Michael Crichton Speech #4

See full speech at http://www.enwhiten.com/?p=1240

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• warming
• climate
• greens
• enviroment
• enviromentalism

[scythekain]

I completely agree, we need more people debunking what should be obvious... mankind is not causing catastrophic global warming.

[DaleTales]

I would too. But does the media want people to not be afriad? No. Fear sells. Fear is an emotion of urgency and need. People who feel secure aren't aren't very good consumers.

[Entropy56]

The point of this speech is that left wing liberal Democrats cause more harm than good.

[imbrd]

Can anyone understand the idea of Wuwei? or also known as Wei Wu Wei? its a very nice & not only interesting way of life but also the only method of keeping sanity in life when faced w/ or without crisis. Everyone really should look this concept up & study it some but more importantly practice it deeply

[polymath7]

Click on "See All Comments" and all will be visible.

[polymath7]

B-IV.

The whole point is that such an analysis tilts immensely lob-sidedly against cost. Illustration:

if I decide that the prospective fruits of a thousand dollar wager are insufficient to persuade me that it is a good idea to play  a single round of Russian roulette, this is surely nothing if not a cost benefit analysis.

Now, if you'd like to discuss such an analysis as regards global warming, I will be happy to do so.

[polymath7]

B-III.

..of journalists and politicians in an attempt to discredit a scientific proposition -as Crichton incontrovertibly is trying to do- is for someone, for someone of his relative scientific literacy- and act of deliberate demagoguery.

If you seek to defend him, you are simply talking out of your hat and will, I promise you, be summarily exposed and defeated.

Finally, at no point did I imply that a cost-benefit analysis is unreasonable (have you been listening to Bjorn Lumborg? (cont.)

[polymath7]

B-II

...under discussion -as indeed it appears to be- is, "Should I, as a member of the lay public, concur that anthropogenic global warming has been empirically demonstrated and could have catastrophic consequences if ignored or inadequately responded to" then the statements of journalists and politicians -and airport novelists- are to be flatly disregarded.

They are not climatologists and have absolutely nothing whatever to contribute to this topic.

To use the statements ...

[polymath7]

B-I.

"...it's not lazy..."

This wasn't my primary point at all.

You have widely misread me, anonypoet, and have not the excuse that my prose is anywhere near as opaque and formless as your own.

My central point was that arguments of this sort are not to be admitted into the discussion, and even if they were he accusation of apocalyptic paranoia is wide open to the recriminative accusation of Pollyannic denial.

But such arguments are ENTIRELY worthless.

If the proposition ...

[anonypoet]

I think one of my comments didn't get put up, the allusion was meant as a qualifier to the (apparently nonexistent) comment. Will put up now.

[polymath7]

II.

...that by and large mainstream media coverage has not exaggerated the claims of professional climatologists and has in fact done the obverse.

In the statement of mine to which you allude the "you" is intended as an impersonal pronoun and the statement contains neither the mildest hyperbole nor any logical fallacy that I am able to discover.

Would you care to expatiate?

[polymath7]

I.

Nor is pretending to?

I simply don't share this perception.

I am glad you chose to say "illustrating" rather than "demonstrating", for in order to do the latter he would have to have contrasted the articles he is quoting with a representative sampling of statements from professional climatologists. No such antithesis is remotely demonstrated and indeed is left altogether unattempted.

And (from Crichton's position) for good reason.

It is a truism to any scientifically literate person...