March 19, 2005

• Michael Crichton is a moron That is an interesting conclusion as well.
• crichton's a creationist at heart.
• Crichton ' novels up ' whatever's the current tabloid fashion. I think he was creased that someone beat him to the punch with " The Day After Tomorrow " So he's decided to go the other way with it and still get in on some of the climate disaster action.
• I've seen Crichton speak about this, and two things are important to keep in mind. The first is that he's a science fiction author, not a scientist. There is a quite substantial difference. The other thing is that to a large extent, he's right about what we can prove versus what we have to extrapolate. But he, like many others, underestimates the degree of faith that we can put into extrapolations that are perhaps not yet totally grounded. My claim that Wake Forest is going to the Final Four (I believe they're going to the finals) is based on a lot of suppositions, and many of my suppositions have been shown to be wrong so far (like, Alabama totally got served), but I still believe that in a couple of weeks, my theory will be proven. The problem is that I have to put my money in (or rather, two days ago) if I want to have any hope of profiting from the outcome. I can't wait until it's proven that Wake Forest can beat W.V. (even though I picked Creighton) and Texas Tech (or Gonzaga) to act on my suppositions. And though I have the potential to win 15 dollars for my $3 wager, the stakes are much higher for global warming.
• Wait... Why is Crichton a moron?
• ? I didn't find Crichton mentioned in the article in your link. I know he's expressed opinions on the state of global warming, so I have to assume that you assume that we know what his opinions are. It would have been good had you found some way to compare his opinions with those in the link. Might also be good to show why his opinion is important. Or not important. Otherwise, your leading subject doesn't make sense. Come on, grasshopper, you can do better.
• After several weeks, nay, years of pondering the intricate questions raised by this post, I finally have an interesting and well thought out comment to offer this discussion: Michael Crichton is a moron NO SHIT
• Hmmm. Well, although I agree with Path re: more details on Crichton & the link to the subject, those who might be interested in this issue would probably be aware that Crichton has been making hay by doing (paid) lectures where he basically makes out that the idea of global warming is something akin to believing in aliens, fairies & santa claus. He's been making quite a bit of a fuss, actually. To be honest, I thought the title was funny. But that's just me.
• Okay one thing which I've always been curious about is the whole Ice Age issue. Aren't we in North America supposed to get an Ice age every 15 thousand years or so? so then (speaking from the frozen north), wouldn't global warming actually be a good thing to keep the glaciers at bay?
• Except that "global warming" is, actually, a heap of steaming fun. If you've ever watched ice melt in a glass of water, water expands as it cools, so ice (as is obvious to anyone who has filled an ice tray) shrinks as it thaws. This intentionally blatant nonsense is as prevalent as it is insidious. Interestingly; China, India, and Brazil are exempt from any Kyoto "protocol" restrictions whatsoever. Guess why? The Kyoto Protocol and the same article in pdf: Kyoto
• Nick- Because he wrote Jurassic Park II, and it sucked. So then he wrote Jurassic Park III and it had William "Ears" Macy and Laura Dern in it, and sucked hard while I watched it on a plane. Also, ER has been crap for years.
• Wish that global warming would hurry up. I'm freezing my ass off.
• Wow, out come the trolls! Hama: That water expands when it cools (also when it evaporates!) would be relevant if the majority of melting ice was suspended in or under water (if it were suspended in water, the levels would remain exactly the same- you can try this yourself with an icecube and a glass filled to the brim), but it's not. The majority of the polar ice caps are on land (you know, what with Antarctica having rock beneath it). As they melt, they'll add to the water levels. Further, the reason why developing nations are exempted is because they wouldn't agree to it, frankly. The developed nations already had their huge environmental splurges in the 1800s (that era you and other conservatives seem to consider the Golden Days of Yore). That's also a tu quoque fallacy to oppose Kyoto on the grounds that China and India are unbound by it; doing a good thing is a good thing regardless of whether others also do a good thing. But hey, keep going, you wacky lunatic!
• Steven King is real smart man.
• I don't doubt that he's real, swift fellow.
• Water does also expand when it warms, hama7, so if the oceans heat up (which they currently are), sea levels will rise quite substantially. And although its an exceedingly difficult thing to predict hwo much they will rise (becuase you need to know how much the sea temperatures will rise, how much ocean ice will melt, how much land ice will melt, how much more (or less) water is in the air, among other things) the one thing that is certain is that sea levels will rise if (ocean) temperatures rise. And considering that almost a large number (the majority?) of major cities around the world are by the sea or on tidal rivers, this is likely to cause quite a few problems, you'd think. It wouldn't take that much of a rise in sea levels to flood large parts of South East Egnland, for example. And although Essex might well be improved by turning back into the marshland it used to be, I think the devastation of London would have quite far reaching effects, both humanitarian and economic.
• What js and dng said. Also, even small rises in temperature can be a disaster in many places, such as archipelago countries like Philippines, Indonesia and the Polynesian countries. I recall reading some years back in an article that just couple of degrees Celsius can cause the disappearance of several inhabited islands, including Singapore. And that's 4 million souls displaced right there, lots more in Philippines and Indonesia.
• Crichton has also written a novel where the plot centers around his disbelief in global warming. I have not read it, but my mother did (she reads about 3-4 books a week) and she said it's fairly unsuccessful as a novel, but may work as propaganda or (to use a more neutral word) a pursuasive device.
• Five terrible fake positions not actually held by Michael Crichton And a substantial part of the world's ice is on land. If it melts, the seas will indeed rise.
• But Westworld was good.
• SO just commented: If most of the world's zoologists believed in fairies, I probably would too. And most of the world's astronomers probably do believe there is alien life, somewhere. (my comment) But no matter what, it's a Pascal's wager - so what if you do everything you can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and there is no global warming? Well, there are fewer nasty things in the air, and there are new sources of energy that hopefully won't run out in 100 years like coal, oil, etc. But if we don't do anything? WE ALL DIE HORRIBLY LIKE LIVING ON VENUS. I don't actually care about rising sea levels - it's the runaway greenhouse effect that killed Venus early on in it's development that freaks me out - a runaway effect that can raise temperatures to something like about 462 °C (about 736 K/864 °F). Is that hot enough for ya'? Debunking some myths and misconceptions If you're interested, Real Climate is a blog on climate change.
• Good post jb. I liked the planetsave link and was reading merrily until i came across this: (which addresed that other question i had) "MYTH: WARMING IS GOOD BECAUSE IT WILL SAVE US FROM A NEW ICE AGE FACT: The man-made gases already in the atmosphere are far more than needed to hold off another ice age." Hmmm. Is that a fact? how do they know that?
• No one fully understands what causes ice ages, yet. Therefore, any conclusion that there are enough greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to prevent another one is suspect, to say the least. In between ice ages, there are multi-million year periods of more temperate climate, but also within the ice ages (or at least within the last one), temperate and severe periods occur. The colder periods are called 'glacial periods', the warmer periods 'interglacials', such as the Eemian interglacial era. We are in an interglacial period now, the last retreat ending about 10,000 years ago. There appears to be a folk wisdom that "the typical interglacial period lasts ~12,000 years" but this is hard to substantiate from the evidence of ice core records. Nonetheless, this led to some fear of a new glacial period starting soon, a global cooling concern. Many now believe that anthropogenic (ie. manmade) forcing from increased "greenhouse gases" would outweigh any Milankovitch (orbital) forcing; and more recent consideration of the orbital forcing suggests that even in the absence of human perturbation the present interglacial would last at least 50,000 years. It is both simplistic and naiive to assume that what we puny humans experience generationally really has much meaning on the geologic time-scale. As always, our anthrocentism matters not all to the cosmos.
• Sorry. Source attribution for the paragraph from Wikipedia is misssing in my above post.
• *grabs popcorn, rain jacket, sunscreen, and ice skates *sits back for next 20 years to watch what happens
• Looks like someone has disproved js's theory
• Global Warming Denier Michael Crichton Fictionalizes Critic as Child Rapist what a moran!
• What a classy act that Michael Crichton bloke is! I wonder how long it took him to stop smirking after he wrote that passage.
• Okay, fine, but do you really think this compares to Chrichton's complete obliteration of my budding velociraptor cloning island? I could have made millions, I tell you! Millions!
• But you just wanted to clone them so you could rape them, didn't you? Raptor raper!
• Don't think Crichton didn't toy with the idea. His editor talked him out of it.
• And, perhaps worse, falsely branded me a pharmaceutical-industry profiteer. LOL
• Crowley's penis was small, but he had still caused significant tears to the toddler's rectum. Didn't realize Crichton is 15 years old.
• I am so embarrassed at the fiction I liked as a teenager.
• Now I'm wishing they pass that 'net-slander' law. And that they sue the crap off Mr. Crichton.
• Crowley should sue Crichton in every jurisdiction in which the book is published.