Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

More Crichton

Expand Messages
  • Mike Doran
    http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html Let s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 10, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

      "Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with
      consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the
      contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right,
      which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by
      reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What
      is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in
      history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
      Climate is biological and electrical. Let's vote on it.
      Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in
      this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by
      private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be
      pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The
      institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular
      area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement:
      teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In
      many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather
      it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If we were to
      address the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be
      well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can
      place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must
      address this."

      The fascist's influence even in our educational institutions has come
      to this. This is socialism in reaction to fascism. Do you have more
      big words for it?

      "Since climate may be a chaotic system-no one is sure-these
      predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite. But more to the
      point, even if the models get the science spot-on, they can never get
      the sociology. To predict anything about the world a hundred years
      from now is simply absurd."

      This is where Cricton may get a concensus but not the science. There
      are things inherently predictable about biological systems. I can
      say, for instance, for a fact, that 100 years from now, provided my
      children's children children survive, that their body temperature
      will be 98.7 degrees F. Since climate is biological, we can do things
      not to protect the biosphere's health.

      Crichton ended his speech with a blurb on Lomborg. Lomborg was doing
      nothing more than making strawmen arguements on the CO2 as a GHG
      debate--which is a false debate from the start because CO2 is not a
      significant forcing as a GHG--it IS a significant forcing as
      electrical agent in the global electrical circuit. SciAm was correct
      in avoiding his non-sense. But at the same time, the scientific
      community should hang its head low on the bio electrical aspects of
      climate. BTW, Crichton is largely correct about the global climate
      models--they are crap

      http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html

      "I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total
      ice of Antarctica is increasing. "

      The funny thing is that he quotes the research of one Peter Doran,
      who shares my surname (but won't answer my email).
      The earth magnetic field is weakening. That means respecting the
      south pole there are less isobar/solar wind driven cloud
      organizations. At the same time the oceans have warmed. In the
      southern oceans, the circumpolar current mostly runs around
      Antarctica inducting against cirrus--and cooling the ocean surface.
      If the ocean is warmer, the large scale conductivity increases. If
      the ocean has more biological activity w/ more CO2, it is more
      conductive, but, again, inducting against cirrus, which tends to cool
      the surface--that area will oscillate between being too cold to
      conduct or when conductive move against cloud formations. There is a
      built in control, in that where there is a counter current which is
      near the boots of Antarctica and South America---there the
      temperatures have been strongly anomaly warm (5 degrees Celcius) and
      big burgs have broken off, like B-21, 22 recently.

      As for Africa, between dams and a decreasing EMF, the jet stream
      meanders more, and brings more water to even the strongest of fair
      weather zones in Africa. More CO2 in the water allows ambiant winds
      to bring conductivites sufficient to support, electro mechanically,
      rainfall where it has not fell before. Just south of the south of the
      Sahara is one of the most struck places on earth. The problem with
      all of this is that climate is more than just temperature, but also
      chemical modulations. Life where it should not be may be dangerous
      because it is not in proper modulating context. This will prove to be
      the problem and solution, and the problem is more than just fossil
      fuels. It includes fossil firtilizers, a similar unsustainable,
      contrary to Gaia practice as burning fossil fuels.
    • narodaleahcim@aol.com
      http://aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=1090 Clearly has no clue of EMF driven change and a living earth.
      Message 2 of 2 , Feb 12, 2005
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        http://aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=1090

        Clearly has no clue of EMF driven change and a living earth.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.