I found this speech on global warming quite compelling.

[survivor999]

By Michael Crichton. If you have the time, please read his speech here (the first on the list) and tell us what you think (please, avoid flames, the guy has good, reasoned points that require rational responses).

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speeches/index.html


For his remarkable bio, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chrichton

[meganmonkey]

1. ..

:popcorn:

[Schema Thing]

5. lol. Michael Crichton and his ilk would pop all the earth's corn

[survivor999]

9. Wrong. He has liberal credentials.

Read the speech transcript, if you want to criticize.

[meganmonkey]

43. Like a journalism award from the Petroleum Association?

That's some kind of credentials, that's for sure!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=376845

[survivor999]

48. So what? These are CORRELATIONS, not causal links?

You are familiar with the difference, right?
If he believes in X and entity Y gives him a prize it does NOT mean that Y paid for him to believe X. It means that they agree with it and want that voice to be heard. Basic logic.

In any case, if you can show me that he got oil money to write his original book and all, I'd change my mind.

[meganmonkey]

50. You're the one who says he has 'liberal credentials'

It would be great if you could define that and cite some specific examples.

I am certain you know the difference between making a vague claim and backing up an assertion with evidence :shrug:

I tried searching "Crichton" and "credentials" and I got the Petroleum award. What can I say?

[survivor999]

6. Hello MeganMonkey, have you read it?

I read the book State of Fear on the plane and got interested in the sources. He's a unique writer, who actually studies real articles and constructs solid arguments.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. It's not as good...

as Anne Rice's novel on the Ozone hole.

[survivor999]

11. Read the transcript and make intelligent comments

if you like. Otherwise, save yourselves the embarrassment.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. I've read it.

It's not as good a read as Nicholas Spark's treatise on Quantum Physics.

[meganmonkey]

Yes, I have

probably about a year or two ago when he made the speech.

I have also read several threads about it here, thus the popcorn.

I'm on vacation, so I'll let others do the hard work of discussing it with you.

:popcorn:

[mom cat]

107. I'll pass. There is no real substance to discuss.

Gimme sum popcorn!

[lapfog_1]

I started reading the article referenced...

and stopped. It's just nonsense. 59 people died at Chernobyl. Right.

Tell that to the families of the survivors.

Chernobyl was one of the great disasters of the 20th century, if he doesn't believe radiation (and don't forget the pure chemical toxicity of the nuclear fuel) is all that harmful, I invite him and you to apply to the Russian government to allow you to spend 2 weeks at the site, doing studies. Of course you know that thousands of Russian troops were flow in to fight the fire, pouring tons and tons of graphite into the opened core. Why thousands? Because 2 to 4 hours of exposure gave each man a lifetime of normal radiation. No, it didn't kill them right away, it may only be killing them NOW (these were young men). The russian government was extremely culpable in the accident and the aftermath... the totalitarian/communist/stalinist natural instinct was to cover up and lie about it. That's why the reported deaths are so small, not because 1000s didn't die or won't die as a direct result of the accident.

Then he trots out Y2K as yet another example of hysteria. And he would be right about it. Except for one thing. Y2K was never an "end of the world" scenario, not by competent scientists. I know, I headed up one of the federal government panels on Y2K. It was an issue, software and hardware had to be checked, almost all didn't have a problem and the ones that did could easily be replaced or reprogrammed. A lot of old RPG coders and cobol programmers got to make some sweet consulting money fixing up things. Computer manufacturers got to sell a lot of replacement gear BASED ON THE FEAR, some business people spent more money than they needed... but hell, the economy was booming, the internet was changing everything, so what the hell, junk the old mainframe and buy a collection of servers... cool. But the people in charge of looking into it never felt that it was a "disaster waiting to happen"... course, we would have been fools to go on the national media and SAY there isn't anything to worry about. Cause if we did, and some railroad track switch box malfunctioned somewhere and a train derailed, wouldn't we look foolish.

As for he take on Global Warming (Global climate Change)... I didn't read far enough to see it. Really, all the other stuff at the front that he talks about is simply not germaine! It doesn't matter how many times people panicked about this or that... he might as well have cited Orson Wells and the War of the Worlds hoax. Global warming is real. It's happening, and it's serious. Period. I didn't spend 6 years on my life working with the MTPE and the EOSDIS/DAO at NASA to spend time listening to the likes of Mr. Creighton. I listened to the data and to the scientists that I worked with at NASA. The data doesn't lie. Nor do the computer models. In fact, if anything, the predictions are conservative as they didn't take into account positive feedback loops built into the environment. Newer computer models are doing a better job. The data is not good.

As Al Gore says over and over, the debate is over, now what do we do about it?

[survivor999]

13. How's life at Pepperoni Inspired?

:)

[meganmonkey]

Could you please

elaborate?

I am not sure what you mean :shrug:

[survivor999]

37. No?

:)

[Tiggeroshii]

2. Hmmmmm....

Michael Chrichton and Global Warming don't give me a positive feeling.

[survivor999]

10. I was surprised too. Before I realized he did serious research

and thinking. His bio is pretty impressive.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. LOL.

I'm not the least bit surprised.

[flyingfysh]

4. doesn't he think global warming is a myth?

[survivor999]

7. It's more sophisticated.

Read that speech, it's not a waste of time. He's a liberal, read his bio. He even testified in Congress.

[jpak]

54. Testified at the request of the GOP and anti-GW assholes like Jimmy Inhofe

anyone that believes what this fiction writer has to say about the science of global warming is well...

:rofl:

[RestoreGore]

14. Didn't he speak for the AEI?

The same American Enterprise Institute that ran those ads against Al Gore's movie? The same AEI that is linked to EXXON?

[survivor999]

15. So?

[RestoreGore]

19. So, he's a fake

[RestoreGore]

16. Nevermind, I found it.

http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.991/event_detail.asp

[RestoreGore]

17. And gee, look here...

http://www.aei.org/about/contentID.20038142214500073/default.asp

Lee Raymond of EXXON is Vice Chairman.

[survivor999]

20. That's where the transcript is from.

Again, so? Do you have any proof that he was paid by Exxon to come up with those arguments? If so, I'd like to know. Obviously, individuals and entities who agree with his conclusions will want to have him give speeches. But it does not mean that his points are biased.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. So... you were touting his liberal credentials?

If he's liberal, what's he doing with a bunch of cronies who do nothing but lie about global warming?

What's next? Creationism?

[survivor999]

28. Creationism is not science.

Why would he go for that?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. Neither is global warming denial.

Scientific debate's over.

Why would he go for Creationism? I don't know. Why did he shoot himself in the foot with this global warming business?

[survivor999]

39. Not over at all.

Read the long list of past debates for which the scientific debate was "over". Before it became apparent that it was all bogus.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. Sure.

Just like Creationism, right?

[WindRavenX]

49. Do you actual believe global warming is false?

Coz really, you're just posting a lot of nonsense lately.

[survivor999]

61. I'm aware of the unhealthy messing of politics

with scientific research. I'm aware of how clueless scientists can be when looking for funding sources. All based on past history. At this point I'm skeptical of anybody who pushes too hard in either direction.

[WindRavenX]

66. I see you avoided my question

A simple yes or no will do.

[The Straight Story]

89. I'll try to answer that

Scientists say X and Y are both true. Both can't be true. Which one do you choose to follow?

Some folks do like to research both sides of a debate with an open mind, and may - like politics, come out on a moderate scale where they believe a little of both sides but not enough to take all the actions one side wants or take no action like the other side.

It is apparent that it is not only fundies who hide their heads in the sand on some issues - scientists seem to also have agendas which gets put in front of the goal of the truth.

Is global warming an issue - sure. But it's causes by percentage are still debated, how rapid is still debated, and there are folks who see the way to fix on all ends of the spectrum.

[WindRavenX]

94. This isn't an either or choice

The overwhelming empirical evidence is that the earth is warming in ways that are outside the realm of natural swings in earth climate.

There is literally no empirical evidence to suggest that the warming we are experience is not exasperated by human cause-- this goes beyond sunspot maxima/geothermal activity.

[RestoreGore]

34. He is a Bush pawn

http://www.knowmore.org/index.php/ExxonMobil:_Opposing_the_Science_of_Global_Warming

You speak for AEI which got almost a million from EXXON in support, you support EXXON. Case closed.

[survivor999]

53. Your argument is flawed.

If they paid you to write something, then it's a problem. If your ideas were formed independently and then you are approached by Exxon, there is nothing wring with it. Again, show me proof he got paid to have a particualr opinion and I'll believe you.

[meganmonkey]

64. Exxon funding

Maybe not directly, but he has certainly been hosted by organizations who are funded by Exxon:


Mother Jones has tallied some 40 ExxonMobil-funded organizations that either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global climate change or have maintained affiliations with a small group of “skeptic” scientists who continue to do so. Beyond think tanks, the count also includes quasi-journalistic outlets like Tech CentralStation.com (a website providing “news, analysis, research, and commentary” that received $95,000 from ExxonMobil in 2003), a FoxNews.com columnist, and even religious and civil rights groups. In total, these organizations received more than $8 million between 2000 and 2003 (the last year for which records are available; all figures below are for that range unless otherwise noted). ExxonMobil chairman and CEO Lee Raymond serves as vice chairman of the board of trustees for the AEI, which received $960,000 in funding from ExxonMobil. The AEI-Brookings Institution Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, which officially hosted Crichton, received another $55,000. When asked about the event, the center’s executive director, Robert Hahn—who’s a fellow with the AEI—defended it, saying, “Climate science is a field in which reasonable experts can disagree.”

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html

Darn it all, I am on vacation. I am not supposed to be doing this kind of research today. Fortunately, the sources are so abundant it is rather easy.

[buddhamama]

18. i didn't bother to read the entire article

his thoughts on Chernobyl were all i needed to know.

[survivor999]

22. Please, don't be afraid of educating us with your thoughts though.

He's an excellent observer. And digs out inconvenient truths.

[buddhamama]

30. i am well aware of Crichton's

"inconvenient truths" it is the "truths" he reports that i question. He is no more knowledgeable than you or i on these issues. The a science and scientist who study climate change, etc., disagree with him. Data is not entirely objective. It can be manipulated to support a POV.

[survivor999]

35. Regarding Chernobyl

What is it that you disagree with exactly? If you know of a source showing that thousands of people died as a result I'd like to know.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

The UN claims 9,000.

Which is on the low side of estimates.

[buddhamama]

55. i just noticed your sig-line

Bertrand Russell is my second favorite philosopher.

Chernobyl:
http://www.chernobyl.co.uk/

[survivor999]

75. Thanks for the link.

[buddhamama]

96. no problem. i have more

if you are interested. for the U.N.'s findings and continued 'work' http://chernobyl.undp.org/english/reference.html

[lapfog_1]

123. There was an excellent documentary on the History Channel.

Complete with interviews with survivors, pictures of hundreds of lead coffins, a hidden graveyard that is off limits to the public (the bodies buried are so radioactive that the graveyard would be a superfund site here in the United States)...

The video of the fire itself was telling, you could SEE the "flashes" of the radiation on the video tape, it looked like it was snowing. Later, at a burn ward for the firefighters, the video tape showed the same telltale radiation effects. This was in Moscow. The burn victims were so radioactive that you couldn't videotape them clearly. Those men, all of them, were the walking dead.

Perhaps you can do some googling for it.

[lapfog_1]

115. Well, I am such a scientist... and worked with a bunch of

other scientists. And the data is overwhelming. And the scientists are in almost unanimous agreement.
I agree that data can be manipulated, but let me assure you the best I can, it has not been, at least until Bush showed up and started censoring the scientists. Computer models, on the other hand, are a very inexact science. They are getting better and better. But the global environment is a very complex system, with lots of chaos at any given micro-climate level. But on a macro-climate level, the models show the same thing, the earth is getting warmer overall, it's caused by greenhouse gasses, specific regions of the world will see climate change (some warmer, some colder).

How long do we have until the climate change affects large populations? Some say it's happening now. We know we are affecting the polar regions.

[WindRavenX]

118. why do you turn this thread into a thread of lies?

:sarcasm:

[lapfog_1]

128. I'm just evil that way...

and I'm after all of the Global Warming grant money!

you simply can't trust a scientist with an agenda!

:sarcasm:

[buddhamama]

121. i am with you on this

i am arguing against Crichton on the issue not with him. I know climate change is a reality.

thanks for weighing in though, i hope your post doesn't get lost in here.

[WindRavenX]

52. ah yes, inconvenient truths

Like that aliens cause global warming :rofl:

[NYCGirl]

21. Michael Crichton's State of Confusion:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

[survivor999]

25. Chricton's conclusion is that current models are bogus

and that the science is heavily politicized in one way or the other. He has good points.

[NYCGirl]

27. He's bogus. NT

[jpak]

60. He should try to publish this nonsense in a peer reviewed science journal

but wait - he's not a scientist!!!!111111

[survivor999]

73. You have a point there.

But that is one problem with peer-reviewing. At times consensus is achieved simply because of intellectual laziness. At that point, people with an opposing view would have a hard time publishing. Not because they are wrong, but because they are unfairly dismissed by the "objective" peer-reviewing process. Peer-reviewing does not ensure objectivity.

[NYCGirl]

24. Bush's Chat with Novelist Alarms Environmentalists:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/national/19warming.html?ex=1298005200&en=a7ab8a51ec6cf4df&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

In his new book about Mr. Bush, "Rebel in Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush," Fred Barnes recalls a visit to the White House last year by Michael Crichton, whose 2004 best-selling novel, "State of Fear," suggests that global warming is an unproven theory and an overstated threat.

Mr. Barnes, who describes Mr. Bush as "a dissenter on the theory of global warming," writes that the president "avidly read" the novel and met the author after Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, arranged it. He says Mr. Bush and his guest "talked for an hour and were in near-total agreement."

"The visit was not made public for fear of outraging environmentalists all the more," he adds.

And so it has, fueling a common perception among environmental groups that Mr. Crichton's dismissal of global warming, coupled with his popularity as a novelist and screenwriter, has undermined efforts to pass legislation intended to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, a gas that leading scientists say causes climate change.

[survivor999]

32. So, are you saying that the big experts in the field

Where unable to counteract Crichton's arguments? That's pretty bizarre, no? Sometimes, a sharp mind can go very far, despite the opinion of the experts.
If you read his stuff, he keeps saying that he believes in conservation and preserving the environment. He just points out flaws with global warming theories.

[NYCGirl]

33. No, I'm saying that the big experts in the field think he's a fraud. NT

[survivor999]

42. That's OK. They have careers to defend.

And the Pope saiz many things too.

[NYCGirl]

46. So all the scientists are wrong and Crichton is right?

I have some really nice swampland in Florida you might be interested in buying.

[survivor999]

51. Are you a scientist?

Have you ever heard of the bandwagon effect? Scientists are as gullible as non-scientists. Plus, they act like sheep, because of funding and $ reasons. Unanimity does not ensure objectivity. Often it's the opposite. It indicates blindness in the field. You'll see in 10 years, when the NEW fear kicks in and global warming is forgotten.

[NYCGirl]

56. So you don't think Crichton likes to sell books and get movies made of them?

Maybe he's doing something for money?

I'll put my trust with the scientists.

[survivor999]

84. I'd see your point if he needed any money.

but he's already wealthy. And I bought his book at the airport, before I knew he was actually a sharp guy. Always thought he was another writer of crappy books for air travel.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. She's a better scientist than Michael Crichton.

Thankfully, there's this thing called "peer-reviewed science." And it is objective. And it's unanimous.

[survivor999]

68. You live in fantasy-land.

If that's what you think of peer-reviewed science.

[WindRavenX]

71. LOL

:rofl:

You are so blindingly ignorant of science, I pity you.

Have you taken ANY science courses at all?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

74. "fantasy-land?"

How ironic.

You're taking a debunked pop science fiction author, who's obviously shilling for petroleum interests, over peer-reviewed science, and throwing around the term "fantasy-land."

:rofl:

[WindRavenX]

58. dude, have you even taken a science course?

Plus, they act like sheep, because of funding and $ reasons

Ah yes, the glamorous life of a scientist :eyes:

I'm a biologist and damn, you need to take a college level bio course because your ignorance on this matter is pretty blatant.

[NYCGirl]

62. LOL! Thank you so much for a bit of reality! NT

[WindRavenX]

63. seriously.

Are we seriously debating the merit of Michael Crichton's bullshit claim that global warming is a myth and that second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer? :wtf:

[survivor999]

67. I was not aware Chricton claimed

that 2nd hand smoke doesn't cause cancer. DO you have a link?

[WindRavenX]

69. scroll down to my post #47

Among other claims he makes is that 1)second hand smoke is non-carcinogenic (that's "won't cause cancer" in layman's terms because you clearly have an irrational fear of science) 2) that glaciers are actually increasing

Both have been empirically (layman's terms meaning "with factual data obtained in the scientific method) been proven to be FALSE.

[survivor999]

65. How big was your last grant?

I mean, the one you got as a PI? How big of a budget does your lab, the one you are the head of, have? How many people do you have to support with your grants?

[WindRavenX]

76. I don't run a lab

I have a BA in biology. Mostly I like to do independent research. You know, doing science and shit.

Then I like to spread the myth of global warming, just not as effectively as you do.

[survivor999]

80. I thought so. So, you know squat about big science and big funding issues.

That is what causes the problem. The government funds certain areas, with certain biases. Labs line up to get the funding and in doing so a strong bias is introduced in the process. It's a major problem.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

83. Isn't that an argument against Crichton?

Since he's working at the behest of petroleum companies? And unlike scientists, he's not being peer-reviewed?

[survivor999]

86. The fact that oil companies like him has nothing to do with it.

Unless you can show me he got money from them to think what he thinks. That is, before 2004, when the book came out.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

88. But it's got everything to do with it.

This is your own argument.

[survivor999]

92. Nope.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

97. Can you show me any evidence...

that organizations such as the NSF, NOAA, or NASA which typically fund such research have a pro-global warming bias and have anything to profit from it?

[WindRavenX]

85. Actually, I know quite a lot about big science and how its funded

Much more than you do.

You claim there is a bias in funding-- and you're right. The current administration has stifled all debate on global warming because they are trying to hide it.

But since you're so smart and know so much about science, can you tell me how despite having the sun be in sunspot maxima that glacier deposits are increasing? Because there sure are a lot of scientists that have the audacity to use science to say exactly the opposite.

So tell me Ms.Science-- why is global warming a myth?

[survivor999]

90. I said I'm not a climatologist...

But my parents' friends are all professors and researchers and they talk a lot about funding and all that.
My main point is that I found MC's reasoning refreshing. He encourages people to think and not to listen passively to what the current choir is singing. I found him inspiring, regardless of the topic and specific conclusions.

[WindRavenX]

95. MC is following bad science

He has stated that second hand smoke is non-carcinogenic.

Do you understand this?

[survivor999]

102. I'd have to read his arguments before I can say anything

Currently I strongly believe that 2nd hand smoke is bad for me. It makes me cough.

[WindRavenX]

98. so, you believe it's a myth

Super.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

100. These are the famous lawyer parents?

:rofl:

As evidenced elsewhere, MC's logic is intrinsically flawed. So what, exactly, did you find so compelling?

[survivor999]

103. No. My dad is a lawyer. And a professor.

My mother is a professor. And they have many friends who visit, mostly professors and lawyers. Sorry, not my fault.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

105. Wow, a famous lawyer professor father.

With a brother a Yale professor.

Black sheep of the family, are we?

Anywho, back to the question at hand. What about Crichton's well-debunked speech did you find so compelling?

[survivor999]

106. Wait until I get my Ph.D.

Then you'll hear about me. Oh, no you won't cuz you don't read original scientific articles. Oh well.

[WindRavenX]

109. For the sake of the world, I hope you stick to science fiction

NT

[Mythsaje]

119. Hey now...

:)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

110. On the contrary.

I read Science and Nature as often as I can get to a library that has them. And I'll read any other scientific article that comes my way.

Given your attitudes towards peer-review, I'd have thought that you don't read scientific articles. If it's not peer-reviewed, it's not science.

Or did you mean something else by "original scientific articles?"

You're not suggesting that Chricton's speech is an original scientific article, are you? :rofl:

Anyway, back to the topic at hand?

What, precisely, in Crichton's thoroughly debunked article has you so compelled?

[stepnw1f]

81. lol.... Give It Up.... seriously (nt)

[NYCGirl]

26. Answers to Key Questions Raised by M. Crichton in State of Fear

http://www.pewclimate.org/state_of_fear.cfm

[survivor999]

45. Thanks for links. That's what I was hoping to get.

Some new info.

[NYCGirl]

29. ABC's John Stossel swears by Crichton:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200412170002

[NYCGirl]

36. James Inhofe (R-Nutjob) loves his testimony:

http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climateupdate.htm

[bloom]

38. It's funny how you post bullshit and then say "avoid flames"

That's just too funny. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[trotsky]

40. I have a question.

It seems that Crichton's entire reasoning basically comes down to "Here are some examples of scientists being completely wrong. Therefore they are wrong about global warming."

Oh, sure, I know - "there's more to it." But is there? Really?

[WindRavenX]

44. there isn't

He answers none of the main points about global warming that are indisputable.

He is a hack.

[survivor999]

59. He points out past patterns

Which is legit to interpret new events.

[WindRavenX]

47. Crichton is a hack

See this from his "Enviromentalism as Religion" speech :eyes:

I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it. I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%. I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[NYCGirl]

70. Crichton on SourceWatch:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Crichton

[WindRavenX]

72. NOOOO!!!11111111!! Scientists LIE!!!

because they want MONEY!!!1111 :sarcasm:

[meganmonkey]

77. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (From Science Mag)

--snip--

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.

--snip--

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

(Emphasis mine)

[WindRavenX]

79. how dare you. You know you can't trust peer review.

Coz scientists are all greedy n' sheep n' stuff. :eyes:

[survivor999]

82. Peer-review MAY be the best method

But it's far from objective. It's not proof of objectivity. Any insider would admit to that.

[WindRavenX]

87. Actually, it's quite objective

Do you even know how peer-review works? Any clue at all?

Or are you just here to start bullshit, disingenous "conversations"?

BTW, you still have not addressed my question:

Yes or no-- do you believe global warming is a myth?

[survivor999]

99. Of course I know...

My brother is an Assistant Professor at Yale and he tells me all about it. Reviewers know who you are, you don't kow who THEY are, unless they decide to reveal their names. If you get some competitors, you can get your paper trashed based on all sort of irrelevant technicalities. Your paper may neve see the light of the day if you happen to push an opinion that most of the community disagrees with. And history has shown many times that this is not just because one's paper sucks; it's because the field has strong biases due to sociological factors. How many times do people become famous 20 years AFTER they tried to publish their original (and now considered major) results (and only because there was a bias in the field against that idea)?
If you find a friend among reviewers, your paper may be flawed and still get published. if you are a friend of the Editor things are even better. If the Editor hates you, forget about it.
This is real peer-review in the scientific fields, my friend.

[WindRavenX]

104. um...the papers are supposed to be reviewed without names.

How on earth did all those papers on plate techtonics get published back in the day?

Or Redfield's paper on the formation of the barrier beach Sandy Neck?

You're generalizing greatly-- no one denies that there will be human element interviening to prevent it from being 100% objective, but certainly it is the best review system that works extraordinarily well.

[survivor999]

108. My point is that it's not a guarantee of objectivity.

It may be the best we can do. And it varies by field. Some fields are more influenced by the sociology of science than others. I suspect that climatology is one of them.

[WindRavenX]

111. Yeah, and how bout that evolution!

Most scientists think evolution is real! Fucking hell I evolved from a monkey!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

113. In Survivor's defense...

Those pro-evolution scientists probably just get their funding from Satan.

[WindRavenX]

114. I thought that's where the pro-gravity scientists got their funding?

I'll be damned if I let some gravitational force decide if things fall!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

116. Oh, you're talking about the pro-Galileo lobby.

That would be the moops.

[AZCat]

117. Ironically...

I don't think you did (although my understanding of human evolution could be a little off).

Wasn't there some parallel evolution there somewhere?

[WindRavenX]

120. (I was being facetious)

:)

Humans and apes share a common ancestor-- we didn't evolve from monkeys.

[AZCat]

124. I know, but the irony struck me as funny anyway.

And for some reason, I evolved the need to tell other people about such things.

[WindRavenX]

125. *groan*

"evolved the need"... :)

[AZCat]

132. Blame the bad sense of humor on heredity too.

It definitely runs in the family. :)

[Ian David]

129. Odd that the O.P. dumped that turd of stupidity behind and has refused to defend it

If the O.P. has realized how morbidly idiotic Crichton's "arguments" are, then they should ask the Moderators to delete their own post and spare them further embarrassment.

I think we have enough threads where people seem to say, "Here's something stupid for you all to argue about... enjoy! I'm off to go breastfeed my pitbull in public while I blow second-hand smoke at people!"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

130. Not that odd.

Given the OP.

Look at yesterday's Kramer thread.

[blm]

131. You should read the RW talking points used to attack on Kerry threads - sheesh

It's straight from Sean Hannity

[AZCat]

133. This is what the "Flame Warriors" site refers to as a "Grenade"

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/grenade.htm

[Ian David]

134. Oh! I get it! "Dropping a Grenade" is like these:

Everytime someone disses me for being a non-smoker, I invite them to
Locking
Continuation of another thread
petersond
DU Moderator
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2208468


Where can Democrats find money to fix the deficit?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2668684

Poll question: Anybody pushing for impeachment is...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2708097

Why is it that if someone makes an anti-racist comment once,
104. I'm going to lock this.

Do not post "flame bait" discussion topics. While there is no clear line regarding what constitutes flame bait, the moderators have the authority to shut down threads which they consider too rhetorically hot, too divisive, too extreme, or too inflammatory. Please use good judgment when starting threads; inflammatory rhetoric does not normally lead to productive discussion.

Do not start a new topic in order to continue a flame war from another discussion thread.

best,
wakemeupwhenitsover
DU Moderator

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2770987


Among those who leave DU, the ones I admire the most

68. Locking Updated at 1:07 AM

It is time to put aside these childish discussions.

Respectfully submitted,
CaliforniaPeggy
DU Moderator
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=5838822


Amazing, how many "Grenades" one can find in a very short time, posted within the space of one month, if one knows which search criteria to use.

[AZCat]

135. Jeez - it's impressive when you see a list.

A lot of work must go into this.

[Ian David]

136. Actually, that was a half-hearted attempt that only took about 5 minutes.

I really didn't think it necessary to look deeper or closer than that.

[AZCat]

137. Please don't.

I would rather not think about how much time we waste on these. Sometimes ignorance truly is bliss (IMO).

[lapfog_1]

139. Nah, I *love* to slow down and look at the car wreck. - n/t

[stepnw1f]

78. What a Load of Right Wing After-Birth

It's no wonder the right lost America in the last election. So, you want a reasoned response to a guy that denies Global Warming? This silly shit debate IS OVER... try peddling this at FreakRepublik, I'm sure they'll embrace it with open arms.

[acmejack]

91. Wow...

I bet you think there are dinosaurs in Costa Rica too...

[Gato Moteado]

122. there ARE dinosaurs down here.....

...i see them all the time.

[blm]

93. Hmmmm....just as I've long suspected.

No wonder you attacked some Dems using as much RW spin as you could remember. Crichton is part of the GOP manipulative corps.

[OneBlueSky]

101. load of crap . . . 'nuff said . . . n/t

.

[tabatha]

112. bunkum

Some of the information Michael Crichton used in his novel was derived from interviews with various scientists. One of the scientists he interviewed said that Crichton did not understand what he told him. Unless one is directly involved with the research, is well-versed over many years in the work of others in the same field, I think it is somewhat arrogant to profess any sort of credibility on the subject. There are hundreds of scientists in many countries all over the globe involved in these studies, and the consensus is that global warming is real, and man's industrial history has contributed to it. Crichton is just a pretender.

[Ian David]

126. I have zero respect for anyone who finds Crichton's points "Compelling" or "Good" or "Reasoned." n/t

[Greyhound]

127. Are you at all familiar with real scientific research?

It generally excludes media generated figures, USA Today polls, and analysis of unrelated, non-events such as Y2K.

The Y2K comparison is a good example of why he is a fair writer, but a bad scientist. In the run-up to Y2K, the actual experts were telling people what the actual results of ignoring the problem would be and the media used selective editing to blow it up into a vehicle to sell books and, most importantly, advertising.

The case for global warming is just the opposite, there is nearly universal agreement that a.) it is happening and b.) there will be significant consequences, beyond that there is still a debate regarding time tables, how much ocean levels will rise, what the results for world crops will be etc.

He is an author trying to sell his book to a select audience, namely those that want to believe we can go on fouling our nest indefinitely without paying any price.

[Ian David]

138. My guess is the answer would be "The computer says NoooOoooo..."

Scientists: Pollution could combat global warming
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2731654

[Skinner]

140. That was fun.

Turns out this guy is a formerly banned troll.

Hope you don't mind if I lock.