State of Fear

[Gurkirat]

Has anyone here read Michael Crichton's novel State of Fear? If you haven't I recommend it. The book provides some interesting information (with references) opposing global warming as a crisis. I'm only 15 years old and there may have been somethings I've overlooked. Maybe one of you can find some flaw in his logic. Here's a link to a speech (it's written) he gave about global warming.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html

 

[justAguy]

Global warming isn't a crisis, and humans aren't setting the Earth on fire.
We've been living in an extremely cold period, now it's warming up, big deal. Warm climate is good too. Species go extinct when it's cold... you freeze your nuts off, how are you gonna reproduce? Actually it goes both ways... people are healthier in the cold... but either way we'll be fine, unless we don't nuke each other to extinction.
Monks used to grow grape vines. Vikings in Greenland produced wine, and grew wheat as well. About a thousand years ago. There were no SUVs back then... climate fluctuates.

However, there's never an excuse to not improve industrial conditions and pollute less. I'm not advocating pollution and destruction, just saying that climate varies, and humans aren’t likely to be a factor.

Note to everyone. When you read TIME Magazine and see a giant piece of ice melting, don’t sh*t yourself, everything will be okay, ice only melts because it’s been frozen.

 

[justAguy]

"When you come to think about it, Greenland is a pretty weird name for anyone to give to a country that is now 99% glacier or barren rock and 1% lichens. Not the sort of name that springs to mind for such a grey, treeless and windswept place, is it? "

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/eco/hotair4.html

 

[Jabar Jung]

"When you come to think about it, Greenland is a pretty weird name for anyone to give to a country that is now 99% glacier or barren rock and 1% lichens. Not the sort of name that springs to mind for such a grey, treeless and windswept place, is it? "

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/eco/hotair4.html

Greenland was given the name greenland by the vikings i believe, to confuse other civilizations into thinking that it was all green and happy and smiley but it was actually all ice so when they came to conquer it, nothing was there/ Iceland was taken over by the vikingsand nobody went there because everybody thought it was all ice.

 

[justAguy]

Exactly. Weather was a lot colder and icier, getting warmer is no big deal

 

[ban3rg]

"When you come to think about it, Greenland is a pretty weird name for anyone to give to a country that is now 99% glacier or barren rock and 1% lichens. Not the sort of name that springs to mind for such a grey, treeless and windswept place, is it? "

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/eco/hotair4.html

Greenland was given the name greenland by the vikings i believe, to confuse other civilizations into thinking that it was all green and happy and smiley but it was actually all ice so when they came to conquer it, nothing was there/ Iceland was taken over by the vikingsand nobody went there because everybody thought it was all ice.

They shoulda just named one Iceland and the other Snowland or Coldland or Uselessland or something - so that other civilizations wouldnt bother them in either place.

 

[[Sher] Imran]

"Ice only melts b/c its frozen"

haha oh man

Ice doesn't melt because its frozen, ice melts because the temperature AROUND it is warmer. So if you have ice shelves melting in places where it is known to be subzero, you have to wonder why that is. You can call the whole global warming process a small part of the Earth's natural temperature fluctuations over the course of its history, but its hard not to ignore the fact that our pollution outputs are creating an unnatural greenhouse effect

 

[Gurkirat]

but its hard not to ignore the fact that our pollution outputs are creating an unnatural greenhouse effect

Actually it's not a fact. No one knows how much humans have actually impacted the environment. There are several graphs that show that CO2 (the "biggest" greenhouse gas) really isn't a big factor in the small temperature increase of the Earth's surface. There was a period of about 20 years where CO2 levels fell, but temperature continued to rise (about one-tenth of a degree Celsius). So the greenhouse effect is an unsupported theory.

 

[Gurvir]

but its hard not to ignore the fact that our pollution outputs are creating an unnatural greenhouse effect

Actually it's not a fact. No one knows how much humans have actually impacted the environment. There are several graphs that show that CO2 (the "biggest" greenhouse gas) really isn't a big factor in the small temperature increase of the Earth's surface. There was a period of about 20 years where CO2 levels fell, but temperature continued to rise (about one-tenth of a degree Celsius). So the greenhouse effect is an unsupported theory.

you finally make a btf account and what do you do kirat? start going off on global warming..what are we gonna do about you?

 

[Gurkirat]

but its hard not to ignore the fact that our pollution outputs are creating an unnatural greenhouse effect

Actually it's not a fact. No one knows how much humans have actually impacted the environment. There are several graphs that show that CO2 (the "biggest" greenhouse gas) really isn't a big factor in the small temperature increase of the Earth's surface. There was a period of about 20 years where CO2 levels fell, but temperature continued to rise (about one-tenth of a degree Celsius). So the greenhouse effect is an unsupported theory.

you finally make a btf account and what do you do kirat? start going off on global warming..what are we gonna do about you?

...Therapy?

 

[yraparla]

Crichton is a great, great writer. I've read a lot of his stuff and he's worked out a great balance between science and fiction. He puts a lot of facts in, but always makes sure the plot is worth reading all of it.

The great thing about Crichton is that he references everything so it's easy to fact-check up on him. State of fear is just a disaster from a that standpoint though. It's not even so much that Crichton is completely wrong (he's not), it's that he sometimes provides such damning evidence, but on further review you find that the primary source is ambivalent at best on the subject. That is, he draws conclusions when the source clearly states not to, and then provides it as the source's conclusion. I haven't read it in a while, but I remember if you go read some of the sources you'll see he takes many quotes and figures out of context so that the plot moves better.

I personally have no problem with it, he's an engaging fiction writer first, 'scientist' second... just don't read his stuff as a textbook (he's doubly dubious because he usually gives both sides to an argument, but often he'll leave out points for the side he wants to lose so it's easier for you to buy into his plot)

 

[Gurkirat]

Crichton is a great, great writer. I've read a lot of his stuff and he's worked out a great balance between science and fiction. He puts a lot of facts in, but always makes sure the plot is worth reading all of it.

The great thing about Crichton is that he references everything so it's easy to fact-check up on him. State of fear is just a disaster from a that standpoint though. It's not even so much that Crichton is completely wrong (he's not), it's that he sometimes provides such damning evidence, but on further review you find that the primary source is ambivalent at best on the subject. That is, he draws conclusions when the source clearly states not to, and then provides it as the source's conclusion. I haven't read it in a while, but I remember if you go read some of the sources you'll see he takes many quotes and figures out of context so that the plot moves better.

I personally have no problem with it, he's an engaging fiction writer first, 'scientist' second... just don't read his stuff as a textbook (he's doubly dubious because he usually gives both sides to an argument, but often he'll leave out points for the side he wants to lose so it's easier for you to buy into his plot)

Have you heard of Fred Singer? He's a rather reputable scientist that's worked at several universities, and has received numerous awards. He seems to think global warming is the biggest scam of modern times. But what you said about his sources was true.

I have a lot more research to do on this :-\.

 

[justAguy]

"Ice only melts b/c its frozen"

haha oh man

Ice doesn't melt because its frozen, ice melts because the temperature AROUND it is warmer. So if you have ice shelves melting in places where it is known to be subzero, you have to wonder why that is. You can call the whole global warming process a small part of the Earth's natural temperature fluctuations over the course of its history, but its hard not to ignore the fact that our pollution outputs are creating an unnatural greenhouse effect

LOL oops ! Wrote that in a hurry.
What I meant to say is yeah, ice melts because it gets warmer, and it gets warmer because ITS BEEN COLD, that's what I was leaning to lmaoo