Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Michael Crichton claims aliens causing global warming!
Tyvar
Next best thing to a St. Bernard
in Zocalo v2.0
Okay not really, but thats the topic of his speech here [url]http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html[/url]
Basicly Crichton claims that alot of "hard science" today, is just as much psuedo science as the theories it attacks, on the grounds that it uses models that are in not varifiable via experimentation, but worse off use as key determinites of activities, variables that are unknowable.
In fact he seems to rumble pretty hard with the entire scientific establishment.
Now Im sure this is all going to be considered more mindless conservative psudo science. But the guy has some points.
Basicly Crichton claims that alot of "hard science" today, is just as much psuedo science as the theories it attacks, on the grounds that it uses models that are in not varifiable via experimentation, but worse off use as key determinites of activities, variables that are unknowable.
In fact he seems to rumble pretty hard with the entire scientific establishment.
Now Im sure this is all going to be considered more mindless conservative psudo science. But the guy has some points.
Comments
In any event, models are a key tool of any sort of scientific exploration. The whole point of models is that simulating all the factors involved in a situation would be impossibly difficult. Models simplify the situation by only covering certain parts. One can say that any simplification is too much, and understanding can only come from taking every little dust mote and butterfly flapping its wings into account, but I wouldn't say it too close to any of the NASA high-IQ boys. Their orbital models are capable of firing a rocket from earth, letting it bounce about the solar system for a few years, and then have it hit a precise orbit in order to decelerate (and, in the really impressive cases, land).
However even with that random stuff happens and lots of rockets get blown up, space probes crash excetera.
Now with the climate change models, a good amount of the variables are unknowable, and there for fairly weak.
curently the models have been constructed with a very short term of climateological conditions into them, the ones we have directly observed, and they match them perfectly, because they have been constructed to. Its only with more observation and testing will we know the veracity of the models.
And while I think Crichton is an asshole, I love the fact that he is attacking two "scientists" who barely deserve the name, being Sagan and Ehrlich, who instead of using science to promote their part of the TTAPS report used the politics described in the article.
Frankly the TTAPS report was shit from the day one, in the fact that they were modeling data from asteroid impacts, on a solid body, IE a giant chunk of rock, with only a basic atmosphere to get their data. Asteroids, chunks of rock and such do not accuratly represent Nukes and the planet earth, but they pretended it did.
My problem with the models that we have are inductive by nature. Speaking from a purely logical standpoint, all inductive systems are weaker by nature then deductive. However science is stuck using induction to do anything since we can only build theories off what we observe. This is why despite how many scientists seem to agree on something, it only takes a hand full of observations to negate their positions.
Im not in the camp of denying anything is happening, something is happening, and the only real change we can find to explain things is mans activities, so man is definatly the major suspect. But the truth of the matter is we dont have to cinch the deal.
One of the things I would like some orginization to do is take the climate models and run them through with the level of CO2 in the atmosphere in the early Jurrassic period, which is about 4 times the amount currently, and factor in other naturaly occuring green house gasses, this will simulate natural environmental conditions at the time.
If the models show temperatures way beyond realistic, weve falisfied them, and shown they need to be revamped, if they hold up then thats another win for them.
In fact this thread here actually illustrates the assholes point, weve dropped into ad homminim attacks instead of analysis.
Then again, thats the point, neither side actually has a large body of evidence that has been throughly and rigerously tested by real events, so were down to name calling.
From what I've gatherd, understanding of climate processes/change (as opposed to weather) developed quite rapidly during the 90s. Global warming became a topic during this time (I may be mistaken, remember I was only 6 in 1990!) so obviously there was a great need to develop models on how climates change over time. As the reports predate this advancement, they had to use a model that was already developed (the asterioid impact).
As far as unknown variables that can't be measured, if there is no other way to try and solve the problem then something will have to be created. There is a famous equasion for the probability of intelligent life in our galaxy - some of these variables we have no way to measure untill we actually do (meaning we would need to find life on other worlds and see how many developed). It doesn't make the science bad, it is simply a model.
I would assume that now these variables int he report would be better understood, modified, or even replaced with other models that explain what is going on bette.
[B]While I know nothing about the report and just a little about climate change, I'll see how possible this sounds for the defence ;)
From what I've gatherd, understanding of climate processes/change (as opposed to weather) developed quite rapidly during the 90s. Global warming became a topic during this time (I may be mistaken, remember I was only 6 in 1990!) so obviously there was a great need to develop models on how climates change over time. As the reports predate this advancement, they had to use a model that was already developed (the asterioid impact).
As far as unknown variables that can't be measured, if there is no other way to try and solve the problem then something will have to be created. There is a famous equasion for the probability of intelligent life in our galaxy - some of these variables we have no way to measure untill we actually do (meaning we would need to find life on other worlds and see how many developed). It doesn't make the science bad, it is simply a model.
I would assume that now these variables int he report would be better understood, modified, or even replaced with other models that explain what is going on bette. [/B][/QUOTE]
My problem is that at the TIME of the report many complained that the comparrisons at the heart of TTAPS were invalid. The actual comaprisons of asteroid impact effects to nuclear weapons impacts are highly skeptical, consdering what physics at the time told us about the energy yields of asteroid impacts, the nature of the object that was the basis of the model didnt include the effects of an ocean, or complicated atmospheric systems, so all in all it actualy told us little of the climetological effects. Yet it was championed as gospel of what would occur?
If Chrichton had his way, you would not believe that pollution existed at all. He can talk shit about oh noes ad hominem! all he wants. I consider his abuse of straw men much more egregious.
[B]Chrichton has fuckall for a point. He's a demagogue abusing scientific method for RAPACIOUS CAPITALISM FUCK YEAH. I've been through his argument before, and it's a reasonably clever perversion of scientific restraint. But it is disingenuous, manipulative, and deceptive. There is ample evidence for global warming, and while it is not airtight, the case is more than strong enough for caution and restraint.
[/B][/QUOTE]
There is also plenty of evidence that this is a perfectly normal warming trend that the earth has goen though many times in its history.
the bottom line is, we have NO real idea what happend for the millions of years that we weren't around.
:p
Seriously though I think we have affected it to some extent with our noxious habbits, and...
Crichton does have a point about Second Hand Smoke in my opinion...
I'm not advocating that second hand smoke is a good thing, just that the basis for the claim is indeed lacking.
I can't breathe around smokers...and well..shit, they, their stuff, and their breath reeks, too. But the evidence supporting the harms of it (at least to the extent that the EPA states it, killing thousands a year) is terribly lacking, and good science has been slow to fight back those opposing the argument since it indirectly implies that one supports smoking, something not quite so positively identified anymore and unlikely to gain positive support or financial backing.
Let's think about this for a minute, shall we?
We are hearing arguments that global warming is not proven, and it's all bad science, right?
Science is the proving or disproving of a hypothesis by reproducible results in experimentation.
How can we prove it with only one model upon which to experiment?
All we have for global warming is anecdotal evidence or smaller scale models, not true full-scale experiments with controls, supgroups, repetition, etc.
But, since we're talking about our home and only known habitible place in the universe, should we not err on the side of caution? What we do now is like finding an unlabeled bottle and deciding to just go ahead and drink it. Maybe it's harmless, maybe it tastes good.
Maybe it's poison.
We can only test it once, and if the results are bad, we're dead.
And they should keep saying second hand smoke kills, I'm trying everything to get my boyfriend to quit!
To me alot that goes on in the global warming debate is expressly poltical, its less about prudance and science then a tool to destroy "RAPACIOUS CAPITALISM FUCK YEAH"
To me prudance would be working hard to discover alternative technologies for energy generation and more efficent propulsion technologies. But to others they demand more immedgiate action that would be fairly draconian.
And arent we supposed to be suspicous of those who would curtail our freedoms against some "nebulous" threat? oh wait that only applies to acts by republican presidents.
[B]The Earth has been warming for at least the last 10,000 years, it's just now that it's getting uncomfortable for us, we have to invent a problem to justify it in our own minds...
:p
Seriously though I think we have affected it to some extent with our noxious habbits, and...
Crichton does have a point about Second Hand Smoke in my opinion...
I'm not advocating that second hand smoke is a good thing, just that the basis for the claim is indeed lacking. [/B][/QUOTE]
I have no doubt that we've had some effect, i just not as much as most people think, we tend to think a lot of ourselves. when in the grand scheme of things, we dont really matter that much.
[B]The same is true with alcohol and pregnancy. Some alcoholic consumption is ok, but the ammount varies depenind on mnay factors. However for a public service announcement one can not say "you can only drink a little while pregnent," because little is variable, and if you gave a number I'm sure people would say "Oh one more drink wont hurt." So the offical stance needs to be extream to protect (sounds like night watch tho doesn't it? hmmmm).
And they should keep saying second hand smoke kills, I'm trying everything to get my boyfriend to quit! [/B][/QUOTE]
The problem is that this is just bad science leading to bad law after bad law. Once again, I'm an avid non-smoker. I hate the stuff in all forms, and like my air to be clean and pure, but I really did not like it when they went and passed laws banning people from smoking in many public establishments. I'm all for providing massive motivation to quit, because it's so terribly unhealthy, but I just can't stand it when bad science is used to legitimize a law. "Second-hand smoke kills 3000 people a year" is completely without support, yet is one of the most commonly cited examples for research and lawmaking.
Hell, I don't like people smoking at the restaurants I go to, either, but I just happily sit in the non-smoking section, or stay upwind of smokers outside. It's not that hard and many of the folks I've asked have actually put theirs out at my request.
If you want him to quit, then just do the thing girls have spent years mastering and selectively deprive him of love until he does ;)
I'm with Sanfam and Jack on the 2nd hand smoke point, seems to be a dubious claim at best. In addition, one place with 2nd hand smoke is likely to have the greatest effect is the place where it can be least regulated, the home.
Jake
This is insane. To conclude that second hand smoke is safe simply because the oft cited statistic is not real is infinitely more damaging that citing a fake statistic.
People say too often, 'there ought to be a law against that.' Consider for a moment, just how momentous it is to make a law. To forbid something is to limit freedom, and there must be a reason. The point of just law is to protect people. To ensure their personal safety against death, injury, and encroachment by others against their liberty.
Nobody is required to work at bars. The people who do go there of their own free will. They understand the working environment, and they accept it.
As well tell rock musicians that they must stop using loudspeakers at their concerts, because it could damage the hearing of the stagehands.
Perhaps there could be a law saying that no heavy objects be present at construction sites, lest the workers have to lift them and develop arthritis.
Or tell car manufacturers that they can no longer make cars capable of traveling faster than 65 mph, because that is the highest speed limit most states will have, and to go any faster would be illegal. Anyone driving faster could constitute a public health risk.
What is the government for? Is it to provide for 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' and let us figure the rest out on our own, or is it a nanny, there to determine what is best for us in every aspect of our lives, both public and personal?
After all, how many people are killed every year by second-hand smoke, compared to how many people are killed by drunk drivers?
Prohibition, anyone?
Just for laughs
[B]As well tell rock musicians that they must stop using loudspeakers at their concerts, because it could damage the hearing of the stagehands.[/B][/QUOTE]
None of your examples are really legitimate. Loud concerts don't kill you. Arthritis doesn't kill you. Cars capable of traveling faster than 65 mph don't inherently kill you. Cigarette smoke does.
[B]Or tell car manufacturers that they can no longer make cars capable of traveling faster than 65 mph, because that is the highest speed limit most states will have, and to go any faster would be illegal. Anyone driving faster could constitute a public health risk.[/B][/QUOTE]
Amusing side-note...
During the early to mid-1980's, the US DOT mandated the installation of speedometers limited (due to a lack of further markings) to 85mph on all US-market cars and trucks.
In hindsight, I find this move to be far more dangerous than a higher-reading speedometer, as one cannot tell the actual speed above that if one were to actually travel that fast. (I've kinda exceeded the indicated maximum on a couple of mine, and it's no fun! Is "No, officer, I couldn't tell how fast I was travelling" a valid excuse? ;))
[B]None of your examples are really legitimate. Loud concerts don't kill you. Arthritis doesn't kill you. Cars capable of traveling faster than 65 mph don't inherently kill you. Cigarette smoke does. [/B][/QUOTE]
The big problem is that the evidence supporting deaths caused directly by second-hand smoke is slim to non-existent. Yes, potential harm exists, which is one of the reasons I don't like hanging around smokers for too long, but more likely than not, it's going to be causing bodily damage than death. In this particular case, the examples provided (exception being the car, which isn't really applicable) to work.
[B]Yes, it is completely unlikely to damage the health of people who have to breathe it in for hours while working at bars.
This is insane. To conclude that second hand smoke is safe simply because the oft cited statistic is not real is infinitely more damaging that citing a fake statistic. [/B][/QUOTE]
No, what weve concluded is that there is no evidence to prove that its dangerous. Iif your going to want to modify peoples behavior, via law, which, ultimatly has as its tool violence, in our system it is upto you to provide the burdon of proof of your position to pass such regulation.
Frankly the willingness to ban things based on personal preferance and NOT on science is what seems to be insane and damaging
[B]Amusing side-note...
During the early to mid-1980's, the US DOT mandated the installation of speedometers limited (due to a lack of further markings) to 85mph on all US-market cars and trucks.
In hindsight, I find this move to be far more dangerous than a higher-reading speedometer, as one cannot tell the actual speed above that if one were to actually travel that fast. (I've kinda exceeded the indicated maximum on a couple of mine, and it's no fun! Is "No, officer, I couldn't tell how fast I was travelling" a valid excuse? ;)) [/B][/QUOTE]
actually despite certain court desicions in some mid western states, in some places pegging the speedometer would not be a defence "I didnt know how fast I was going" but instead a promotion from speeding ticket to jail with a reckless driving charge.
[B]None of your examples are really legitimate. Loud concerts don't kill you. Arthritis doesn't kill you. Cars capable of traveling faster than 65 mph don't inherently kill you. Cigarette smoke does. [/B][/QUOTE]
Cigarette smoke does kill you, so does other types of smoke, wood fires produce smoke that in quantities will kill you, repeated prolonged exposure to wood smoke at high rates also causes cancer and other lung conditions, does that mean we should ban fireplaces?
The arguments isnt that directly inhailing the smoke will kill you, but that the sience can not show that environmental smoke beneath certain thresholds will kill you.
And thats the crux of the arugment.
[B]The big problem is that the evidence supporting deaths caused directly by second-hand smoke is slim to non-existent. Yes, potential harm exists, which is one of the reasons I don't like hanging around smokers for too long, but more likely than not, it's going to be causing bodily damage than death. In this particular case, the examples provided (exception being the car, which isn't really applicable) to work. [/B][/QUOTE]
You smoke a cigarette and inhale the toxins and you do damage to your lungs, leading to death (even if you don't die from cancer - I saw a cousin die a long, drawn-out painful death that way - it isn't nice). What's the difference if you breathe it in directly from the cigarette in your mouth or the smoke escaping the cigarette or the smoker's mouth?
What second-hand smoke does to me when I'm exposed to it tells me pretty well that it is still toxic.
[B]Cigarette smoke does kill you, so does other types of smoke, wood fires produce smoke that in quantities will kill you, repeated prolonged exposure to wood smoke at high rates also causes cancer and other lung conditions, does that mean we should ban fireplaces?
The arguments isnt that directly inhailing the smoke will kill you, but that the sience can not show that environmental smoke beneath certain thresholds will kill you.
And thats the crux of the arugment. [/B][/QUOTE]
Fireplaces don't blow the smoke in your face in concentrations anywhere near as high as second-hand smoke. If you have smoke in your house when you light your fireplace, you need to clean out your chimney or stop forgetting to open the flue. Plus, modern wood stoves are very efficient and good about emissions.
The toxins in cigarette smoke, which many people are exposed to on a daily basis in concentrations considerably higher than any fireplace smoke are frightening. Some of the more toxic include aklanes, aldehydes and other carbonyls, alkenes, aromatic hydrocarbons (i.e. benzene), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, inorganic gases (i.e. carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide), heavy metals (such as cadmium), acids, aza-arenes, N-nitrosamines, N-heterocyclic amines, hydrazine, etc. In simpler terms...acetone, ammonia, arsenic, benzene, benzoapyrene, butane, cadmium, formaldehyde, lead, propylene glycol, turpentine, etc. Of those compounds in cigarette smoke, many are poisonous and a large number are also carcinogenic.