Global Warming Skeptics Lost a Champion

November/08/2008 22:25PM
1 interesting comment, join the discussion
Please follow and like us:

The passing of Michael Crichton was a loss of a great author and a minority voice who spoke with clear logic and solid rationale against global warming. 

Without quoting him verbatim, Mr. Crichton spoke with scientific credentials. He was a graduate of Harvard Medical School. As a Hollywood insider, he was also courageous, since he was in the minority, and may have paid a price for his position.

He called global warming consensus science. He used examples to show why science is science and consensus science is not. One was E=MC2. It is not called consensus science. Another,  the sun is 93 million miles from earth. Consensus is only used when the science is not sound enough. Someone has to guess at the facts. Usually, computer models are used for this guesswork. This always adds credibility to consensus, not to science.

He would also say, we can’t predict the weather 10 days from now. However,using consensus science, we are projecting weather 100 years hence.  But, should we invest billions of dollars hoping it’s good science. Are we nuts?

Mr. Crichton also addressed other examples of consensus science. It said it all started with Silent Spring. That ended DDT. Mr.Crichton believed that resulted in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths in underdeveloped countries. Malaria and starvation killed thousands if not millions of people. He also noted asbestos and silicone breast implants. Both were forms of consensus science. Both resulted in millions of dollars spent, millions made in bogus lawsuits, and bankruptcies of good corporations.

Consensus science is dangerous business. Are we willing to bet the country on the validity of this idea? There are other scientists who disagree with global warming, but their voices are never heard. With consensus science, like conservative politics, neither are ever heard in the media or the classroom. 

The liberals see global warming as a social program. They can put record taxes in place and not call them taxes. As with social security, they can use the money as they see fit. This is a left wing dream. Bigger government, more power, and greater control over the poor soul who can’t run his or her life without their help. 

Crichton felt the zealots had replaced religion with global warming. They worship this even though there is insufficient proof it exists. 

I believe there is some evidence to support the theory. But, I also believe we are overstating the consequences. Whatever the effects of global warming, they will be manageable for the next 50 years. Investments can be made along the way to mitigate effects. But, to go “all in” using Texas Hold-um terms right now may be a very bad idea.

To me, it signals the end of America. Corporate America can bend a lot. But, this is the final piece of straw that will break it. This is spread the wealth from energy producer collected from energy users to the usual outlets for government cash. Scammers will take a chunk. They will convince someone or bribe someone to approve their requests. Scorekeepers will take another chunk. These will be your postal workers put in another job. People who can’t pay their energy bills will get a chunk. Whatever is left will go to some legitimate energy producers who are making clean energy. It will help defray the cost difference between their cost to produce and those who are paying for carbon credits. Still, in most cases, their costs will still be considerably more expensive than coal or nuclear or petroleum. So, bottom line, all energy costs will go up, maybe double what they would be without the cap and trade. To me, I question whether our economy will bear these costs. We got a taste of it his year. The results are creating some of the problems we can’t seem to solve now.

Michael Crichton, we will miss your eloquence. You put your position in much clearer terms than most of ever will. Go to google and look up some of Crichton’s work in this area. We’re just left with Al Gore the new Secretary of Energy, the father of global warming in the U.S. That should make you sleep better tonight.   

Please follow and like us:

Other Articles You Might Enjoy:

  • No Related Posts

Comment (1)

  1. Ken Dozier says:

    You have brought up and raised an interesting discussion concerning Consensus vs. Science. The fact is, the word Consensus as defined in Webster’s, is a General Agreement reached by the majority.

    There is no mention of Science, Facts or Reasoning in the definition of Consensus, thus it is merely the agreement of the uninformed majority and for me; it is definitely not based on what we know as Science, which is reached by the informed who use reasoning and facts to base their apotheosis on and that are widely accepted as truth.

    So the Science based on the facts, is the fact that Obama has mastered the Art of Consensus not science, which is based on truth, facts and reasoning. So when we speak of the majority, it does not always mean the majority it is right, because obviously, the majority in the case of electing Obama proves the majority was wrong and was void of the facts and lack of reasoning.

    Therefore, my scientific apotheosis is this; Science has once again proven with out a doubt that the majority can be easily swayed to elect a con-artist who has mastered the art of Consensus by deception and that is a scientific fact and is based on anyone who has a brain and uses it based on the proven facts.

Leave a Reply