UUronL

A sign of the coming apocalypse?


Hehe.

info@trinityautosport

it has been reported that in the seasons this year temperatures in many areas have been off what they usually have been. ever since the hurricanes, i guess its been showing more proof that al gore was right about global warming.

i found it amazing how things could change so quickly, other than these cases of global warming and things in life. had a guest speaker today and part of his life was being in pakistan helping out after a 6.5 earthquake. just 31 seconds and it took everything away from so many people.. that really hit me.

VIIV

Here's a link to opinions on whether the film got the science right.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/...urce=newsletter

On global warming itself, I tend to weight scientific consensus more than the opinions of science fiction writers, even really popular ones. But I also find it amazing we still are debating natural selection and have to fight to teach real science in schools.

UUronL

Well, you mention opinions and concensus. These aren't science. Michael Crichton graduated from Harvard Medical school, so I think he has every reason to be a valid source of intelligent thought. Especially scientific thought. Doctors - good ones - need to be dogged and thorough researchers with an ability to remain unquestionable experts in a quickly and constantly changing field. Same goes for writers - especially those who write fiction. Think about the depth of detail that someone like Tom Clancy must learn and accurately incorporate into his writings. I heard Tom Wolfe speak to a small group once, and from listening to his anecdotes and stories it was evident just how much embedded research he conducted to make his books as believable and engrossing as possible.

Crichton isn't opining about the science specific to Global Warming, but merely pointing out the clear lack of it. Even a 5th grader has learned enough about the scientific method to be able to come to that kind of a conclusion.

tprenaldo

What exactly is a VF SUPER CHARGER 6.0PSI DMS remapping
365hp with Super charger only est and where can I get one to increase the HP in my 530i

VIIV

Crichton makes sure everyone knows how smart he is. Have you noticed that his novels tend to have some heroic figure battling against the consensus of experts? And now it is come to real life. If he can't save us from cloned dinosaurs or a robotic Yul Brynner, he can at least use his credentials to fault global warming.

Seriously, if differing hypotheses are tested and present new data that convinces most people doing peer reviewed work in the field that global warming is all baloney, only a fool would argue the case. That's science. But meanwhile, only a fool would ignore what we know, and Crichton should stick to his audience of those 5th graders and people trapped in airport snowstorms in Denver.

swajames

Junkscience.com is operated by Steven Milloy. Mr Milloy writes for FoxNews.com. You may as well ask Bill O'Reilly for his "fair and balanced" perspective on global warming.

All you need to know about Mr Milloy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy

And some breaking news: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/01...s.ap/index.html

pinguhk

aliens ha that is funny

ImolaRedM

We all know that global warming is proportional to the global decrease in the number of pirates.

UUronL

Well you're at least half right about the science part. The statement should read "test and prove/confirm".... not test and convince. A proven theory required no convincing to reach accepted status. It would have needed to be 100% rooted in factual repeatable results. Tentative theories get solidified by a growing body of supporting -predictable test results-. Conversely, tentative theories that do not survive are those in which testing either cannot produce predictable (the same) results, and/or the growing body of knowledge (read other outcomes, other tests) create more solid theories and supporting factual data. Since testing global warming theory is impossible, we've been presented with bits and pieces of statistical data. Data that has in no way been confirmed as being related in any way to the theorized effect. Sure, it has been cobbled together and it looks very convincing - but lots of things can be crafted to appear this way. Look at the post above this one - silly I know, but it attempts to subtly make the same point that I am. You aren't a numerologist are you?


Again, we -know- very little. We know this is a polarized issue, and we know that a constant diet of Hollywood environmental disaster movies and nightly news soundblurbs isn't making it any easier for people to challenge the "obvious".