100 years of global warming 'erased' after record worldwide temp drop

[MJK]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Global climate CHANGE is not just global "warming". Until people realize that, it's pointless to even talk to them about it.

The overal trend is that of a warming planet, but that is not to say that there won't be ups and downs, and periods of extemes (cold and warm).

Exactly. I like to think of global warming like a good long term stock

...global warming, a long term, solid stock, that will eventually get higher and higher. There will be ups and downs but over time, the temperature will continue to rise.

[RougeUnderoos]

Come on now, Michael Crichton?

Funny thing is, if someone posted an opposite speech by David Suzuki he'd be hooted off the board. Which guy is more qualified?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Come on now, Michael Crichton?

Funny thing is, if someone posted an opposite speech by David Suzuki he'd be hooted off the board. Which guy is more qualified?

I guess ignorance is bliss

ones a genecist the other a anthopologist and MD.....neither?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

I guess ignorance is bliss

Umm, yeah.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Thor

Lets see, Brit Hume reporting, Fox news reporting....

I'm shocked they would promote anything that calls into question that Global Warming is real.

Thank Allah for the internet.

Attack the source, not the argument.

Bravo!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Attack the source, not the argument.

Bravo!

The argument (this specific one) was sufficiently throttled by a link Photon added.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Umm, yeah.

He attended Harvard College in Cambridge, Massachusetts, as an undergraduate, graduating summa cum laude in 1964.[3] Crichton was also initiated into the Phi Beta Kappa Society. He went on to become the Henry Russell Shaw Traveling Fellow from 1964 to 1965 and Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom in 1965. He graduated from Harvard Medical School, obtaining an M.D. in 1969, and did post-doctoral fellowship study at the Jonas Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, from 1969 to 1970. In 1988, he was Visiting Writer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. While in medical school, he wrote novels under the pen names John Lange and Jeffery Hudson. A Case of Need, written under the latter pseudonym, won the 1969 Edgar Award for Best Novel. He also co-authored Dealing with his younger brother Douglas under the shared pen name Michael Douglas. The back cover of that book contains a picture of Michael and Douglas at a very young age taken by their mother.

yup

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The argument (this specific one) was sufficiently throttled by a link Photon added.

Wasn't my point.

Just because Fox News reports something, it doesn't necessarily mean its spin-doctored, wrong, false, lame, etc, etc.

In this case it was wrong. In other cases they might be right. Which is why you don't attack the source.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

yup

What exactly is that supposed to prove? He's a smart guy who writes crappy books. He's not an authority on this subject by any stretch of the imagination.

You ever seen David Suzuki's resume? It's just as fancy and considerably more relevant to the topic, but I know you'd dismiss anything he has to say outright.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Wookie

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-complexity.html

I'm not sure what he is trying get at. If he is implying that system complexity isn't considered by scientists when researching global climate change, then he is mistaken. If anything, people who look at individual years or days in isolation when it's cold and use that to try and disprove global warming are the ones who don't consider system complexity.

Even with system complexity, cycles are still predictable. Chrichton acknowledges this with his Yellowstone Park ecosystem management example. He notes that observations of biological abundance were misinformed because people back then did not understand the natural cycles of ecosystems.... I don't dispute that.

But to use Chrichton's own examples; the same cycles are easily disrupted from man-made interruptions. If you kill off a particular species, then other species will be affected due to the same system complexity, it doesn't matter if it is natural or not. Climate patterns are very similar... if you change a particular function of the environment, predictable changes in the patterns can be noticed. If you add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, it adds to the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, just like if you add more biological life to an ecosystem (like in Chrichton's Yellowstone example), you change its properties. If anything, system complexity theory works in favour of global climate change science...

I agree with Chrichton when it comes to ecosystem management. People see fewer deer in some years and right away think the ecosystem is collapsing because they don't understand the complexity, but I don't think his example is applies to climate change very well.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

I guess ignorance is bliss

ones a genecist the other a anthopologist and MD.....neither?

One spent his whole life working as a scientist and lecturer on science itself. The other abandoned his education and pursued a career of writing trashy novels based on the most suspect of junk science. Now Michael Crichton is my favorite fiction authors, because he takes scientific theory and runs with it, but his books and thoughts are as far from reality as you can come. Thinking that Crichton can properly speak to the science of what is going on right now would be like claiming Bill Bryson is qualified to be a cartographer.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What exactly is that supposed to prove? He's a smart guy who writes crappy books. He's not an authority on this subject by any stretch of the imagination.

You ever seen David Suzuki's resume? It's just as fancy and considerably more relevant to the topic, but I know you'd dismiss anything he has to say outright.

Suzuki is genecist who happens to be a enviromental activist and says and acts just like one, not a climate scientist...what is his research on the subject? I also enjoy his children's books

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

One spent his whole life working as a scientist and lecturer on science itself. The other abandoned his education and pursued a career of writing trashy novels based on the most suspect of junk science. Now Michael Crichton is my favorite fiction authors, because he takes scientific theory and runs with it, but his books and thoughts are as far from reality as you can come. Thinking that Crichton can properly speak to the science of what is going on right now would be like claiming Bill Bryson is qualified to be a cartographer.

Ya I get it lanny, the shtick is old, they don't have your view points, you trash and discredit them and pass them off has big oil benefactors....you must be a scientist.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Suzuki is genecist who happens to be a enviromental activist and says and acts just like one, not a climate scientist...what is his research on the subject? I also enjoy his children's books

This is pretty tired already, but it's my fault so I'll end it. Let's just say they cancel each other out.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Ya I get it lanny, the shtick is old, they don't have your view points, you trash and discredit them and pass them off has big oil benefactors....you must be a scientist.

I'll respond to that with...

"Suzuki is genecist who happens to be a enviromental activist and says and acts just like one, not a climate scientist...what is his research on the subject? I also enjoy his children's books".

Ya I get it Mel, the shtick is old, they don't have your view points, you trash and discredit them and pass them off has big environmental benefactors (because that's where the big dollars are)....you must be a sucker for whatever drips from the pop culture machine's tail pipe.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I'll respond to that with...

"Suzuki is genecist who happens to be a enviromental activist and says and acts just like one, not a climate scientist...what is his research on the subject? I also enjoy his children's books".

Ya I get it Mel, the shtick is old, they don't have your view points, you trash and discredit them and pass them off has big environmental benefactors (because that's where the big dollars are)....you must be a sucker for whatever drips from the pop culture machine's tail pipe.

I like David Suzuki, just wondering why we should listen to him over Micheal Crichton? They are both educated in science, neither in climate science...one happened to take a more promenent activist role than the other, they both have different viewpoints, one a little more logical than the other who is a little more extreme....

I don't think you can dismiss what Crichton says, because some of its true...neither can you dismiss what IPCC says, but niether give you the complete truth, it somewhere in between....

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

I like David Suzuki, just wondering why we should listen to him over Micheal Crichton? They are both educated in science, neither in climate science...one happened to take a more promenent activist role than the other, they both have different viewpoints, one a little more logical than the other who is a little more extreme....

I don't think you can dismiss what Crichton says, because some of its true...neither can you dismiss what IPCC says, but niether give you the complete truth, it somewhere in between....

Well, for one; Chrichton has geared his career more around making money by writing fiction, while Suzuki has devoted his life to science. Not that Suzuki doesn't make a decent living, but he sacrifices more and is far more specialized in his career concerning the topic at hand. That gives him a tad more clout imho. If the topic was about writing ficticious novels or making hollywood movies, then I would take Chrichton over Suzuki by a mile.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Come on now, Michael Crichton?

Funny thing is, if someone posted an opposite speech by David Suzuki he'd be hooted off the board. Which guy is more qualified?

One must ask how much more qualified the astronomer is to comment on the complexities of climate change vs Crichton too one would think, no?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Dan02

One must ask how much more qualified the astronomer is to comment on the complexities of climate change vs Crichton too one would think, no?

Do you think the qualified astronomer is qualified enough to talk about the sun?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Do you think the qualified astronomer is qualified enough to talk about the sun?

Obviously NOT! But the guy who abandoned science in the late 60's / early 70's, for a career as a fiction writer, is definitely most qualified to speak to the issues of climate change. After all, he wrote a couple really cool books on how dinosaurs could be recreated in the lab, how nano-machines could act as a collective and establish an intelligence to destroy man, and how a sociopathic hot chick could manipulate her way into control of a dot com on the verge of massive profits. One guy gets it, the other doesn't.

That is of course doing a disservice to Crichton, who is a very intelligent man. I really do admire him and think he is a great thinker. I would like to hear more of his views on the subject and have a beer or four with him discussing the whole issue. I would be interested in finding how he formulated his views and why he feels the way he does. It wouldn't be the first time that Crichton was wrong on a topic though.