Global Warming, "State of Fear"
 

I just wanted to send a big thanks out to Michael Crichton for finally collecting in one place a nice bibliography of all the references about why the "global warming" crisis isn't (in his latest novel, "State of Fear"). We had this discussion a few months back, but I had trouble digging up references to a lot of the statements I remembered about how global warming was mostly a myth, and how mother nature is at least as responsible as mankind for perceived environmental changes.

He's got a nice collection of references to temperature readings around the globe (showing urban areas with increased temperatures, rural areas with no increase or small decreases), data on glacier metling / expanding (far more glaciers are getting larger than are receding), comparisons of greenhouse gas levels to other possible factors (including temperature dips in the 40s/50s while greenhouse gases were "skyrocketing"), a good talk about how most charts showing greenhouse gas increases are misleading because they only show the upper part of the range (greenhouse gases from 310 ppm to 360 ppm, and the charts only show the 300+ range), and a host of other topics. Also a nice discussion at the end of the book about the politicization of science.

He succinctly states the case for my stance on this issue: we have no clue what really impacts the environment, the earth undergoes climatic change all the time without any help from mankind, we're in a normal warming period from the last ice age (that is taking a LONG time), the weather is getting better, not worse, and that a warming trend would not necessarily be a bad thing, as increased growing seasons from El Nino have shown. None of this means we still don't keep an eye on pollution, preserve open space, and similar goals that help mankind in general, but much of the current fearmongering is just that, fearmongering.

He also does a good job of providing a wide variety of references, including to those that disagree with him. I'm going to have to go hunt down some of the books he references for further reading.

oh dear lord.... the screaming crying left wing liberals are gonna jump all over this one.

and the intelligent posts continue :rolleyes: congratulations for applying your stereotype to all types of ideologies.

wow. that's shocking that the american public could be so hideously misled on such an issue that many take very seriously.

it's disgusting. it really is.

Wow. What shit. We should do everything we can to minimize pollution, preserve open space, etc. There's a hole in the Ozone layer for a reason you know.

This is a great way for the Kyoto team to take the lead. I'm looking forward to what gains the Kyoto signee's make and at what price. So far, I'm unaware of how much money they have spent and what benefits they have had.

I agree with you. Those should absolutely be objectives in the "master plan". The deal is that much of the Global Warming alarmists ignore that there are a good number of scientists that debunk most of the evidence that Global Warming advocates tout. Global Warming because of polution shouldn't be considered to be a completely factual phenomenon.

The biggest problem I have with it, is that when you dig deep enough in most Global Warming Factiods, you run into statements like. The world hasn't had this high an average temperature in nearly 2000 years. So what exactly did man do 2000 years ago to cause global warming. It is entirely possible that the planet's temperature fluctuates over time, virtually ignoring anything man has done.

I've been thinking of putting the new Chriton Book on my reading list. I think I'd put it there even if he fell on the other side of the spectrum, and declared it scientific fact. The topic genuinely interests me, and most sites on the Net are incredibly biased one direction or the other.

You're right. It is shameful that most Americans accept Global Warming due to mankind as an accepted proven phenomenon. It just goes to show you what a powerful political and propaganda machine can do with regard to misleading the public. For years practically anything the environmentalists have spun with regard to Global Warming has been reported by the media as if there were no opposing points of view.

I'm glad we can come together and agree on this travesty.

seeing America vote, I wonder if they give a damn.

Regardless of his intellect, I find it humorous that people are holding up a novelist who has written of extraterrestials and created an impossible dinosaur DNA cloning concept as a credible source on science.

wait... there was no dinosaur island? Next you'll tell me there was no killer shark in Jaws.

But the problem I think most people who say "global warming isn't real" fail to grasp is that even if this is a normal, natural phenomenon there weren't people living in places like New Orleans or Miami back when the world was this warm before. So, if we don't find some way to combat said global warming in some way, shape, or form, these are cities that will be washed away. Yes, if we are wrong about the causes, we need to be looking at other causes. However, if we do remain warm then standing around saying "you're wrong, this isn't what causes it" doesn't really solve the problem.

SI

[

The biggest problem I have with it, is that when you dig deep enough in most Global Warming Factiods, you run into statements like. The world hasn't had this high an average temperature in nearly 2000 years. So what exactly did man do 2000 years ago to cause global warming. It is entirely possible that the planet's temperature fluctuates over time, virtually ignoring anything man has done.

I've been thinking of putting the new Chriton Book on my reading list. I think I'd put it there even if he fell on the other side of the spectrum, and declared it scientific fact. The topic genuinely interests me, and most sites on the Net are incredibly biased one direction or the other.[/quote]

This is what I've been telling my friends for a while : That '' The climate fluctuates overtime.'' All just argue that I'm an anti environment Pro Bush weirdo.
I do agree that we need to do something with the current state of global pollution.

If you human didn't cause it, fighting it would be a bad, bad idea. You are actually suggesting that we should work to control natural weather patterns? Scary.

My advice is not to own land in Miami and NO in a few hundred years.

you rag my post... then make a post like this.

nice

Crichton actually does pretty good research. Sure, he's writing fiction and often twists a scientific principle for the good of the story, but he does pretty good background research.

In this case, his twist is to exaggerate our ability to control our environment (I won't say more without ruining the plot). And that part of the plot is most definitely fantasy. But the discussions about global warming and the environmental movement are pretty heaviliy footnoted and grounded in 3 years of reasearch. I've never seen a novel of his as heavily footnoted as this one, or with as complete a bibliography. At the very least, pick up the book at your local bookstore and check out the Appendices and Bibliography before you judge this as your typical Crichton fantasization.

As I said at the top, one of the nice bits of this book is the fairly extensive bibliography. He has sources from both sides of the fence, giving you the opportunity to go read the same sources to draw your own conclusions. That bibliography alone is worth the price of the book if you are interested in Global Warming and other environmental topics.

This book is definitely on my birthday list. I read about the book a few weeks ago and Crichton spoke of the research that went into it. Originally, he was surprised to see the amount of data that was contrary to the doom and gloom you hear from the environmentalist side. That's one of the things that always got to me. I remember sitting through science class in 8th grade and the teacher was talking about New York City being under water within 20 years. That was over 20 years ago, and I'm still waiting. No, it doesn't mean it's not ultimately going to come true (although that's still under question), but the doom and gloomers have to stop saying the sky is falling.

Sure, we need to control pollution, but there's a balance we need to keep in perspective.

I'm saying that America couldn't care less about global warming, you call half the public whining babies, a bit of a difference.

Nah, only about 20% of the public consider themselves to be "liberal". He called a substantial subset of the public whining babies.

Which sounds really scary when you make it glib like that but anything can be broken down to an oversimplified soundbyte without much difficulty.

Never mind that we do things like seed clouds for rain, build coastlines for the express purpose of keeping water out (at taxpayer expense, btw, so I think we have a vested interest), and trying to control CFC emissions. Those are "working to control natural weather patterns" and so is doing nothing. Should we have just let CFC emissions continue because we don't want "to control natural weather pattern"? It's not like I'm talking Cobra Commander with a Weather Dominator (TM- patent pending). Now who's fearmongering?

So, your advice is to do nothing and tell those people "invest in life vests"? Then I hope it's a disproportionate amount of your tax dollars that go to help bail these people out. Or maybe you just like watching people die because you think anyone who recycles a coke can is a crazy environmentalist.

SI

in a way your right... i ment to put 'far' left instead of just left. I have no problem with your average, level headed everyday liberal.(not many left in the democratic party imo) But the exremely loud and vocal far left i have a problem with.


Now back to what you said, you 'implied' that since america voted Bush in, that means we don't care about global warming?? Im a republican and i care, but i oppose certain 'treaties' that would screw america more then any other country signing it.

It's all Dick Cheney's fault. He could have stopped this last week if he only cared. But now, it's too late, grab your parka's and head for Mexico!

I'm saying that global warming was at best the 10-12th factor in my voting, and I'd assume it would work that way for most of America.. but perhaps I'm wrong. Looking at exit polls, environmental issues weren't even mentioned... of course, thats probably poor polling, but I'd say that as much press as it gets, its not really a big issue for the electorate (kind of like all the crap on everyone's military record).

well, around these parts we've had about 2 weeks of sub 50 degree weather so far this winter, so something screwy is going on. Not that I'm complaining yet. I could deal if it stated above 70, but only if it topped out at 90.

I think (opinion based on little fact) that if anything, mankind is accelerating the various trends of the earth's warming/cooling period. The question if this is true is, how much of an acceleration is occuring. I'm not saying there'll be an ice age next week or next year or the next 1000 years, but I think if it moves it up even 100, that something I'd prefer to be pushed back.

I'm more worried about the ecological effects (wildlife wise) than global warming.

Icky thread.

What would you be prepared to do?

besides trying to find alternatives to our current resources, that theoretically have a less harmful impact on the environment? I can't really use and do things I can't afford and that aren't available, and since I have no clue (nor the patience to figure out) how a hydrogen fuel cell works, I'm pretty much at the the whim of corporate America.

And I don't know how to ride a bike, so I can't bike to work (that, and the 2 mile long, 200 foot high bridge I drive over... did I mention I'm scared of heights?)

But it's definately up to corporate America to save the Earth then?

unless I buckle down and go to school... which will only happen if I do environmental law... and I think I'd rather date Angelina Jolie instead (yes, thats bad).

I think its their job to curb what they're doing.

So, if corporate America "curbs" what they are doing we are okay? What does "curb" mean? Are we willing to collapse the US and EU economies to meet the ends, I mean, if that's what it takes?

so this is how it is then:
environmentalists: "Stop polluting or the world will end"
corporations: "we have to pollute or the economy will collapse"

sounds like both sides give the chicken little argument without making any concessions to see if either side is off in their projections. If the market can't adjust to outside forces, chances are the market isn't as strong as they make it out to be.

I'm just asking questions to see how far you would go. You seem to suggest that you would not be willing to allow the enviroment to get in the way of our economy. I tend to agree, mostly because I don't think we need to go to extremes to be responsible with the enviroment.

The next question would have to be would you be willing to stagnate the US economy? Because in the last election, the economy was a very important issue. The enviroment is a big issue, but not at the expense of stagnating the US Economy seems to be a fair assessment as well.

So that is why I stand here today and say we should continue to make enviromental responsability an issue we should deal with, but if we wan't to go to extremes, such as what the Kyoto Agreement suggests, I'll pass, just like President Clinton did (It was the responsable thing to do for our country).

Again, it's politics. If the US takes the lead on an issue, global security for instance, we are evil. If we allow the EU to take the lead on an issue, global warming for instance, we are evil. Politics with a capital BS.

Let the EU and Russia actively engage the Kyoto agreements. I want to know how much money they spend, how many jobs are lost, how much of the O-zone is restored, how much ice is restored to Anarctica, how many lives are saved, and how many years armaggedon is delayed.

Then I will be glad to re-assess the USA logical and reasonable stance on this.

I think the problem is nobody seems willing to do studies of moderation. They either want to do a study that says" there is no global warming" or "there is global warming"... or perhaps people don't want to read those studies. Anyway, I think there needs to be more accountability for US corporations. There can be advances made that won't stagnate the economy... a million changes could be put into place. The problem is, people want them all or nothing. I liken it to the gay marriage debate and the far left's stance. They want full gay marriage, but they seem unwilling to even have a starting place. I think the same is true for environmentalists. They want sweeping reform instead of baby steps. Implement some small changes, give it some time. Assuming those work out, start pushing for more changes, until finally you get everything you want.

Of course, things don't work out that way and thats an oversimplification, but ideally thats what I would do. It seems politics have gotten worse at picking their battles and just gone to fighting whole wars.

I agree. But who can do it? A vast majority of our educated scholars have made themselves partisans to one cause or the other before they even graduate college.

That issue gets discussed in the book as well.

I was playing on the "if." If it is natural, it would be as very bad idea to try to change it. You're talking about radically changing the weather of the whole planet. Even in your illustration (building coastlines, and or we can go further into levy systems, etc.) man has often done more damage than good with our solutions to natural problems. I think we would be better off in many cases to try to live around nature than try to alter it.

If CFC's are making the change, ban them, but there you are correcting a man made problem.

As for the last bit, for the most part I'd say it is usually easier (and cheaper) moving people off flood planes than it is to constantly try to prevent the flood, and then pay to rebuild the damage when the flood comes anyway. So, no I wasn't saying give them lifevest. I was saying it is time to move. :D

Well, time for me to dust off my Homer reading glasses and act smart. I got a book to read.

You are not that good an actor.







(j/k. That's one of those lines where I can't help myself put retort.)

Random observation: The people that love to whine and argue about "issues", often seem to be the least likely to DO anything about those same "issues".

But some things just aren't an "issue". That's why this debate can be so important. Why throw so much effort into preventing something that is simply not proven to exist, despite what the media wants to keep saying?

As for actually doing something, another interesting documented point is that of Yellowstone National Park. The first "managed" park in this country, run by people with all the best intentions of "preserving" nature. There is documented failure after documented failure in their attempts to preserve that park (elk become endangered, kill off coyotes, elks eat all the plants, etc). Sometimes you're better off leaving well enough alone, especially if you don't know what you're doing and have not studied the problem enough OR well enough to know what the effects are going to be of your fixes. Mother Nature has a pretty good habit of being self-correcting.

The environment is a complex system that does not take well to simple fixes...

Coming from a distinctly LIBERAL point of view, I have to say that I am not a defender of teh environment. my personal belief is that those who raise the battle cry that we are destroying the earth are simply deluded. This planet and its ecosystem have existed far longer than we have even been around. It has taken meteor strikes, savage techtonich changes, mass floods, ice ages etc etc.

Even IF humanity and its growth are causing some change in the environment, there is no factual reason to believe that its going to cause any serious damage or change to the planet and its ecosystem.

it is normal for things to change and fluctuate. The earth will warm, the earth will cool and all the while we'll be sitting here having these same discussions.

Bunny-Loving-Tree-Huggers: "We're destroying teh environment, big business MUST be stopped or we'll all DIE!!!"

Corporate holligans: "Ignore the Hippies, everything's fine, want another air freshener?"

I do believe that we need to eliminate things that we KNOW to cause problems, like CFC's they are poisonous and can seriously suck Oxygen from the very air around us. Not good stuff, we shouldn't be allowing anyone to use them.

I also believe that the two aforementioned groups both need to just shut the hell up and find more important hobbies to spend their time on.

My nickel.

You are making the assumption that CFC or any other emissions are impacting the global temperature. I say it would be nice to move toward eliminating pollution, but I think it is rash to retool industry, at great cost, so we can reduce emissions with the HOPE that we will curb man's contribution to global warming. You seem to be advocating that or, assuming that the Planet's temperature is varying of its own accord, that we do make some effort beyond reducing emissions to control global temperature. Maybe a sun shield or something, like on the Simpsons.

I think your nickel is well spent.

Something I wish would become more palletable (I hope that doesn't mean easilly placed on a pallet) is nuclear power. I'd much rather see Nuclear power spread, and become typical than see the continued burning of coal for electricity. That seems like a very sad thing to do to the environment when there are cleaner alternatives about.

While I love the sun shield Simpsons reference , you completely swung and missed at my point. First, I never said CFC emissions impacted global temperature- I thought we dispensed with that myth in the early 90s. Global warming vs ozone hole- two different problems. My point was that it was an example of how we were imposing our will on the environment because we saw a problem and went to correct it.

Towards the whole point, I just don't understand this air of "if it's not a problem we created, we don't have to deal with it". Yes, we do have to deal with it. Not doing anything is also a way of dealing with it. This reminds me of talking with some friends of mine in law school: all they want to do is avoid culpability because we have it in our minds that if we don't create the mess, someone else will deal with it.

Tangent but example of what I'm trying to say: "If my name is Marty McFly and I go back in time and push my peeping tom dad out the way when he's about to get hit by a car but he hits his head, he could sue me. Never mind that if I hadn't done anything, he'd be dead" (It seems like whenever a friend was studying torts, they always had examples like this). He can argue that he wouldn't have had as much damage done by the car, etc. so a perfectly well intentioned act which almost certainly did more harm than good ends the good samaritan in worse trouble than if he had let the person die.

Same thing here: even if it's a perfectly natural phenomenon and not caused by what we are doing, then we need to find some *other* way to change things because global warming *is* a problem whether we caused it or not and someone has to do something about it and these days that someone is us.

SI

Until a truly safe and fool proof way is found to deal with teh waste products of nuclear fission I really can't support this idea. Its still far easier to clean the emmisions from a coal burning plant than it is to safely store depleted uranium from nuclear power plants.

Fusion, if it could be made stable, would eliminate the need for either. Solar, wind and water power all provide perfectly good energy, though they are far less efficient at it.

There are many possible routes. We just need to get all these whining complaining "the sky is falling" masses to work on those instead of trying to raise a panic.

thats just it, if it is in fact a natural cycle then we have no right to try and change it. If the main reasons for "doing" something about global warming *if its truly happening* are to protect low lying cities and people's property and lives, then I have to say its better to let them move to safer locations and learn that life isn't constant and if you purchase waterfront property you are taking a risk that you might lose everything.

I don't believe anything humanity does truly affects the planet on a "life threatening" scale *for the planet* and if we affect things out of self interest we're no better than the corporations who want to mow down the forests and build casinos.

The planet doesn't need our services, its a bit out of our league to affect.

I just found this thread because I remembered that I had misspelled palatable, or rather misused palletable in its place. I did a search to see if anyone called me on it. In any case I found your reply when I did.

I don't think we are anywhere near being able to effectively use Solar, wind, or water power, let alone fusion(stable or otherwise). Well at least not Water power that environmentalists would consider acceptable, because I'm assuming that dams are ruled out. I also don't think it is easy to clean up the emmissions generated by burning coal, nor hard to store nuclear waste that is the byproduct of our nuclear plants today. There are a number of sites around the country where those bi-products are safely secured. Not to mention Yucca Mountain.

:)

Guess what my wife brought home for me yesterday? State of Fear. I'm gonna be on to you left wing fear mongerors. Watch out! (Either that or I'm gonna end up shooting up some Humvee Dealership with hot pink paint balls.) I'm still wondering if this book is some sort of trap to get right-wingers to read a enviromentalist book.

This is one thing that cracks me up, why does every thing need to be mankind's fault? The amount of pollution given off by one volcanic eruption dwarfs the amount of pollution mankind produces in a year (by like 1000 fold or something).

The Earth has been around for some 4.5 billion years. Man have been around in a civilized form for 8000 years. 99% of all lifeforms that have existed here are extinct, even if we have another mass extinction, who is to say whether it was caused by man or by nature?