They preached the exact same rubbish as modern environmentalists: that human starving is better than killing animals, that plants have "lives" of their own, that machines and technologies are evil and that people should be forced to live by subsistence farming and local-produced goods.
Its good to have an anti-environmentalist that is pro-environment. There are plenty of ideologies in which the advocates give it a bad name. For example, I support animal rights but I despise PETA.
I find it funny people think Michael Crichton denies that humans are having a negative impact on the environment...he DOESN'T deny that! MC is only criticizing the methods in which we use to try to save the environment, which he argues isn't actually doing anything despite millions of dollars poured in. That's his criticism. If you ever bother to read State of Fear, he made it clear in the end: he acknowledges that environment is changing , and humans play a role in it.
Casshyr 5 days ago
Substitute the word, "Darwinism" from "Environmentalism" and the story is the same.
Entropy56 6 days ago
This guy is entirely out of touch with what environmentalism is. crazy ramblings that no-one can learn ANYTHING FROM 2.00 Salvation? what the jeffrey is he on about? hey ho, we get the final laugh! Carry on with your eco-illiteracy you fucking yanks. wake up; everyone else in the world cares about our environment, even if you dont. were doing our bit, so catch up. USA, in this respect at least, is behaving like a third world country. sort it, its embarassing
dannylikespoo1000 2 months ago
fucking. genius. wow. the last part was just, amazing
atimor 2 months ago
Most of those people there probably have never heard a dissenting view, I certainly didn't until I looked for the facts myself. To me, Michael Crichton articulates exactly what modern environmentalism is and the more you look into it the more it looks like a religion.
JackyB92 2 months ago
It's interesting to me how the ignorance of the female questioner is revealed in her loaded, naive question about "his predjudice against environmentalism."
It is clear that he is speaking against Environmentalism, and that his views are negative. But to believe one is demonstrating prejudice or *is* prejudiced because they have or express negative views or speak against something is to not understand that "pre-judging" (prejudice) is what we do without thinking. He clearly has mused on this.
drdarrow 2 months ago
catharsis = watching crichton smack that bitch down, and keep his cool. I couldn't do that. I'd say, "are you actually claiming the moral & intellectual high ground against me?!" note also that while she impunes him for being "prejudiced" against environmentalism, seh ignores the answer to her own question...BECAUSE it has become religious. is it a practical matter or a religious practice?
Sage80 3 months ago in playlist Sage80's favorites
This has been flagged as spam show
This is really fascinating...i'd no idea he spoke on this topic, bravo Michael Chrichton...the metaphor of religion is interesting, I'm not sure it has to be taken absolutely literally...
StephanieLisaTara 4 months ago
you can see the disdain in that girls demeanor.. shes probable a product of the failed and agenda set school system today.
frank0067 4 months ago 2
@frank0067 The young lady accused him of being "prejudiced" against environmentalism. Seems as if he has not pre-judged it at all, but has studied the movement and found it wanting. She, on the other hand, seems to blindly accept that the environmentalist movement is True and Righteous Altogether. In other words, she has pre-judged it and found it to be good.
3inrifle 3 months ago 4
@3inrifle ya, she almost got Crichton to denounce his belief.
Sage80 3 months ago in playlist Sage80's favorites
Anything is a religion if you buy this crap definition.
Glasya666 4 months ago
wow excellent point he made ..environmentalism IS a religion.. because they seek salvation in sustainability .. they are a liberal cult in fact.... they are promoting only certain values that which protects the new world order agenda and the BIG internations networks that assist and are aligned with this agenda... they say nothing.. but they pick and choose who and what to go after .. based on these religious ideals.
frank0067 4 months ago
Hmmmm..... Seems to me like the tea party could also fit into the category of "religion" under his definition.....as could the libertarian movement. Think about it....
mollindz 6 months ago
Exposing a covert religion that we are all being herded toward.......is that why he was given the fast acting cancer virus?
jleetxgirl 6 months ago
Environmentalism is a mystical faith based ideology. No doubt about that. Global warming and recycling are some of the religious beliefs / practices.
MrApplewine 7 months ago
Changes in the environment can actually be empirically seen, a supernatural divine entity cannot. Come on now, even as a layman I can easily distinguish this shit. Stop skewing the denotation of the words environmentalism and religion. Come up with better assertions and stop denigrating something you are clearly dubious of.
EnthalpyH 7 months ago
poppy cock.
His premise draws some loose parallels about the supposed behavior of adherents, but ignores the central premise which is religion is based on faith and facts are antithetical to the purity of that faith. Climate change is based on science and it's proponents are constantly revising their opinion based on the discovery of new facts.
No comparison, but I doubt that will affect the opinion of you flat earthers.
foujj 8 months ago 2
@foujj You obviously didn't even watch the video. Just because science revises things constantly doesn't make it right...it actually makes it wrong. For example, science currently doesn't believe that aliens exist right now because there is no proof of it. If people believe that aliens exist, it doesn't mean they are wrong.
VJWU 6 months ago
@VJWU But that doesn't mean new facts always revise opinions and disprove the central theory at the same time. New facts change an opinion to a more likely one, but that doesn't mean the central idea is disproven by proxy. Global Warming still has clear proof that it has been happening and there is a clear correlation between our industries and CO2. Rightists just want to cover that up so we become cows heading for slaughter while they rake up our money.
vgman94 5 months ago
You might also like the works of J. Richard Singleton:
amazon.com/s/qid=1305049921/ref=sr_nr_seeall_3?ie=UTF8&keywords=j.%20richard%20singleton&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Aj.%20richard%20singleton%2Ci%3Adigital-text
Thumbs up if I'm real cool!
JRS1982 8 months ago
And if you use 1 line as evidence you aren't giving a good argument. Igf you want to prove hes proving it; put all of what he says up as evidence and the context around it as evidence not 1 single line.
Sugardaddy501 9 months ago
leaving out part of a line means that your cherry picking and that's a fallacy of argument; checkmate you lose.BTW if you leave out a line with ........ you clearly are hiding a contradicting part of the line.
Sugardaddy501 9 months ago
I'm all for a clean environment but don't force this eco bullshit down my throat unless u can prove it with evidence i can read that came from a non biased source.
Sugardaddy501 9 months ago
"Republicans and the Koch brothers hired physicist Richard Muller in yet another attempt to disprove climate change.
And then the exact opposite happened and he ended up proving that it exsists.
Michael Crichton apperently has a good cult following himself. Global climate change or not you people are absolute idiots if you think that we shouldn't be concerned with air and water quality.
BobbyORiley 9 months ago
@BobbyORiley HE proves it wrong actually; don't put words he didn't say in his mouth. Ignorance isn't evidence.
Sugardaddy501 9 months ago
@Sugardaddy501 No he did not prove it wrong as a matter of fact his findings were very similar to others. Do some research on his recent report to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee
Dr. Muller said "We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups…I believe that some of the most worrisome biases are less of a problem than I had previously thought."
BobbyORiley 9 months ago
@BobbyORiley Notice how you love out some of whats said kid; if your gonna warp lines warp all the line and say everything and no using ......
Sugardaddy501 9 months ago
Environmentalism meets all the qualifications of a cult.
TravellinMan94 10 months ago 4
The Lord has put these wicked heathens in my path to test me, I know this, but they are so incredibly misguided and evil it's getting difficult to withstand their twisted tongues. The Lord has given us the system of Capitalism, environmentalists wish to hamper corporate progress through regulation and laws that will keep them from growing and reaching their true potential because of the 'environment' it's witchery and sorcery, paganism to 'love' the Earth above Capitalism. The Lord weeps.
MarcusErection 10 months ago
@MarcusErection Excuse me, but are you out of your mind? Please tell me what I'm nugget of knowledge and wisdom am I suppose to glean from your incoherent ramblings?
technatezin 2 months ago
????? the most powerful religion in the west is WAR. But environmentalism is a religion as well.......... ^^;
AStamer 10 months ago
I am not a Michael Crichton fan but he does give enviromentalism what it deserves. It is high time for this cult called enviromentalism to be discarded.
1StoryImageFigure1 11 months ago 3
Micheal Crichton's books have changed my life and my understanding of science. He is my favorite author and even though im still in high school, i can appreciate the books he writes and i pray he will keep up the great works. Prey is my favorite of his. If you haven't read it, go read it right NOW.
0LYRAWILL0 11 months ago
I've never read any of his books till 3 days ago. The story is changing my life already
SovietUnity 11 months ago
enviromentalism has been hijacked into a religion. it is used to rob people of their life liberty and property without just compensation. it is a relgion in many respects because it puts earth as god and our actions are to serve it's interests. who decides what is right or wrong wtih regards to the enviroment? preists of the earth? who can you trust to be honest about the science whether it is fact or emotion based in order to achieve a hidden agenda not related to save the earth thing?
TheRosa63 11 months ago
and listen to that swallow at 0:15 hahahaha
lucaroggg 1 year ago
the things i would do to be one of those kids listening to my favorite author talk about his beliefs. i would have endless questions for him
lucaroggg 1 year ago
If Environmentalism is a "religion" (which it isn't), it's certainly much more productive than Christianity or Islam.
Raford146 1 year ago
@Raford146 Do you read Camus? Because that statement was certainly absurd.
Jaykanu 10 months ago
Crichton missed a massive parallel which is that "global warming" takes the place of God as the omni-ever-present-everything, gigantic invisible entity that will destroy the World if it is not appeased through sacrifice. Also since this took place there was the "Climategate" e-mails which VERY IRONICALLY leftists responded to using the SAME EXACT argument that religious people use to defend quotes from the Bible, stating that they were taken out of context.
regresseur 1 year ago 23
@regresseur ..dont worry..Crichton didnt miss it..just read between the lines...he IS answering a question about environmentalism....global warming during the time of video = environmetalism
zeroceiling 11 months ago
@regresseur He actually didn't miss it, although you may be referring to him not mentioning it here. Haven't watched the vid yet. At the end of A State Of Fear he talks about how it is something that people use like religion.
Gannon161 10 months ago
@regresseur I have always thought that way about conspiracy theories in general. Instead of the omnipresent God, it is the secret organization that pulls the strings of everything. It is a way of simplifying the world for comforting purposes.
But I don't think Crichton missed the parallel.
BadHabit202 8 months ago
@regresseur Global warming can be measured; God cannot.
JRS1982 8 months ago
@regresseur ya good point! but he didn't need it :P environmentalism is so fundamentally religious that proving it to be a religion doesn't even need its most religious aspect, thats when you know.
atimor 2 months ago
I have 3 Heroes in this life aside from my father:
1) JFK
2) Ron Paul
3) Micheal Crichton
Micheal Crichton is a logic machine that crushes the ignorant with his mind. Your books changed my life and I miss your writing. When I was 10 I read Jurassic Park for the first time and it enveloped me and I have not stopped reading since.
JohnnyMac2237 1 year ago 27
@JohnnyMac2237 Spooky. Those are three heroes of mine, and I also read Jurassic Park when I was 10. It was my first actual novel, and I consumed every word.
dghansen85 1 year ago
@JohnnyMac2237 you have wonderful taste :)
snaed27 1 year ago
@JohnnyMac2237 I find his logic is a con based on phony assumptions.
foujj 8 months ago
@JohnnyMac2237 I agree with you mate ....not the best story teller but the amount of reaserch he does is amazing . Shame they bumped him off for blowing the whistle on weather being used as a weapon in State of Fear
snaed27 8 months ago
@JohnnyMac2237 That reeks of contradictions. I tell you, if JFK, who was a hardcore liberal, were alive, he would have been a hardcore advocate of environmentalism. He would have been like Al Gore.
vincentrand100 4 months ago
@vincentrand100 Not really, JFK was essentially a conservative Democrat which is why I've never understood why hardcore liberals love him so much. Today his views would be closer to that of the moderate (more socially liberal/tolerant) wing of the Republican Party than the modern day Democrat mainstream.
JackyB92 4 months ago
@JohnnyMac2237 Paul worshippers are not scarce on the internet.
Sage80 4 months ago
WEC 2010 and their site energy2point0 is the place we all should be debating in order to get all stakeholders around a same community energy2point0 The only way to have a constructive debate... AND the big GUYS WILL LISTEN...
PaulYves64 1 year ago
WEC 2010 and their site energy2point0 is the place we all should be debating in order to get all stakeholders around a same community energy2point0 The only way to have a constructive debate... AND the big GUYS WILL LISTEN...
PaulYves64 1 year ago
@DirtCrashr God is good
Crichton rules
andre34343 1 year ago
he sounds like his "next" novel carachter, bellarmino :P
andre34343 1 year ago
The average environmentalist's proposals to save "Mother Nature" would most certainly make even Josef Mengele shiver, if he could hear them.
That says enough about the sanity of those individuals.
countrabbit 1 year ago
Great man Crichton,
What most don't understand is the enviromental movement is a kin to the eugenics movement of the 1930's part of trhe excuse people use to exterminate others.
There are some that advocate population reduction as much as 94% to around 500 million that means 1 in 16 of us get to live and my guess is if you reading this you are not likely to be that one... check out the Gerogia guide stones!!!
nextthought 1 year ago
@nextthought So right. And this is what many don't (or don't want to know) about the environmentalism-as-religion agenda that Crichton talks about. If you follow the logic of the environmentalists, then 90% of Earth's population is "excess". So what does that mean? Get rid of the "excess"! And it ain't gonna be academics, or the wealthy or the "intelligent"--because they are the "true believers" of this "religion". It's gonna be ordinary schumcks like you and me who are "going to have to go".
frantic1971 1 year ago 3
@frantic1971 Well hopefully people will start to reconize that there is an extreme side to this movement and see it more clearly... Given all facts I believe the average man chooses the path of common sense.
Cheers
nextthought 1 year ago
@MartinLuther444 nope! I just think he's an intelligent man. nothing wrong with that :)
devianaut 1 year ago
His definition of religion is far to broad. The idea that environmentalism posits that there was some sort of eden that we have ruined is flawed beyond belief. The basic premise is that we have to live within the limits of the planet. This is essentialism, simplifying a complex and varied set of beliefs form a wide range of people who are not in agreement on all things and saying they are all essentially one thing. That would be the same as saying all Christians are fundamentalists.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago 2
@rugbyguy59 I agree, his definition of religion is too broad. According to him, biology, physics, economics, etc are all religions. Such semantical discussions aren't helpful either, but I'd define religion as social groups that gravitate around a belief set that they accept without evidence (only faith).
I used to be part of an environmental group, and I'd agree not many there showed skepticism towards any new eco-threat. It felt like a religion indeed, which is why I departed.
picapauengracado 1 year ago
@picapauengracado Good points and your definition has appeal. Even if it doesn't absolutely fit religion (it may) it is what we are talking about. Environmentalists can, like any group, fall for this trap and many do. Proper scepticism is something we are in short supply of these days. However I know many environmentalists and groups that are not so blind. My objection is the portrayal of environmentalism as uniform
I hope that while you have left your group you haven't left the true cause
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
Under that definition nationalism, humanism, sport, could also be considered as a religion. Animism and paganism are religious because they posit spirits and supernatural forces to natural forces, whereas environmentalists don't.
jemmre 1 year ago
@jemmre You are correct. Any extreme nationalism, humanism and athletic idol worship does constitute as religion. This poses true for Darwinism. You don't have to believe in the supernatural to be religious.
MartinLuther444 1 year ago
@MartinLuther444 Nationalism is hideous in any form, hard or soft. It is saying that some people are better by virtue of being born within some human-made division of land.
Extremism coupled with rationalism isn't necessarily bad. Abolitionists, feminists, etc were all extremists. You should show skepticism of anything different than the status quo (moderates), but you should still think through extreme positions.
picapauengracado 1 year ago
@MartinLuther444 If by Darwinism you mean someone who thinks Darwin had a perfect understanding of evolution and we need to go no further (a person who has faith in his work no matter what further evidence shows) then you are right. However I don't know of anyone who fits that description.
If you are talking bout Darwin's theory and/or the modern theory of evolution then you are wrong. Those theories are based on mountains of evidence. Non-belief would perhaps qualify as a religion.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 I understand the circumstantial evidence that shows evolution through out the ages but two points still bother me. One, Macro-Evolution (a new species with no ability to produce viable offspring w/parent species) has never been observed occuring naturally. Two, no lab in the world, despite all the equipment, has ever induced sponteanous, self replicating life despite being able to custom tailor the conditions. Without observation of these events, its still just a theory.
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm If we are going to classify it as circumstantial evidence then it is still an overwhelming case. The shear volume of evidence from the fossil record and now genetics is too strong. The theory will continue to develop and be modified but the chances of it being overturned is extremely remote. Not only that but the evidence precludes ID or creationist models. There is a point where even if something remains a theory it is so strong it is a de facto fact.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 An "overwheling case of circumstantial evidence does not conclude certainty... it may be enough to convict a individual of a crime, but it does not make a theory fact. As far as facts precluding creationism, the bible (the only creation story I am terribly familiar with) has nothing in it contradicted by science except age of the earth. And ofcourse the source of life. ID is also not been disproven by evidence that I have read, but I am behind by two years or so.
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm Check out The Evolution List. You'll find a long list of documented "macro evolution." But if that isn't strong enough then continue to wait for more evidence with the attitude I'm not sure yet. However don't fall for the faith based alternative that if we can't explain something it must be god. In the few years available we have not replicated the origin of life, but in the millenia available for believers there has been no evidence, not even circumstantial, of a god. ID is pure faith
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 Not precisely true. If the Bible is honest, then there have been numerous miracles unexplainable by medicine or science. There was a time (and to some extent still is) when historians doubted the veracity of the Bible's account of events... but Now we're finding evidence showing at least some parts to be true. Besides, that's the whole point of faith... you believe... If God just stuck his head out and said hi, what effort would there be on our part?
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm Big if. The bible is a propaganda document. Very few would say nothing in it happened. Almost certainly it is based on a true story. Sort of like a Hollywood movie, based on a true story but altered beyond recognition. That doesn't mean there isn't some value to it. There is wisdom there but only if read in the context of what it is and when it was written.
Why do people consider faith a virtue? I think it's just a way to justify holding unproven beliefs.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 But I have a return question... If Evolution is so lock tight solid, then why are so many scientists so up in arms about someone teaching a competing theory. I fully believe science when it says the there are littler parts than electrons and protons... But if someone created another theory which fully explained all known phenomena and gave supporting evidence, I am not going to all teachers to reject their duty to teach it all. Anything else smacks of censorship.
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm Real scientists? Science has moved on beyond straight Darwinian evolution but there isn't any real question about evolution. When you get to a point the theory is constantly refined but the chances of a complete rewrite is next to nil. If some evidence of god's hand is found then we'll change the theory but not before. Scientists who are teaching ID are following faith not evidence.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 And yet so many believe evolutionary theory is fact without it being proven... They have faith in scholars who have written down and codified the tenants and salient that organize and give body to the theory... This sounds to me more like religion than science... Science constantly should be questioning itself... And yet when I read a new article stating errors or contrary evidence in evolution or "climate change", it is attacked and ridiculed. The so called leading scientists
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm attack the unbelievers (doubters) and cast them out of their society (black listing) and move against their sources of sustainment, even call them criminals. It looks more like the behavior of a few hags at the local baptist church, rather than what should be scientific squabbling. And the masses are told to believe in the theories for they will be proven true! If the various doubting scientists are wrong, simply open the data for the world to see, gather new facts, and prove it.
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm The data is available for all to see on evolution and climate.
I have a level of faith in science, but that faith is based on real life experiences with how the process has worked. It is also tempered with healthy scepticism because that is the basis of the process. However to compare faith in science to religious faith is disingenuous. While many may accept the words of the experts the essential proofs are available for all to see.
I believe evolution because it is proven.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 What might change is the mechanism by which evolution works, although much is known about that. However the chances of evolution as a general process being overturned is about as remote as finding out the sun doesn't actually circle the sun. (something we've actually never seen happen either)
Dissenting scientists are not blacklisted. What they do have to do is produce viable science. Something climate deniers and evolution deniers have failed to do.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 When scientists openly say their research work is rejected by major science journals because "the debate is settled", that is blacklisting. When CRU scientists openly discuss calls to journals regarding other researchers contrary work, that is blacklisting. When CRU scientists openly discuss in emails withholding RAW data from others, the data in not available. When they discuss destroying documents to prevent the British equivlient of FOIA requests, the data is not available.
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm Peer review doesn't publish work just because someone submits it. If it doesn't pass muster then it does not get published. Skeptical articles get published every year. This puts the lie to the rejected because they're blacklisted line. They don't get published because their work fails the most basic test. Looking at how bad some of the ones that do get published (Soon and Baliunis 2003 or Lintzen and Choi 2009) it doesn't surprise that many fail on merit.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59
I never would want work that fall short to be published... on the other hand, the hushing of cross the board data (on the whole) of temperatures failing to continue the upward trend since between 1999 and 2002 (and actually falling) while continuing to bleat about AGW and frustratingly trying to rework the models to explain this turn...
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm Hushing? Now we dip into the clandestine world of conspiracy theory, eh?
No one has any problem with falling temperatures over a few years. There are a variety of things that affect climate: El Nino's, La NIna's, solar variation, etc. The air is the least dense and so the most variable. Look at the graph the yearly temps go up and down but the long term trend is just up. And only by using the most blatant cherry picking can you even pretend their is a downward trend.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm The emails did discuss calling a journal but they didn't do it. Instead they wrote and presented a paper that refuted the work. The fact that the main editor and several reviewers quit the journal because of the way the one editor allowed the paper in question be published without proper review tells where the real fault was.
They do talk of withholding data. If you'd had to deal for years with people who dishonestly used your data for political reasons you might too. (cont.)
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59
They discussed calling but didn't? Says who? Those who quit, acording to a quick search, were all avid believers-erm, avidly convinced of AGW... so now its he said-she said, you're baised.. not you are....
Sounds more like a 5th grade play ground than grown adults.
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm Avid believers? According to whom? The editor who allowed the paper has also done the same with creationist papers because he was a true believer.
It wasn't the perspective that was the issue. The journal had published contrarian papers before. What caused the resignations was the complete lack of standards the editor and publisher were showing by publishing papers that had no scientific merit whatsoever.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm In addition the editor didn't even give the paper to other reviewers. He just published it because it fit his denialist agenda.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 And if scientists quiting journals is a testiment to fault, where do we lay the fault for the '05 UN IPCC debacle?
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm What debacle? The Himalayan error? That was a bad miss. but one error out of thousands of pages isn't bad.
Well there was the poor citation for the Amazon rain forest. But the proper citation existed and has been put in. It was not an error.
And there was prediction of sea level rise that has been replaced because it is happening faster than expected.
Once again don't confuse a couple of errors in the detail with the entire thing being debunked.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm In the end they gave the data. Except the data they did not own and were contractually not allowed to provide. Of course that data was available from the original source; something many uniformed people are not aware of.
If you read the emails you will see that there were extensive conversations and acts of cooperation between genuinely scientific skeptics, such as Michaels, and the CRU. Their vitriol is reserved for a couple of idiots whose work has never passed muster.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59
Ah... no they didn't... they handed over the "refined" (to use a polite word) data... not raw. If someone handed you refinced data, how do you know the executed proper method in culling statistical flyers, or removed whole data sets, which they admitted to removing certain data sets due to irregularities.. and that is perfectly fine if research and examination show the data is bad... but who checks their work?
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm They handed over the data they were asked for, minus what they couldn't.
Scientists are supposed to check the work of others by collecting the data themselves. If you do your work based upon another persons data then you simply confirm the errors they may have made. That is how proper scientists work.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm Otherwise, it seems as if more a religion and less a theory. Believe or else? This isn't science. Finally, you may call the Bible a propaganda piece if you like but it is no more disproven than the primordial soup has been proven to give forth life... But neither position has stopped people from believing. Evolution is constantly being refined? Okay. But the starting point remains unproven. And if it is not proven, then nothing about evolution that excludes God or any ID theory.
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm Why do people consider faith a virtue? Why do others consider theory fact? Why do they insist we all believe in it? Faith is all around you. when you write to me now, you have faith that the scientists have done their work with due attention to accuracy and detail. And yet, I read stories of coverups, destroyed/witheld data, conspircay to obstruct the law... And I feel science hasn't been honest. It makes me doubt the "consensus". Suddenly the skeptics don't seem so irrational...
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm So as long as Creationists and ID scientists are open and present data for review, I welcome their attempts to forge a different theory. I also welcome evolutionists to present their data openly to prove their theory and refute others... But closed doors, whispered emails, blacklistings and midnight phone calls to journals only make me think the environmentalists and the evolutionists are not so sure of their work and seek to suppress dissent.
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm They are irrational when you look beyond the surface of the emails. It is even more irrational when you look how small a piece of the puzzle the CRU is, not to mention that their work is independently confirmed by a variety of other methods.
Theory becomes as close to fact as a complex thing can get when it is supported by mountains of data that track independent lines of enquiry. Evolution does that. So does AGW although evolution is the stronger of the two. It is not faith.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59
You mean the mountain of data that gave us the "hockey stick"? The mountain of data that stated we were going to freeze and then said burn? the mountain of data that has had to change its name again to "climate change" because the earth stopped cooling years ago? the mountain of data that frequently takes data from cities (despite considering the "heat island" effect) and from amateur stations that were posited in places like parking lots and next to barrels used to burn trash?
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm Yeah, the hockey stick verified by the NAS and duplicated by 12 other independent studies. The name hasn't changed, climate change and global warming are used. Climate change is better but it's caused by warming. They do consider heat islands. Where is most of the warming occurring? Far North, not many cities.
And go reread your source about the stations. They weren't amateur. Then read Menne 2010. He used Watt's data and showed the stations had no effect.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59
sure... surface stations dot org. They're up to 80% of US stations examined.. MORE THAN HALF have a estimated accuracy of +/- 2deg C... or four times the estimated average warming over the 20th century. Another problem is so few stations have been in the same place over the past century. Down at the bottom shows how poor information sources can influence climate data. In statistics, when the error>difference btween compared data sets, there no statistical difference determinable.
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm And Menne (2010) thanked them for their work. He then took their data and ratings of site quality and looked at the data from the stations. The analysis showed the poorly sited stations actually gave temps a little cooler than the well sited stations. Not significant enough to say they hide the warming, but they don't present unrealistic warming.
Yes individual stations have the error bars you state, but when you average out thousands of them things cancel out.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm And yes poor data sources can influence data, that's why you should find a more scientific source than surface stations or Watt's up with that. They don't care what their data shows (Menne, 2010) just what they think they can use it for.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59
Now that is a lie, whether you know it or not... Michael Mann refused to release the source calculations and stated on the record The Wall Street Journal that "giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people employ."
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm You can have all the complaints about Mann, his methods and personality, you like. There are a dozen other studies in paleoclimate done using similar and completely different techniques. They all get hockey sticks. Yes the shaft is a bit more crooked, so was Mann's second version, but they are all essentially hockey sticks. And as I said the NAS examined his work, basically said he was not the nicest man but still said his work was solid.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 I mean really? This is the hockey stick that ignores the little ice age 400 years ago and depicts most of the last 1000 years as a flat line? Please....
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm The first one didn't find that. Why does that mean ignore? The data at the time didn't support a global LIA. More recent versions have a LIA affect. Welcome to science.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 the mountain of data that only actually showed warming in the nw hemisphere, while SA showed record cold? The mountain of data that "tells" us organisms can mutate into more complex entities but has yet to explain why observed higher order mutations are overwhelmingly harmful & those that are not often give no benefit or are recessive & dissappear from the pool? (quick scan of evo list "examples" revealed most were sterile, many were engineered & others were only fertile w/parent)
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm Warming in NW? Are you referring to the Medieval Warm Period?
Why wouldn't most mutations be harmful? What's your point?
Most doesn't matter. It happens.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 The point is statistically significant. If a vast majority of the time you fail at the basic level multi-cell organisms then the probability of higher order mutations yielding beneficial results goes up by orders of magnitude. Even side stepping (no benefit%2C no harm) mostly results in sterilism. You run into more problems when you deal with species which have homocidial prejudice against genetic drifters.
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 But connection is poor & I was only able to review a portion of the list. Will read more when able.
But lets not stop with evolution and "AGW" or whatever name it goes by now. Here's some past "mountain of data/scientific consensus blunders.
Fiber (late 70s)- Carcinogen! but 20 years later, major studies show...no.
Acid Rain (mid 80s?)- destroying plants/crops & ponds/lakes! Early 90s.. NAPAP concluded not so.
Saccharin (early 80s?)- Carcinogen! 30 years later, no proof.
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm No wonder you've trouble with science. you don't understand the difference between a study or two and a "mountain of evidence." AGW and evolution are supported by thousands of studies along multiple lines of evidence. What is your fibre citation. I doubt it's true. Acid Rain was documented by NAPAP (1991) as having made some lakes uninhabitable, causing chemical changes in soil, and damaging buildings. If you wish to pretend to be skeptical at least pretend to doubt the doubters.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59
Uhh... got NAPAP '91 study, here in front of me (alumni electronic library access pwns btw), concluded that acid rain "was not damaging forests, did not hurt crops, and caused no measurable health problems".
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 For scientists to claim systems as complex as life and the climate have been conquered enough to state that they are pretty much fact (which both still remain theories) but don't look close because our models still aren't quite right and can't explain why the earth is cooling and life doesn't sponteanously appear in our vats. Sorry. I have patience. If evolution is right, humanity waiting 500 years to prove it changes nothing and forcing down our throats makes us suspicious.
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm Conquered? Straw man alert. Certain processes are understood. Evidence of AGW is direct and relatively simple physics. Understanding the earths energy budget isn't and not everything is understood. If the earth was cooling you might have something. There are natural processes that are involved that make the warming uneven, but there is no evidence whatsoever of cooling.
The only problem with the models is ice and sea level is rising faster than predicted. That's not good.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59
simple physics says watert vapor is twice the "greenhouse gas" (great misnomer used by various alarmists and some scientists but not quite accurate) that CO2.... where's the push to regulate water vapor?
Sea levels rising faster than predicted is not good? says who? what defines good or bad sea levels? If science were really so serious about this, why is there such an opposition to nuclear power?
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm Actually the term greenhouse gas is a misnomer but it predates any significant discussion of global warming by many decades. If you regulate CO2 you regulate water vapour. Learn the difference between a forcing and a feedback. H2O is a feedback. It is transitory and unevenly mixed in the atmosphere. CO2 is long term and doesn't fluctuate greatly over very short periods of time. More CO2 equals warmer planet, equals more evaporation, equals more H2O vapour. Less CO2 = less H2O vapour.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm The tens of millions of people who live at or near sea level might think sea level rise isn't good. Not to mention the huge areas that produce food that are at sea level or the billions of dollars in infrastructure. Practicality defines optimal sea levels.
The opposition to nuclear is based on old issues. It has reduced significantly. However the better option long run is to begin to shift to wind, geothermal, and sun.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 Likewise, if human-effect climate change is true, how come not one prediction has come to pass? First cold.. then hot. Why do they feel the need to exaggerate their predictive capacity constantly? Each year, I read that the models are perfected & yet the recent BBC experiment proves just how complex it all is & just how little we do know. I have yet read where a .5deg C rise is actually a factually bad thing, if the MA warming period is any indication of the earth's performance.
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm Who says the models are perfected? Give me one name of one scientist.
Cold and Hot? What are you talking about?
What caused the MA warm period? If it exists why would it matter. If it did exist it actually indicates we have a bigger problem than currently thought because it means high level of sensitivity.
.5 rise not that big an issue. 3-4 degree rise thats a different matter.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59
if .5 isn't a big issue, then why is there so much hooplah? Because the most recent adjusted averages for the 20th century IS, in fact, .5 C.....
Second, the MA warming period is what gave European farmers the best weather in atleast 1000years to grow more crops. Some history buffs credit MA with giving Europe a leg up to grow & make advances in many fronts, including science. All because alittle warmer weather, milder winters, & more wet made more food so others could tinker.
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm Your points are moot as we are already above MWP temps and are still rising. Yes warming can cause benefit but it can also cause problems. The rising temp is already related to droughts and more erratic weather. Yes the MWP was good for Europe but the hoopla is because we are passed that point and rising. Not only that but the rate of increase has accelerated in the past 40 years.
The other key factor is rate of change. The MWP was very slow to come by comparison.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59
If you were going to testify today honestly to (fill in governing body) that it was neccessary to gut the economy for the next 50 years because your data says the temperature is rising, just how sloppy or perfected a model would you feel comfortable with, especially if you know the model hasn't been able to predict the last decade's average temps? That is the implicit statement you make when you tell someone to do something drastic. "My data is good enough to justify saying this."
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm My testimony would not be we don't have to gut the economy. But rather we have to change energy sources very quickly. That would likely require a temporary alteration similar to rationing during WWII as we focus our energies on a great task over the short term. That wasn't great on the home front but it wasn't really that bad.
But why do the deniers even come up with this red herring of a "gut the economy" argument? It is foolish.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm The expectation of exact predictions is also a straw man. The models make projections because there are a variety if things that we can't predict (e.g. volcanoes) that affect year to year data. Events have followed the projections made by models just fine.
And the last decade should have worried you. We were in deep solar minimum and yet the temperature trend remained unchanged. It should have cooled but it warmed.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 I vote science cools its heels (since the temp record makes it evident we're not burning up this decade or any in the near future decade) & simply goes along plugging the numbers, collecting data, sharing it with everyone, including those who are skeptical (after, once upon a time consensus said Darwin was wrong), & see where we turn out in 50 years... Who knows? maybe someone will stir up alittle vat of life? Or the earth might slip into another ice age & make it all moot.
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm Of course the anti-Darwin consensus was based on blind faith in the bible.
Hang on to the vat of life bit all you like. The most it you get is a god to spark life. But he's unneeded afterwards. No need for god at any level. According to Hawking and Moldinow not even for the big bang.
No scientist will wait for you to catch up before they use evolution to advance knowledge. Maybe you should wonder why so many experts in the field don't have your questions. Hint- your q's aren't valid
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59
where did the matter/energy come from for the big bang? That vat of life? "The beginning fortells the end."
I don't care to have science wait for me. But I don't care to have science tell me what I will/will not believe simply because of a theory. I won't have them telling my neighbors or their kids that mommy and daddy are liars and there is no God... as if they have proven this as fact. Until science disproves God, it has no right to belittle those of faith.
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm Where did god come from?
I don't tell people god doesn't exist. I tell them I don't believe he does and I am happy to explain why.
We shouldn't belittle belief. But anyone that holds that strong, unswerving faith in something is good, especially when the only reason for the faith is a lack of alternate explanations, is naive at best. I can admit I might be wrong. Can you or those of faith accept they might be wrong too?
Should parents be able to force belief on their children?
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 The fact is, the two tenants that one must accept with the theory are also the two tenants which have never been demostrated as factual possibility without intelligent intervention (species genetic drift/isolation/selection/etc) or even with it (sponteanous creation of life from chemical soups). All the circumstantial evidence in the world still doesn't explain the start. Without a proof of the factuality beginning, how can I accept the rest? Faith?
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59
I think I am done for now. I will continue to read some of the material you put forward. But I will not continue to post replies here. I hope you & others keep an open mind that theory has been overturned time & again; I urge you all to keep a critical eye instead of simply nodding along to any person or group who claims that their theory is all but proven & not to question it anymore. The beauty of science is that if you are right, you will be vetted in time. Not before.
pyrewyrm 1 year ago
@pyrewyrm A critical eye means you honestly look at all the data and not nit pick about minor details. It is easier to understand the big picture and over time the details get worked out. And give us a few million years and we'll produce life from scratch. It took nature or god that long to accomplish it. I don't expect or ask for miracles just good science.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@MartinLuther444 great point. What exactly is your position on climate change by the way?
dinokralt4 1 year ago
@dinokralt4 is your name a reference to the protestant reformer or the civil rights leader? Just curious.
dinokralt4 1 year ago
ps. why do all these students look completely clueless? or even in disagreement? they look so upset and/or bored!
devianaut 1 year ago
@devianaut because they are idiots that don't realize they have a giant in their midst
holypsychopath 1 year ago
@devianaut What does that have to do with the point?
MartinLuther444 1 year ago
i would feel very honored to even ask a question to such a man. wonderful, intelligent, author and entrepreneur!
devianaut 1 year ago
@devianaut What do you worship him or something?
MartinLuther444 1 year ago
Did you see the look on her face? It was almost like she started thinking about it for the very first time. No disrespect to her, it's very hard to remove all that brainwashing. Michael made it look too easy.
solemnfox 1 year ago 13
This has been flagged as spam show
@solemnfox
"Did you see the look on her face? It was almost like she started thinking about it for the very first time"
Michael Crichton never caused anybody to think. He also believed in spoon bending and clairvoyance. His critique's of science are bizarre and illogical. What's that look on YOUR face?
Remembermylai 1 year ago
"State of Fear"
Readers may understandably take away some misconceptions from his book. To clear up these misconceptions, we (UCSusa) have selected some representative cases to discuss; the list below, however, is not intended to be an exhaustive list of the errors in Crichton's book.
tiny(.)cc / chrichton-versus-science
aerobique 1 year ago
I`m reading Crichtons book "Next" right now. Holy s**t is that thing freaky as hell. It`s about transgenetics, animals fused with human DNA. Monkeys and birds with human brains. One scene he has this group walking through a jungle and they come upon a group of Orangutans and one is barking at them sort of weird and they realize he is saying words to them in Dutch, telling them to f**k off, calling them assholes. A human in a monkey body .Freaky stuff.
JamesTKirkCobain 1 year ago
Environmentalism is a religion and Al Gore is the messiah. The percentage of CO2 in the earths atmosphere is only 0.038% which you can literally call zero point zero, but everyone believes we have too much CO2. Zero is too much. Yeah, that makes sense.
JamesTKirkCobain 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JamesTKirkCobain "The percentage of CO2 in the earths atmosphere is only 0.038% which you can literally call zero point zero, but everyone believes we have too much CO2. Zero is too much. Yeah, that makes sense.
JamesTKirkCobain 1 month ago "
----CARBON MONOXIDE KILLS YOU AT ZERO POINT ZERO ZERO ZERO ONE PERCENT
d3p3ch3mod3 1 year ago
hey environmentalist nuts ...why are you letting obama off the hook for the spill ...if bush was in office you'd be crucifying him
athiestracist 1 year ago 3
@athiestracist haha, so true. It is very stange that such a large group of people comes to similar values about a particular event.
dinokralt4 1 year ago
@dinokralt4 not strange , but very imformative .shows the true united states of hypocracy , obama and a democrat colled congress were in so environmentalists blame bp and commend obama for making them "clean up they're own mess but why does british petroleum care about our shores ? they dont if bush was in he'd be hung and it would be all about bush and his big business big oil cronies.just once i'd like to see the media/population hold a democrat to the same candle thet hold republicans too
athiestracist 1 year ago
I can sum up why "environmentalism" is all but identical to "religion" - follow the money. Both are about money and control of the "flock".
UBER069 1 year ago
Gullible Green Gaia cult it is not religion but a destructive anti human cult. A bunch of gullible people that believe anything that is on TV fell for the whole Globull warming scam.
BruceH59 1 year ago
dang why did he have to die so early? i have read every single of his book and love them all
Casshyr 1 year ago
@Casshyr Because he spoke out ........the money men do not like that ....
snaed27 1 year ago
What a pathetically dishonest person. He was never anything but someone who wrote some trash novels, but he really disgraced himself with this.
He cynically ignores that the difference between religion and science is BASIS IN EVIDENCE, the same as clowns who say people have "faith" in evolution or atheism, things where faith is obviously not an issue. He simply equates "belief" in delusionary ideologies with "belief" in reality and science.
Vile and contemptible.
Enantiodromialist 1 year ago
@Enantiodromialist
Crichton isn't ignoring scientific evidence for problems in the environment. He, and many other people, have a problem with hyped-up propaganda that many environmentalist groups utilize to get people to change their ways. What they're doing is not unlike the oil companies that tell you pollution is a myth. That's what he's calling religion.
What's vile and contemptible is your lack of understanding in what science can and cannot prove.
pchwang 1 year ago
@pchwang /Your/ lack of understanding that science is a practice of radical doubt - rather than one of absolute certainty - blinds you to the reality that science will never be able to answer all of our questions about what climate change may or may not bring in the future. We can only act on discernible trends.
Also, note the qualitative difference between 'hyped-up' environmental organizations and oil companies. Oil companies want profit. ENGO's, instead, pursue policy change.
ZZZZZAPDOS 1 year ago
@ZZZZZAPDOS
I never said science is absolutely certain. Rather, I'm saying that there is not enough evidence to go crazy over the hype. There have been heat waves in the past. There is no way to test what is the true cause of climate change recently.
Your view on environmental groups pursuing policy change over profit is incredibly naive. The people who control and have invested interest in these groups have an incredible amount to gain should their legislation succeed.
pchwang 1 year ago
@ZZZZZAPDOS
In addition, even beyond all of this, you misunderstand Crichton.
I sincerely doubt that Michael Crichton is against research for alternative energy and lessening our dependence on oil. What Crichton is saying, and what I advocate as well - is that there is no need to live in fear of an "climate-caplyse" that a lot of the media seems to be pointing at.
Should we go greener? But hype from propaganda from ENGO's OR Big Oil is bad - only Oil isn't trying to scare people to death.
pchwang 1 year ago
@pchwang Big oil, in my opinion, is very bad. Research Rockefeller and Standard Oil. Don't get me wrong, I'm not really for or against the resource of oil, I'm talking about the companys.
MartinLuther444 1 year ago
Comment removed
YVWW 1 year ago
We need to think hard to know the truth
welovetruth 1 year ago
The girl in this video is such an unfortunate soul whose empty head has been filled by idiot celebrities and idiot teachers who have her believing in something that does not exist. I'll bet she just got over believing in the Easter Bunny. They got her at the right time. From the Easter Bunny to global warming.
Frankie754 1 year ago
Michael Cretin
NHTPC 1 year ago
Because Maurice Strong created this religion of climate change so that there would be a common crisis that man could rally around in order to be CONTROLLED for the totalitarian world gov't. The elitists want the planet for themselves and this is how they will get rid of us 'useless eaters'. CRIMINAL!
NHTPC 1 year ago
ALL A BIG LIE
MegaInvisible1 1 year ago
Actually Environmentalism is nothing new to the mankind. Just take a look those bunch of old eastern religions: Hinduism, Buddhism or Paganism. They preached the exact same rubbish as modern environmentalists: that human starving is better than killing animals, that plants have "lives" of their own, that machines and technologies are evil and that people should be forced to live by subsistence farming and local-produced goods.
Anti-human is all they are about.
DDG993 2 years ago
Its good to have an anti-environmentalist that is pro-environment. There are plenty of ideologies in which the advocates give it a bad name. For example, I support animal rights but I despise PETA.
Meself58 2 years ago