Crichton on Charlie Rose
Michael Crichton delivered a reluctant defense of State of Fear but still uses the same fallacious reasoning. Hubristically he says he's the only one who has looked at the data, and the catastrophysts or "alarmists" haven't, and are just operating on emotion. Granted some are, but the part I can't understand is his refusal to cite the scientists he's reading, because he does this disingenuously in the book, skewering Jim Hansen.
"We can't know the future," he says and models are "flawed by personal bias." In other words the GCM models are engineered to give a predicted response. "Consensus is not science." Curiously his novel never visited the Arctic, only Antarctica, which fits the confirmation bias e.g. cooling and warming at the same time, thus Huh? We don't really know anything. Crichton says "he talks to the scientists," but that isn't what the evidence shows, since he only uses altered material from paid sceptics. That's a bad source problem.
I'm hoping he'll answer the Rose challenge to debate a scientist on another show. I have my favorites. Stay tuned.
"We can't know the future," he says and models are "flawed by personal bias." In other words the GCM models are engineered to give a predicted response. "Consensus is not science." Curiously his novel never visited the Arctic, only Antarctica, which fits the confirmation bias e.g. cooling and warming at the same time, thus Huh? We don't really know anything. Crichton says "he talks to the scientists," but that isn't what the evidence shows, since he only uses altered material from paid sceptics. That's a bad source problem.
I'm hoping he'll answer the Rose challenge to debate a scientist on another show. I have my favorites. Stay tuned.
Labels: Global Warming
posted by Mark at 4:09 PM
7 Comments:
good post. i lived in alaska for ten years too. juneau and nome.
you might want to see my blog oped on why we are doomed now.
http://climatechange3000.blogspot.com
Danny Bl., now in Taiwan, until the end...
Thanks Dan. I left a comment on your blog. Taiwan eh? That's fairly exotic. I wonder if this has anything to do with your view? I'd be interested in the view from Taiwan on this. It's a good angle for you. Good luck.
I was asent a comment that was too stupid to post, that basically repeated Crichton's thesis which I and 99.9 percent of the climate scientists disagree with. I'll take one point:
"If you actually press most scientists doing global warming research, they will eventually tell you that they don't know what is causing global warming. Before we spend $55 Trillion, we better find someone who has some solid evidence of man's impact on the environment, particularly in the face of more pressing needs, like disease and hunger (ed - he indirectly mentioned this, which, because it isn't designed to benefit internationalist organizations, has received very little attention)."
No they won't say this. Crichton does, but scientists don't even though he says so. Sceptics on ExxonMobil's payroll and at CEI and FOX News do. They're illegitimate because they are factually wrong and self-interested businesswise. Anthropogenic global warming is testable and proven. It's not a belief, it's a fact. Denial is the religion of ignorance. Move on.
Too stupid to post eh? So exactly who is showing their hubris? Very open-minded of you.
I'll buy into global warming when:
1. Any warming which is happening is a function of something other than the historical cyclicality in the earth's climate;
2. If 1 is demonstrated, that human beings are causing such warming;
3. If 1 and two are demonstrated, that such warming's costs outweigh its benefits (longer growing seasons etc.); and
4. That we have the capability to do something about it that makes sense from a cost perspective.
If all four of those things can be demonstrated? Then I'll begin being concerned. I'm still waiting for number 1.
And a model which could at least fit the past climactic changes would be a step in the right direction towards credibility.
Yeah Man, too stupid to learn that: #1 is true; testable, measured and proven. Just because you say it isn't doesn't mean it's true. You have to prove it isn't. You haven't and you can't. Stupid is as stupid says. Go to Realclimate and read otherwise shut the hell up. Your logic skills need serious work.
To Solaty concerning your first list of questionable statements.
Response:I can predict that it will be warmer in 6 months (it's February now) than now in Oslo - I'm making a prediction about the future - Crichton, be sceptical! It's like saying that if my predictions are correct, I should be able to predict the Oslo temperature in 15 days. There is something called the chaos effect, which inhibits the success of predicting 15 days ahead (This very fundamental principle, by the way, was uncovered by computer models . ). The year-to-year and decade-to-decade variations are affected by chaotic fluctuations (e.g. El Ninos, Pacific Decadal Oscillation,..), as well as volcanic erruptions. But the level about which the fluctuations center is affected systematically by external forcings (e.g. the seasonal cycle). Global warming is primarily a scientific issue, and the claims cannot documented because they are false. #5 is also as far as I know a false statement, and is itself a prediction of the future. I'm sceptical;-) (I have greater faith in my prediction 6 months ahead than his prediction sometime far in the future...). The notion of global warming is based on exactly science - but it's easy for non-scientists to make counter-claims when they are not required to document their claims. -rasmus]
Read it and learn.
Yeah Solarty make this about me. It's about your ineptitude and ignorance. I predict you'll stay that way by choice. It's a free country and while we allow it it garners no respect, only disdain. That's the price.
Post a Comment
<< Home