Welcome to Librarium Online!
Here I go again, using a controversial topic title to start a dialogue on one of the most controversial topics available.
To start us off I would appreciate it if those that wish to contribute comments to this thread read the speech given by (lawyer turned author) Michael Crichton before you do so, it's available at the following link:
It is actually a very well written and very well articulated article and it's actually what this topic is about.
Although I recognize the inevitable possibility of sparking some very welcome comments and contributions concerning the environment I really would appreciate that everyone remember they are considered enhanced members and that they uphold the level of sophistication in their arguments and counter-arguments providing links, data and as much information as possible.
One line comments such as, "People who aren't pro-environment are doody heads!" should be left on your refridgerator doors and bumpers stickers please. Because honestly there is no such thing as someone that is anti-environment, be it a person or a government.
Try to be as informative and as civil as possible please.
Otherwise have fun. :p
Last edited by Joker; August 11th, 2005 at 21:11. Reason: spelling
Originally Posted by onlainari
Are you implying that environmentalist fundamentalists/fanatics are crying wolf?
Or that Crichton's speech is crying wolf?
Your statement needs clarification.
I was actually content that no-one responded to this thread. With 35+ looks at the original post I had hoped that some; at least; had read the speech and taken something positive away from what Crichten had said.
I hope you at least enjoyed what you read. ^_^
Last edited by Joker; September 27th, 2005 at 13:48.
Bookmarked it, thanks for the site.
I personally find the evidence for global warming overwhelming, I don't see how a debate can still exist. This site partially argues the idea that scientists can be wrong about global warming. I point to the story of the boy who cried wolf, I don't think you can ever turn your head away looking at the past. I believe that you still have a 50% chance of rolling that 4+, even though your past 10 rolls have all been 4+.
Crichton; I don't think; is arguing against the existence of global warming, as much as he's trying to clarify that the evidence that global warming is provably manmade is pretty slim and unsupportable.
I personally agree that there is alot of evidence of global warming. But I believe it's either cyclical or solar induced.
Somehow the term 'global warming' has gotten automatically attached to some manmade causes such as fossil fuel emmisions. I disagree that man caused it because 1 volcanic eruption spews out more co2 and other greenhouse gases than everything mankind has produced since the begining of the industrial age.
What Crichton is actually arguing for is that environmentalists stop using scare tactics and unclear/misleading/false data, and start to use 'hard science' and provability to make their cases.
Otherwise they will continue to be disavowed as just a bunch of nutcases on some religious-like tirade with no consideration of the facts. Which is exactly what is happening.
There are a whole lot of environmental concerns that get brushed away because the fundamentalists in the group have just plain continued to act like idiots.
Take Barbara Steisand for instance. She's not a meteorologist or trained in any way to predict the weather. She's a celebrity, and a stupid one at that. Well, a couple of days ago she announces that the last two hurricanes are proof that the human race is now facing a 'global warming emergency'.
here's the link: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4bar.htm
Well, that kind of conflicts with the statement by Max Mayfield who is the head of the National Hurricane Center who says that it isn't because of global warming, but just another normal cycle of storms.
here's the link: http://washingtontimes.com/national/...4400-5235r.htm
Why does Streisand even get consideration for the statements she makes concerning anything unrelated to her singing/acting profession?
Well, using Crichton's theory of the 'religious' overtones of the 'new environmentalist' she's become a prophet, and the facts don't matter to her as long as she can convince others that her 'religion' is the right one and everyone should listen to her.
She doesn't know **** about the environment, but all of a sudden she's thrust to the forefront and can only be seen for what she is: the quintessential embodiment of politically motivated environmental activism led by fools and idiots. She did all environmentally conscious individuals a great disservice by even speaking.
It's Streisands ( unfortunately not unique ) brand of stupidity that is causing real environmentalists; that want to be taken seriously by presenting factual data; to be looked at as just more idiots with an agenda.
Crichton's answer is to take the religious overtones and the political nonsense out of the equation and just rely on supportable facts and data to drive the environmental movement.
I think he makes a good point.
Last edited by Joker; September 27th, 2005 at 15:40.
Thankyou Joker. I am very young, and this is a great learning experience. I would hate to be someone that can be used against my own cause.
Correlation does not prove causation. Decrease in pirates don't increase the temperature, nor does the hard evidence in the rise in CO2 prove that the earth is warming, which also has hard evidence.
The theory goes, CO2 reflects heat back to earth. It's really not a bad theory at all. Tested and tested, it has not proven false, even though it is falsifiable. Thus, the scientists say that without any data showing otherwise, the logical conclusion is that CO2 does reflect heat back down to earth.
Of course, it is just a theory HIV caused AIDS too. Theories have been tested many times, and not a single time has it been proven wrong. Being falsifiable, an experiment which clearly shows CO2 not reflecting heat, or AIDS without the HIV virus, would prove the theory wrong. As it stands, it is one of the most widely accepted theories by scientists worldwide. Both are.
Your welcome Onlainari.
And thank you for stimulating some conversation on this thread.
Your right about co2, and anything we do to reduce it's emission is a good thing. Hopefully the next generation of auto hybrids will help. And if your post on cold fusion turns out to be true, well, there's certainly numerous possabilities with that technology as well. ^_^
I have admired Crichtons writing for many years, I do not forget that it was he that introduced me to Chaos theory.
I think his article is fascinating and cuts to the heart of something that has worried me for many years. Basically that although environmentalists lobby for the most vitally important issues of our age, they are ruining their chances of actually swaying public and political opinion by their own amatateurism and blind, impassioned zealotry. As Onlainari says, its rather like 'crying wolf'.
For myself, Crichton hits a nerve by likening 'environmentalism' to a religion, where blind faith replaces intelligent rational reasoning. I have distinct problems with the damage that various religions have historicaly inflicted; and are still inflicting on the advancement of society, and on the well-being of individuals within that society - so the metaphor of a harmful religion is very apt.
Anyway, despite my not knowing the various bodies (EPA?) that he refers to, yes I would be immensely glad to see an international body set up (as soon as possible) with a brief to investigate the global environment and tell us for once and for all what is going on. We have heard too many half-truths and politically slanted conjectures in the past...
Ryan Dancey, Vice President of Wizards of the Coast, believed that TSR failed because of "...a near total inability to listen to its customers, hear what they were saying, and make changes to make those customers happy." Are you listening, Games Workshop ?
Hmmm many people could mistake that for him bashing all religion but I see what he is trying to say and I'm glad I got to read such a fascinating article. It makes some excellent points and dispels some of the things I was a bit shaky over.
It is an interesting idea comparing it to religion. I think he generalises a bit too much but he makes a sound point. A lot of religious people are blind (I like to think I am not one of them) and do think there religion has all the answers. Well I don't think any religion has all the answer personally I believe there is only one person who has all the answers but that is also a matter of faith.
But getting back on topic, yes I think he makes an excellent point. Environmentalists have been using scare tactics before with presenting only select (or completely false) facts. Some religions (especially state religions) have done this as well and I can understand his comparison. I'm not sure why he wants to get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency (since I don't live in USA so I am not aware of their current history) but there does need to be some sort of shake up when it comes to policies on environment.
His idea about people not understanding nature I completely agree with. There are so many people who don't have a clue. Personally I don't have this fantasy of being one with nature so I don't think I would run into the many examples he gave but the point still stands.
But I admit it is hard to seperate what he is saying about religions from the point he is trying to make. I admit some of it annoyed me but he makes extremly valid points about extremists which always give religions a bad name.
Now personally I think that Environmentalism does seem to becoming almost religious and he is absolutely correct. That sort of thing needs science (although I think there is room for faith but both are needed).
Anyway I am a great fan of Crichtons work (His writings about AI were fascinating) and I hope he continues to write good quality articles and his brand fiction/non-fiction like this article.
Hello! I'm Enhanced now! However that happens...
Anyway, this is something I have been fighting in the Christian arena for far too long. A few (or not-so-few) fanatics give the rest of us a bad name, and even worse jade the ones we're trying to minister to.
And the logic of the environmentalist fanatics is getting a little ridiculous. I don't know how many of you watch American Dad, but they hit it on the head. One exchange between the father and son sums up everything that's wrong with the current environmentalist frenzy about global warming.
"Son, how often do you think about sex?"
"And how often do you watch TV?"
<Father makes "put them together" hand gestures>
Quote for probably forever 'cause it rocks:
"Slaughter them, men, and bring me their hats."