Michael Crichton and Global Warming Myth

[hagbard]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller16.html

[blackhawk]

You dont challenge the "righteous left" on their views!

Climate is changing and is very evident over my lifetime and I always ask, "what caused global warming 100,000 years ago? and a million?" because weather and climate is cyclical based on orbit and tilt plus a bit for atmospheric pollutants from volcanic and comet actions.

As advanced humans we can affect it slightly but global warming will happen no matter what and then there'll be global cooling, its all science and historically proven.

Never trust the loudest people!

So up to 10 billion for kyoto now Mr Dithers! To give to China and Russia

[bobaroo]

State of Fear is a great read... very insightful too, especially for a "fiction" book

[Headhunter]

Crichton is purposely writing bizarre propositions that he knows will raise a huge uproar...leading to improved sales. I doubt he really believes that global warming is a myth.

[d_jedi]

wtf? This guy makes absolutely no sense (not talking about Chrichton):

To meet Kyoto CO2 emission constraints the U.S. would have to reduce the amount of electricity it obtains from burning coal by 50 percent. Since 55 percent of this country’s electricity is supplied by coal (nuclear power and hydropower provide the rest), this would require reducing electricity use by 25 percent, which would cause a corresponding 25 percent drop in GDP. It dropped 10 percent in the Great Depression. Since poverty is a major cause of death, a drop in GDP this severe would be the functional equivalent of a death sentence for millions of Americans.

umm.. can you say huge logical fallacies at just about each step in his reasoning from kyoto->death of millions?

[Spent]

This is some serious doo doo for Canada
and virtually no one has it on their radar!!

[hagbard]

Crichton is purposely writing bizarre propositions that he knows will raise a huge uproar...leading to improved sales. I doubt he really believes that global warming is a myth.

No, he's a smart guy, he knows global warming is a hoax.

[Spent]

Science Has Spoken:
Global Warming Is a Myth
by Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson

Reprinted with permission of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.


Political leaders are gathered in Kyoto, Japan, working away on an international treaty to stop "global warming" by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The debate over how much to cut emissions has at times been heated--but the entire enterprise is futile or worse. For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have actually been a boon for the environment.

The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.

Carbon dioxide, water, and a few other substances are "greenhouse gases." For reasons predictable from their physics and chemistry, they tend to admit more solar energy into the atmosphere than they allow to escape. Actually, things are not so simple as this, since these substances interact among themselves and with other aspects of the atmosphere in complex ways that are not well understood. Still, it was reasonable to hypothesize that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might cause atmospheric temperatures to rise. Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme greenhouse warming of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences.

Careful Tests

The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.

The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

Full Article

[Tiger the Lion]

I think the problem that many people don't realise in the whole global warming debate is that regardless if anthropogenic CO2 has causation to global warming, continuing to increase our emissions of CO2 will most certainly lead to our demise. Currently, CO2 levels are at 370 ppmv (the maximum natural levels in the past 300 000 years has been 310ppmv). If we burn the rest of our reserves (entirely possible within the next 70 years), we will exceed 700ppmv, leading to massive environmental and climate catastrophes. Check out this recent Journal of International Hydrogen Energy article by David Scott for more info. Or check out this link.

[Bob_123]

I rather believe the scientists with PHDs. As opposed to Michael Crichton.

[manixc]

Sadly, Global Warming is real.

[artsreview]

Sadly, Global Warming is real.

But is the cause really greenhouse gases? I think we should study it further before forcing Kyoto on everyone.

Although reducing pollution is good in general.

[hagbard]

I rather believe the scientists with PHDs. As opposed to Michael Crichton.

Did you read the article?

[milk]

I rather believe the scientists with PHDs. As opposed to Michael Crichton.

1.) Crichton's sources are scientists with PhDs. He does have some goofy pseudoscience beliefs, but when this guy researches for a novel he researches everything he can. And if new research shows that the old ideas he used in previous books are wrong, he'll say so (i.e., The Lost World & Jurassic Park).

2.) CO2 levels at 370 ppmv still makes up only about 0.6% of the atmosphere.

3.) When the "problem" of global warming was first theorized in the 1980s, the methodology the guy used was shown to be filled with errors - and subsequent explanations have also had various holes in them like not looking at all the recorded data (only going back as far as the years that support a certain view) or not accounting for other data (such as the urban heat island effect).

4.) "All reality is media reality." This is an incredibly true and important statement. How did you yourself find out about the theory of global warming? Have you looked at a wide variety of studies from both sides before making a decision? Probably not because, honestly, that takes time and effort that most people don't want to bother with. So what makes you think global warming is real? "Because the world leaders believe it." Where did they learn about global warming then? They heard about it from second hand sources. "But newspapers don't lie." Most of us know that's not a true statement. Newspapers don't intentionally lie but for the most part they tend to publish popular belief instead of controversial truth (except in the science pages). If any of you have taken Psychology or Sociology you'll know that people tend to believe something that is either written or shown on a screen - and what do people read and watch most of the time? Newspapers and television - both being media.

[manixc]

But is the cause really greenhouse gases? I think we should study it further before forcing Kyoto on everyone.

Although reducing pollution is good in general.

There is a direct relationship between CO2 and Temperature. It doesn't help that we are cutting down trees