Crichton strikes a blow for common sense
Michael Crichton- he of "ER" and Jurassic Park fame, among other creative achievements- was on Charlie Rose last night. I rarely watch that show, not because I dislike Rose (he's a good interviewer and an intelligent man), but because he seems to start out by taking every liberal presupposition as a given. Listening to two liberals engaged in a discussion with whose underlying premises I disagree is generally not an edifying experience for me.
Last night, Dr. Crichton gave Charlie a run for his money. It seems that Dr. Crichton- while favoring steps to decrease CO2 emissions and otherwise minimize human contributions to global warming- has done his homework, and realizes what a small percentage of greenhouse gasses humanity is in fact responsible for. He has also considered what so many do not: the impossibility of accurately predicting climate change, given the fact that climate and weather are chaotic entities whose future course cannot be reliably predicted. In any event, looking at the numbers closely has led him to the conclusion that while global warming is real, and a problem which must be addressed, the catastrophic predictions of Al Gore and others are essentially hysterical.
Playing the trump card of the politically correct on global warming- the argument ipse dixit
(the appeal to authority)- Rose pointed out that about ninety percent of scientists accept the catastrophic model, and believe that human beings are responsible for the impending ecological disaster. Foregoing the point that the percentage drops dramatically when one considers only climatologists- i.e., scientists whose concern it is to examine and analyze the actual data- Crichton pointed out that only about nine percent claim to be certain about that.
He also alluded to a matter which- reluctantly- the media are owning up to: the hysteria in the late Sixties and early Seventies over global cooling, hyped by the very same media which are selling the catastrophic model of global warming now. For those to young to remember, we were assured in hysterical terms that many of the same influences now blamed for global warming were in fact heading us all but certainly toward a new ice age. It turned out that the cooling phrase which began in the 1940's was only a temporary phenomenon. Oops.
Global warming is real. The evidence is clear. What is not clear is that it is anything to be worried about. It is regrettable that the data is so little discussed, and the appeal to the alleged consenseus of the experts takes its place; that there is a far greater consensus about human induced and catastrophic global warming than there was back in the global cooling days doesn't change the fact that, as Crichton points out, it simply isn't possible to predict the future of chaotic systems with the scientific certainty which is being claimed for that consensus.
Rose and Crichton agreed that Crichton would return to the show to debate a scientist representing the catastrophist consensus in the near future. I don't want to miss that one- especially the graphs which Crichton promises which point out the fallacies in the politically correct position.
Crichton, it should be pointed out, is no conservative. He was an advocate of legalized abortion well before Roe v. Wade. But on the climate issue, he has a great deal to say that makes sense.
I look forward to hearing more- and also to hearing the reply of that scientist.
Last night, Dr. Crichton gave Charlie a run for his money. It seems that Dr. Crichton- while favoring steps to decrease CO2 emissions and otherwise minimize human contributions to global warming- has done his homework, and realizes what a small percentage of greenhouse gasses humanity is in fact responsible for. He has also considered what so many do not: the impossibility of accurately predicting climate change, given the fact that climate and weather are chaotic entities whose future course cannot be reliably predicted. In any event, looking at the numbers closely has led him to the conclusion that while global warming is real, and a problem which must be addressed, the catastrophic predictions of Al Gore and others are essentially hysterical.
Playing the trump card of the politically correct on global warming- the argument ipse dixit
(the appeal to authority)- Rose pointed out that about ninety percent of scientists accept the catastrophic model, and believe that human beings are responsible for the impending ecological disaster. Foregoing the point that the percentage drops dramatically when one considers only climatologists- i.e., scientists whose concern it is to examine and analyze the actual data- Crichton pointed out that only about nine percent claim to be certain about that.
He also alluded to a matter which- reluctantly- the media are owning up to: the hysteria in the late Sixties and early Seventies over global cooling, hyped by the very same media which are selling the catastrophic model of global warming now. For those to young to remember, we were assured in hysterical terms that many of the same influences now blamed for global warming were in fact heading us all but certainly toward a new ice age. It turned out that the cooling phrase which began in the 1940's was only a temporary phenomenon. Oops.
Global warming is real. The evidence is clear. What is not clear is that it is anything to be worried about. It is regrettable that the data is so little discussed, and the appeal to the alleged consenseus of the experts takes its place; that there is a far greater consensus about human induced and catastrophic global warming than there was back in the global cooling days doesn't change the fact that, as Crichton points out, it simply isn't possible to predict the future of chaotic systems with the scientific certainty which is being claimed for that consensus.
Rose and Crichton agreed that Crichton would return to the show to debate a scientist representing the catastrophist consensus in the near future. I don't want to miss that one- especially the graphs which Crichton promises which point out the fallacies in the politically correct position.
Crichton, it should be pointed out, is no conservative. He was an advocate of legalized abortion well before Roe v. Wade. But on the climate issue, he has a great deal to say that makes sense.
I look forward to hearing more- and also to hearing the reply of that scientist.
Comments