Stimulating article re: global warming


#1

I’ve you’ve got 20 minutes or so, this article - from a speech given to actual scientists at Cal-Tech by Michael Crichton, in an entertaining way - will enlighten and enlarge your ideas about science, ‘consensus science’, and the power of personality to shape what we think about science. He was well received.

wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/09/ … -crichton/

Excerpt: Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do.

Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science-namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy.


#2

Wow, Dave! Let me say I suspected all this (about global warming, I mean), but seriously–who knew? All the shaming of “climate change deniers,” all the PC crap and the totalitarian scientism…all the kids buying this – why? Because they’re kids and they’ve been taught to revere science. Scientists wouldn’t act in their own economic self-interest…would they? Surely they wouldn’t, well, you know, lie?


#3

It blew me away also…

And some of the answers : "Sir, there is disagreement among a significant number of scientists, why is that?
Answer: “We feel that our science is very robust”

Uh…what?? ""Feel…“our”…“robust”??

You would hope to hear that the science is solid; not that it is robust and we have a consensus. Consensus???
Arg


#4

Yeah, no kidding. Bunch of pretenders.


#5

Just by coincidence i recently happened to Google the average temps in NYC going back to 1900 by month and i didn’t see much change. I didn’t yet look at the link but if you notice, the climate change folks always predict what temps will be 30 years from now, never what they will be next year so they can’t be checked. :question:


#6

As an aside, here’s what I’ve shared via email, in talking about climate change:

http://f.tqn.com/y/politicalhumor/1/S/5/6/3/What-If-Its-A-Hoax.jpg

For example, here is an article in Scientific American from 2011:

How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

And can Trumpenstein do much, if the 2017 article survey results, actually reflect the 2011 numbers?

Is this the guy (i.e. Michael) that Trumpenstein will hire, to advice him on global warming :question: :laughing:

On second thought, it wouldn’t surprise me much - if Trumpenstein took a shine to Michael and hired him. :exclamation: :laughing:

or

youtube.com/watch?v=VNqNnUJVcVs


#7

For others reading this thread: just read the article if you have an interest - make up your own mind, uninfluenced by cartoons (as entertaining as they are)

Randy - what did you disagree with in that article? Was the speaker making things up? Or were the facts he presented true? What is the problem??
The point is not whether the Earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling. The point is whether there is anything we can do about it.
The other point is the intersection (or unholy alliance if you will) of public policy based on consensus science and personality.
What about it did you disagree with?

wattsupwiththat.com/


#8

I am in favor of global warming. I hope the globe warms up. I hope Antarctica’s ice cap melts.

Does that make me bad? :smiling_imp:


#9

http://f.tqn.com/y/politicalhumor/1/S/L/p/3/Climate-Change-Hysteria.jpg

Just a footnote, Dave. I’ve spent much of my time in academia. And a good portion of time, working with things like SEO, keyword research, etc. It’s easy for me, to find rebuttals and critics, for any lecture, article, paper, etc. :smiley:

So don’t let the cartoons or Holy Fool personal fool you. I can double as a thinker and researcher. :laughing:

Well, for one thing, the article was written in 2003. Now it is 2016, going on 2017,

As far as the critic of the article, I would have to see it - in it’s original journal form. And see what other scientists and ivy league types, have to say regarding it.

As far as

I’m not convinced that’s so. Again, it would take a search, of the current scientific literature.

I’m more concerned with hard science and not

If you want some rebuttals to the lecture - available on the web - here’s a sampling:

Crichton’s ‘Aliens Cause Global Warming’

Let’s focus on just this one article and let me quote from it:


#10

That is rich - complaining about Crichton’s rhetorical skills - who had greater skills than Sagan et. al.?

You take the Ivy League’s more seriously than I do - I’m too suspicious by nature, I guess.


#11

Well, Dave, I have friends that are both intellectuals and blue collar types. I usually find the blue collar types, have **more **street sense and wisdom :exclamation: :laughing:

But I’m not a total stranger, to Ivy League types. After all, my longtime Greek Orthodox friend, has her masters from the Universal of Chicago And her PhD from Oxford. And her son is a PhD degree professor at Harvard, who’s foremost on the research front of genetic modeling. So they can corrupt me, with the Ivy League stuff - at times. :exclamation: :laughing:


#12

I know smart people too.


#13

As for polar bears, here’s a scientist - maybe even Ivy-League!!! - that exposes lies and obfuscation and - rhetoric - from those with an interest in showing declines caused by global warming - lots of good archives here.

polarbearscience.com/2014/11/19 … p-to-2012/


#14

Well, Dave. You can show a bunch of articles, scientific studies, etc., presenting both sides of the equation.

In fact, this thread can continue, for an infinitely length of space and time - just posting pro and con articles. :laughing:

I might say something that will shock you, Dave. And everyone here, for that matter. **I really don’t care if global warming is true or false - or somewhere in between. **There’s only 2 things I’m concerned about.

I don’t end up breathing smog or some such nonsense. And getting all kinds of health complications.
I don’t want to pay an arm and a leg, to utility monopolies, like the electric company. I look for cost effective alternatives, like solar energy or wind energy. In fact, John Galt in Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, invented an electric motor (AKA perceptual motion machine) of some sort. I’ll settle for one of those.

And there is an interesting thread and article at:

Galt’s Motor? The electrostatic motor built by John Galt was, of course, misunderstood and misapplied by his employer of the time, but could it really be built?
John Galt Motor in the Works — Scientists developing technology to collect energy from the air

If the government can fund the space program and military weapons research, then then can set aside funds - for renewable energy research.

And I - as a consumer - can benefit from it, as an affordable alternative, to the utility monopolies.

So here is a question for everyone. If government funding for renewable energy research, eventually results in the John Galt electric motor (AKA perceptual motion machine) - would it be worth it :question:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8IckAsGh1I

or

youtube.com/watch?v=m8IckAsGh1I

Pragmatism all the way - pure and simple. :exclamation: :laughing:

Like this song and my study of homeopathy.

or

youtube.com/watch?v=9wX5AswH2wM


#15

Global warming and cooling cycles have been going on for thousands of years, if not longer.
During the medieval warm period (from about A.D. 950 to A.D. 1250), the average temperature of the earth was much greater than it is now. Have you ever wondered how Greenland got its name? This warm period was followed by the Little Ice Age (from about A.D. 1300 to A.D. 1850) Read about them both. No wonder the settlers in Greenland died out, with none to rescue.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Although a high level of carbon dioxide is a slight factor in increasing global warming, these warming and cooling periods are chiefly caused by sun activity.

It’s hushed up, but scientists disagree about global warming. You may want to go to this site and download the 122 page pdf:

heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/why-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming


#16

Actually, I shared the same ideas in another historical thread here, using an online article from Scientific American. I think they present very objective articles on global warming and other scientific topics.

The key question to ask - is this: What would a political appointee, who is head of environmental protection, want to do - if they believe:

Global warming is real?
Global warming is a hoax?
Global warming embraces some spectrum in the middle (like I do)?

I think this cartoon illustrates the pragmatic aspects, of funding renewable energy and addressing environmental concerns:

http://f.tqn.com/y/politicalhumor/1/S/5/6/3/What-If-Its-A-Hoax.jpg

From my years of learning Native American spiritual ceremonies and traditions, I learned that all nature is related. To tweak one item - or not to tweak it (depending on the circumstances), can have ripple effects. Much like chaos theory postulates. A butterfly flapping its wings, could trigger a tsunami - at the other end, of the global. An interesting chaos theory story, but it does illustrate a point.

http://azcache.com/go/img/56f23a4bdb127bf07db6caf2.jpg

If something surfaces on the horizon…like the John Galt electric motor (AKA perpetual motion machine)…all due (in whole or part) to government funding of renewal energy research - it’s well worth the time and effort.


#17

Tooo much stuff, Randy. I know, I know…holy fool here. I think though, that more people (like me) would read your thoughts if you didn’t make them so, ah, I don’t know–distracting? I’m not trying to be mean, but I always just scroll past when I see cartoons lined up for me to puzzle over.


#18

I have noticed this trend as well. I have absolutely no problem researching out impact on the climate, however, before one can make such huge claims, more evidence is needed. Unfortunately my generation prides itself regarding the scientific method, but end up with a mob rules mentality regarding pseudo science that they believe already as fact.

Still, they mean well. Money should still be invested for research like this, because even if there is not evidence that it exists, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. That us the biggest thing. If we always wait to take action until we are certain, sometimes the consequences can be far greater. I remain agnostic on this matter.


#19

Here’s the Readers Digest version, regarding my position on this thread:

What I’m saying - in essence - is this. It doesn’t matter if climate change is real, false or somewhere in between. Investing in clean energy and renewable energy research - is very practical and pragmatic. After all, why invest the the space program at all? Are we going to make Mars another US colony or state? Hopefully not. But we can all benefit, from their practical research efforts and implementation.

Again, I think this cartoon illustrates the pragmatic aspects, of funding renewable energy and addressing environmental concerns:

http://f.tqn.com/y/politicalhumor/1/S/5/6/3/What-If-Its-A-Hoax.jpg


#20

If we could keep politicians and “progressive” anti-Americanism out of the equation, the pragmatics might very well work.

But in actual reality, if the default position is - how do we get huge sums of money from American citizens, out of the climate kerfuffle? and make those citizens pay for the supposed colonialism and imperialism of the USA - then one way to go about it would be:

Give lots of air time and funding to those scientists willing to speak out on consensus science re: global warming, thus…
Blame mankind for the coming destruction of Gaia, thus…
Especially carbon emissions thus…
The USA is a big country that makes lots of carbon emissions ergo
The USA is going to be responsible for the coming destruction of Gaia.
So…
US citizenry is morally obligated to give money to the smaller countries that do not have the large carbon footprint, via ‘carbon credits’ or some other stupid idea.
It’s redistribution of wealth for our supposed sins.