SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: geode00 who wrote (220471)2/23/2007 1:27:00 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (3) of 281500
 
He does not think that we can predict the climate because we cannot predict the weather in the near term but he isn't as strong a critic of the idea of global warming as I thought.


In the near term, and in the far term even more so.

I heard that interview too. Chrichton phrased himself diplomatically - he's obviously taken a lot of abuse for his stands - but if you think he's not a big critic of global warming you didn't understand him.

Chrichton reads the scientists, not the politicians. The scientists tell him that climate is a "coupled, non-linear, chaotic system."

Chaotic non-linear systems are full of feedback loops and butterfly effects. Small cause = big effect AND big cause = small effect.

The scientists tell him that we cannot predict the climate a year from now, or ten years from now. The scientists tell him that there is a "subjective component" to validating their computer models, which means the models cannot be validated in any scientific sense. Therefore, Chrichton draws the rational conclusion that to proclaim that we can predict the climate a 100 years from now is an unjustifiable conclusion from a scientific point of view. "The future is unknowable." He said that several times.

Chrichton also knows how some the IPCC's predictions of doom have disappeared from their last summary report 3 years ago to the one just published. Their prediction of sea-rise in the next 100 years has been cut in half. They also published the summary (a political document) months before the actual scientific report is due. He draws reasonable inferences from the delay, esp. as he notes that the conclusions from the last IPCC summary document were not fully supported by the last IPCC scientific report.

Chrichton mused that as a culture we may be turning away from science. He notes that audiences don't seem really interested when he stresses the need for validated data. He notes that people love the idea of a catastrophe, and being able to save the planet from a catastrophe, and are embracing the idea for emotional reasons.

In sum, Chrichton calls the global warming movement a kind of mass hysteria unsupported by scientific evidence. He didn't use that exact phrase, but that is precisely what he meant. He declares himself "not a catastrophrist." "Gore is wrong." he says.

Do you still maintain that he's not much of a critic of global warming? Did you misunderstand him that badly?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News