Michael Crichton dead at 66

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

If that much damage could be done by one person, then wouldn't that suggest that the evidence in favor of "the reality" of Anthropocentric Global Warming is pretty weak?

No, I don't think that conclusion can be drawn, Nate. This isn't a contest where we can determine truth by examining the number or character of the people supporting or denouncing it. I think the conclusion is that, as in political, religious, and similar matters, many people have become strongly willed in their personal beliefs on this particular subject, have become less than objective about fact-based discussions about it, and have become defensive about their position. And I think we should all look in the mirror when we consider that.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by tompe

So why does it have a bibliography?

But your argument is strange. Are you saying that all things in fiction should be read as false things with no relation to reality? So you do not have to be realistic in how you portray scientists for example?

If I recall... and I could be wrong here but at the beginning of the book he stated that the charts and data in the book were actual and that is what the bibliography was. I don't think he ever said that his opinions or a characters in the book is the right one. Is the author not entitled to his opinion?

What I am saying is that if this book is being taken by people to make certain conclusions about global warming how it is happening, if it is a "crisis", if reducing CO2 emissions will affect it etc. is up to the reader.

If I recall correctly there were radicals on both sides in the story.

BOb

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

No, I don't think that conclusion can be drawn, Nate. This isn't a contest where we can determine truth by examining the number or character of the people supporting or denouncing it. I think the conclusion is that, as in political, religious, and similar matters, many people have become strongly willed in their personal beliefs on this particular subject, have become less than objective about fact-based discussions about it, and have become defensive about their position. And I think we should all look in the mirror when we consider that.

All I was trying to do question Harry's assumption of "the reality of global warming" because, like you said, I think he accepts it as a belief without question.

As for me, I have no beliefs about the physical world; I only have working theories (that change as I learn new information). My current theory about Global Warming is that there is insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis that humans are causing it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

All I was trying to do question Harry's assumption of "the reality of global warming" because, like you said, I think he accepts it as a belief without question.

No, I don't. As a former professional scientist, however, I know how "real science" is done, and I trust the data that the professionals working in that field produce, which overwhelmingly supports the viewpoint that human activities have a significant part to play in the process. Pretending that "if we ignore it the problem will just go away", as the Bush administration has done is just criminally irresponsible.

[vivaldirules]

I also think the potential enormous magnitude of the consequences of doing nothing demand erring on the side of protection, not taking a passive wait-and-see attitude.

As an aside, I've been curious about the accuracy of previous predictions that climatologists have made and found a conference report from the 1970's where several groups predicted the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about 2010. It was off and on the high side, but not by a large amount. I saw nothing like irresponsible alarmism at work.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, I don't. As a former professional scientist, however, I know how "real science" is done, and I trust the data that the professionals working in that field produce, which overwhelmingly supports the viewpoint that human activities have a significant part to play in the process. Pretending that "if we ignore it the problem will just go away", as the Bush administration has done is just criminally irresponsible.

What data is that, Harry?

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

I also think the potential enormous magnitude of the consequences of doing nothing demand erring on the side of protection, not taking a passive wait-and-see attitude.

So you are suggesting that trillions be spent based on the belief that there might be a problem? Don't you think it should be reliably proven before spending vast sums?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

So you are suggesting that trillions be spent based on the belief that there might be a problem? Don't you think it should be reliably proven before spending vast sums?

Every other major country in the world has been doing so, Nate, in accordance with the "Kyoto Climate Change Protocol", which the US alone out of all the industrialised nations of the world refused to ratify.

The EU as a whole, for example, now has CO2 emissions which are 4.7% lower than 1990 levels (the Kyoto target is 5%); the figure in the UK is about 7% lower than 1990. In the same period, the US's CO2 emissions have increased. Every country in the world takes this seriously - with the notable exception of the US.

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

So you are suggesting that trillions be spent based on the belief that there might be a problem? Don't you think it should be reliably proven before spending vast sums?

Yes, I believe that we should start now, since the consequences are possibly dire. Will it cost trillions? I don't know and frankly don't care, if the consequences are as serious as they might be. Surely, in the next ten years we'll have more and better data and will be able to make better assessments and within that period we won't have spent anywhere close to trillions. But if the officers on this boat want to close their eyes in a delusional attempt to make those icebergs and the threat they represent to disappear, some of the passengers are going to get restless and start heaving officers overboard.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

What data is that, Harry?

Here, for example:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

I'm not a climatologist, but the scientists who work at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) whose page I link to above, certainly are.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Here, for example:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

I'm not a climatologist, but the scientists who work at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) whose page I link to above, certainly are.

I misspoke before. I should not have disputed the data. What I should have said was that I dispute the conclusions drawn from the data. But I am also going to point out that the data does not support the conclusions.

It is generally argued that increases in CO2 cause increases in temperature. If this is true, then why is 1934 one of the 2 hottest years on record in the US (along with 1998)? If you look, you will see that the 3rd hottest year is 2006, and the hottest years after that are 1921 and 1931. The USA is almost certainly releasing more carbon this year than in the ones I listed. Why is the temperature lower?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

[HarryT]

It's the long-term trends that are important; there are random year-on-year fluctuations. However, as the page I linked to states, the long-term trends, as measured by numerous different types of data, are all towards an increase in global temperatures which is unprecidented over the last few thosand years, and the current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere far exceed the natural variability over the last half million years or so.

With respect, you may believe that the data don't support the conclusions, but the majority of experts in the field disagree with you.

To reiterate, every other industrialised nation in the world considers this to be a vitally important issue. It's far too important to play "political football" with.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's the long-term trends that are important; there are random year-on-year fluctuations. However, as the page I linked to states, the long-term trends, as measured by numerous different types of data, are all towards an increase in global temperatures which is unprecedented over the last few thousand years, and the current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere far exceed the natural variability over the last half million years or so.

No, Harry, you are wrong. Assuming higher CO2 concentration causes higher temperature, if year A has higher CO2 than year B, then Year A should have a higher temperature. The year to year temperatures do not support that claim.

The yearly temperature data does not support the claim that higher CO2 causes higher temperature. There must be other causes.

Originally Posted by HarryT

With respect, you may believe that the data don't support the conclusions, but the majority of experts in the field disagree with you.

Consensus science is not science, Harry.


BTW, the NOAA source you provided is still relying on bad data. That site still says that the 10 hottest years are all recent. That data was recently realized to be wrong. I provided the correct data.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Assuming higher CO2 concentration causes higher temperature, if year A has higher CO2 than year B, then Year A should have a higher temperature.

Only if CO2 concentration were the only reason for temperature changes, or if all other causes were constant...

Anyway, what's the thread's topic again?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Jellby

=Anyway, what's the thread's topic again?

Mr. Crichton's disservice to the field of climatology. He should have stuck to "E.R"