OT - Global Warming Revisited
 

In article ,
Rex B wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote:
There is evidence, strong, overwhelming evidence of AGW. You can never
"prove" something in a statistical sense without doing controlled
experiments.

I've not followed this thread, but I'm currently reading Michael
Crichton's novel (the title escapes me) about global warming and
eco-terrorism. The preface states that (paraphrasing) "the characters
and actions are works of fiction, though they may resemble real people
and occurrences. The science is real" and heavily footnoted with cites
and references.

Crichton writes fiction. He relies on a small handful of people who dispute
every aspect of GW. Kind of like depending on one economist for a view of how
the economy is doing, an economist who really has no credentials in that area.


Basically, I'm halfway through the book and global warming is bunk.

I'd like to hear from anyone who's read the book and has a sound counter
-argument to the points raised. Maybe there is a relevant forum?

You might try reading science instead of fiction. Look at the National
Academy of Sciences, NASA, IPCC, the American Geophysical Union.

If you believe Crichton is factual, then do you believe:

1. Dinosaurs can be cloned?
2. There's a sphere from the future at the bottom of the ocean?
3. We can travel back in time?

OT - Global Warming Revisited
 

Lloyd Parker wrote:
There is evidence, strong, overwhelming evidence of AGW. You can never
"prove" something in a statistical sense without doing controlled experiments.

I've not followed this thread, but I'm currently reading Michael
Crichton's novel (the title escapes me) about global warming and
eco-terrorism. The preface states that (paraphrasing) "the characters
and actions are works of fiction, though they may resemble real people
and occurrences. The science is real" and heavily footnoted with cites
and references.

Basically, I'm halfway through the book and global warming is bunk.

I'd like to hear from anyone who's read the book and has a sound counter
-argument to the points raised. Maybe there is a relevant forum?

OT - Global Warming Revisited
 

Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article ,
Rex B wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
There is evidence, strong, overwhelming evidence of AGW. You can never
"prove" something in a statistical sense without doing controlled
experiments.
I've not followed this thread, but I'm currently reading Michael
Crichton's novel (the title escapes me) about global warming and
eco-terrorism. The preface states that (paraphrasing) "the characters
and actions are works of fiction, though they may resemble real people
and occurrences. The science is real" and heavily footnoted with cites
and references.

Crichton writes fiction. He relies on a small handful of people who dispute
every aspect of GW. Kind of like depending on one economist for a view of how
the economy is doing, an economist who really has no credentials in that area.

Basically, I'm halfway through the book and global warming is bunk.

I'd like to hear from anyone who's read the book and has a sound counter
-argument to the points raised. Maybe there is a relevant forum?

You might try reading science instead of fiction. Look at the National
Academy of Sciences, NASA, IPCC, the American Geophysical Union.

If you believe Crichton is factual, then do you believe:

1. Dinosaurs can be cloned?
2. There's a sphere from the future at the bottom of the ocean?
3. We can travel back in time?

Oh give me a break you pompous ass.
I know fiction from reality, and so does Crichton.
I was addressing the footnotes which reference materials from just those
same agencies.

Have you ever read Crichton's treatise "Aliens Case Global Warming?".
Maybe you should because he addresses exactly the mindset you obviously
have. And it's non-fiction, in case it's not labeled for you.

OT - Global Warming Revisited
 

"Rex B" wrote in message
I've not followed this thread, but I'm currently reading Michael
Crichton's novel (the title escapes me) about global warming and
eco-terrorism. ...

Basically, I'm halfway through the book and global warming is bunk.

Well the science is real, just as the science in Andromeda Strain was
"real", and the science in Jurassic Park was "real" and the science in
Star Trek is "real".

So the science of "Global Warming isn't happening" is in the same ballpark
as the science of "Dinosaur clones on deserted islands", "warp drive", and
"crystal fusion reactors that turn energy into matter and clot blood".

In other words, the science is nonScience.

OT - Global Warming Revisited
 

Which oil company do you work for?

BD

OT - Global Warming Revisited