Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack78
So you didn't read the analysis of the scientific arguments presented in Crichton's book? ... You didn't do a WH search to browse the several discussions re: State of Fear? What a surprise. 
Yes, I'm well aware of the book's premise and its inclusion of scientific data. But the value of scientific data is degraded when, for instance, one factor like CO2 levels is argued relative to climate while ignoring other known "forcing factors", or local weather is presented as representing global trends, or expert testimony is cherry-picked and presented out of context, or fiction like the "70s ice age scare" is represented as truth, and on and on .... Jeebus, poly, Crichton demonstrated the same confusion as you did re: the very basic difference between "weather" and "climate".
... and you want me to "consider other viewpoints" while ignoring their faulty foundation, and suggest that I invest time by "picking the book up", regardless???
How about focusing on how the spectrum of presented arguments stand up to the scrutiny of well qualified individuals, and go from there ... |
Why do you bother to post? What do you get out of this board?
It's obvious you have no interest nor respect for any other viewpoints. It appears that your primary motive is to prove anyone who disagrees with you "wrong." Worse, your go to move is to immediately attack the motives and credibility of anyone who disagrees with you.
Just look at your response to the book: State of Fear. You admit that you haven't read it. Instead of reading it and forming your own opinion, you offer up someone else's interpretation that seems to fit your preconceived notions.
What a shallow and lonely existence you must lead.
I take a much more balanced view. With all due respect, it's also the more enlighted approach.
I read State of Fear. Instead of being blinded by my former prejudices and beliefs (I believed the Global Warming Theory to be virtually unassailable), I read it and thought about it. This opened my eyes. I then began to seek out the opinions of others who didn't swallow convential thinking regarding global warming.
I read the links you sent. I found the responses afterward to be quite interesting.
We simply don't understand all the variables associated with climate changes. To imply that we do, is ridiculous.
I'm going to repeat: I don't know. But, in contrast to you, I'm willing to think about both sides of the argument.
To anyone (not jack, sadly) who is interested, not every scientist is as quick to dismiss State of Fear. I offer S. Fred Singer:
Review of "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton | cooler heads
Here are his credentials (from the link above):
Quote:
|
Atmospheric and space physicist S. Fred Singer is Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and serves as president of the non-profit Science & Environmental Policy Project .<SEPP - Science & Environmental Policy Project > He has held a number of academic posts and federal positions, including as Director of the US Weather Satellite Service and as Chief Scientist of the US Department of Transportation. He has received many civic and professional honors and holds degrees in Electrical Engineering and a D.Sc. from Ohio State and a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University. His most recent book is "Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate."
|