Michael Crichton on Global Warming, Part 2 of 3

Michael Crichton discusses the notion of global warming with Charlie Rose of PBS.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• global
• warming
• michael
• crichton
• climate

[jkevinmccon]

Charlie Rose show made me take it down. I don't know why they didn't find the other two parts.

[jfxcoll]

This moron was trying to sell book. now he's dead, this was 2007. Al gore doesn't have an opinion he voices the opinion of many scientists

[jkevinmccon]

@jfxcoll Gore is a perv!

[JohnnyMac2237]

Micheal Crichton was too intelligent and rational a soul to not see global warming for what it was...A means of imposing global government and banking derivatives for profit based on pseudoscience. Only now after his death and the proof that researchers were forging data have we finally beaten back these claims.

The Earth was here long before us and we have not the power to destroy this 4 Billion year old planet...Only ourselves.

You are and always will be my hero sir.

Science > Dogma

[fullclip16117]

LOL, Charlie Rose is just lost. In this interview he is simply not picking up what Crichton is laying down. Its actually kind of funny watching all of Crichton's comments fly over that old geezers head. Crichton is speaking in a scientific, logical sense, while Rose is still stuck in this black.white bubble of politics. Moron.

[TheArkhamAngel]

@TLAGT I believe you misunderstood my comment. I didn't say anything about killing anyone. The process would take several hundred years of peaceful, voluntary reduction generation to generation.

[mjn76]

@Ozzzobee Charlie Rose would interrupt Jesus Christ if given the opportunity.

[Dawnphyre]

@wildwolf51972 Do you know what you're talking about? He didn't say safe, he said not as dangerous and couldn't be proven so they fudged the number. Think logically about how much second hand smoke you might get from being near a smoker, think in terms of a draw on a cigarette, then how much time you might spend around said person, at about 10% for it not going through a filter, then think in those terms how long to go through the equivolent of 1 pack, by my reconing while unplesent, few months

[ndzapruder]

@wildwolf51972 Not safe. Just not significantly carcinogenic. 90% confidence intervals, which is what the FDA resorted to to coerce the alternate hypothesis they desired, produce correlational results at best.

[wildwolf51972]

This Guy is full of Shit he even thinks second hand smoke is safe

[Pandonodrim]

Very sad to see Crichton, who normally is so good at interpreting and understanding science, to be so wrong on this. I can't imagine why he ended up in such a misguided place... and just before he died. I love most of his books and it is sad that this was his last legacy.

He is right about sensationalism... but that has nothing to do with the well established and understood consequences of anthropogenic global warming.

[MGGoblin]

I don't like the tactic of journalists: "J: ¿Hey do you believe that A is B?" "M: No, actually I think that A..." (Interrupts him) "J: So you are against B?" "M: No, I believe that..." (interrupts him again) "J: Ahá... that means you are a right winger?" - interrupting people not allowing them to answer your questions is a tipical dirty yellow strategy...

[kwas5101]

Poor Charlie Rose. And to think I used to enjoy his interviews. M.C. was the man!

[lovellespice]

@paulinator61 it may have lost its ice, but does the science empirically point to the culprit being uncle sam driving his SUV? NO. at best, man-made global warming is a dogmatic belief based on consensus, not conclusive data

[GorterPoss]

@DexterHaven49 Not a liberal windbag, just a journalist way outside of his depth discussing a scientific matter.