# Dr. Michael Crichton shows that Global Warming is not a big deal



## Relaxation (Jul 12, 2010)

Global warming has not been scientifically proven. It is not real. The hype surrounding it is exactly the same as the hype surrounding the Y2K Millenium Bug. It is completely exaggerated in every single way.

The biggest crusader of this, Al Gore, uses 20 times more energy than the average American. What does that tell you about the incentives and sincerity of his "cause"?

Part A:





Part B:


----------



## huh (Mar 19, 2007)

A youtube video? I'm convinced.


----------



## Belshazzar (Apr 12, 2010)

Yeah, this video doesn't really say much about global warming. It's more about Crichton's experience getting his work published, going in front of the Senate, etc.

I can't agree or disagree with much because he hardly talks about the issue at all.


----------



## huh (Mar 19, 2007)

Relaxation said:


> You are implying an argumentum ad populum.


No, not really. This would be an argumentum ad populum...

Most Americans believe global warming is caused by human activity so it would be stupid to think otherwise.

My snarky comment was more like ad hominem or an appeal to ridicule. Anyways, It's going to take more than a youtube video to convince me either way.


----------



## danberado (Apr 22, 2010)

Yes, we should take the sci-fi-writing medical doctor's word on climate science as gold. If you really wanted to reference a skeptical scientist in a pertinent field, look up Bjørn Lomborg.


----------



## danberado (Apr 22, 2010)

It's not a logical fallacy to expect people seek out and use credible sources of information. The fact that the two people you've referred to hence far are not climate scientists betrays a sloppy approach to framing scientific debate. I generally don't have the patience to refute people who apparently can't be bothered to educate themselves on the basics before they come to the table.


----------



## SilentLoner (Jan 30, 2006)

danberado said:


> It's not a logical fallacy to expect people seek out and use credible sources of information. The fact that the two people you've referred to hence far are not climate scientists betrays a sloppy approach to framing scientific debate. I generally don't have the patience to refute people who apparently can't be bothered to educate themselves on the basics before they come to the table.


:ditto


----------



## asdfking (Aug 17, 2010)

are you talking about jurassic park? WTFH? that's just some strange book written by a dead guy.


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

Crichton wrote some other book that had the global warming conspiracy as a part of it. 

Yet,the reality in the world isn't very good. And it's not just increasing temperatures, I don't like the Mercury and radiation coming from the coal fired power plants.

I'm not likely to be effected by global warming anytime soon, until there are wildfires all of the Midwest that can't be contained. Then if there are food shortages, it will be a mess.


----------



## Magaly (Mar 8, 2010)

here are some credible sources, Relaxation, if you're interested.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf59.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

Relaxation said:


> Even if there was higher temperature, what's the big deal?


Plants only like growing in certain temperature ranges. We get a lot of food from plants. It isn't easy to setup and move an entire farm further North.

Crops are doing great here this year, but in Russia they are having big problems. Australia had some problems 2 years ago (and I'm not sure if things are any better now or not). I worry about a hot, dry summer in the Midwest causing problems. Canada might be able to produce a little more, but they wouldn't be able to makeup for the amount lost in Texas & Oklahoma. Mexico and other highly populated countries close to the equator will be hit very hard. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2008/03/pdf/cline.pdf


----------



## Akane (Jan 2, 2008)

Heat has more effects on crops than you'd think. Hotter summers have brought higher humidity and more rain to the midwest not less. This was supposed to be a good thing however due to the flatness of Iowa it is not proving so. For the past few years a lot of crop land has been lost to floods. Some fields are 1/4-1/2 standing water the entire summer when before they produced plenty of crops. Then there was a couple years back when half of iowa and illinois were under water and declared a disaster zone. Most people just kind of missed that except to wonder why the price of certain foods and animal feeds went up. We kind of failed to produce corn and soybeans for a year.... It doesn't take much increase in depth of rivers or lakes to flood a very large area since there are no natural breaks to hold it back. Just endless flat area to keep flooding. Wet weather also leads to corn not putting down deep roots. Then if we get any dry spells or hard wind storms the plants do not survive. Last there is the problem of drying the corn. If it's not properly dry by harvest time it will not go through the harvester correctly or it may spoil in storage. To much moisture and humidity coupled with sudden changes to cold weather (my next point) is not letting the corn dry thoroughly and costing some farmers a harvest.

Current weather patterns are causing problems but it's not just hot weather. 2 weeks ago it was 90+ and right now it is 55F out. The last 2 winters it has been below 0F for a considerable part as well as reaching -30F (without windchill) for multiple days. We also have started getting snow in November when before it was hit or miss if we saw it in time for christmas. 2 years ago the snow was so high by Jan that the stuff the snow plows had shoved in the ditches was towering over my truck. It's been freezing one week, 100 + heat index the next, and then back again. It's like fall and spring just got removed from the calender. I'm getting a bit tired of working in various weather extremes all year round.

I'm not going to discount there are weather changes going on (since I see as much cold as hot I don't really refer to it as global warming) but I do not think humans are as much to blame as we are led to believe. I think much of it is natural weather patterns with maybe a little help from us.


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

Crops 'were' doing great here... I just drove I-75 last weekend and there are fields and fields of dead corn because it hasn't rained.


----------



## Mc Borg (Jan 4, 2008)

huh said:


> A youtube video? I'm convinced.


Saying a video can't contain valuable information simply because it's a _video posted on youtube_ is fallacious. I'm (not) convinced . =P It's like saying a person's point is more credible because it was written rather than spoken. A video is just another way of getting information out, and can serve as a catalyst to do more research.

Climategate!


----------



## quietgal (Oct 18, 2007)

I don't really know why it's so hard to believe that humans can impact climate. The chemical composition of the atmosphere is significantly dependent on what living things like plants and bacteria put in and take out of it. One single large volcanic eruption can temporarily impact climate around the world, such as has been observed after Krakatoa in 1883 or Pinatubo in 1991. Is it so hard to believe that humans putting tens of billions of metric tons of CO2 into the air every year can in fact change the composition and behavior of the atmosphere?


----------



## Relaxation (Jul 12, 2010)

Well one person is 99.9% not going to make a difference with the environment. It's like voting. Whether you vote or not will probably not effect the outcome of an election.

And plus, it's rather arbitrary for people to say they are "helping the environment". These people drive cars, live in homes much bigger than necessity, use lots of electricity for their computers etc. People like to feel good about themselves by saying they're helping but in reality, they are only willing to do what doesn't inconvenience their personal lives.


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

My issue is that even when things would have a positive impact on people's lives, they resist it. It might be different or not the exact same as before, but there are benefits that they might not realize until they have changed.


----------



## Ludovicus (Jul 26, 2010)

Classified said:


> My issue is that even when things would have a positive impact on people's lives, they resist it. It might be different or not the exact same as before, but there are benefits that they might not realize until they have changed.


Agreed. If we change to renewables and nuclear (fusion/Gen IV fission) and it turns out that global warming is baloney (unlikely as that is) - then we have new, more efficient and cleaner ways to power things. If we change to them and global warming is happening, then we avert the crisis. If we don't change to them and it is happening, then we're screwed.

So even if it isn't happening, the safest route would be to install renewables and nuclear power anyway.

It would be nice if people saw this as an opportunity to drive innovation, because that's what it is. And ultimately, innovation improves everyone's lives.


----------



## quietgal (Oct 18, 2007)

Relaxation said:


> And plus, it's rather arbitrary for people to say they are "helping the environment". These people drive cars, live in homes much bigger than necessity, use lots of electricity for their computers etc. People like to feel good about themselves by saying they're helping but in reality, they are only willing to do what doesn't inconvenience their personal lives.


For many people in the U.S., owning a car isn't just a "convenience." It's a necessity due to the way cities and towns have been structured over the past century, and because of the lack of infrastructure to support public transportation. I grew up in a sprawling Texas suburb, and if we didn't have a car my mother wouldn't have been able to work. The nearest grocery store was 20 minutes away. My school was 15 minutes away by car, etc. Living in that town, not having a car really wasn't an option. The way the economy is set up, the way the towns are set up, for many communities that's just the reality of it.

The hypocrisy accusation is _constantly_ leveled at people interested in environmental issues. And in many ways the mainstream environmental movement kind of deserves it. But there are many people doing interesting things to make changes at a fundamental level, such as those involved in grassroots transition movements and permaculture movements building resilience. They're not just sitting around waiting for the majority of people to come over to their side, or for the government to act on climate change, because frankly as we've seen in the past couple years, that will probably never happen.


----------



## au Lait (Sep 8, 2010)

I love Crichton but IMO he was wrong about global warming. As far as I'm concerned, it's a real phenomenon.


----------



## LostPancake (Apr 8, 2009)

We have 100 years. Make a self-replicating robot that mines asteroids and makes a bunch of disks that can be put between the earth and the sun.

Tada! Problem solved!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_machine


----------



## OrbitalResonance (Sep 21, 2010)

Global Warming is possible. 5 million years ago there were no ice sheets.

Carbon Dioxide is really important. Look at Venus. Look at mars.


----------

