Who was speaking of evilution? The title of the thread is "I'm done debating evolution" ... Therefore it naturally meant that he wanted to debate global warming

:-P

philcore +10.

When science becomes politicized, can it still be scientific? I'm sure there are a great number of "deniers" in academia who are afraid of coming forward for fear of losing grants, promotions, or tenure. The AGW theory has taken on all the attributes of a religion - it has a deity (Al Gore), an official priesthood (AGW fanatics in academia), official dogmas (which are incomprehensible to the layman), prescribes courses of action for believers (Use CFLs! Take the bus or walk, cars are bad! Install solar panels!), and even has a way for penitent for sinners to redeem themselves (buy carbon credits!).

Challenge any of these and you will be branded a heretic and dealt with accordingly. Any 'facts' you present in support of your disbelief are simply proof of your great evil and should never be addressed.

Tolstoy +10.
I'm especially intrigued by the selling of indulgences, er, carbon credits. Absolutely worthless, but it makes you feel good. And the high priests who jet around the globe giving speaches and whatnot. Makes me fell pretty cynical about the whole thing. If Al Gore really believed what he preaches, wouldn't he be living in a cabin in Idaho or something?

Where are the electric ducted fans for airplanes? We have electric cars, and electric *trains*. Why not electric planes?

It is often hard to tell what is actually happening in a Scientific field based on what the media reports. For instance, if one were only to base their information about the LHC on the media, you'd be sure we'd all die in an artificial black hole. That was, of course, complete nonsense.

My point is, I'd like to know how much of the controversy Tolstoy describes is real and how much is just standard shit-reporting by the media.

Actually, the media is pro-AGW so I doubt any of what Tolstoy described came from shit media. Arguably the panic-stricken public is being indoctrinated by the shit media.

@Draug

I'll agree that most media seems to be pro-AGW, but there is certainly anit-AGW media as well. I haven't really heard any neutral opinions on this topic.

Good point, abge. Fox "fair and balanced" is hardly fair or balanced, so it is naturally the anti-AGW media.

I personally found Michael Crichton's book "State of Fear" to be a fascinating look at the subject of AGW. As an international intrigue thriller it pretty well sucked, but it was a very compelling examination of the "state of fear" our media, political, and establishments encourage us to live in. I don't know if Michael Crichton would be considered a "scientist", but he was certainly an author who loved science and could well be considered neutral.

I wouldn't call Michael Crichton neutral at all.

I thought he was very objective in Jurassic Park.

@ghug - I don't mean Crichton didn't take a position, I mean he didn't have an angle. Except to sell books, ha ha. But he doesn't work for a petroleum company on the one hand or Greenpeace on the other.
But I'm open to a different viewpoint if you'd care to share, ghug. I'm not some huge Crichton disciple. I actually don't enjoy most of what I've sampled from his work.

http://cheezburger.com/6926779392

My favorite Crichton novel is Andromeda Strain and I've always loved Westworld, but it is pretty obvious from all his work that he predicts technological advances and exploration as dangerous to the human race, often not worth the gains provided by the advances. So not exactly a neutral writer, no.

Andromeda Strain was good. I also enjoyed Terminal Man.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Draug, I don't think portraying the dangers of technology makes one technophobic. All drama requires conflict, and if your interest lie heavily in advanced technology, it makes sense that said new technology would be a cause of peril and danger. Otherwise, it will just be an irrelevant prop. You can't make a Star Trek episode about transporters unless they're killing people, but that doesn't make Star Trek anti-transporter (obviously, far from it).

@Draug - I read neither Andromeda Strain nor Westworld. Interesting argument about Crichton's non-neutrality, but I think Tolstoy's argument is well taken too. My personal feeling was that Crichton's love of science always came through, even though he used scary science breakthroughs to drive the plot.

Ever read his posthumously published pirate novel? Truly terrible. I can't believe it was anything other than a first draft. I haven't published anything though, let alone a draft, so maybe I shouldn't be too harsh.

But all he tends to write is "scary tech" stories. Other scifi writers like Clarke and Asimov can write tech warning stories *and* stories in which tech is a net good. For instance, the tech is more than just the cause of the peril with I, Robot. It is the catalyst for us to evaluate what exactly is "life".

Tech can be something other than the big bad without it being an "irrelevant prop".

For instance, in the TNG episode Realm of Fear, tech (specifically the aforementioned transporter) at first appears to be the big bad but ends up being the salvation of an entire crew.

I think Crichton was an engineer at heart who was fascinated by complex systems and how they could go wrong, where other scifi writers often do have an interest in more abstract concepts, and use tech primarily (if not as an 'irrelevant prop') to create a setting where certain questions about those concepts can be explored as you suggest.

I think the same could be said of a lot of authors, such as Clarke and Herbert.

Mind, I'm not saying I don't like Crichton's sci fi. As I said, I love andromeda Strain. I just wish he would have tried some other tech stories like Asimov's Fantastic Voyage where technology is both the catalyst (shrinking to get inside and repair the damage) as well as the challenge) limited time to stay shrunken down with a traitor onboard who wants the mission to fail). He sort of does that with the way Andromeda Strain ends (the bacteria mutating to consume plastic instead of human hemoglobin).

Clarke seemed to be fascinated by mankind's evolutionary and/or social progress as much as the tech. Heinlein was all over the map with near fantasy-like stories like Job and pure adventure like Have Spacesuit, Will Travel and the social parodies like Starship troopers.

Favorite Fight Club quote:

"I haven't been fucked like that since grade school"

Hilarious!

Nice start, philcore, but I don't see any publications actually cited here, just quotations, and only a few from climatologists or geologists. I'm not really convinced by anything short of peer reviewed publications - which so far nobody has been able to show me.

I'm currently trying to page through the 300 page link to the minority report given, but despite the claim that it links to publications, I don't see any working links (there are many links, but they don't seem to work).

Still, you've inspired me to believe there might just be something out there.... did you link something earlier?

I missed it if so, and that's a lot of backtracking, would you mind reposting? If there really is something out there I'd very much like to see it. Contrary to what some might say, I'm far more interested in truth than any "overarching liberal agenda." I could give a true crap if global warming is actually real or not, I'm just annoyed at the rampant anti-scientific bullshit usually found on the other end - and you're so far the only person who has shown me anything that *might* be legitimate...


... pending links :)




re: Krellin I don't even bother reading what he says anymore, really. I just look for things to mock. It's the only way I can get satisfaction from a discussion with him. Trust me, he's earned it.

"I'm far more interested in truth than any "overarching liberal agenda." I could give a true crap if global warming is actually real or not, I'm just annoyed at the rampant anti-scientific bullshit usually found on the other end"

Agreed. What I hate is sensationalism, which Climate Change is riddled with. That's the biggest reason I can't stand to learn more about it.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links

Also, this. I can't vouch for the validity of this link, and I intend to look at it for legitimacy also. I would not be at all surprised, though, to find that this is the case. I work in pulmonary MRI. The one question that every reputable pulmonary journal asks is if we have support from tobacco companies. If the answer is "yes," we don't get published. The same ought to apply here.

I very much want to see these original research papers.

Ice Ages can be <1 day sudden btw

I'm curious. Why is it that support from oil companies is prima facie proof of dishonest scientific inquiry, while support from a government that is always looking for excuses to take what's left of our freedom away is never ever questioned?