Let's Stop Scaring Ourselves.....M. Crichton

[MacCovern]

Very good article by famous author Michael Crichton in Parade magazine
today. It can also be seen at the Parade.com website. It's all about societal fears, such as Y2K, global warming, killer bees, population explosion w/ global starvation, and many others of the last forty years.
I have to agree with Crichton, and take it a step further. I am sick of all the "sky is falling" pop culture fears that never materialize.

One paragraph from the articles goes:

"I was reminded of this when I came across this 1972
statement about climate: "We simply cannot afford to gamble...We cannot
risk inaction. Those scientists who are acting irresponsibly.
The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." This author wasn't concerned about global warming. He was worried about global cooling and the coming ice age. ---------------

Other snipets from the article include a prediction from the Club of Rome that world population would reach 14 billion by 2030. The Club of Rome also predicted, in the 1970's, that by 1993 the world would have exhausted supplies of gold, mercury, tin, etc. The Club of Rome appears to be one think tank that wasn't thinking very well!

I learned a long time ago to put a mute button on the doomsayers of this world!

Even here on DU recently, one topic included a subject of possible internment camps being setup in the USA for gays, and a few weeks ago a couple of DUers were concerned that the U.S. would use nuclear weapons in Fallujah. Come on now! It's just more instances of people scaring themselves based on no factual information.

[DireStrike]

1. I disagree about the nukes

This admin wants to use tactical nukes. It might not happen now that the bunker busters have been derailed, but...

What about peak oil?

[enki23]

2. michael crichton is a fucking mouthbreathing imbecile

period.

(now let me try to remember why it was that i had previously formed that opinion of him. i mean, aside from the fact that he's a hack...)

[MacCovern]

12. Crichton must be an idiot, he has a medical degree....

and he's one of the most accomplished authors of our time.

Even if he really was an imbecile, the article uses common sense
to speak for itself.

If all else fails, it's funny how people attack the messenger when they
can't attack the message.

[neuvocat]

32. You have to consider the source

because then you can consider what motives the author really has in mind. Anyone can say all the right things even if they have the wrong reasons.

Crighton by the way has shown a rather racist bent in his writings towards the Japanese (mainly criticizing them as a bunch of ruthless imperialists while ignoring the same of anglo cultures) as well as blacks.

[thinkingwoman]

57. one type of literary criticism swears

that you must consider the source and his/her surrounding culture to properly interpret any written work.

Another type of lit crit swears just the opposite is true--that all that matters is what is actually written.

Both are valid methods.

Nobody is all good or all bad. Unless they are the anti-christ of course. ;-)

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

61. Love the subject you bring up, I believe both critical paradigms

are incorrect, and both are correct when they are both taken into account at the same time.


Please don't make me dig out my old literary crit books! :-)

[thinkingwoman]

62. no digging required!

I certainly don't want to go get mine! LOL

Taking both into account at the same time made for some great discussions back in college!

[Runcible Spoon]

40. and McDonald's is the most "accomplished" restaurant of our time

WTF does it matter how many books he sells? It doens't make his perspective more valuable,truthful, or relevant, just easier and more entertaining to read. So what, he has a medical degree. Fucking Condoleeza Rice has a PhD!

[BlueEyedSon]

60. Same way you attacked me, rather than my message...

which is still unanswered?

Idiot.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2790107&mesg_id=2790344&page=

[bvar22]

88. Micheal Crichton is a pulp fiction writer.

He HAS SOLD alot of pulp fiction, none of which has ANY literary merit. Calling him one of the "most accomplished authors of our time" is a bit of a reach.


GROUP A
People who sell a alot of books:

Elmore Leonard
Ann Coulter
Tom Clancy
Stephen King



GROUP B
Most Accomplished Authors of Our Times

F. Scott Fitzgerald
Ernest Hemmingway
William Faulkner
John Irving
Ken Kesey
Harper Lee
John Steinbeck




In which group do you put Michael Crichton?

[MacCovern]

90. Not Hemingway, but not Coulter either

I would leave room for more than only two groups of writers.

[chicagiana]

110. I don't agree ..

Chricton is clearly a VERY smart man. You CANNOT get through medical school without being bright.

I disagree with some of the things he says. But THIS particular message actually gels well with the line of reasoning that Michael Moore presents. He's talking about the general "culture of fear".

In the case of global warming, I don't think he's looked close enough. He cites the "science of consensus" but hasn't looked at the science ITSELF!!!

[salvorhardin]

3. Links to articles

are good things.

Won't someone buy a poor boy a link? :-)

[Downtown Hound]

4. I agree somewhat

I don't think the world is going to end anytime soon, and even if the worst fears about global warming came to pass, I think humanity would survive. But I still think we need to be doing much more than we are doing. We have viable options out there for alternative fuels and renewable energy. All we lack is the political will to implement them. In addition to helping our environment, they could create thousands upon thousands of jobs here in the U.S.

[Kingshakabobo]

5. All is well. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Democracy will never be in jeopardy in this country.

[MacCovern]

6. parade article link....

http://www.parade.com/current/coverstory/index.html

[charlie]

Not available

until December 13.

[MacCovern]

8. sections of article are available

Just click on the killer bee, Y2K, or, one of the other icons to read parts of the article.

[immoderate]

10. Parade Magazine is right wing trash.

--IMM

[Kurovski]

48. Amen, amen, and amen.

I would only add by saying it's trash greasily sliding into filth.

The 2nd page "question" column is a particularly egregious bit of propagandic horseshit. But I stopped reading it almost a year ago, so let me know when they say the Bush war was wrong.

However, it is nice that they carry comics for the developmentally disabled.

[foo_bar]

63. 'Howard Huge' Calendars to Be Sent to Deployed Troops

The executive director said she hopes the calendar "will remind the troops of the faith, optimism and sense of humor that are alive and well among those that they so honorably serve. We are grateful to them for safeguarding our country."

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2003/n12052003_200312052.html

[ElsewheresDaughter]

70. Parade is a rightwing rag...never read it!......

Most Americans read few if any newspapers. The papers that are read most often are the Sunday editions, the ones with the comics, the TV guide, and Parade Magazine. The papers that carry Parade as an insert run the full gamut from extremely right-wing to moderately right-wing, but Parade itself sticks close to the extreme, not just with its articles but especially with its regular advice column "Ask Marilyn."

[indigobusiness]

7. We are drama junkies...

of all forms, even world politics.

[BlueEyedSon]

9. Reality check:

We ARE running out of oil (peak production expected this decade).
We HAVE changed the global climate.
There ARE too many people to feed (and wait til oil production decreases!)
The environment IS polluted everywhere (recent stories about mercury and perchlorate for examples)
Depleted Uranium IS a nuclear weapon the US has deployed in Iraq.

Did Crichton mention that the "societal fear" of Islamic terrorism is largely manufactured by the Bush admin?

[MacCovern]

11. Doomsday Report?

That gives me a near perspective on fear to get a "reality check" from someone who mentions the Doomsday Report.

Yes, we are running out of oil, and you will see more and more hybrid vehicles on the road in years and decades to come. After that, other energy sources will be utilized. It will be a bump in the road and not a catastrophe.

Yes, the climate has changed, and it has changed time and time again over the last several million years. We will adjust and it won't be doomsday or anywhere close.

No, there are not too many people to feed. There are problems with agriculture and food distribution, but there will not be any mass starvation. In the USA right now, we have a pandemic of mass obesity that is a much more important problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, the environment is polluted, and it will always be a difficult issue to deal with, but in the USA pollution is far better now than it was when I was a kid growing up in the late 1960's and early 1970's!!!!!!!!!!

"Societal fear" of Islamic terrorism is based on Americans seeing their fellow countrymen jumping from high rises to grisly deaths, and hearing calls from friends and loved ones made from planes hijacked by Islamic
fundamentlists in order to kill "infidels". That's a real fear.

The nuclear weapons I was referring to regards posts on DU that the U.S. military will use tactical nuclear weapons in Iraq. This will not happen...PERIOD.

[Straight Shooter]

16. "This will not happen ... PERIOD."

I will accept such a statement only from someone who has the authority to dictate what does and does not happen in Iraq, and who is also blessed with an abundance of precognition.

Until such information is forthcoming and verified, the question of nuclear tactics remains on the table.

bush is a trigger-happy warmongering freak. Whatever it takes to fill his thrill, he'll find a way.

[Straight Shooter]

54. 4 hours later and no response to my challenge

Therefore, I conclude there IS a possibility of nuclear tactics being used in Iraq.

As the old saying goes, anything is possible. And with Little Boots, anything goes.

[MacCovern]

67. Yes, possible that the creatures from Pluto will land on W/H lawn

also, but it is so unlikely it is not even worth discussing.

[BlueEyedSon]

22. Typical right wing tactic, an ad hominem smear (ha, over a URL name!).

Why "doomsday"?

Partly for shock value, partly it's my ironic sense of humor (not to mention that all the good domain names are already taken). Primarily, the word reflects an abrupt change generally not for the better. Many doomsday-type events have occurred, usually with localized effects. If you survived a major earthquake, volcano eruption or perhaps Chernobyl, I'm sure the experience was quite doomsday-esqe. What these events have in common was their unpredictability and as such they would have been difficult to prevent or mitigate.

OTOH, I will deal with your issues.

Please substantiate your claim that there exist technically feasible, reasonable cost "other sources" of energy. Hope (and/or wishful thinking) is not a plan.

Describe to the best of your knowledge the historical and or fossil records of climate change as abrupt as the one we are seeing now (which is coincident with increased human-produced CO2 concentrations).

There are mass starvations now, you ought to open a newspaper.

While there are better environmental regulations than in the 60's. they are fast being rolled back by the Bush admin. While the RATE of despoiling of the environment has decreased (and locally some hot spots are much cleaner now), the environment is overall more polluted and more CONSISTENTLY polluted. There are no "pristine" places left at all anymore.

As far as dying in a terrorist attack, the odds are much higher of dying of a whole lot of other things, yet there is hardly any mania around smoking, drunk driving, cancers (an other common diseases), handgun accidents, etc.

IIRC, Bush has articulated his desire for tactical nukes. Maybe it's just a bluff to our enemies (potential and otherwise), but based on his willingness to use bunker busters and shock and awe tactics, why would it not be reasonable to assume he wouldn't deploy small nukes if he had them?

[sangh0]

29. self-delete

,

[BlueEyedSon]

33. You got the wrong guy, but thanks for amping up my credibility.

Sheesh!

[sangh0]

34. You're right

I must have had a brain fart.

My profuse apologies

[MacCovern]

65. Abrupt climate change

Just have time now to answer one, but here it is.

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/climatechange_wef.html

From the linked web page:

"Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earths climate can shift gears within a decade,..."

I'll answer some of your other questions later on today.

[FizzFuzz]

104. just adding to your excellent fact-based post

From IUCN the World Conservation Union

<snip>
The world's species face an unprecedented crisis. The rate at which they are being lost is alarming, even when compared with the extinction episode of 70 million years ago when the dinosaurs disappeared. No-one knows exactly what the current extinction rate is, but recent calculations by leading scientists put it at between 1,000 and 10,000 times greater than it would naturally be. The rate of extinction also appears to be increasing. Species are threatened in every habitat on every continent, though the severity of threat varies from place to place. Evidence suggests that freshwater habitats, particularly rivers, and oceanic islands are very severely affected by species extinction. Tropical Asia and Australia appear to suffer particularly high extinction rates.

<snip>
There are many causes of the current extinction crisis, but all of them stem from unsustainable management of the planet by humans.....
.....Most {threats to species} relate to large-scale modifications of the Earth's surface by humans, and the loss of species is largely an unintended by-product of the way people have chosen to live. Behind the threats are powerful driving forces that push species to extinction at an increasing rate. For instance, the increasing economic wealth of much of the world is making demands on the natural environment that cannot be met, leading to habitat destruction, over-harvesting of animals and plants, pollution, and climate change. At the opposite end of the spectrum, in the poorer regions of the world, poverty is forcing people to adopt modes of subsistence living involving activities such as burning and over-grazing that are destroying critical habitats for species. The trend to increasing economic globalisation and the relaxation of trade controls lies behind the uncontrolled spread of invasive species.

*********
not meaning to nitpick, just adding an issue that is particularly painful to me.

[chicagiana]

115. I don't like Mass Extinction ...

...

Ya know, I really don't like mass extinction either. But I think we aren't being scientific if we claim these are harms to human existence.

Extinction is merely a mechanism of evolution. Extinction clears the way for adaptation among surviving species.

Invasive species is a process of nature. It is biological exploitation. At the same time, they provide an opportunity for evolution of local species.

Zebra mussels are a HUGE problem in the Great Lakes. However, they are an IMMENSE foodsource for SOMETHING. And at some point, some of our lake fishies will figure out how to exploit that food source.

I think we SHOULD be concerned about these things because we're loosing the natural wonders of the world. Of course, in some cases we're loosing a potential economic resource in species.

But this does NOT threaten the existence of humanity. It only threatens the quality of that existence. Extinction and invasive species are merely mechanisms of natural selection. Bemoaning these things as a danger to the planet only strikes as hypocritical*.


* That is, unless you believe in intelligent design. In that case, we are losing something that we can never get back because we have no idea when god will make new animals to take the place of the old ones.

[IrateCitizen]

116. You're being unscientific if you ignore it's threat

Every time a mass extinction has occurred on the planet, which are the organisms that have seen their way through to the other side? They aren't the ones with low birth-rates, large food requirements, and long gestation periods. They're the ones with high birth-rates, low food requirements and short gestation periods.

Should the mass extinction reach a critical mass, it won't be humans surviving through to the other side. It will be rats, field mice, cockroaches, various bacteria, and so on.

Humans, like the dinosaurs, were not built to survive in a world with curtailed energy (meaning food) sources. As such, we will go the way of the dinosaurs. Sure, life will continue on -- but will do so without us.

Maybe the earth will be better off for it in the end....

[chicagiana]

126. For animals without reason .... yes ...

For animals with the ability for foresight and planning, the old biological rules do not apply.

BTW, mass-extinction is typically a result of climatic super catastrophe. No such super catastophe exists here. The SOURCE of the mass extinction is the presence of a "super-predator". US ...

Basically, human beings are the ULTIMATE invasive species on this planet. A lack of biodiversity is distressing. And I agree a certain amount of resources and potential will be lost.

However, the conclusion that human beings will eat themselves into extinction seems a bit pre-mature to me. Our species has already outlasted periods of massive starvation as mass culling of our numbers.

Beyond disease, humanity is it's sole predator. It is the mind that has made us more versatile than ALL the other animals.

As far as apoclyptic visions go, I'm more concerned with:

1) Yellowstone blowing it's top.
2) Large Meteor/Comet Strike.
3) Nuclear war.

THESE are the things that have the potential to end humanity. Global warming simply threatens our numbers and where we habitate.

[IrateCitizen]

128. Foresight and planning? Ha! That's a good one!

It is precisely the lack of foresight and planning that humanity posseses that has led us to the point at which we are now. It is precisely this lack of foresight and planning that is preventing us from adequately addressing global climate crisis, all the attendant problems of fossil fuels, mass extinction, etc. We certainly do possess reason, but sadly that reason comes with a complete lack of foresight and planning.

My big problem with the mass extinction and our lack of attention to it is inherent in your response. I'm not picking on you here, because your thoughts are pretty much within the mainstream of thinking on this matter. One of the hallmarks of Western civilization is the belief that we are somehow "separate" from our environment and the greater ecosystems around us. We may see them as necessary for the continuation of our lives and civilization, but it is still seen as something separate from us.

The inherent problem is that it is NOT separate from us. We are a part of our environment, and it is a part of us, just like every other species on earth. Life and ecosystems are much like intricate spider webs. You may be able to break strands here and there and the web will still survive pretty much intact. However, if you break enough small strands over time, entire sections of the web will suddenly collapse.

That is what I see us currently doing -- breaking more and more strands. Except we somehow expect our section of the web to remain intact even as we do this. It can't, and I fear that we will find this out the hard way at some point in the not-too-distant future.

[chicagiana]

114. I agree on the "micro-nukes" ...

Though, I think they're looking for a very low yield device.

But this introduces a VERY dangerous incrementalism to MAD. I'm not sure whether foreign powers would distinguish between a .5 Megaton micro-nuke and a 200 Megaton hyrogen device.

Already we have seen Putin "up the ante" and insist that Russia needs a new nuclear weapon. Of course it's pointless. But Bush has given Putin the excuse he needs to enter a new age of nationalist militarism.

[pffarrell]

51. Er, yeah...

the climate has changed many times in the last few million years (last ice ended only 10,000 years ago - in fact, we're probably now in an #interglacial' period) but it have NEVER changed as rapidly as it is changing now. The warning signs are there if you look for them - total 100% failure of the sea bird breeding season in the Shetlands this year; Antartic ice shelf breaking up; Tuvalu under water; first ever hurricane in the south Atlantic; the fact of the matter is that every scientist who deals with environment is worried about how much of life as we know it will survive. While they are quietly trying to increase the chances, people like you are saying 'don't worry, be happy'.

There already IS mass starvation and it's unlikely there'll be another 'green revolution' to keep up with population growth. China and Africa are both suffering from extensive desertification and fertility in the plains states is way down. Don't let's get started on water. You think the oil shortage is going to cause problems...

Pollution is my home state of Texas is lot worse than it was when I was growing up the 60s and 70s !!!!!!! There's a fucking humongous hole in the ozone layers for starters.

The likelihood of any single person in the states being killed by terrorism is miniscule, and the fear is way out of proportion to the likelihood of it happening. So what if people saw it on TV? Just because it was filmed doesn't mean it should dominate your life.

As to your assertion that nuclear weapons will never be used - your say it wil never happen, period - I mean, are you actually the preznit? Or do you just really believe what he says?

I also had your mantra once - I was growing up in the 70s appalled by everything that was happening environmentaly. But then I decided I wouldn't worry - since the government knew what was happening, they'd fix it. I re-opened my eyes 20 years later. Kind of wish I hadn't.

[MacCovern]

66. Your memory is shot about the 1960's pollution

Sorry, all the facts speak up for my assertion that pollution levels
in the USA have drastically decreased since the 1960's.

Here are some of the results of the Clean Air Act of 1970:

The direct benefits of the regulations are reflected in the emission reductions observed following 1970. SO2 levels decreased 40% by 1990, mostly attributed to utilities installing scrubbers or switching to lower-sulfur fuel. Nitrogen oxide (NOx) levels decreased by 30%, mostly achieved through installation of catalytic converters to highway vehicles. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) lowered by 45% and CO levels lowered by 50%, mostly attributed to other vehicle controls. The reductions in use of lead (Pb) in gasoline reduced Pb emissions from approximately 237,000 tons to 3,000 tons by 1990, about an incredible 99% reduction.

[chicagiana]

117. Don't forget the Northwest Passage ...

The Ice-Sheets in Greenland are melting at an alarming rate. AND, the Northwest Passage has opened up for many months of the year.

Some scientists expect that the Northwest Passage could be open for year round traffic year round within decades.

The GREAT threat here is that the Gulf Stream will shut down. If that happens, it will cancel out the relatively mild climates of the US/Canadian NE and England (comparitive to their latitudes). Those regions could go into an ice age.

At the same, the areas at the equator will get a LOT hotter since the heat will be trapped there.


A rising ocean isn't such a huge deal. We have whole countries that live behind sea walls. New Orleans is behind a sea wall. Yes, it IS a bad thing, but it can be dealt with. Shutting down the Gulf Stream ... that CANNOT be dealt with. It would likely end the nation of Iceland and turn England into a snowball.

[chicagiana]

113. The islamics cannot destory our nation ...

The islamics are in ZERO position to destroy our nation. They ARE in a position to undermine it through their oil resources and our dependence upon it.

REACTING to the global oil marketplace is NOT enough. We must AGGRESIVELY push programs that reduce our dependence on middle east oil.

Terrorism is partially a social cause, but it's also a dangerous game played by people of power in the Middle East. Until we eliminate our dependence on oil, we will be stuck with the very same people who are financing the terrorists.

[chicagiana]

112. Peak oil ...

Yeah, well they said we could fish out the ocean ... they were right.


Yeah, well they said we were poisoning the rivers and streams ... they were right.

They said, they we were destroying the forests ... they were right.


--------------------
Chricton is playing a logical fallacy here. There WERE poor predictions made in the past. The SELECTION of those topics is NOT done by scientists. It's done by media editors looking for the story that will SELL!!!

Not ALL predictions are correct. That is a given. But some ARE!!! And we should look CAREFULLY at each issue one by one. For each threat we should be willing to mitigate (not necessarily neutralize) each threat whether it be from outside or from within.


Chrictons writings about the "science of consensus" are correct. But I don't think Chricton has been studying the consensus insted of the science itself. This year, we are seeing the first tangible PROOFS (rather than derivations based on models) that climate change is real. The ice sheets are breaking up at an alarming rate. This is a CLIMATIC effect, it's not simple wheather.

[EstimatedProphet]

13. Nope

One of the reasons that some of the things listed never came to pass is because of the warnings. Certainly was the case with Y2K at least.

[MacCovern]

17. That was not the case with Y2K

The news reports in 1999 usually included warnings of IMBEDDED
chips in critical devices at power plants, etc, and that it was
too late to change them! Remember? That's why there were so many
predictions of massive power blackouts across the globe.

Companies, including the company I was working for at the time,
spent big $$$$$$$ doing Y2K testing. This testing was overblown,
and turned out to be completely unnecessary.

[EstimatedProphet]

39. My point though

is that the warnings give us the opportunity to address problems. If you are talking about giving up the warnings, you either think that a) the problems we face don't exist, or b) we don't need to address the problems, or can't impact them anyway.

Also, from what I remember of Y2K, there was a lot of concern about programs, not just chips.

[pffarrell]

53. from a computer-programming point of view

the testing ensured that the code worked correctly. Testing is never unnecessary - you have to keep repeating it until there is no problem. Like the previous poster said, there were real problems which were found and corrected before Y2K. It was obviosly overblown by the media, who always want a crisis, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a genuine problem.

[Viking12]

107. Similar phenomenon with population

An always overlooked fact is that fertility rates were roughly halved from the mid-1960s to mid-1980s. As was the case with Y2K, the predictions were forestalled by behavioral changes; knowledge that a population explosion was forthcoming encouraged significant changes in views reproduction.

[neebob]

14. Parade magazine?

Please.

[DavidDvorkin]

15. Common rightwing rhetorical trick

Point to some dire prediction made 20 or 30 years ago, that didn't come true, and say that therefore all dire predictions should be ignored.

This ignores the effect of those old dire predictions. Often, they didn't become true because people paid attention to them and worked to change the conditions which the predictions were based on. E.g., contraception and sex education and improved conditions and job and social prospects in the Third World resulted in lower birth rates. The original predictions didn't say that a certain total population number was inevitable; they said that it would happen if nothing were done to prevent it.

[Iris]

19. It's an article in PARADE!!! for God's sakes! Can anyone really take it

seriously?

[MacCovern]

20. article was written by Michael Crichton

HELLO! The article was not written by a concerned member of the
Mormon Tabernacle Choir, but by a highly educated and respected
author.

[Iris]

21. He writes science fiction novels!

HELLO?????

[MacCovern]

24. He knows science fiction when he sees it!!!!!!!!!!!!

The science fiction of swarms of killer bees killings tens of thousands
of Americans, the science fiction of crack pot movies like "The Day After Tomorrow", the science fiction of half the worlds population dying of starvation, the science fiction of extrapolating a trend until it reaches doomsday proportions even though scientists say the trend won't continue, the science fiction of the false energy crisis of the 1970's, the science fiction of the Y2K fear mongers, the science fiction global famine, the science fiction of mercury in our tap water, and on and on and on.

[Iris]

36. What a perfect person to shill for the Republicans! n/t

[BlueEyedSon]

23. Educated, maybe. Respected.... uhhhh.....

Did you SEE Timeline???

[MacCovern]

25. Timeline????

No, didn't see it.

[BlueEyedSon]

27. Awful.... 5.2 out of 10 at IMDB, 12% at rottentomatoes.com

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0300556/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/timeline/

[MacCovern]

30. Not his best work.....

but he probably couldn't think straight while writing it because of all
the Y2K fear that was building up at the time. :)

Crichton is also author of "Jurassic Park", "The Andromeda Strain",
and he even created the TV series "ER".

[amazona]

38. or read Sphere?

Crichton is a highly uneven writer at best. I assume he doesn't always use the same ghost, because the quality of his story-telling varies outrageously. Just put Jurassic Park (nicely done for what it is) next to Lost World for example.

Timeline the book was just terrible so I hate to think what the movie was like if it was worse!

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

71. Airframe was just as bad.

It was the core story around "Disclosure" without the sexual harassment distraction. Airframe was so bad I couldn't read any more Chrichton books after that one.

[high density]

89. I liked "Airframe" quite a bit, but...

Timeline and Prey really annoyed the hell out of me. Crichton obviously has a massive ego and is very clueless about modern computers. He writes like he knows everything but so often sounds 30 years out of touch.

The whole Y2K issue was mostly hyped up by the media for ratings, so to hear Crichton use that to that as an excuse to ignore current fears just doesn't have any logical base.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

91. I think the thing that bugged me about Airframe was...

where someone tried to blame shoddy construction on the main character. Crichton did the exact same thing in Disclosure. I don't remember much else about Airframe, but that stuck out in my mind, and as I was reading that part, I thought "holy crap, Chrichton just recycled a plot"
Timeline just seemed...odd to me. I read the dust cover and thought "wow, I have no idea what this book is about, except for time travel."

[neebob]

26. Bill O'Reilly wrote an article for Parade

Should we believe him, too? Let's ask Marilyn.

[MacCovern]

28. What was O'Reilly's article about?

Because it's Bill O'Reilly I would be very skeptical!
He's such a smug *#&^$ I hate to give him any credit.

On the other hand, it depends what the subject matter was.

[neebob]

31. It was a promotion piece for Who's Looking Out for You?

or maybe The O'Reilly Factor for Kids. I only know it was in there because my mother, who happens to be a nice Mormon lady from Utah, read excerpts to me over the phone. She gets Parade with her Sunday Deseret News. So she's pretty well informed with that AND Fox News. :)

[Kurovski]

49. She's like, so totally smart!

lol

[Runcible Spoon]

41. as an anthropologist, I puke every time he tries to write "intelligently"

about human evolution. Don't have time to look up quotes for you, but suffice it to say the man needs to do more research!

[bemildred]

18. Have some more KoolAid(tm).

It's grape. I put some extra sugar in it.

Here is more "wisdom" from the good doctor:

Aliens Cause Global Warming

My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to
argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more
precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the
way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming. Charting this
progression of belief will be my task today.

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.

I have a special interest in this because of my own upbringing. I was born
in the midst of World War II, and passed my formative years at the height of
the Cold War. In school drills, I dutifully crawled under my desk in
preparation for a nuclear attack.

It was a time of widespread fear and uncertainty, but even as a child I
believed that science represented the best and greatest hope for mankind.
Even to a child, the contrast was clear between the world of politics-a
world of hate and danger, of irrational beliefs and fears, of mass
manipulation and disgraceful blots on human history. In contrast, science
held different values-international in scope, forging friendships and
working relationships across national boundaries and political systems,
encouraging a dispassionate habit of thought, and ultimately leading to
fresh knowledge and technology that would benefit all mankind. The world
might not be a very good place, but science would make it better. And it
did. In my lifetime, science has largely fulfilled its promise. Science has
been the great intellectual adventure of our age, and a great hope for our
troubled and restless world. But I did not expect science merely to extend lifespan,
feed the hungry, cure disease, and shrink the world with jets and cell phones. I also
expected science to banish the evils of human thought---prejudice and
superstition, irrational beliefs and false fears. I expected science to be,
in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And
here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as
a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more
ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our
world in recent years are invented by scientists. The world has not
benefited from permitting these demons to escape free.

SEPP

[chicagiana]

118. Chrichton talks about nuclear winter ...

But he fails to acknowledge that ice cores have revealed nuclear winter conditions after major volacano eruptions. The science is sound. The "nuclear winter" conclusion is a reasonable extrapolation.

BTW, I do agree with his "science of consensus" notion. I certainly agree with his notion about calculating the number of alien species in the galaxy. It's involves variables that cannot be measured. It's not science.

But I think Chrichton takes liberty and simply connects failed old predictions with new failed predictions without looking at the fundamentals of those predictions.

[bemildred]

120. He points to an "emerging crisis" while talking about credulous fears.

That's all you really need to know about his "thinking".

[chicagiana]

125. Yeah, but this has ALWAYS been the case ...

Someone is ALWAYS running around like chicken little screaming that the world is going to end. It is human nature.

The issue is HOW does one distinguish between people with real foresight and lunatics.

[bemildred]

127. I assume that people who try to scare me have an agenda.

People that want you to think will not try to upset you, scare you,
make you angry, etc. If anything, they will try to defuse emotion.

Other than that, one can examine their arguments. Mr. Crichton
couldn't think his way out of a paper bag.

[IllegalCombatant]

35. "...that's MY JOB!" - mc

reality bringing too much competition, eh, Mike?

just close your eyes and it will all go away and everything will be wonderful again.

[newyawker99]

50. Hi IllegalCombatant!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Lorien]

37. I wish I could live in his happy bunnyworld

mine is fucked. I know too many scientists who strongly disagree with his assertions. If we have 50 years left, will be unbelievably fortunate.

[datasuspect]

42. "happy bunnyworld????"

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

can i have your permission to use this?

[MacCovern]

43. Happy Bunnyworld..... Good place for a bachelor party!

That would be a great name for a "gentleman's" club!

[datasuspect]

45. i dunno

i got the picture of a soft focus frame aswarm with motes and sunlight, fuzzy bunnies hopping eagerly through the pastel meadow while missiles fly overhead and bloody, torn bunny parts are littered througout.

but the living bunnies still hop along lucidly and happily picking flowers while the smoke swirls around them.

[MacCovern]

46. Overpopulation could be a problem in bunnyworld!

Bunnies tend to reproduce at a high rate, and if they are
happy bunnies there could be a an even higher birth rate and that could lead to a lettuce shortage.

[datasuspect]

47. unless gay teletubbies

start eating them

[chicagiana]

119. Especially if they're denied contraception ...

The Catholic bunnymasters decry contraception, but the size of Catholic families has dropped precipitously because they simply don't care.

But deep down, I think the right wing bunnymasters KNOW that poverty and crime are deeply linked with over population. Overpopulation creates an over-dependency on people who possess resources. Under-population (depopulation) devalues "ownership".

So OF COURSE the right wingers want over-population situations!!!

[leftofthedial]

44. global warming could (ironically) trigger an ice age

It could shift the Gulf Stream, greatly cooling Western and Northern Europe

Also, Ice Ages appear to be cyclical and one is over due, or possibly about due.

Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

[Dear Maggie]

52. DHMO is only water - Hoax Alarm

<http://www.snopes.com/toxins/dhmo.htm>A hoax on the internet that started in 1997

dihydrogen monoxide

Quote from article: In March 2004 the California municipality of Aliso Viejo (a suburb in Orange County) came within a cat's whisker of falling for this hoax after a paralegal there convinced city officials of the danger posed by this chemical. The leg-pull got so far as a vote having been scheduled for the City Council on a proposed law that would have banned the use of foam containers at city-sponsored events because (among other things) they were made with DHMO, a substance that could "threaten human health and safety."
_______________________________________________________
So with stuff like this going around, and being BELIEVED, it's no wonder that a real health issue goes unexplored and basically ignored.
... like crying, "Wolf, Wolf"
Shame on them.

Reminds me of how awful the computer virus makers are.
Just playing games or something & stop business, communicating ...

As to the 'warnings' of 2-butoxyethanol family of chemicals,
they are woefully lacking, which is what I would like to share information on

<http://www.valdezlink.com/usa_hoodwinked.htm#say>What products should say

[Dear Maggie]

58. Exxon Valdez oil spill cleanup

I learned what I know about 2-butoxyethanol (ethylene glycol monobutyl ether) from the Exxon Valdez oil spill cleanup.

I developed an interest in this after a family member, who worked as a 'bioremediation worker' on the Exxon Valdez oil spill, became ill. He took a job there just after graduating from high school to earn money to go to college. I found other spill workers that were sick. I developed a feeling that the illnesses were caused by the chemicals used to clean the oil. The only chemical mentioned then was 2-butoyethanol (ethylene glycol monobutyl ether)

My study started in earnest June, 2002 after he had been diagnosed with a low red blood cell anemia, but the doctor was stumped as to the cause: he had a colonoscopy to check for internal bleeding. They did a bone marrow test; a lymph node biopsy as his lymph nodes were swollen throughout his body. Nothing was seeming to be the cause.

As you look at the symptoms of the oil clean up workers; you discovered that they were similar to 'Gulf War Syndrome.' You asked yourself the question could there be an active chemical in the oil cleanup chemicals that was also used in the Gulf War? I explored how each oil spill was cleaned up in 1989 vs 1991. Actually, the symptoms and definitions for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome are also strikingly similar

I felt that should be studied by professional staff but I was largely ignored. I also began to develop questions about the safety of ordinary household cleaners, since Exxon said Inipol EAP 22 had the same chemical as in these. Intro

I am just an ordinary person in a remote area of Alaska whose loved one got sick and I am asking the question why? I have done no scientific research of my own, but have looked at studies done by others. I pass on what I have found as a service to others. It is up to them whether they reach the same conclusions I did. I am not trying to sell anything. It is as simple as that.

I hope that others will not be harmed by this chemical, as many of the tests just to see what is wrong, (when doctors don't know) can be painful, expensive, and many times unnecessary (?)

Now how can you tell if you ARE harmed by this 2-butoxethanol? Well, there are a lot of odd add on symptoms, however, I theorize that the blood will all look alike. Do you have acquired autoimmune hemolytic anemia?

Same info with photos & more info
<http://www.seattlepress.com/features/forum/viewtopic.php?p=134#134>

[Blue_Tires]

55. i was very shocked to read that today

there should have been a disclaimer somewhere that Crichton is NOT a scientist, but a writer--and a fiction writer at that....yeah, the Y2K thing was complete bullshit, but cover your eyes about the population explosion and global climate change at your own risk

[sandnsea]

56. It's the same damned thing

And Michael Chricton ought to know it. You should too, another case of people who need to get a clue and READ.

[DrWeird]

59. Crichton's a hack.

I don't know why anybody takes him seriously.

[OETKB]

64. What the hay?

This is the man who wrote "The Adromeda Strain" and other pulp stories which imagined unlikely fears. Is this his credentials for this fluff piece mish-mashing together real concerns and Enquirer headlines!(Global warming vs Killer Bees)

[IrateCitizen]

68. Utter gibberish...

Global climate change is hardly a "fringe theory". It is considered to be a stark reality by about 95% of the scientific community -- and these same scientists are saying that their most recent modeling is indicating that it will be much worse than they suspected just a few short years ago. The ecosystem of the North Sea is currently in total collapse. If that isn't a sign of urgency, I don't know what is.

As for food shortages, we'll see what happens when the average temperature throughout the midwest rises just another 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit. Agricultural output throughout the midwest south of the Dakotas has fallen off every year for the past 4-5 years due to a rise in temperature of only 1 degree F. Furthermore, industrialized agriculture techniques, which are increasingly dependent on chemical fertilizers and pesticides while reducing crop rotation, are literally destroying the topsoil while producing a tremendous amount of pollution in runoff. The Gulf of Mexico now has a "dead zone" the size of a medium state, believed to be attributable to nitrogen from farm runoff into the Mississippi River.

You say that pollution in the US has gotten better since the 1960's. That's true. The problem is, that throughout the developing world (the majority of the earth's landmass), it has gotten much worse. Forests have been clear-cut for timber and for farmland. Rapid industrialization of these regions has occurred as transnational corporations move to the areas with the least labor and environmental controls -- and has resulted in massive pollution. If that doesn't sway you, we are currently in the midst of the greatest mass-extinction on this planet since the fall of the dinosaurs -- and it's being caused almost entirely by us.

Michael Crichton is a hack. He doesn't even write his own damned books anymore. And you're either a propagandist or a rube for falling for this line of tripe as well.

[MacCovern]

72. Agricultural Output is Increasing

Let's take your following statement at face value:

"Agricultural output throughout the midwest south of the Dakotas has fallen off every year for the past 4-5 years due to a rise in temperature of only 1 degree F."

The bottom line is that agricultural output is increasing in the United States and throughout the world. Let me reference the "Mackinac Center for Public Policy" with the following paragraph:

"World food production has increased steadily since 1980: Output for meats, rice, and fish has increased by more than one third (see Table 1, next page). From 1950 to 1992, worldwide grain production per person increased 154.5%.<45> These increases are largely a result of the ongoing technological revolution in agriculture."

and another one:

"In the United States, the farm output index rose from 73 in 1970 to 92 in 1980 to 108 in 1993.<46> This is a 17.4% increase over 1980 output levels and a 47.9% increase over 1970 output levels. Moreover, the U. S. continues to be a net exporter of agricultural products<47> and total farm income increased by 63.0% from 1980 to 1994, according to the U. S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.<48>"

http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=733

[IrateCitizen]

73. I noticed that neither you nor the study you cited...

... addressed issues such as the following:
- Water pollution from pesticides and nitrogen-based fertilizers
- Decreasing forest for farmland
- Degradation of topsoil due to industrialized agricultural techniques
- Possible negative effects on food production due to global climate change and accompanying ecological shifts
- The mass-extinction currently underway and its possible effects on greater ecosystems (and human existence)

Thanks for the college try, but you're still presenting yourself as either a rube or a propagandist. I'm starting to lean toward the latter.

[MacCovern]

77. Water pollution is a problem, but it will be answered

As with so many things, increased water pollution due to increased use of pesticides and fertilizers will have to be addressed and mankind will come up with technology to answer it.

It is a problem, and will probably be ignored until it gets worse, but don't scare yourself too much over it.

[IrateCitizen]

78. OK, I've finally decided on you, MacCovern...

You're no rube. You're a pure propagandist.

... mankind will come up with technology to answer it.

I love this kind of thinking. It enables us to just do whatever the hell we want and trash the planet because, well, we'll find technology to fix it someday! Sadly, such thinking seems to be a hallmark of Western civilization, due to our belief that the environment is somehow something "separate" from us, something to be controlled and exploited -- rather than properly recognizing it as the source for all our life and therefore something to be preserved through good stewardship.

It is a problem, and will probably be ignored until it gets worse, but don't scare yourself too much over it.

Yeah, nothing to see here, move along. It's not like humans need fresh water in order to LIVE or anything like that.... :eyes:

[Lorien]

106. Those who always call themselves part of the "responsibility party"

are never responsible. Like all things BushCo; leave the mess for someone else to clean up, while the robber barons fill their vaults!

The RW will always say that everything will be just fine, as long as they have the reins of power and see a bright future filled with short term profits.

[chicagiana]

122. Thats like going cyronic because ...

That's like signing a cryonics contract because you assume that scientists will figure out a way to fix all your ruptured cells in the future.

Some people say we will travel through the stars because humans always overcome obstacles. They point out that some naysayers once said we couldn't reach the moon, but we did. Therefore, we will reach the stars.

Your using the same nonsense logic as Chricton does, simply in the reverse.

There are REASONS why something is or is not. And it is best to FOCUS on those reasons rather than who is making the case.

[Bridget Burke]

75. Do you have a source that's not a right-wing think-tank?

Somehow, I can't accept an article by a hack novelist published in a trash publication like "Parade" as the final truth.

[MacCovern]

80. Mackinac Center claims to be non-partisan

but I don't really know much about them.

[Bridget Burke]

85. They're right-leaning....

They hate the teachers' union & love vouchers.

And everything we heard about the Depression was wrong; FDR really screwed up.

--Just from a bit of browsing.

[MacCovern]

74. North Seas ecosystem is in collapse....

but it will rebound sometime. I don't know when but it will rebound,
and it is important that activists do what they can do to ring a bell about over fishing, and other problems in the North Sea. It is debatable, however, how long a warmer climate will effect the area.

Looks like I'll have to get cod from a different source, but it won't be the end of the world.

[IrateCitizen]

76. How? There's no more plankton?

Plankton is the basis for the ecosystem of the North Sea. But, due to an influx of fresh water from melting ice caps and a general warming trend, the North Sea no longer supports an abundant store of plankton. Therefore, the entire food chain collapses as the lowest block is pulled out.

Overfishing is a concern, to be sure. But your response demonstrates the kind of short-sightedness that is always present in this debate. It seems that many people only want to focus on the species that we use directly for food, while it is perhaps even MORE important to look at the broader picture of the species that those food sources depend upon for survival, and their place in the greater ecosystem.

Plankton will not return to the North Sea until the average temperature drops and salinity rises again. Sadly, this will not occur until the Gulf Stream conveyor belt basically shuts down and Northern Europe is plunged into an ice age.

[Lorien]

97. Yep. The dead zones are spreading too

remember that 65% of our oxygen comes from ocean flora-when vast areas support NO life, and those areas keep growing...well, you do the math.

[hatrack]

69. "Those astronomers used to say that the Sun orbited the Earth!"

Who needs astronomers? Just look at how WRONG they've been!!!

Whatever, hack.

:puke:

[Killarney]

79. Reality check here.

Crichton is not a Republican shill. Crichton is a stong dem and has donated thousands to Dem. candidates this year. He's not an idiot. He's a Harvard educated doctor and writer. And he comes up with great ideas based on science (Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park).

He has a new hardcover coming out tomorrow called "State of Fear" and this article in Parade is obviously just PR for the book.

Crichton covers four predictions of doom in the article that did not come true (Y2K, killer bees, power lines, and sacchrin). It's interesting reading, not the end of the world.

I think some people's reactions to this thread are proof that the purveyors of doom are on overdrive at DU. Without even reading the article, some posters immediately knee-jerk assume that Crichton as a Republican shill working to undermine progressive ideals. Puhleeze. He's promoting his new book! Duh.

Yes, there are real problems out there (peak oil, etc) but--FACT--not every doomsday scenario turns out to be true. I'm sure many here on DU had their Y2K bunkers ready to go. Crichton isn't poo-pooing progressive ideals, he's just saying that not every doomsday scenario comes true. Which is fact.

[Bridget Burke]

87. It's like conspiracies....

Did little green men do 9/11? Probably not.

Did the Bush regime do as little as possible to prevent 9/11? I'd bet on it.

By making much of the sillier conspiracies, you also denigrate the ones that may be true. It's the same for predictions of doom--we do need to be concerned about Global Warming.

Links to right-wing sites also don't help.

[Minstrel Boy]

81. We're not scared enough of the right things.

And killer Bees and Y2K are not the right things.

Some of the right things:

The oceans are dying and the ice caps melting.
We're living through the greatest extinction event since the dinosaurs.
Climate change is happening faster than expected, and a runaway greenhouse effect mid-century is forecast.
Oil and gas are peaking as demand soars, and there is no efficient energy replacement.
The rise of US fascism to capitalize on and manage global instability.

But hey, if you think this is just pissing in the wind, the more power to you. I wouldn't want to disabuse you of your illusions. They can be quite a comfort.

Hush, now don't you believe it
Cover your head and close your eyes
Now, take it or leave it
Go back to bed and don't you cry
- Steve Earle, "Conspiracy Theory"

[MacCovern]

82. runaway greenhouse effect= oceans will boil

Oh, Please spare me. You think the oceans will reach boiling point
in just 50 more years? A runaway greenhouse effect would occur if
the water in the oceans vaporized. It's not going to happen!...at least
not for a few million more years.

Talk about scaring yourself Minstrel Boy!

[IrateCitizen]

83. STRAWMAN ALERT!!!

You think the oceans will reach boiling point in just 50 more years? A runaway greenhouse effect would occur if the water in the oceans vaporized. It's not going to happen!...at least not for a few million more years.

Where, oh where, did Minstrel Boy say anything about oceans boiling? Oh yeah, that's right -- HE DIDN'T.

What he DID say, however, is largely a scientific consensus -- that we will find the emerging global climate crisis reaching a "runaway effect" in which certain aspects of warming actually facilitate the release of more carbon into the atmosphere, accelerating the effect.

A prime example of this would be the methane that is trapped in permafrost near the Arctic Circle. So long as the permafrost remains frozen, the methane is trapped. But if global warming causes it to melt, the methane gas will be released, causing warming to accelerate further.

This also has been proven through experiment to happen to alpine meadows that experience a warming of about 1 degree Fahrenheit. Native plant species are replaced by sagebrush, and soil samples exhibit a lower carbon content. That carbon is released into the atmosphere, fueling more warming.

Talk about dishonest debate, MacCovern!

[MacCovern]

84. Definition of runaway greenhouse effect

Minstrel Boy mentioned a prediction of a runaway greenhouse effect by
the middle of the century. Here, check out what a runaway greenhouse effect is:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/venus/greenhouse.html

[IrateCitizen]

86. That's one definition, among many

It's obvious to almost anyone who has read up on global climate crisis that the term "runaway greenhouse effect" refers to a phenomenon in which human-induced warming of the planet triggers the release of more carbon deposits into the atmosphere (like the examples I cited), which makes the global climate crisis a process that accelerates on its own.

Furthermore, anyone who has looked at the realities of climate change knows that the accompanying melting of polar and glacial ice caps will eventually bring many ocean currents (like the Gulf Stream conveyor effect) to a halt, which will usher in a new ice age in areas like Northern Europe. The severity of that ice age, we do not really know.

[Minstrel Boy]

92. You're armed with little more than a search engine and wishful thinking.

Inform yourself. Or don't. Just carry on imagining everything's fine. It's your choice, and life is short, and you probably won't live to see the worst of this anyway.

But if you inform yourself, you will learn that humanity is entering a period of an unprecedented convergence of crises. The worst case scenarios needn't happen in every single case for us to be well and truly up against it.

Now, about the predicted runaway greenhouse effect mid-century, I presume you haven't seen this from 1998(or if by chance you have, Dr Pangloss, you've probably called it "scaremongering"):

Super-Computer Predicts Runaway Greenhouse Effect

Findings from Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Change presented to 170 countries in Buenos Aires show that parts of the Amazon rain forest will turn into desert by 2050, threatening the world with an unstoppable greenhouse effect.

The startling findings are the result of billions of calculations made by the world's biggest super-computer, installed at the Hadley Centre in Berkshire. The latest figures show the earth is heating up fast, with 1998 already the hottest year since reliable records began 140 years ago.

...

Perhaps the most startling finding is the prospect of a runaway greenhouse effect after 2050. It has been thought that the speed of global warming would be moderated by the extra growth in plants and trees made possible because of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This carbon dioxide fertiliser effect stimulates plants to grow faster.

The latest information shows that this benefit will be lost in 2050 because of lack of rainfall in key areas. Worst affected will be northern Brazil, where the Amazon rain forest will turn into desert, and the eastern United States. Parts of southern Europe will become virtual deserts at the same time.


Here's a more recent, related story, also from The Guardian:

Climate Fear as Carbon Levels Soar
Scientists bewildered by sharp rise of CO2 in atmosphere for second year running
October 11, 2004

An unexplained and unprecedented rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere two years running has raised fears that the world may be on the brink of runaway global warming.

Scientists are baffled why the quantity of the main greenhouse gas has leapt in a two-year period and are concerned that the Earth's natural systems are no longer able to absorb as much as in the past.

...

But the fear held by some scientists is that the greater than normal rises in C02 emissions mean that instead of decades to bring global warming under control we may have only a few years. At worst, the figures could be the first sign of the breakdown in the Earth's natural systems for absorbing the gas.

That would herald the so-called "runaway greenhouse effect", where the planet's soaring temperature becomes impossible to contain. As the icecaps melt, less sunlight is reflected back into space from ice and snow, and bare rocks begin to absorb more heat. This is already happening.

[MacCovern]

95. super-computer garbage in, garbage out

I don't believe the flawed findings by the Hadley Centre for
one second.

Please see link below:

http://www.canada.com/national/features/kyoto/story.html?id=77561A00-E5CC-48EC-A54B-9B79B93B1120

Seriously, most, if not all, of the projections for increasing temperatures on earth are BOGUS. That's right, they are BOGUS.
I will be proven correct, and I will pay a visit to each one
of you doubters in your nursing home around the year 2050.

[Minstrel Boy]

96. Again, you cite a right wing source.

The National Post is Canada's neoconservative organ. Its editorializing against Kyoto is not surprising, nor does it debunk my points. Nor does referencing it as an authority look good on you.

[MacCovern]

98. The Global Warming Scam, it's a new religion

Here, try this one from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4066189.stm

Here are two paragraphs from the article:

"Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.

It provides the media with a new scare story, which has been picked up by the focus groups and turned into the new religion, offering us hell if we don't all change our ways. However, believing in anthropogenic global warming is not enough, but that is all it can offer."

[sonicx]

100. one page, opinion piece that calls GW a scam?

try again

[Lorien]

102. My home was hit by three hurricanes this year

More than in the past 60 years combined. Why? Because warmer sea temperatures fuel tropical depressions and turn them into killer hurricanes. We'll have just as many, if not more, next year-which is why I'm selling my home while it's still standing!

That Greenhouse "Hoax" has cost me a sh*tload of time and money this year. Expect your insurance bills to go up too-wherever you live. The insurance companies know what's really going on, and they aren't buying into the happy RW science-free fantasy world.

[MacCovern]

103. Fewer hurricanes predicted in 2005

First, I have to say I'm sorry you got hit with three hurricanes
in 2004. It was sort of a fluke, because the number of hurricanes
that hit Florida was a once in a lifetime event.

The 2004 hurricane season was active, but see the link below and
you can see that it was by no means a record. Usually, more
hurricanes stay out at sea, but that was not the case in 2004.

http://iri.columbia.edu/outreach/education/openhouse2002/presentation/hurricane/node31.html

A noted storm forecaster is already predicting few hurricanes in 2005.
Check out the CNN article linked below:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WEATHER/12/03/hurricanes.reut/

[Lorien]

105. Nobody predicted these three last year

facts are facts; the sea is warmer, and warmer seas create stronger storms. More hurricanes next year; bank on it.

[Viking12]

108. Written by a "Visiting Professor of Petroleum Geology" no less

Certainly the kind of authoritative voice I would listen to. (sarcasm off)

Here's an article form last week's issue of Science:

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" .

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" . The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" . Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.


Subscription required:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

[chicagiana]

124. Climate change is "the norm"

Climate change 'is the norm'
Viewpoint
By Dr Martin Keeley
Geologist, and a Visiting Professor at University College London


...

The issue thus framed would completely alter the capital expenditure question facing policy makers, away from tinkering with the emissions from the cleaner, industrialised nations (thereby delaying modelled anthropogenic global warming by little more than a decade), and towards more pragmatic solutions.


With further warming, crop production can move to higher latitudes
These might include the abandonment of sub-sea level lands condemned to flooding (including the Netherlands), shifting to Mediterranean crops in northern Europe, the re-cultivation of cold terrains (eg Greenland), and the aggressive reforestation as a microclimate control strategy to rehabilitate dry lands.



OK, so global warming is a scam in his opinion. He claims these are "natural" changes that require "practical solutions". His proof for this is ... nothing. He merely claims that the "human warming" camp haven't made their case.

For instance, the evacuation of the Netherlands, coastal cities and low profile islands. In return, we get ... GREENLAND. Whipee!!!!

BTW, the guy also says that oil will be too expensive in 25 years to be of practical use. So I'm not sure how this really supports your viewpoint.

[chicagiana]

123. I think you mean the "point of no return" ...

"Point of no return" may be a better phenomenon.

There is a point at which humans cannot do anything about it. Than there is a point at which the earth's ecosystem will not recover.


I'm personally curious whether a "hot earth" will naturally produce more volcanic eruptions. Such ashen eruptions could cool the earth.

[bobbyboucher]

93. You're a walking, talking, typing

Rush Limpdick talking point. Perfect example of ignorance is bliss.

[Shakespeare]

94. LOL! Couldn't have said it better myself.

So true, so true. :thumbsup:

[Lorien]

99. Tralalalalaaaa

War is peace, ignorance is strength, your chocolate rations have been increased from 3 oz. to 2 oz. and happiness is a warm gun...what a beautiful world!

[twenty2strings]

101. We're way past worry...

There's too much to do. I've found that worry is an isolation thing. Expose...educate...be rigorous...be annoyingly accurate. Be compassionate to your friends and above all be effective. If you are going to care about what ifs, there are plenty of hard science issues that have credibility. POP QUIZ! WHAT IS THE LONGEST AND LARGEST RIVER IN THE WORLD?...:think:

[chicagiana]

109. Chricton is using a logical fallicy here ...

He's pointing out that SOME people have been wrong in the past. Therefore, the doomsayers of today must be equally wrong.

I have read Chricton's essay on the "Science of Consensus". I agree with the essay. But I do not believe that global warming is a "science of consensus".

The old "global cooling" arguments were based on timing the earths climatic clock which said we were "overdo" for a cooling period. Well, it's easy for some people to get newspaper headlines when making apocolyptic predictions. Thats what the news is ALL ABOUT ... SCARING US!!!

The other trick the media takes is publishing only the most EXTREME figures. Most studies and analysis say little or nothing besides exposing risks with attached caveats. Remove the caveats and you have a good story (ala Saddam Husseing has WMD).

If there is a possibility of "bad things" happening, I think we should talk about it. We should analyze the risk and proactively implement non-obtrusive policies to mitigate those risks. In the case of global warming, that means cutting our CO2 emmissions by insisting our vehicles be more fuel efficient. In the case of WMD, that means keeping Saddam in his box rather than invading.


Are we being chicken little when we talk about a draft that is forthcoming. I don't think so. You can see the overdeployment of the military, you can see the stop-loss, you can see the inactive reserve callups, you can see that the military is only meeting their "downgraded" recruiting targets. You can see that the defense departments are "activating" all the draft boards. It follows that they are preparing for a military draft.

As far as the camps for gays go ... Well, just remember, the progress that has been made in accepting homosexuals as "normal people". And remember that these creeps on the right think of homosexuality as a sin that will bring wrath upon the US if it isn't "cured". I don't think camps would come anytime soon, but given 15-30 years of right wing fundy rule, I could see camps that would identify and attempt to "cure" homosexual behavior.

Remember, the folks on the right decry recent judicial rulings the de-criminalized sodomy (loosely defined as anything other than straight, vaginal, missionary copulation). They also want to make adultry illegal (which I don't think will EVER happen since power brokers like screwing around too much). Isn't it a natural conclusion that if these creeps had their way, they would outlaw all aspects of homsexuality including cross dressing, long hair on men, and any other "gender bending" practices.

Regarding camps for Muslims ... the right wingers are ALREADY calling for it!!! No not the politicians. They know better. They allow their surrogates to forward these ideas. The right wingers WANT camps for Muslims partially from the sense of "security during the 'war'" and partially from just plain religious intolerance. These are the same folks trying to Judgement Day to us. They want half the Jews in the world murdered by the hand of god when Jesus returns. You really think they CARE about putting Arabs in camps ????

[RebelOne]

111. You all are trashing Michael Crichton just as you did

Ray Bradbury when he complained that Michael Moore had stolen his book title.

Well, I am sorry, but I like both authors' books and their political leanings or personal opinions are not going to change that.

[Killarney]

121. Crichton is a Dem. so his political leanings are good

He donated thousands to Dems this year. :)

People are just blowing this article out of proportion. It's just PR for his new book that came out today called State of Fear.