Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Global Warming
Topic Started: Oct 30 2005, 08:37 AM (232 Views)
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
a thread in WTF, and the hositility to science thread here, made me want to post this topic here too. so i pasted my post from WTF here.

i just finished reading michael chricton's latest, "state of fear"


Posted Image

he makes a very compelling argument that global warming is basically a fiction. im not qualified enough in earth sciences to make a good judgement, but u finish the book feeling that there is alot of politics out there, whose agenda is clearly not the good of the planet. the plot is thin, just action nonsense, but its backed up with a huge amount of bibliography and resources.

here is abit of what he thinks...

State of Fear

anyway, bottom line is, he thinks its bull****.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mrenaud
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
bachophile
Oct 30 2005, 06:37 PM
im not qualified enough in earth sciences to make a good judgement

And neither is he. He studied anthropology and medicine. Why he thinks he's qualified to write about global warming is beyond me.
Why is it that the world never remembered the name of Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern Schplenden Schlitter Crasscrenbon Fried Digger Dingle Dangle Dongle Dungle Burstein von Knacker Thrasher Apple Banger Horowitz Ticolensic Grander Knotty Spelltinkle Grandlich Grumblemeyer Spelterwasser Kurstlich Himbleeisen Bahnwagen Gutenabend Bitte ein Nürnburger Bratwurstle Gerspurten Mitz Weimache Luber Hundsfut Gumberaber Shönedanker Kalbsfleisch Mittler Aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
actually many scientists think we are entering a cooling phase
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
I'm a huge Crichton fan (read just 'bout every book), and also an Environmental Scientist. I absolutely could not pass this one up.

Crichton got a few things right in the book. Science is used nowadays as the new politics. What do you do to prove your case? Find an expert who works at M.I.T. or wherever who agrees with you!

Here's my $0.02 about the book's conclusions: the most important thing you can read is Crichton's message at the end of the book. He lays out his "prediction" for global temperature change, and says that he thinks it's fairly baseless, but whatever, it's as good as any others.

And to that, I say EXACTLY.

I do a lot of simulation and modeling, and I can be the first to say that our weather climate models are STEEPED in uncertainty. Ever hear of sensitive dependence on initial conditions? Lorenz attractors? Crichton himself eluded to them in Jurrassic Park. Basically, our best efforts at modeling the natural world are limited, to say the very least. We have a long way to go before we can get to the bottom of how our world works. Simply put, it's too "weird". All the minute, seemingly useless information we throw out to model only what matters, actually has a huge affect on things. It makes it very hard to make predictions.

Crichton references a lot of great journals in his book, but of course leaves out others that are just as important. He leaves them out becuase they're contradictory. I won't hold it against him, though, and I won't accuse him of trying to paint his own picture, because that's what ANY climatologist is doing right now, if they deal with global climate change. There's as many global climate theories out there as there are stars in the night sky. And it's because our science simply isn't there yet; we can't truly get to the root of our climate's dynamics, so the best tools we have right now are postulations and pseudo-science hypotheses (not unlike our alchemist's first tries at describing atoms and molecules).

I disagree with his suggestion that models and simulations are very flawed tools. They're quite good for what they do and, just like any tool you have in your toolbox or shed, you need to first understand what they can do, and what they can't. He places too much emphasis on monitoring and field data for my tastes; he obviously doesn't consider some of the bigger systems that absolutley need some kind of simulation and modeling to take place in order to understand them.

In short, this book paints a pretty poor picture on some of the environmental movements in the past 80-some years (the Yellowstone Park story was a phenomenal example), but just like any science journal you'll read, Crichton filtered the material. Just look at the atmospheric deposition of lead; a HUGE reduction since we turned to unleaded gasoline! It's not all bad, people. He's got some great points but you can't take his book as Reality. If you're going to treat its information like you would a peer-reviewed scientific journal, you should hold it up to their standards.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
thanks for the erudite answer, and im pleased someone who knows more about this then me also found it interesting and worthy of serious consideration.

yes the point of yellowstone park and how we dont know anything about managing habitats and wilderness was fascinating.

as usual, the stupidest animal on the planet is man.

anyway, my gut feeling is the earth is more resourceful then we give it credit for, and that as powerful an effect that man has on the environemnt, there is still an overwhelming force of nature which we hardly make a dent in, and all the green house gasses in the world wont prevent a future ice age should that be our fate.



"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
bach,

I'd also suggest The Closing Circle by Barry Commoner if you're looking for good environmental books. Commoner's a cellular biologist, but he played a major role in shaping modern environmentalist ideals. The book starts out describing just what the environmental problem is, defined by the author (and it's a rather good look at our current situation, if I do say so), and also contains a few great case-study examples that supports his claims.

Def. a must-read for everyone interested in enviornmental issues.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kentcouncil
Fulla-Carp
AL, thanks for your very interesting post.
It was a confusion of ideas between him and one of the lions he was hunting in Kenya that had caused A. B. Spottsworth to make the obituary column. He thought the lion was dead, and the lion thought it wasn't.

- P.G. Wodehouse
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply