Michael Crichton, a brilliant science fiction writer (now deceased) with both an undergraduate and MD degree from Harvard (obviously a Bible-thumping Republican neanderthal) explains in this series of interviews and speeches why he is a global warming "denier". This is a great video because it shows the rational thought of a liberal, secularly inclined intellectual on why global warming hysteria is essentially unadlterated horse schit. Crichton is fully informed on the latest science and has a brilliant mind. He gives very cogent and thoughtful reasons why the leftist hand-wringing over global warming is out of all proportion to any real possible harm.

Well worth listening too. Too bad Crichton died in 2008. The pursuit of rationality in science and politics could use him today.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJJsDtSHjdE

"everyone has to cure cancer, no one gets excited about curing some small disease"

pretty good analogy

Well hell that just settles it...a guy who's been dead since 2008 says so...I guess all scientific study and discovery just plain stopped in 2008.

In fact Richard Muller who works for the oil industry was a climate denier back in 2008 also, because he said there were some pretty big holes in the theory back then. But as of 2012, he is no longer a denier because he said those holes have been filled and the science is solid.

Again, this guy was hired by the Koch brother specifically to debunk Climate Change science.

I guess you and Harry Reid can't be challenged on AGW even if the Koch brothers picked up where Crichton left off.

EVERY, I repeat, EVERY real life person I know who believes the Global Warming Religion.. and there aren't many.... has one thing in common with the others:

They think they are intelligent enough to weigh all the evidence, pro and con, and determine which scientists to believe.

They're not THAT smart.

They have just enough intelligence to fall for a scam that a more ordinary person can reject as B S, because HE FOLLOWED THE MONEY.

Neither of us are well connected enough, Kevin, to know just HOW the Kochs saw a financial advantage to switching sides, but they didn't do it to their financial detriment.

You can bet your ass on that.

Kevin, did you call algore to get those talking points?

Sam,

I can't stand the sight of Al Gore, he's an idiot.

I just see the evidence differently from you guys; why do we have to attach some agenda to that. I have no agenda, just commenting on how I see the science. I've said countless times that I don't think the left has a clue on what to do about global warming, so I'm obviously not on board with their agenda...so why does everyone have to attach agenda to my observations?

I do not deny that man DOES add some carbon to the mix. I DO deny that it is significant enough to change the climate. Compared to a volcano, for instance, man's contribution is minuscule. The DIFFERENCE in what man adds,by changing fuels and such, is ridiculously small. The savings realized over years, can be negated by a good forest fire. I figure forest fires and volcanoes have been doing their business a lot longer than man has, and to much greater effect. We are operating under the assumption that carbon drives temps. THAT is debatable. If it does, it is logical to assume that more is worse than less, but it really has to be significant enough to be responsible for any change. I am not sure that is provable in a single lifetime.

Not only that, but GW alarmists insist that GW is a bad thing. And that just ain't necessarily so.

So we have 3 threads now on global warming, I'm bored.

Climate change.

Get it straight.



Travis

Crichton was actually more of a Democrat than a Republican...

And his points in the video interview that are most compelling have nothing to do with whether global warming is real or not, but speak to the ridiculous idea that scientific models can predict the future, with respect to climate change and its effects.

I love watching soccer moms use fabric bags at the grocery store.

As they push a cart full of disposable diapers. You can't make this schit up.

Fugging morons.



Travis

The point wasn't to invoke Crichton as an authority but to show how a properly skeptical analytical mind approaches the evidence and to proffer some reasons for skepticism.

Of course the evidence has changed since 2008--its gotten worse because we now know there's been a complete halt to the warming trend (if it even was one) since 1996 and we also know the models (which were promised to be able to give reliable temperature data 100 years out) failed even to predict temperatures only a few years out (viz., the 1996 stop to warming). That Richard Muller has changed his mind begs the question entirely.

The penchant of global warmers for embracing fallacies is really quite amazing (read: embarrassing).

Another excellent Crichton interview (better than the first).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLsVViOKkE0

So if the climate isn't chaging, why is it the Lake Tahoe has almost HALF the skiing days it had 20 years ago. Why is it that NASA is re-locating buildings at the Kennedy space center due to rising waters...where is that water coming from anyhow? Why is it that the place in Arkansas where I used to live gets less than a foot of snow these days, and used to get nearly 6 feet annually 20 years ago. Why is it where I live now, I don't even have to own a set of chains, yet there are chain installation zones all over the highway that I drive on? Really weird.

So you base your conclusion on your recollection of 50 years of weather? When compared to the age of the earth and the weather that has occurred in that time, that time sample is immeasurable.

The climate is changing. It always has. There used to be Redwoods growing all over this continent, including in Alaska and also in Greenland. The planet used to be much, much warmer than it is today,

The two-fold question is to what extent, if any, is human activity is causing a warming? And if it is, what, if anything should be done about it?

The Chicken Littles of the Church of Environmental Doomsday are positing a scenario with no basis in reality in order to justify a massive government take-over of private markets and the impoverishment of billions. The High Priests of their movement however (Al Gore for example) will suffer no economic consequences whatsoever. You can bank that one.


Jordan


Jordan

You mean the guy who was into clairvoyance and astral projection, etc???



I find it amusing that Havard is the epicenter of liberalism and elitism to the Right....until someone from there 'validates' a conservatives worldview...

You haven't learned a thing, have you? The first statement is classic ad hominem.

As to the second, I find it amusing that conservative environmental opinions are nothing more than the product of an anti-science, anti-rational political agenda---until a
card carrying secular liberal intellectual validates those conservative environmental opinons, at which point the previously revered secular-liberal intellectual suddenly becomes an clairvoyant, astral-projecting nut case.

Once again, your complete inability to respond on the merits loudly trumpets the impotence of your position. Thank you for acknowledging (yet again!) that you're in over your head.

Chit, we used washable diapers for both munchkins. Does that mean we're environmentalists?

Come to think of it, what does a High Priest at the Church of Environmental Doom-and-Gloom get paid?

Speaking for myself, I don't particularly want the earth to get colder.

Hundreds of millions, minimum. Just ask Al Gore.

Would I still qualify for Obamacare? I'm entitled to health insurance.

Good question. We know Al Gore made somewhere around $150 million in 2014.

Ahh, Jordan...

Still haven't figured out what a ad hominem attack is yet, eh? MC opinions are just that....where are his scientific papers refuting the evidence? BTW, I tend to agree that some of the 'hysteria' over AGW is just that. Even scientists still debate the ramifications and extended predictive models...none of which invalidates the existing evidence.

Also, YOU are the one who used the term 'nut case', I merely remarked on the incongruence of your statement on rationality and MC's own views...

Please read his book 'Travels' and get back to us (hint: it ain't like Anthony Bourdain!).

You might even be amused!

Climate change is an ongoing process. It will always be changing just like the weather is always changing.

For a little perspective there was a great big forest 10,000 years ago at what is now the bottom of the North Sea.

Forest at the Bottom of the North Sea

The idea we can some how manipulate the climate through regulating our energy consumption is just a farce to enrich select few at the expense of many.

climate is changing always has been, before man and when man is gone it will continue to evolve, I remember when I was very young they talked about an ice age and that another would come again.
Mans effect on it is the same as poking your finger into the sea and then pulling it out, there is no trace left and does not amount to any measurable change to the sea.