Posted on 12/10/2004 7:11:27 PM PST by FreedomPoster
sounds like something added on by a staffer - that doesn't sound like stossel at all.
THANKS for the heads up!
Have you ever read one of Crighton's books? Inside the the front cover you just might run across a page that says something like "Other Books by This Author".
/contempt-for-those-who-only-watch-TV-and-movies
(It's Friday after a long week and I'm in a foul mood.)
That was the statement by the Union of Concerned Scientists, since their PSA was used in the piece. I cut'n'pasted the full article from the 20/20 site, and that was part of it.
I used to think Carter was just mindless, but with further reflection and the wisdom that comes with age, I am now convinced he is and was actively evil.
They're an interesting community, and it would have been interesting to hear about what they think, but ABC just want's to trash them as wierdos.
I feel like a heal watching this waiting for Stossel's piece.
Some of the best authors wind up with movies made of their works that are really horrible. Tom Clancy, Steven King, and Michael Crichton come to mind.
While Speilberg is a master story teller, and Jurasic Park was a wonderful movie, it's nowhere near as good as the book. I was on a long flight, and had a chance to start reading Congo, but I had already seen the movie. Again, no contest there. The book was so much better. In fact, I seem to recall seeing an article about a new species of ape being found in Africa.
As a movie, I think Sphere really sucked, but the book was pretty good.
The exception to the rule is with "The Thirteenth Warrior." It was based on Crichton's "Eaters of the Dead." The story was pretty good, but I really loved the movie.
Mark
Just bought the book yesterday along w/ Dean Koontz's new one. Just started Koontz, can't wait to get at this one. "Timeline" is one of my all time favorites. They absolutely destroyed it in the movie, though.
In more ways than one ...
I know the feeling, I mnade the mistake of buying the book just before going on guard duty, had to read it by moonlight, no sleep that night, Had the moon not have been near-full that night, I would probably be blind!
I'd add Snow Falling on Cedars to your list - the book is extraordinary.
Regards.
Yes, I have read some of Crighton's books. Thanks for asking.
And thanks for the stimulating round of "I-know-something-you-don't-neener-neener-neener". It's not often I get to stoop to the level of a teenager.
re: "People from all walks of life can play a role in slowing global warming by advocating for smarter government policies, better corporate practices, and informed consumer choices."
I'm all for a cleaner environment for the sake of people with asthma, for wildlife, etc. However, the whole point of this thread is that Global Warming is questionable.
Are things warmer than the were a few years ago? Yes. But... WHY? That's the real question. There is also global warming on Mars, Jupiter, and Titan. Did SUV's cause that as well? Are Martians using fossil fuels? Or are we looking at a solar event over which we have zero control? I personally think we're looking at a normal solar cycle. Things warm up and cool down when you look at the long term climate history. We STILL aren't anywhere near as warm as we were during the Medieval Warm Period!
One of the things that totally turned me off of the "global warming is caused by man" crowd is that they rely too much on Global Climate Models (GCM's). And that is a huge problem. It is nothing more than "gee whiz" hokum no more relevant than the infamous formula Crichton mentioned in the article two different people linked to above.
The problem with computer models is that they require PRECISE mathematics. You can't guess or fudge or hope that if you feed them emotionally satisfying or opinionated input they'll come up with a truthful answer. Computers are essentially very, very stupid, and will tell you what you tell them to tell you; nothing more, nothing less.
NASA's computer models for planetary orbits work because we know the mathematics of orbital paths, gravitational tides, etc etc etc. Mankind has been watching the planets since we were smart enough to look up and wonder about those strange "stars" that move. The mathematics of planetary movement are no longer a mystery, and haven't been for some time now. Thus the Voyager flew past Neptune precisely when it was supposed to and precisely where it was supposed to meet Neptune after a decades-long voyage. Unfortunately, entirely too many SCIENTISTS confuse NASA's precision mathematical modeling with other types of computer models.
The problem is that too many of the variables in climate modeling are unknowns. The programmer has to GUESS what the right values are, and as Crichton said above, guess=opinion. So what the GCM advocates are getting is prettied-up opinions no more valid than yours or mine. I'm not sure about climate, but I know what I'm talking about re: computers... I've been in the business, snuggled up to large mainframes since 1969. I know how and why they work, and they don't work when there are unknown variables in the equasion.
My considered professional opinion on using computers to predict climate change? It is not only not likely that GCM's are right, it is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE for them to be right!
It would probably be more accurate to state that
"A Grand concensus among scientists, who receive their salaries from organizations funded by Global Warming grants, agree that global warming is a real danger."
Another novel idea of ecological terror:
Escalante Staircase by William J. Clinton
I love his books, and his honesty. He tells it like it is, although sometimes people don't realize it!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.