Apparently some guy put in our comments back in September to put our money where our mouth is about global warming. Problem is, I don’t remember getting any comments in the past couple months. Also, whether there is global warming or not, I really don’t care. Can I bet a bag of ice if I’m wrong?
BTW, I did buy the novel State of Fear. I hope Chrichton’s alarmism about global warming alarmism will be more accurate than in his alarmism about Japanese businesses taking over in Rising Sun.
My liberal friends are often shocked to learn that I am skeptical about the cause, methodology, and reaction to global warming, especially when I start showing them solar output figures as they compare to temperature versus CO2 emmissions and temperature (there’s a deviance in the second data set, but not the first). We need to be careful with our environment (what we do to our water is atrocious!) but the lying and alarmism is not the way to reach people about becoming more personally responsible.
What the liberals fail to understand is that it’s not whether global warming is real or contrived that is the issue. It’s wheter we (humans) are the cause, or if it is a natural occurrence. Conservatives tend to believe that it is a natural cycle.
With oil prices so high you would think that liberals would welcome global warming as an alternative source of heat.
Just read ‘Rising Sun’ and Crichton was wide of the mark in terms of where we ended up, but his indictment of Japanese business practices is very instructive for understanding why the Japanese economy has been toilet side these past 15 years.
Crichton’s latest novel is probably most useful for pointing out the blatant conflict of interest between grant-seeking scientists and the objective research they are supposed to be performing.
I did a two-year post-doc at the University of Georgia and my lab director was writing proposals for grants that would support research into the effect of global warming on plant-pathogen relationships. Scientists like him fan the flames of fear to support public research into whatever their pet project is.
Incidentally he was German and refused to participate in the (public)university’s stock market-based retirement plan. He considered money from the stock martket “dirty”. He had no problem taking money from taxpayers though. I don’t think he understood the irony of the fact that taxes are paid at gun point and market profits come from the free exercise of choice in commerce.
If you really want to shock ’em. Ask them if they know what the number one greenhouse gas is.
If they reply CO2, tell them it is actually water vapor and hydrogen cars produce greenhouse gases! ‘Tis true! Basic Earth Science.
I see nothing’s changed. Global warming denialists won’t put up, and they won’t shut up.
At least we’re agreed about Crichton. I sure hope he’s right that global warming is a crock. Too bad that science says the opposite.
And if you think I’m wrong, then you’ve got a chance to make some money off of me.
Brian S. claims that “science says the opposite” …. and I applaud his insightful insight.
Of course … science has said a great many things in the past that have been completely and utterly WRONG … because science speaks through the mouths of people … and we all know that people aren’t ever BIASED. Especially scientists .,… who talk about a new ice age one day, global warming the next, and are much more interested in seeing their name in print than in ever being right about anything.
But at least we can thank Brian for his insightful insight!
the lying and alarmism is not the way to reach people about becoming more personally responsible.
You mean algore has been doing it wrong? Say it ain’t so!
The important thing to remember is that “global warming” is a theory, not proven scientific fact. This is the thrust of Crichton’s novel. Global warming alarmists accept as a foregone conclusion that global warming is a fact, and create a “state of fear” over its possible consequences (look at the laughable film “The Day After Tommorow,” or better yet, its lampooning in the South Park episode, “Two Days Before the Day After Tommorow”).
And lets be honest, shall we? The ruckus over global warming is more than just environmental concern. Like many leftist causes, global warming is ultimately an indictment of big business and capitalism. Brian, please don’t tell me you’re one of the leftists who believes that if only the US had signed Kyoto, Hurricane Katrina wouldn’t have happened. Besides the miniscule amount of emissions that Kyoto would actually reduce (and its recognizable effects wouldn’t be for years), such changes would not prevent hurricanes.
Re: Rising Sun
The Japanese had (and still have) an interesting take on capitalism. As Rising Sun (the movie especially) points out, they combine Western notions of capitalism with Eastern spirituality, specifically the samurai ethos. But they also save more than any country in the world, and this is what caused “the bubble to burst.” It’s the opposite of the US model, where spending stimulates the economy.
Alucard, saying “global warming is not 100% proven, therefore let us sit on our hands,” only makes sense if the skeptic thinks the odds of global warming happening are small. And if that’s the case, then the skeptic should accept my bet because I give a 2:1 payout if I lose. And if the skeptic thinks that the odds of global warming happening are more than small (the only mathematical reason for rejecting my bet offer), then it makes much less sense to say we shouldn’t do anything about it.
I’m not going to get into Kyoto and Katrina here, my issue is whether we know enough about global warming to take action, and I can prove it by betting. When the skeptics refuse to bet, it indicates they don’t really believe in their position, and give a significant probability to the chance that global warming is real.
Brian,
Please. Today’s global warming proponents/scientists are trying to measure geologic events on man’s time scale. They are accepting correlation as proof of causation. I don’t know what bet you have offered but you would have to be alive for several thousands of years (or more) to know whether your hypothesis is borne out.
Let’s face it, global warming is to environmentalism what Satan is to Christianity. Environmentalism is a religion in the same vein of humanism only it transform the “man as (good)god” to “man as (bad) god”.
Oh, and another thing; someone not taking a bet doesn’t prove anything. You are confusing betting with buying. You are trying to apply a market solution to your problem, which is clever, but ill-conceived.
What are the terms of your bet again? I missed it the first time.
Ok, just looked at your original bets. Your nuts. You are trying to say that some aberration from a poorly defined normal is caused by some poorly quantified factor all measured in a temporal scale of less than a century when 10,000 years is a more realistic timeframe. I don’t do roulette wheels. Sorry.
Keith, it seems that Brian is using the aberration of statistics to prove as fact and piece of junk science based on the aberration of statistics.
And he wants to PROFIT FROM IT!
Brian is a clever, evil, capitalist swine taking advantage of the deviation from the mean to ensnare those poor stupid redneck conservative hicks! They probably believe in God too!
I give 2:1 odds that temperatures in 10 years will be higher than today, and 3:1 odds that they’ll be higher than today in 20 years.
Anyone who thinks we don’t know what will happen with temps thinks there’s a 50-50 chance that temperature will decrease. Given the 2:1 or 3:1 payout if they win, this bet is a winner from the perspective of skeptics who actually believe what they’re saying.
As for believers in natural warming, the last “natural” warming trend lasted 35 years, and I’ve hyperlink got a bet that should pay off to skeptics based on that time period, or even a somewhat longer time period.
Finally, if skeptics believe what they say, then propose a fair bet to back it up.
“As for believers in natural warming, the last “natural” warming trend lasted 35 years”
How do you know this? Do you have climate data for all the 130,000 years humans have been walking the Earth in our current form? I googled this quickly and found that the government has 108 years of climate data for our country, which doesn’t seem like nearly enough in geologic time to draw the conclusion that humans are having a major warming impact. Furthermore, there is evidence of a “Little Ice Age” from the 1400s to the 1800s, so we know that a cooling trend can last about 400 years. Why assume that a natural warming trend could only last 35?
I should add,
“Finally, if skeptics believe what they say, then propose a fair bet to back it up.”
A hallmark of skepticism is a tendency to not believe in one side of the issue or the other very strongly… a skeptic usually is asking for more facts before she draws a conclusion. So to bet that global warming is or isn’t happening would make no sense for a skeptic, would it?
Brian,
Your entire position is predicated on gambling to prove your point? I am not a gambling man, in any way, so I will not take you up on your silly bet. But nonetheless, I think you’ve got the “anti-global warming” position wrong. Conservatives do not hate the environment, similar to the way liberals unequivically love it. Their position on the theory of global warming is very similar to Michael Crichton’s- unbiased scientific analysis.
Though there is some evidence for global warming, there is just as much against it. Hence, there is no need to treat is as such an urgent issue. Is global warming happening? A better question is, if temperatures are rising globally, is it due to man-made devices, or it a natural occurence? It’s telling that some parts of the world are actually experiencing global cooling, while the major “warming” occuring in the US is in big cities- so the main cause could be the congestion of infrastructure, and the heat-conducting properties of asphalt. Either way, the issue isn’t as clear-cut as the global warming alarmists would have you believe.
Betting depends on two sides perceiving the odds differently. A skeptic can’t say “I’m a skeptic and therefore I choose inaction,” because declining the bet is based on how you allocate odds.
The irony is that skeptics who decline to bet are using the precautionary principle when it comes to global warming and their wallets. Because global warming MAY happen, they decline the bet. But when it comes to even considering policy changes, the precautionary principle is villified.
No Brian. Skeptics don’t believe there is enough evidence for or against global warming. Whereas global warming alarmists are firmly convinced that the theory of global warming is reality, skeptics aren’t convinced either way. So if skeptics aren’t convinced that global warming is or isn’t real, why would they bet money that it isn’t? Global warming alarmists tend to use science (the half that agrees with them, anyway) for political purposes, which is exactly what Crichton warns against. Skeptics look at the science, which is at best, inconclusive.
Speaking as someone who’s grown up with scientists her entire life, (both my parents) I firmly declare Brian to be officially Full of Crap.
I have to acknowledge the last comment above as being by far the best-argued response I’ve seen to the betting issue. That’s not sarcasm on my part, BTW.
Go ahead, try me. It’s like arguing historical errors in The Mists of Avalon, ie, where to even begin for all the sea of crap and scientific errors? Just pick a random page out of the entire screed and I’ll torpedo that turkey.
“Debating” fundamentalist armchair hobbyist ‘scientists’ is amusing, albeit like blending puppies. Might want to go back to Earth Science 7, Brian, since you apparently flunked it the first three times around. Perhaps you’ll actually pass this time.
Once again, Mystery Person, your arguments are the best I’ve seen.
So I’m not capable of debating at your level, but my money’s still good. Why don’t you part a fool like me from his money? It’s the only chance I’ve got of learning.