Hockey stick or soap bowl? Cycling twice as fast and hard--Art Bell
super storm? One thing is for sure, the Bush camp is like Mike
Tyson's right before he starting biting ears and getting his ass
There is a lot of quoting RWN talking points that look a lot like
they come right out of Crichton's latest essay. And it's kind of
funny to read that Bush had a private meeting with Crichton, that he
kept quiet because he didn't want to upset environmentalists. So
let's go right to the source of some of the talking points of fiction
writer Michael Crichton:
"But if independent verification is the heart of science, what should
policymakers do with research that is unverifiable? For example, the
U.N. Third Assessment Report defines general circulation climate
models as unverifiable. If that is true, are their predictions of any
use to policymakers?
I would argue they are not. Senator Boxer has said we need more
science fact. I agree-but a prediction is never a fact. In any case,
if policymakers decide to weight their decisions in favor of verified
research, that will provoke an effort by climate scientists to
demonstrate their concerns using objectively verifiable research."
These are good reads if you want to understand the source of the
error in thinking, and, BTW, President Bush has admitted to Crichton
that their thinking is similar. Any if you are REALLY interested in
the seat of the fundimental ASSUMPTIONS that Crichton himself is
making that are incorrect, read Prey, because I think there is a
subconscous reason that the book about climate and the book about
implausible compexity are written next to each other and that his
latest lecture is about complexity. He's struggling with it--because
his assumptions have been wrong.
Of course, 'prey' is a term that goes with preditor . . . and gets to
the flight or fight emotions.
And a meditative state seeking a higher authority.
I will provide it.
The flawed premise is that human activity leads to a mutation in a
microbial life, which then starts to fly around on sunny days and
grows in complexity each day until as a life form it mimics humans.
Again, a good lie is cloaked in lots of facts, but the problem is
that the living earth calculations occurred much more SLOWLY over
HUGE timescales with COUNTLESS sorting events as the nucleotide
complexes were accepted or rejected.
And this gets essentially to the climate model theory weakness
blundering argument, when a "fact is a fact" and a model of climate
is not facts and therefore speculation . . . that a model is not
And this gets to the crux of the concept--that you are talking about
a dampened oscillater in a living earth, and how the global biosphere
Crichton wants facts. But as many of you know from RWN talking
points, there are never enough facts. Never enough. And conceptually,
there are no such things as 'facts'. Describe me--go ahead! Your
description will be a string of words, but it won't 'be' me. The only
me IS me. So, to have any reality, you must first have a
representation of that reality. Or a model.
And then, to have an ability to change the environment, there must be
And we all know since Crick and Watson (and Rosie) that the
fundimental aspect of life is nucleotides.
So it is very easy for me to talk about nucleotides being a model in
the sense that the store information by their size, shape, mass and
charge and at the same time they are capable of causing in mass
replication a feedback response for clouds.
So, since we are talking about a dampened global biological system
that took 4 billion years to slowly evolved the complexity it has,
you can see the stupidity in Crichton's point.
It's not like what the 'air' temperature in Boston will be 50 years
from now, but my body temperature. Now, if I live to 93 years of age,
I would predict somewhere around 98.6-7 degF. Likewise, the
biological parameters of a living earth are determinable, not by the
complexity of the stimulas but by the tried and true . . .
climate 'model' contained in the biosphere, which has problem solved
for a living earth for 4 billion years.
I know last year when I tried to post on Crichton's bb the electrical
forcing that CO2 imports my messages were edited for substance.
Without consent. The messages came out half there--in a way it was
funny. I tried . . . I really did, to communicate with substance,
without politics, the electrical forcing. But after about 5 posts I
lost posting previleges there. Pretty soon, there was a group of
about 10 posters doing the warmer (fake) skeptic argument. But now,
following the past hurricane season, I have seen nothing recent from
Crichton--no lectures since November. Nothing on the bb, either:
ADMINISTRATOR Administrator Member # 2360
posted January 27, 2006 06:31 PM -------------------------------------
------------------------------------------- Dear All:
Realizing that State of Fear is Michael Crichton's latest novel, it
is still time to archive the posts from this forum.
Here are some of the reasons for this:
1. The "discussions" have become repetitive and, at times, circular
in logic. We have beat this subject to death -- and then some.
2. It is the same handful of people saying (basically) the same
things over and over.
3. There are 18 other MC books that deal with a variety of
stimulating subjects other than global warming that might be of
interest to the world at large. (Maybe not you, but others.)
4. There are 275 topics to peruse/read about SOF in the SOF Archive
read-only forum. There is probably 700 hours of reading to do here
and I know you will find those with whom you agree as well as those
with whom you disagree -- each side being represented.
5. There hasn't been a new thought about this subject posted in the
last 6 months. Same old, same old.
Now, I know there are a handful of you who will be shrieking and
screaming at the top of your lungs about the closure (at least
temporarily) of this forum. All I can say is, "Sorry, but this is how
it's going to stay at least for the near future."
We're going to give SOF, global warming, scientific studies, weather
patterns -- the whole shebang -- a rest for a while in hopes that
posters will find other MC subjects to discuss.
This is, again, the Mike Tyson problem. The fascists have a bunch of
yes people and, really, are clueless. Buster Dougles is going to kick
some ass--watch and learn.
Debate is important in the scientific community. The warmers thought
they knew it all, and along came John Daly. But John Daly talked
about the SOI index as independant of CO2.
And here I am.