Global Warming and The State of Fear

[firemeboy]

I'm sorry if I've missed the big global warming thread. I don't get by as much as I'd like. I was wondering if anybody read Crichton's book State of Fear? In my opinion, Crichton's books have gone downhill of late. They read like bad movie scripts. The State of Fear, as far as a book goes, falls into this category. It's more an arguement against global warming with a fantastic (and I mean fantastic in the sense that it's more fantasy than fact, not fantastic great) story tacked on.

However, that being said, I really, really liked the book. Because it seemed to me to be an fairly unbiased look at global warming. But I'm also wondering if there has been a 'rebuttal' from the other side. Did Crichton just use bad science? Did he ignore other reports? Is he full of it?

What say ye, ye wise men and women of the GL?
_________________
The difference between myself and a madman is that I am not mad.

[Naboo*]

Could you summarise Crichton's case?

[Coyote]

Haven't read the book. In the interest of fair play, I also haven't watched An Inconvenient Truth.

But I have read a few Crichton novels, and I know a little bit about human beings, so I'll try to answer your questions.

Did Crichton just use bad science? I'm not sure how to parse that question. Yes, he used bad science. No, he didn't use just bad science. A lot of good science was tossed into the mix.

Did he ignore other reports? Of course he did, silly. There's about ten gazillion reports out there, and mentioning them all would turn the book into an encyclopedia.
If you mean did he pick and choose reports that supported his stance, and only used reports supporting the opposition when they were weak enough to be easily rebutted, I would say yes.

Is he full of it? Yes, yes he is. So am I, and so is everyone who posts in this thread.
[edit] Unless we're talking about love, goodness, and chocolate tofu, in which case my answer is 'no'. Who the hell is full of stuff like that? [/edit]

...wait a minute--what exactly do you mean by 'it'?

-----------------------------------

Keep in mind I'm not giving these answers as statements of fact--I'm just testing how accurate my assessment of a fellow human's writing's are, given minimal information.

[firemeboy]

Well... It's 450 pages.

He basically postulates that global warming is in fact not being caused by humans. He does not say that we should feel free to pollute, in fact he says the opposite. But he stands firm in saying Global Warming is nothing more than a frenzy brought on by media. He also hints at the fact that the reason so many scientists have 'bought on' to the idea of global warming is because it's a means to an end. We really should stop polluting, and if this is how we get people to stop, then so be it. But the science just doesn't back up all the things you hear in the media.

He probably has close to 25 graphs throughout the book. He talks about how there certainly glaciers that are melting, many are also advancing. And we are only observing less than 25 percent of them (I believe that is the correct number). While temperatures in many cities are on the rise, in many other places temperatures are falling. It is only in the big cities (where we have more people, and more pollution, and more cement) where temperatures are going up. He compares New York with a city 60 miles away. New York is on the rise, while the sister city is on the decline.

He also vehemently attacks the government in how they 'manage wilderness'. He talks about how Yellowstone has been mishandled for a century. He presents articles that basically say, "We have no clue how to manage natural resources, not enough studies have been done". He talks about how media inspires fear, and how bias affects studies. It really is an intersting read.

I tend to fall in line with Crichton. I think we need to do a better job of taking care of the environment, but we are doing a miserable job right now. The issues is way too politicized.

If you don't want to read the whole thing, I highly recommend his essay in the back where he talks about politicizing science. You can also get a feel for his arguments here:

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

I recommend the first article. It's lengthy. If you want to, you can skip to the part about Yellowstone, for an idea of how government mismanagement affects the environment.
_________________
The difference between myself and a madman is that I am not mad.

[firemeboy]

[Lepton*]

Prior to the uproar caused by State of Fear and An Inconvenient Truth and Red/Blue politicians trying to use global warming as a moral issue, there was a solid branch of science devoted to investigating the effects of humans on the environment. Its practitioners were smart, concerned scientists that gave up careers in chemistry, atmospheric science, biology, meteorology, and physics to study this particular interaction. You know what? They came to the conclusion that humans are undoubtedly having an effect on the earth's regulatory processes and climate and published plenty of evidence to this extent. They are still working, and neither their data nor their beliefs have changed in spite of going from having their work ignored to accepted to rejected.

If you get a chance, go to a REAL scientific conference on climate change. The conversation isn't "yes or no?", it's "how much and when?". You'll get geezers older than Pablo presenting atmospheric ozone data they've collected dating back to the 70's. You'll get biologists who are watching arctic species die out and public health people talking about emissions. And you'll get a hotshot sitting in the back row who, after the lecture, asks something like "isn't the warming of the earth associated with long-term solar cyclicity?". The scienstists look away, as if he'd just mentioned UFOs.

"Oops, I guess I forgot to include something as simple as varying solar output in my 5-year, 20-person, million-dollar study. Never mind me, then."

I'm a known bleeding-heart, pro-fag, corporation-hating liberal. But geez, guys, look at the science. The (refereed) papers are giving a pretty clear answer.

[mikegoo*]

RalClimate's comments on the book here.

[Death Mage]

There is no science involved global warming. Not one bit.

How can I say this? Easily. For every single survey, for every single prediction, for every single "fact" you can bring up about "global warming", from either side, there is someone on the other side who can present some "evidence" that exactly counters it. And quite simply, when you have THAT much contradicting "evidence", you have no evidence at all.

Instead, Global Warming is an emotional hot-button. It's used primarily for one thing: MONEY. Money to support studies, money donated to "environmental" groups, money to political groups to try to influence politicians for ANY reason under the guise of "global warming".

It has become so ingrained in our psyches that people like Lepton firmly believe there is real facts to support it, that the scientists behind it HAVE to be honest (they're scientists, after all!), and that "neither their data nor their beliefs have changed in spite of going from having their work ignored to accepted to rejected".

However, the data HAS changed. Frequently. From one study to the next the numbers are only the same when they've been crafted to be. Opinions DO change, many scientists have switched their "beliefs" on the subject, from either side. But still, there is absolutely nothing that is conclusive, because all of the evidence contradicts itself.

It has become a belief system, a religion almost. You can't criticize global warming around those who have bought into it, no matter what evidence you bring to the table. Global warming is just the way things are, they've been accepted, and no further "proof" or debate is necessary in the eyes of far too many. And the reason for that, is because it feels good. These people think they can actually help, that they can make a difference. And after all, if you don't believe in the holy Global Warming, you must be a pollution loving heretic! You support dirty air, dirty water, and want to see plant and animal species die, if you don't believe in this media-hyped, political pseudo-science.

It's a simple ploy, one that has been perfected over time. You come up with a cause that NOBODY could possibly oppose. You then flood the market with "facts" about it, whether they are real or not. You propose "solutions" that likely won't do a damn thing to fix the problem, if the problem exists at all, but at a quick glance, sound good. "Solutions" that, like the "problem", NOBODY could possibly oppose without being labeled as wanting something bad to happen.

I keep hoping people will wake up and realize how they're being played. But people want to be played, it's more comfortable than thinking for yourself.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!]

[Coyote]

Wait a minute. Are you actually saying that there are no actual, confirmable facts in this issue, and that observed data changes into different data when folks aren't looking?

Because that sounds a little crazy, regardless of which side of the issue you're on.

[Death Mage]

Considering how many different studies on the issue keep giving conflicting data, not to mention "conclusions" that often seem to be pulled out of their asses? I'm not saying the "facts" themselves are constantly changing, but they sure as hell aren't confirmable with so many different results from so many different collections, and from so many "scientists" flat out LYING about it. (Yes, I said it, there are scientists in the global warming debate that are completely making shit up.)
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!]

[Coyote]

Well, 'conclusions' is a whole different thing, and if you'd said that at first I might have agreed with you.

But facts and data--we're talking about mountains of information from disinterested sources. For example, meteorologists across the country keep daily records of temperatures just in the course of predicting whether tomorrows picnic will be ruined or not. I just find it hard to believe that all the records being kept could be altered to suit someone's agenda--there's just too much information out there.

Not that I'm saying there isn't a fair amount of lying being done, from both sides, but it's being done at the level of interpreting and extrapolating from the facts, not from actually altering the data.

[Death Mage]

Those temperature records are a tiny fraction of the data used by "global warming" scientists. And much of the other data they use DOES have conflicting numbers, rather frequently. Hell, even the temperature records, scientists on either side cherry pick WHICH records they use. So yes, the data IS in dispute.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!]

[Coyote]

No, the selection of the data is in dispute. That's what cherry-picking means, you know.

And if two parties claim different data for one specific set of circumstances then I think both sides better be prepared to explain the discrepency. Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly on this point. Can you give a specific example?

[edit] Yes, I realize temperature records are a tiny part of the data, which is why I said 'for example'. My actual point was that much of the data being used is initially collected for purposes unconnected with proving/disproving global warming.[/edit]

[Travis*]

Death Mage is drunk again! Be careful, everyone! (We don't want to upset him when he's like this)

[deathmage*]

Fuck off Travis! I don't drink. I am just sick of Pablo and his damn bullshit!

[Pablo*]

Is that all you have to do with your time? chasing me around taking cheap shots?
nice try, death mage Get a life, death mage.

[AcidFast]

[AcidFast]

Sorry, my 'E' key sticks sometimes...

By the way, an interesting somewhat-but-not-entirely-related book I picked up recently:

The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney

Haven't finished it yet, but it is very interesting (and I think it might be UNBIASED, what do you guys think....?)

AF
_________________
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead

True story

[groza528]

[Death Mage]

Um, I don't post anon, AF.

And if you want an example of where the "facts" differ, that's easy:

The amount and thickness of ice in the arctic and antarctic circles. Global warming moonbats claim the ice is getting thinner, less ice overall. Meanwhile, other research shows the ice is staying the same amount, just moving around. Different "facts" for different people. The global warming "debate" in a nutshell.

And actively lying: There was a case, years ago now (in or before 1998), where some researchers planted fur from an animal at a local zoo to try to use as evidence that a species was migrating further south than normal, of course, thanks to global warming.

Oh hey, let's not forget the 2005 hurricane season, more named storms than ever on record, all the media going out there blaming global warming, and prediction that from that point on, storms would only get worse and worse.. and oh look, 2006 had NOT A SINGLE HURRICANE MAKE LANDFALL.

How many examples do you want, AF, before you realize that the entirety of the global warming debate is junk science?
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!]

[Lepton*]

Death Mage, your rejection of the global warming paradigm seems to stem from your wholesale rejection of the processes of mainstream science.

[Death Mage]

Calling the thousand (HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yea right) -PhD-strong field a sham, through and through, outright
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!]

[Lepton*]

Not really, dude.

[Antrax]

Sorry to rehash an old argument, but I haven't revised my position about global warming. I don't think there's any real reason to believe it's happening, for the following reasons:
a) Climate models are inherently very limited, so their predictions, especially when extrapolating, should be taken with about a pound of salt.
b) We have a staggeringly small amount of data in a geological scale. We are trying to deduce from data collected in the last 200 years or so how a system that's existed (and is changing) for millions of years is acting.
c) There's a logical hole in the global warming argument. It's basically "there's an indisputable rise in CO2 levels recently. Temperatures have been rising recently. Ergo, if CO2 levels keep rising, so will the temperature, and here's a model with a catchy name to explain why". The problem is that cooccurence is not correlation:

And also that even if there's provable correlation, the model is neglecting dozens of factors - like the joke about the farmer who tried to train his horse to stop eating by giving it a little less food each day.
So, my personal stance is that global warming is a fad. I can't disprove it, but I think the arguments supporting it are weak.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Death Mage]

Just to add one other thing:

[Lepton]

Antrax, the process of
1. Observe correlation
2. Make model
3. Test and alter appropriately
is the scientific method. The evidence is weak because the whole thing is still a work in progress. As Death Mage pointed out, estimates of the warming rate vary by a factor of 10 or more. I wouldn't draw any conclusions right now, but it seems like our emissions (carbon dioxyde and otherwise) are having some effect on the environment (local or global). I think we all agree that polluting isn't doing us any good, and that's got to be enough to start making policy decisions.

In the mean while, the scientists need to be allowed to continue to do their work so that we can figure out exactly how bad this is. For that to happen, people need to realize that this is a serious matter and that the whole thing is not an elaborate ploy by a bunch of bored geeks. (which is the message that I've been hearing a fair bit, lately)

[Antrax]

Lepton, which of these is likely to happen if you throw more money at the problem and stop polluting "just in case"?
a) A breakthrough is made in our ability to solve partial differential equations, improving all existing models to the point where they can predict the weather accurately, say, a hundred days ahead.
b) Time-travel, or something similar, allows us to get more data about the temperature vs. CO2 levels in the atmosphere, thus giving us concrete data to work with.
c) The easter bunny marries the tooth fairy after the supreme court legalises inter-species marriage.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Lepton*]

Antrax, you're a very smart man. I know you are. So please please please don't make the same mistake as all the stupid people that I know and confuse "climate" with "weather". The climate is something that can be modeled sorta-kinda well right now, and those models will get better. Weather is a local manifestation of climate and really quite irrelevant.

Core samples provide a pretty good sort of "time travel" to get a sense of atmospheric conditions in millenia gone by. I guess that I will pick option (b) from your list. There are some uncertainties which will be reduced significantly with more work.

The ability to solve PDEs numerically, as I am positive you are aware, is dependent on the speed of one's computer. So yes, money will undoubtedly make models better.

Parents perpetuate the myths of the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy because children are supposed to be coddled and protected from the harsh realities of the world. One party in this debate is saying "we're shitting in our drinking water" and the other party is saying "nothing to worry about". That latter argument scares me because it could equally be "nothing to worry about, we aren't changing the climate" or "nothing to worry about, and if you put it under your pillow you'll get a quarter in the morning".

[Death Mage]

[Coyote]

[wordcross]

_________________
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

[Samadhi]

[Death Mage]

[Samadhi]

[worm]

[not-extro...*]

[firemeboy]

[AcidFast]

You'll have to excuse me because I don't have a copy of the novel handy, and its been a while sinc I read it. The facts presented in the novel may be well-referenced, but the story surrounding them is fiction. The characters, the conversations, the 'proof' is all fiction (I am quite sure that global warming cannot be proved OR disproved, at least not at this point).

I guess what I'm getting at is that you can't form an informed, intelligent opinion about something like this from a work of fiction.

Like I said before, "I can't concieve of a worldwide motive to get people to believe in a fictional climate trend that is dangerous and deadly in the years after they pass from this earth. I have no problem at all believing that a corporation that exists in a capitalistic society would suppress a notion that said climate trend requires the implementation of rules and regulations that are enormously costly to it."

If I could understand the potential motive for making something like global warming up, I may be able to see the other side of it. But so far, all I get from people is vague conspiracy theories, of which I am NOT a big fan.

Besides, can we rally ignore something that, as Antrax demonstrated, is CLEARLY killing pirates at an unprecedented rate??


_________________
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead

True story

[Samadhi]

[Fried Egg*]

I've no intention of getting bogged down in another global warming debate but what really clinches it for me is the fact that in the scientific journels where papers are subject proper peer review, there is no dissent whatsoever. There we only see papers making the case for mankind induced global warming and none making the opposite case. All the arguments against global warming can be found in the popular media. They are by passing the system of peer review and going straight for the public (just like creationists do).

I don't pretend to be qualified to understand the science myself but like all other scientific issues, I put my trust in the peer review system.

Those who don't put their trust in this system must either be properly qualified scientists themselves (capable of fully assessing the evidence themselves) or else are just plain anti-science.