Michael Crichton dead at 66

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

I find it unfortunate that there are political pundits and those with strong vested financial interests who continue to be successful in confounding resolution of the issue by claiming that it is untested science or tenuous in some manner. In the meantime, the situation becomes more difficult, perhaps irreversibly.

It saddens me, but it doesn't surprise me. Look how long it took tobacco companies to admit to the link between smoking and lung cancer, even when the evidence was overwhelming.

The fact is that yes, reducing carbon emissions does cost money, but every other major country in the world has been willing to introduce "carbon emission taxes" and spend that money for the sake of all our futures. The US's refusal to do this on the ground that "it's too expensive" or "the link between global warming and CO2 emissions isn't proven" is very worrying.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It saddens me, but it doesn't surprise me. Look how long it took tobacco companies to admit to the link between smoking and lung cancer, even when the evidence was overwhelming.

Yes, I laugh when I see those commercials the Philps-Moris does about wanting their customers to be informed and healthy. Granded they were ordered to pay for these.

MY comment is... "If you know smoking will kill people and you care about your customers... stop producing cigarettes.

BOb

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

MY comment is... "If you know smoking will kill people and you care about your customers... stop producing cigarettes.

Mine is: if you (a government) know smoking will kill your citizens... stop allowing companies to produce and sell cigarettes (or else, allow companies to produce and sell every other kind of drug and dangerous substance).

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Jellby

Mine is: if you (a government) know smoking will kill your citizens... stop allowing companies to produce and sell cigarettes (or else, allow companies to produce and sell every other kind of drug and dangerous substance).

Yea...it is kind of weird I agree. We don't allow marijuana but guns, liquor and cigs are ok? I am pretty much in the camp of less regulation. I guess as long as people will buy and use the stuff, companies will make it. At least if marijuana was legal we could regulate it and also collect taxes on it to deal with the issues and save billions of $ a year on the "war on drugs".

BOb

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Yea...it is kind of weird I agree. We don't allow marijuana but guns, liquor and cigs are ok? I am pretty much in the camp of less regulation. I guess as long as people will buy and use the stuff, companies will make it. At least if marijuana was legal we could regulate it and also collect taxes on it to deal with the issues and save billions of $ a year on the "war on drugs".

BOb

In the UK it has now effectively been "decriminalised" by being classified as a "Class C" drug, which basically means that if you're caught with it by the police, all that generally happens is they'll confiscate it from you and not take any further action. It's certainly far less dangerous than tobacco, unless you happen to be succeptible to some types of psychological disorders, which apparently it can make worse.

Tobacco, though, has to be pretty much unique among manufactured goods in that people buy it knowing that, if used in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions, it will kill them.

[mjh215]

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.

That was one of the best descriptions of the way people have become ignorant when discussing this issue. (and MANY other topics in this increasingly polarized world)

-MJ

PS I'm so entertained by the fact that a RIP post on a book forum for an author still turns into a political pissing match...
PPS His final book was called Next, guess it should have been titled Last. (Yes, I'm going to hell)

[RWJ]

Originally Posted by mjh215

PS I'm so entertained by the fact that a RIP post on a book forum for an author still turns into a political pissing match...

Why do you characterize this as a pissing match? From my perspective it's a saner and more respectful discussion of the issue than most that I see, IRL or in the blogosphere.

[Lemurion]

I very much enjoyed some of Michael Crichton's books - others not quite as much. Still I was a satisfied paying customer and so I have to say that I'll miss his work.

Now as to anthropogenic global warming I do have to say that I have some serious questions about the information I hear in the media. I understand that average temperatures are increasing and have been for at least the last three decades (there may have been a blip since 1998 but it's irrelevant for my argument.) I also understand that carbon dioxide levels have been rising in the same period.

What I disagree with is that this correlation means that human-generated carbon dioxide is the sole cause of the last half-century's overall temperature increase.

Too many proponents take it as an article of faith that this correlation means that the Sun has no effect on climate change and that it is completely due to human actions. I can't agree. We don't know enough about it to say that definitively.

I'm not saying that human actions have no effect, I'm sure they do and they may even be the primary cause of climate change. (I'm not 100% sold on that but I won't rule it out.) What I am saying is that we cannot discount the possibility that variations in output from the planet's primary source of heat are having an effect as well.

[rawlus]

my sense is that the scientific community is grossly deficient in understanding the causes of most natural phenomena and probably will remain so for many decades.

the earth, the climate and the oceans are perhaps some of the least understood natural occurrences we face.

climate "models" or computer simulations are guessing machines for all intents and purposes. they do not see the future, nor are they error-free in interpreting the past. that some models conflict with others is evidence of the blunt edge of their usefulness.

the point of the fictional book is that the scientific community, often motivated by $, the media and gov'ts who seek to control the populace work in concert to establish this "state of fear" as a way to control the population. it is not important whether or not global warming is happening right now, what is important is that gov'ts and private entities have you fearing it happening and in doing so, they obtain the appropriate amount of compliance from the citizens they rule over. those who vocally question the premise, as a result of their non-compliance, are ascribed negative associations and shunned.

free thinking and questioning authority should be embraced. but too many teevee-heads who refuse to think for themselves have already joined the cult of global warming and refuse to acknowledge that not only is the science behind it experimental at best, the result of that science is control & money. it forms the foundations of political campaigns and is the justification for taxing more of your income. and nobody questions it. everyone goes along.

[pilotbob]

Maybe this thread needs to RIP too.

BOb

[bill_mchale]

The thing I find amazing is that people often claim that people need to be free thinking when they disagree with the majority, but when they agree with it, they claim that those who disagree with them are just wrong.

The simple fact of the matter is that climate science is a complex science, and therefore we are generally only really beginning to understand everything that is happening. But that doesn't mean we don't understand anything about what is happening.

Further, the cynicism expressed here by a number of people tends to ignore the reality of the last political administration. A scientist does not get federal funding or prestige by bucking the political will of the President. Whether he was wrong or right, President Bush was on the side of those who believed that climate change either was not happening or was not man made. Scientists like Jim Hansen and others did not make any real friends by bucking the established power structure.

The final thought I have is that many of the most vocal opponents to the position that man made global warming is real are not people who I would trust to be adequate interpreters of the data. The very complexity of the data requires lots of compute time on HPC systems to make sense. Being am MD, biologist, chemist or even a physicist does not make you qualified. I know I certainly am not qualified to interpret all the data.

Funny, none of us are free thinkers enough to try to tell Boeing Engineers how to best build a plane but we assume that because the scientists are dealing with a subject even more complex than aerospace engineering, that suddenly we are as qualified to interpret the data as the scientists are.

--
Bill

[rawlus]

i know i am not qualified to interpret scientific data. i never claimed i was qualified.

IDRGAF about the last political campaign - that's an obfuscation argument.

my remarks were about the intent of the fiction novel. what the book was attempting to portray as part of the storyline.

i don't see the correlation between boeing engineers and global warming.

actually. correlation is a good word here, as i think laypersons often confuse correlation and causation. more importantly, mainstream media is likely a bit sloppy in the distinction between the two. it is common for an everyday person to make a statement like "polar bears are dwindling because of global warming" - now that is certainly a sensational statement and perhaps even tragic in that polar bears may be dwindling, but the statement implies that global warming is CAUSING polar bears to dwindle. that is certainly one theory in explaining the correlation, but it is hardly a fact.

there may be a correlation between rising temps and polar bears. but that does not mean we should pull out our jump to conclusions mats and start playing.

even the term global warming is in dispute - and the layperson's definition of it is manufactured by media reports and accepted at face value without any understanding whatsoever as to it's meaning and implications. largely those definitions typically include doomsday scenarios, death and destruction, etc. presumably because that puts a picture to the idea and makes it more emotionally relate-able.

the book is a novel, with a storyline that takes a certain point of view and validates it within the structure of it's characters. i think those who immediately cry foul, who claim the author is the devil, part of a right-wing conspiracy, an enemy of science, a bush-appointee or secret confidant, etc. are a little too attached to their own dogma. but in that way, the book is very effective in touching something deep inside the reader too. taking some of the theoretical counter-arguments to popular belief and posing them as legitimate ideas in the context of the storyline can be very entertaining, even informative!

i stand by my earlier statements that the sciences posing the arguments supporting the theory of global warming are politically and financially motivated. that their field is based upon interpreting inaccurate data and/or relying upon subjective computer simulation models. that the media plays a large role in the spread of disinformation and that the fear-mongering is part of a larger objective to pacify and make submissive the population.

The simple fact of the matter is that climate science is a complex science, and therefore we are generally only really beginning to understand everything that is happening. But that doesn't mean we don't understand anything about what is happening.

i could not agree more. given that it is so complex and that we barely understand even a little bit - it seems a little premature to begin issuing doomsday press releases for the purpose of instilling fear, making money, securing support or winning elections, adoration or ego-building.

the challenge is not in understanding what is happening in the here and now - the challenge lies in understanding the WHY and how past events have affected or not affected the path to here. those issues may never be fully understood due to their complexity and our lack of ability to measure our own impact upon natural events.

[pshrynk]

We have a little over a hundred years of observational data and inferred data from core ice samples and silt studies. We really do not know anything for certain. What we do know is that there is an acceleration of atmospheric temperature and cap ice loss that is faster than most regular cycles that can be inferred from the data we have. We also know that the CO2 is 1) increasing rapidly 2) coming from mostly human sources and 3) in the past, when global warming came, it was associated with high CO2.

People who are trying to not have global warming impact on their profit lines want to see this as being uncertain. People who want to reverse the increase in CO2 content of the air see this as certain. Really good scientists see this as data to be studied and postulates to be evaluated.

When I was in college in the 70's, we were getting concerned that a large volcanic eruption might cause a rapid descent into a global cooling event (ice age).

So, do we need to panic? No. We need to do more science.

Do we need to reduce CO2 emmissions? Yes. Because it makes sense to decrease the greenhouse effect if we are headed into a natural heating upswing and especially if it turns out to be the cause of the heating cycle.

Are we going to feel the pain? Yes. Either way.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by rawlus

i know i am not qualified to interpret scientific data. i never claimed i was qualified.

Ok, so we agree that you are not qualified to interpret scientific data; then who is? Maybe climate scientists who have actually spent most of their adult lives studying this stuff?

IDRGAF about the last political campaign - that's an obfuscation argument.

my remarks were about the intent of the fiction novel. what the book was attempting to portray as part of the storyline.

First a correction; I was not talking about a political campaign, but rather the last (and for a few months anyway) and current political administration. I.e. the people who control NASA and NOAA where much of the information on climate change is coming from. The scientists in those organizations were in fact risking their political capital in taking their positions while the Bush Administration is in power.

Secondly, you were defending the position of the book, not as if it was a story set in a fictional universe but as if it was set in essentially our own world. Therefore, my point was not in fact an obfuscation, but in fact directly contradicted your point that scientists talked about global warming purely for their own political or financial gain.

i don't see the correlation between boeing engineers and global warming.

Its an analogy. Aerospace science and Climatology are both very complicated subjects where the layman is not likely to make significant progress. I wouldn't trust you to design a new Jet Boeing and I won't trust you to interpret climate data.

actually. correlation is a good word here, as i think laypersons often confuse correlation and causation. more importantly, mainstream media is likely a bit sloppy in the distinction between the two. it is common for an everyday person to make a statement like "polar bears are dwindling because of global warming" - now that is certainly a sensational statement and perhaps even tragic in that polar bears may be dwindling, but the statement implies that global warming is CAUSING polar bears to dwindle. that is certainly one theory in explaining the correlation, but it is hardly a fact.

there may be a correlation between rising temps and polar bears. but that does not mean we should pull out our jump to conclusions mats and start playing.

Single correlations used as evidence of causation are a logical fallacy, but when you get enough correlations, you certainly have enough data to start developing hypothesis. The simple fact of the matter is that we have thousands of pieces of data that seems suggestive that global temperatures are in fact increasing and some of that data (from the ice cores taken from ice-shelves for example) strongly suggests that there is a strong correlation between increases in CO2 levels and global mean temperatures. Further scientists actually understand to a great degree how CO2 and other gases can actually trap heat on the planet.

So lets see here:

1. Scientists know that CO2, methane and other gases can trap heat on the Earth.
2. There is enough data to suggest a strong correlation between global CO2 levels and global temperatures.
3. Currently we know global CO2 levels have increased significantly over the last century and apparently so have global temperatures.

I can throw in lots of other data but the point here is that it is not simple single case correlation here.

Oh I should point out that science relies on correlation far more than you might think. Its how the first practical vaccine, the small pox vaccine, was developed back in the 18th century and it is still a very important tool for science.

even the term global warming is in dispute - and the layperson's definition of it is manufactured by media reports and accepted at face value without any understanding whatsoever as to it's meaning and implications. largely those definitions typically include doomsday scenarios, death and destruction, etc. presumably because that puts a picture to the idea and makes it more emotionally relate-able.

the book is a novel, with a storyline that takes a certain point of view and validates it within the structure of it's characters. i think those who immediately cry foul, who claim the author is the devil, part of a right-wing conspiracy, an enemy of science, a bush-appointee or secret confidant, etc. are a little too attached to their own dogma. but in that way, the book is very effective in touching something deep inside the reader too. taking some of the theoretical counter-arguments to popular belief and posing them as legitimate ideas in the context of the storyline can be very entertaining, even informative!

But see Crichton was not simply writing a novel. He could have diffused the whole argument with simply stating that it was a novel not reality.

Ultimately, authors of novels, often chew their own political agendas in their novels. None more so than Science Fiction authors.

Scientific data is always tentative, subject to revision based on new information. That does not mean that a counter argument is legitimate just because the main theory might be wrong. Real information has to be produced to undermine the existing theory. Otherwise scientists would have to answer every individual who claims the Earth is flat or that it is the center of the Universe.

i stand by my earlier statements that the sciences posing the arguments supporting the theory of global warming are politically and financially motivated. that their field is based upon interpreting inaccurate data and/or relying upon subjective computer simulation models. that the media plays a large role in the spread of disinformation and that the fear-mongering is part of a larger objective to pacify and make submissive the population.

i could not agree more. given that it is so complex and that we barely understand even a little bit - it seems a little premature to begin issuing doomsday press releases for the purpose of instilling fear, making money, securing support or winning elections, adoration or ego-building.

First I didn't say we understood a little bit, I said we were only beginning to understand it. The two statements are very different. We actually understand a lot, and a lot more every day.

Secondly, during the Bush Administration, pushing climate change as an agenda was not the way for a NASA or NOAA scientist to make money. Quite the opposite.

Thirdly, the arguments almost seem paranoid. As if there is a crypto-kabal out there of liberals, climate scientists and the media who are all working together to push the issue of global warming for their own benefit. At the same time, you ignore the fact that even more powerful interests such as the oil companies, and most other corporations for that matter have a powerful interest in proving global warming to be false.

Finally, I would like to know why, after yourself claiming to not be qualified to interpret the scientific data, you insist that you can know whether or not the scientists are essentially cooking the books? You can't have it both ways.

the challenge is not in understanding what is happening in the here and now - the challenge lies in understanding the WHY and how past events have affected or not affected the path to here. those issues may never be fully understood due to their complexity and our lack of ability to measure our own impact upon natural events.

Sigh.. Why is a question for philosophers. Science may occasionally hit upon a why, but ultimately, they are all about developing theories that make predictions. If A. happens then B will also happen stuff. We don't really understand the why Gravity for example but it hasn't stopped us from sending a man to the moon.

--
Bill

[rawlus]

okay. i'll take the if A happens B happens approach.
what will happen in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years and 100 years given the current situation?


i seem to remember reading some scientific articles that suggested that no amount of curbing CO2 emissions to the extent practical and possible would have any significant effect on forces already in motion. unless we are willing to go back to the dark ages without power, transportation, etc. back to a village/cave economy.

i'm not being drawn into the politicized discussion about bush and liberals and noaa and nasa.

as i said earlier. there is little need for scientists to tell us everything is okay. nothing to worry about. nobody employs those scientists. nobody listens to them. nobody trusts them. the premise is that we must assume that things are terribly wrong. self-loathing must be at full boil. we must agree that we have destroyed something and if we do not act to correct it immediately, the end of days will come. that is what sells television. that is what sells newspapers. that is what sells books. that is what gets funding. that is what attracts attention.

that is the motivation.

in this day and age we love to hate ourselves. we love to point at each other and blamestorm over what we think we did wrong.


i'm only trying to live here amidst all this anxiety and it's really beginning to cramp my chakra.