I'm sorry, but Michael Crichton is not, in any way, an expert on science. Yes, he as a bachelor's degree in Biological Anthropology, but he never worked in a lab or wrote a scientific paper.
Uh, try his being a Medical Doctor after graduating from Harvard Medical School. Do not confuse his first degree as being his only degree. And yes he did work in a lab, spending almost 2 years of his post-doctoral fellowship at the Salk Institute. Tell me, does a guy with a bachelors degree in mechanical science more of an expert on science? Sorry, what you are attempting is commonly called a "Cop out". You do not like what was said, and instantly try to dismiss it by attacking the individual quoted. Tell me, was Isaac Asimov a real expert in science?
No, that is not what I said. People keep quoting Chrichton as a way of demanding that we ignore what scientists are saying ESPECIALLY when they agree!! I think (hope) he just didn't get his idea down on paper well. The headwind that Einstein faced wasn't the existing consensus. It was the difficulty of the problem. Once he showed a superior result, the consensus moved. As consumers of science (rather than the world's smartest experts) it is important to understand what the consensus of the experts throughout the world have found to date.
Translation, you do not like what he says so attack him whenever and however you can. But I also notice that you have nothing to say on what he actually said. You just hate that he points out your largest failure. Well, your largest failure other than simply making things up and ignoring actual facts.
Aliens Cause Global Warming By Michael Crichton Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003 ". . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. 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. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . . "
Maybe not in so many words, but it's the recurring theme in almost every post. But they don''t ALL agree - that's the point, and that's what REAL SCIENCE is all about. That's your right. Actually, almost EVERY scientist faces existing consensus - it's almost a given in the scientific method. Actually, since there no what to apply true scientific method to future climate developments - we can't construct an experiment to prove/disprove our thesis - we can only assert the result of quirky models "suggest".
And the biggest problem is, they can not even agree as to what is leading what. We are still in an ice age, a hell of a lot of the surface is still recovering from largely being sterilized by glaciers for tens of thousands of years. But the warming is known and predicted simply by looking at past interglacials. And as somebody that studies geology, I find the lies like "it has never been this warm before" to be particularly insulting. That is a lie, and an easily proven one. But they do not care, because it is more religion than science to them and they will destroy any that dare not agree with them. And the funniest thing is, I find myself constantly called a "denier" by that crowd. Even though what I actually predict goes so far beyond what any of them are saying one would think I am their biggest supporter. I do in fact expect that at sometime in the future, the Arctic will be mostly ice free. That most of the low-lying coastlands will become submerged. That the tundra that still covers much of Asia and North America will eventually be replaced by grasslands. And the reason is simple, that is what has happened in almost every single interglacial in the past. However, my beliefs must be crushed because I believe it is 100% natural cycle. Never mind that it has happened at least a dozen times in the past. THIS TIME IT IS NOT NATURAL! *laughs* In reality, the "predictions" are about as important as predicting the tides next month. And absolutely nothing of the warming is outside the areas that geologists were predicting decades ago from looking at past interglacials. Just like the mass extinctions, that happened every single time and will happen every single time. As will evolution to fill in ecological voids left behind. Most barely even question the fact that almost all megafauna globally went extinct in the last 10ky, once again as was typical as they had evolved to exploit a much colder climate where body mass was an advantage. And as the planet warmed again, that mass was a detriment. Even the last survivors tried to shrink in size but few could do it fast enough and died off. The last populations of mammoth had shrunk from the giant beasts to about the size of a horse, but had so many genetic issues that they still went extinct. And in North America, left behind a void of no apex predators. The most well known was the Smilodon, but they went extinct as their prey did about 10kya. And left no major predators in an entire continent to take their place.
Yes, they don't all agree. There really isn't any science relating to the serious questions we face today where ALL scientists agree. In fact, there is no possible mechanism that could result in ALL scientists agreeing. It's not even a possibility, as science is open ended, encouraging people to challenge every aspect of science. We have people testing relativity theory on a DAILY basis ever since Einstein. So, insisting that we ignore science until ALL scientists agree is the most DAMN STUPID policy we could POSSIBLY create.
Exactly. Nobody is doing that. Running off a cliff with our hair on fire because something that can't can even be verified suggests maybe it's time to calm the panic, take a step back and take inventory of what we know, what we think, what we're not sure off and what we know is moonbat crazy. Long term analysis of various data show no alarming increase in ANY climate function. Warming at 1C per century and tides increasing by a few centimeters per decade are not reasons to panic.
Any time, it is something I actually point out all the time. And want to know how warm it will likely get before we enter another ice age? Look at the "Palm Tree Line" in North America. At this time, on the West Coast it only extends up to around San Francisco. That is as far north as palm trees can survive without human intervention. In the above map, the red areas are where palm trees can survive naturally. Now the above fossil is of a giant palm frond, and comes from central Alaska. That is the size of tropical palms today, and it grew around the Arctic Circle. And yes, at that time Alaska was actually farther north than it is today, North America is actually moving south. That is why were a strait once used to be we have the Isthmus of Panama. Now granted, that was around 50 mya but it does show how extreme the climate can be. In fact, that was an era where even the Antarctic was lush and green, not covered by an ice cap. In the history of the planet, polar ice caps are actually an exception and not the rule. And being an amateur fossil hunter, one of my prizes was a fossilized palm trunk I recovered in Idaho. Once again far above the palm tree line today, but that proves that the planet was not always as cold as it currently is. I see a planet that is dynamic and always changing, quite often from one extreme to another. But to many it should remain static and never change. I find that about as unscientific of a mindset as I can ever imagine.
Maldives Government: Where's Our Climate Cash? 2018 › 04 › 26 › maldives-government-wheres-our-climate-cash has warned that unless the Maldives gets its climate cash before 2020, the 1.5C global warming limit will ... This call for climate cash echoes a similar demand from African nations "If you like your climate cash, you can keep your climate cash."--Barack I-am-not-a-Muslim Apr 26, 2018 Brutal Dictatorship Seeks Climate Cash to Fund Continued Atrocities 2016 › 02 › 14 › brutal-dictatorship-seeks-climate-cash-to-fund-continued-attrocities Make no mistake, if the promised UN climate cash starts flowing in Africa, its the Mugabes and ... problems on "climate change". ... THE ink is still wet on a climate deal to at.com/2016/02/14/brutal-dictatorship-seeks-climate-cash-to-fund-continued-attrocities/#comment-2145460 Feb 14, 2016 UK Secretary of State Michael Gove Announces Climate Cash Giveaways, Quotes WWF Report 2018 › 11 › 26 › uk-secretary-of-state-michael-gove-announces-climate-cash-giveaways-quotes-wwf-report Providing billions of pounds of cash to fund climate projects in poor countries is still a priority ... on UK Climate Change Projections ... Secretary of State, Michael Gove, gives speech on UK Climate Change crack in the curtains and detect climate change. I phoned Lily Coles Climate Coalition and asked if Lily understood Nov 26, 2018 Climate Shakedown: Iran Demands Their Share of Paris Agreement Climate Cash 2018 › 05 › 20 › climate-shakedown-iran-demands-their-share-of-paris-agreement-climate-cash Paris Agreement is at risk if they don't get their climate money. ... Mohammad Javad Zarif signed the Paris Agreement on climate change during a ceremony at the United Nations
You are quoting cases where foreign countries WANT money, but are NOT necessarily getting what they want. We already give aid to foreign countries, many of which we would help regardless of climate. China is using the needs of African and other nations as an inroad for support of China. We have the same kind of ideas. In Africa, there are countries that simply need more energy. If we (and China) help them with clean energy, you can't really write that whole cost off on climate, as we would have helped them with energy anyway. Plus, our national security interests are not benefitted by letting China form these relationships. I agree that how and how much we support other countries is an issue deserving of analysis and public vetting. I would favor greater focus on civilian needs. Your list doesn't address expenditures in America for infrastructure issues such as electricity, water and transportation - infrastructure needed for industry, national defense and delivery of our population's needs. I'm glad to see you omit these, as I keep seeing such issues being touted as wasteful climate spending. I'm also glad to see you dodge the often criticized issue of price supports for the US auto industry as it attempts to compete in our changing transportation industry.
A Paris Agreement absolutely IS at risk. EVERY international climate agreement has been at serious risk. In fact, the USA is part of that risk, as we tend to have a "my way or the highway" attitude toward EVERY international agreement on every topic. International agreements get countries to sign on, which does add political leverage toward making progress - both direction on the topic and also on progress on how to form working international agreements. Nothing on the international stage is one agreement and done.
Is the Antarctic-driven abyssal ocean overturning doomed in 2050? Posted on April 11, 2023 by curryja | 6 comments by Frank Bosse Probably not, in spite of the recent headlines. Continue reading → ". . . . The problems with this paper are: reliance on the implausible SSP5-8.5 emissions scenario, use of the CMIP6 multi-model ensemble mean which is running too hot, and failure to critically evaluate the model simulations using recent observations. Further failures by Nature’s review and editorial process, combined with uncritical and amplified media promotion, have unnecessarily confused the science and public. . . . "
You (and apparently Crichton) do not understand what "consensus of scientists" means. It isn't a measure to decide if a theory/hypothesis is correct. It is the measure that the theory/hypothesis is most likely correct. The more (and better) scientists you get to agree with your theory/hypothesis the more likely you are on the correct path. If, after years of study, your theory/hypothesis is still not accepted then that is a sign there is a flaw in your theory/hypothesis. The theory of evolution is not correct because the vast majority of biologists agree with it, it is most likely correct because a vast majority of scientists have studied it and agreed with it. Could they be wrong? Sure, but the longer a theory/hypothesis survives the less likely that is because other information has been discovered that supports it. For them to be wrong means the dismantling of years, decades, generations of research.
No one would argue against your point, but that's not what is at issue. The claim has been put forward that global warming skeptics should abandon their doubts because there is (allegedly) a consensus of scientists who are believers. That argument carries no scientific weight at all, and that was Crichton's point. And then there's Einstein. “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough." [In response to the book Hundred Authors Against Einstein] ― Albert Einstein
