Posted on 12/30/2004 9:54:46 AM PST by Willie Green
DALLAS -- Global warming is hot! -- pun fully intended.
Within the space of a year, a blockbuster action movie and now a sure-to-be best-selling novel have both focused on the perils and political intrigues surrounding the question of whether, or to what extent, humans are causing the planet to overheat with all manner of apocalyptic results.
Though the Fox Studio disaster flick "The Day After Tomorrow" was panned by scientists who pointed out its portrayal of climate science was wildly inaccurate, it won praise from environmentalists and some politicos for "focusing attention on the important topic of human-caused global warming."
Of course, in the movie, global warming was a fact and environmentalists were world-saviors. By contrast, novelist Michael Crichton's latest book, "State of Fear," has raised the ire of environmentalists. Why has he not garnered the same praise for bringing global warming to the world's attention? Perhaps because Crichton portrays global warming as hoax and the environmentalist lobbyists pushing the hoax as villains, eager to use bad science to raise money and in order to attain political power.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
Though the Fox Studio disaster flick "Indepence Day" was panned by scientists who pointed out its portrayal of alien life forms was wildly inaccurate, it won praise from Trekkies and some politicos for "focusing attention on the important topic of alien invasion and global conquest."
You are kidding right?
YOU are kidding, right? ;)
"State of Fear" is an awesome book!
Bump for later read
I agree there. I read relatively little fiction and I started "State of Fear" last night and read 100 or so pages until 3:30 a.m.
I read the headline and at first thought they meant there were not enough globl warming theories - as in Theory #35 "It is caused by those Republicans driving SUVs" Theory #36 "It is caused by Haliburton pillaging the natural resources of Iraq". Theory #37 "....wait!...I can't think of anything....WE NEED MORE THEORIES!"
No sh--, Dick Tracy.
Here's the real story: NEW FINDINGS SHOW ANTARCTIC COOLING AND ICE CAP EXPANSION AND SLOWER GROWTH OF GREENHOUSE GASES
By the way, I was watching the Science Channel last night. They were having a panel discussion on the greatest discoveries of the last year. The panel consisted of science writers.
At one point they were breaking for commercial with the moderator stating that they were coming back to discuss the 'overwhelming' evidence for global warming.
It soon became clear that the 'overwhelming' evidence was taht they all agreed it was happening and had some story about it which was peppered with 'maybes' and 'could possibly be's'
Kinda like reading the rants at DU.
...and at the same time make it harder and harder to heed warnings when real dangers come along. Filing a false police report is a crime-- so is this.
Thanks for the fantastic link!
No problem. Like the guy says, Michael Mann's paper wasn't the real problem. It was the fact that the scientific community fell in love with it and turned off its vast fact-checking apparatus over it that was truly iniquitous.
I also read that because of the normalization of the data (it's a statistical thing)some scientists discovered that numbers randomly chosen also produced a hockey stick. In other words, these people set out to produce this graph. They had an agenda.
I also read that because of the normalization of the data (it's a statistical thing)some scientists discovered that numbers randomly chosen also produced a hockey stick. In other words, these people set out to produce this graph. They had an agenda.
This past fall, 5,400 delegates from 189 countries gathered in Buenos Aires for what’s called COP 10, the 10th annual conference of the parties to the United Nations agreement to combat climate change.
I have been attending these extravaganzas for five years now, and they are an exercise, in the grandly self-important style of the U.N., in wheel-spinning and America-bashing. But something is changing. While a superficial glance indicates the extremists are winning, they are, in fact, on the run. They’ve failed - largely because opponents like MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen, who has called warming theory a “religious belief” rather than sound science, haven’t been intimidated. Now, a consensus is building to tackle global warming the right away.
But don’t wait for the Greens to lead. Instead, responsible advocates are building a consensus around the right approach, which concentrates not on destroying the economies of developing countries through limits to growth, but on improving those economies through the use of more energy - the best leverage for boosting living standards. Wealth, after all, makes health. As a nation gets richer, it gets cleaner. - James K. Glassman
There is a great chapter in the first part of the book where this lawyer Evans goes to meet with the law firm that is actually going to trial to sue the EPA for the poor people of the Island Nation of Vanutu. The lawyers working on the case startle Evans by showing him how much of what he believed about GLobal Warming is just not substantiated by evidence that they can present in court and not all scientists believe in the theory and even those that are goign to testify in favor of it have made contrary statements. Makes it look like winning the suit would be very difficult...without a little misdirection.
I honestly think we should be examining the climactic impact of this recent tsunami, and the trade curents that were changed slightly from the movement of Sumatra!
But, GWB caused it I guess....
All they need is an O.J. jury.
LOL!!! (:
"Dr Michael Mann"
Wasn't he the guy who came up with the 'Miami Vice' theme song?
This explains a lot.
A coke-headed musician is hallucinating global climatological models.
Mystery solved.
yes, I think you have the basic description of what happened.
BTT!!!!!!
At the birth of our nation, the founders placed a wall of separation between the Church and the State. That’s not to say that they were not religious men. They were. But they knew from history that given a chance, those in power would badly abuse religion to suit their own purposes, to deny others their liberty, and to coerce the populace.
No one today can think seriously about religion without coming into conflict with Science at some point, sooner, rather than later. There is little doubt that many have taken what Science has suggested to deny their religion, to deny God. It would be an understatement to say that people are divided on the subjects of Science and Religion, together and separately.
Is the debate about global warming, within a scientific context, any different than the debate about how one is saved, within a religious context, any different? If the founders realized that it would be an error to establish a state religion, why can’t we see the error of establishing a state science? Will Science ever be the subject of an emotional debate, lawsuits, and the self-evident silliness of those who demand that a cross be removed from a flag, that the words “under God” not be said, that a nativity scene be removed from the public square?
Do we have to lose all that we hold dear before we will begin to see the error of substituting a Science-based utopia for a Religious-based utopia?
Different Michael Mann.
Here's the Michael Mann who's doing the climate stuff: Michael E. Mann.
Here's the Michael Mann who created "Miami Vice" and directed a lot of really good films, including "Manhunter" (the *first* Hannibal Lector film), "Heat" (cop Al Pacino vs crook Robert DeNiro), and so on: director Michael Mann.
Meanwhile, the "musician" who "came up with the 'Miami Vice' theme song" was actually Jan Hammer (I couldn't tell you whether he was a "coked-head" or not...), but he has nothing to do with climate models.
Oh, I think 'swallower' is a layman's term, too. I thank you for the alternate definition of it, though! ;-P
Pure sarcasm on my part and it was about as factually accurate as the data supporting global warming. Especially since the world has been cooling the last few years. Of course, the global warming geeks say that the cooling has been caused by the warming.
I remember as a kid in the 1970's hearing that pollution would block out the sun and cause a global ice age. Then the facts didn't support that fairy tale so they blamed the unpredicted warming on pollution.
Now we're finding out that sun spot activity determines temperature fluctuations.
How this will be linked to pollution is beyond me, but I can't wait to hear how driving a Hummer or an Escalade affects solar sun spot activity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.