A Few Things Ill Considered

A layman's take on the science of Global Warming featuring a guide on How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

send this to... Digg it! | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Furl | Spurl

Reasic debunks Crichton's "Aliens Cause Global Warming" Speech

In case anyone out there actually thinks Michael Crichton has intelligent things to say about the Global Warming issue, I recommend reading Reasic's recent post that steps through Crichton's many assinine arguments presented in a speech from a few years ago.

It is pretty long, but such an effort should at least be skimmed through!

Thanks for the good work, Reasic.

Labels: , ,

posted by coby @ 5/22/2007 12:24:00 PM  

7 Comments:

  • At May 22, 2007 4:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Hey, thanks for the link, Coby!

     

  • At May 22, 2007 7:51 PM, Blogger M.J. S. - (Wacki) said…

    Thanks for the link. Btw you should read his autobiography Travels. Crichton seems to like the supernatural more than science. Also, did you quit Grist? I don't see you on the sidebar anymore.

     

  • At May 22, 2007 8:12 PM, Blogger coby said…

    hey wacki,

    No did not quit Grist, I guess it has been too long since I last posted there. I still have the option of posting when I visit...I must take advantage again soon.

     

  • At May 23, 2007 2:34 AM, Blogger Glen said…

    Both Crichton's and Reasic's argument rely on unstated and largely unargued assumptions. Since my underlying worldview is closer to that of Crichton than Reasic, I didn't find the "debunking" persuasive compared to the original.

    Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit was one of the IPCC FAR contributors, yet he strongly disagreed with many specific elements of the section to which he contributed and with the gist of the summary of that section.

    Thus we have an existence proof that: the fact that thousands of scientists "contributed to" the IPCC report does NOT necessarily mean that those same thousands of scientists support the resulting consensus. (Though it does seem likely that the lead authors support the consensus expressed in their respective sections.)

    To the degree that mere opinions are being expressed, it is probably through selection of specific subsets of the literature to quote, through applying spin to the conclusions, or - when all else fails - including recent work that hasn't yet passed peer review but favors the conclusions one wants to find.

    Chrichton is generally cynical about political processes that claim to produce "consensus". In comparison, Reasic seems more credulous - bordering on gullible - in being willing to take at face value partisan claims regarding the purpose (and actual effect) of a political institution such as the IPCC. I make a strong distinction between what such a group might claim to do or be for and what it actually does or is for; the "debunking" doesn't seem to make such a distinction.

    (Froot Loops claims its purpose is to be part of a nutritious breakfast but I suspect its primary purpose is to make money for Kellogg's and seeming nutritious is a means towards that end. To apply this analogy to the IPCC is left as an exercise for the reader. :-) )

     

  • At May 23, 2007 5:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Yes, glen, we are well aware that not all scientists in the IPCC agree with every minute detail of the report. For every McIntyre, there are several who feel that the report is too conservative or watered-down. The process is meant to bring agreement among many different scientists, in an effort to be able to make a definitive statement about the state of climate science. The skeptical idea of a runaway liberal organization, which uses claims of "consensus" in an effort to force its unreasonable assertions about man's influence on climate are a farce.

     

  • At May 23, 2007 9:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Hi Coby,
    Apologies for the off-topic comment, but I'm working with Kevin et al at DeSmogBlog. We've got an idea we're kicking around, and would like to get your two cents. Can you please drop me a line at darren [at] capulet [dot] com? Thanks.

     

  • At May 30, 2008 8:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    All you people who are turning science into some kind of political circus make me sick. It is you idiots, and not man-made global warming, that will ruin the earth. I never though such a bastardization of science could happen in my lifetime, but it did. This scares the crap out of me for what this may mean for the future of humanity.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home