Steve Featherkile said:From Wikipedia:
3. What Crichton Says about Global Warming in "State of Fear."
Michael Crichton
Pseudonym: John Lange, Jeffrey Hudson
Born: October 23, 1942
Occupation: Novelist
Nationality: United States
Genres: Action, Science Fiction
Jeez Steve. I’m quoting NASA, NOAA, U of Colorado, etc., and you come back with Michael Crichton.
Kevin Morris said:Steve Featherkile said:From Wikipedia:
3. What Crichton Says about Global Warming in "State of Fear."Michael Crichton
Pseudonym: John Lange, Jeffrey Hudson
Born: October 23, 1942
Occupation: Novelist
Nationality: United States
Genres: Action, Science FictionJeez Steve. I’m quoting NASA, NOAA, U of Colorado, etc., and you come back with Michael Crichton.
“If you doubt Crichton’s research, he offers enough footnotes citing scientific journals to fill a hefty volume of their own. As a Harvard physician and at the age of 22 a visiting anthropology lecturer at Cambridge, he is in nobody’s intellectual slipstream. It is not so much that Crichton is being reactionary; rather, his view offends our almost religious veneration of green issues, a faith in mother earth which holds that driving to the bottle bank in a belching 4x4 is a profound act of worship.”
Kevin, is Green your Church? Is this where you worship?
Can you refute the facts that Dr Crichton puts forth?
Kevin,
You are an enlightened man with, I think, an open mind. I invite you to read “Environment Issue Suite.” It begins with an essay by James M. Taylor, managing editor of Environment & Climate News, explaining the meaning of “common-sense environmentalism†and directing readers to the huge collection of research and commentary available on Heartland’s Web site.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10488
I’m not trying to change your mind, just open it to new possibilities. Do you dare?
SteveF
Kevin Morris said:Steve Featherkile said:From Wikipedia:
3. What Crichton Says about Global Warming in "State of Fear."Michael Crichton
Pseudonym: John Lange, Jeffrey Hudson
Born: October 23, 1942
Occupation: Novelist
Nationality: United States
Genres: Action, Science FictionJeez Steve. I’m quoting NASA, NOAA, U of Colorado, etc., and you come back with Michael Crichton.
from the same Wikipedia:
"Crichton was born in Chicago,[2] Illinois to John Henderson Crichton and Zula Miller Crichton, and raised in Roslyn, Long Island, New York.[1] Crichton has two sisters, Kimberly and Catherine, and a younger brother, Douglas, a co-author on the pseudonymously published “Dealing or The Berkeley-to-Boston Forty-Brick Lost-Bag Blues.”
He attended Harvard College in Cambridge, Massachusetts as an undergraduate, graduating summa cum laude in 1964.[3] Crichton was also initiated into the honors organization Phi Beta Kappa. He went on to become the Henry Russell Shaw Traveling Fellow, 1964-65 and Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. He graduated from Harvard Medical School, gaining an M.D. in 1969 and did post-doctoral fellowship study at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, California, in 1969–1970. In 1988, he was Visiting Writer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. While in medical school, he wrote novels under the pen names John Lange and Jeffery Hudson. A Case of Need, written under the latter pseudonym, won the 1969 Edgar Award for Best Novel. He also co-authored Dealing with his younger brother Douglas under the shared pen name Michael Douglas. The back cover of that book contains a picture of Michael and Douglas at a very young age taken by their mother.
His two pen names were both created to reflect his above-average height. According to his own words, he was about 2.06 m (6 ft 9 in) tall in 1997 [2]. Lange means “tall one” in German, Danish and Dutch, and Sir Jeffrey Hudson was a famous seventeenth century dwarf in the court of Queen Henrietta Maria of England."
A full reading of the Wiki site shows that Dr. Crichton is truly a Renaissance Man. The site is critical of Crichton’s work, (no surprise) but fails to refute any of the facts that Dr. Crichton sets forth.
Sorry, folks, the debate has only just begun.
One of the dogmas of the environmental religion is that global warming is caused by increased CO2. Curiously, examination of the scientific record shows that since records have been kept, warming has always followed an increase in CO2. Hmmmmmm.
SteveF
Kevin Morris said:Steve Featherkile said:
Kevin,The northern ice pack is getting thinner, of that there is no doubt.
Curiously, the southern ice pack is getting thicker.
Go figure.
SteveF
“The Larsen A ice shelf, which measured 1,600 sq km, broke off in 1995. The 1,100 sq km Wilkins ice shelf fell off in 1998 and the 13,500 sq km Larsen B dropped away in 2002.”“University of Colorado at Boulder researchers have used data from a pair of NASA satellites orbiting Earth in tandem to determine that the Antarctic ice sheet, which harbors 90 percent of Earth’s ice, has lost significant mass in recent years.”
“The team used measurements taken with the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, or GRACE, to conclude the Antarctic ice sheet is losing up to 36 cubic miles of ice, or 152 cubic kilometers, annually. By comparison, the city of Los Angeles uses about 1 cubic mile of fresh water annually.”
"Reliable measurements of sea ice edge begin within the satellite era. From the late 1970s, the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) on Seasat (1978) and Nimbus 7 (1978–87) satellites provided information that was independent of solar illumination or meteorological conditions. The frequency and accuracy of passive microwave measurements improved with the launch of the DMSP F8 Special Sensor Microwave/Imager SSMI in 1987.
The trends since 1979 have been a statistically significant Arctic decrease and an Antarctic increase that is probably not significant, depending exactly on which time period is used. The Arctic trends of −2.5% ± 0.9% per decade; or about 3% per decade[1]. Climate models simulate this trend[2], and attribute it to anthropogenic forcing. The September ice extent trend for 1979–2004 is declining by 7.7% per decade[3]. In September 2002, sea ice in the Arctic reached a record minimum[4], 4% lower than any previous September since 1978, and 14% lower than the 1978–2000 mean. In the past, a low ice year would be followed by a rebound to near-normal conditions, but 2002 has been followed by two more low-ice years, both of which almost matched the 2002 record. The Antarctic increase is 0.8% per decade[5] although this depends on the period being considered. Vinnikov et al[6] find the NH reduction to be statistically significant but the SH trend is not."
Looks like we’ve got a good old Mexical Standoff. 
The easiest way to protect this planet and it’s environment would be to slow down the breeding. Yes, human breeding. If the population of the world were cut in half it would decrease pollution and a strain on our natural resources. But…our economies are based on ever growing workforces. We would have to rethink our economic structure to do this. Big business and self serving governments would not find this acceptable. For some reason forced birth control is considered unethical. Yet starvation, disease and a worsening environment are merely debatable issues.
I think I’ll need one of Bob’s "DUCK"s…
Steve Featherkile said:
Kevin,You are an enlightened man with, I think, an open mind. I invite you to read “Environment Issue Suite.” It begins with an essay by James M. Taylor, managing editor of Environment & Climate News, explaining the meaning of “common-sense environmentalism†and directing readers to the huge collection of research and commentary available on Heartland’s Web site.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10488
I’m not trying to change your mind, just open it to new possibilities. Do you dare?
SteveF
As for Wikipedia, I only used it for a quick bio of Michael Crichton.
As for green being my church, I have no church. And in any case, that’s bordering on a personal attack.
I find it perfectly reasonable to doubt that global warming is caused by humans. There’s a climatologist at a U in Virginia (name forgotten) that claims that CO2 is the result of global warming and not the cause. But I’ll ask again. What’s the cost of caution and preparing for the worst? Nothing. We got better appliances, better vehicles, better houses, etc., thanks to the green initiatives of the 70s. And if forced to, manufacturers can deliver again. As I said before, there’s a whole world of economic opportunity just waiting to happen.
Its only 101 in Pasadena today, its about 120 on this forum!!!
Actually, it is only about 76, here.
Kevin Morris said:Steve Featherkile said:
Kevin,You are an enlightened man with, I think, an open mind. I invite you to read “Environment Issue Suite.” It begins with an essay by James M. Taylor, managing editor of Environment & Climate News, explaining the meaning of “common-sense environmentalism†and directing readers to the huge collection of research and commentary available on Heartland’s Web site.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10488
I’m not trying to change your mind, just open it to new possibilities. Do you dare?
SteveF
I had a look around the website and nowhere did I find any evidence that any of the writings were backed up by qualified science. There were practically no references to anything other than newspapers. There were lots of names of Drs, but no reference to what their doctorate was. Dr Crichton, for example, is a medical doctor. The next time my appendix flares up, he’s the man. But when I want to learn about climate and weather I seek my information from groups of climatologists and meteorologists, eg. NOAA, NASA, etc.As for Wikipedia, I only used it for a quick bio of Michael Crichton.
As for green being my church, I have no church. And in any case, that’s bordering on a personal attack.
I find it perfectly reasonable to doubt that global warming is caused by humans. There’s a climatologist at a U in Virginia (name forgotten) that claims that CO2 is the result of global warming and not the cause. But I’ll ask again. What’s the cost of caution and preparing for the worst? Nothing. We got better appliances, better vehicles, better houses, etc., thanks to the green initiatives of the 70s. And if forced to, manufacturers can deliver again. As I said before, there’s a whole world of economic opportunity just waiting to happen.
You edited a lot out of Wikipedia’s bio of Dr. Crichton, trying to make him look like a bumpkin.
I made no personal attack. If you perceived it so, I apologize.
Better appliances? More expensive, certainly. I just read an advertisement for a 53 gallon capacity solar water heater for only $1999.95 US. I has a 5 year limited warranty.
That is almost 4 times as expensive as the 55 gallon capacity electric water heater that I got from Sears last year. And it has a 12 year warranty.
For an extra $1450, I can feel real good about myself for letting the sun heat my water. Except on real cold days, or when the sun don’t shine.
Victor Smith said:
Its only 101 in Pasadena today, its about 120 on this forum!!!
Vic, The wind turned, relatively cool breeze from NW pushing the hot air that came up the valley last week down your way. Switch on a fan (if not, a Ventilator). 
Steve Featherkile said:Presumably medical research. He's a medical doctor, not a climatologist. His opinions on the climate are just that - opinions. Not really any more valid than yours or mine.
Dr. Crichton has never practiced medicine. You are welcome to him as your surgeon. He does practice scientific research.
Steve Featherkile said:It was the panel in the title. I considered it a succinct overview. He is, after all, most well known as a novelist. Indeed, the book you quoted from is a novel.
You edited a lot out of Wikipedia's bio of Dr. Crichton, trying to make him look like a bumpkin.
Steve Featherkile said:No offense taken. I'm enjoying this discussion and know we can keep it objective.
I made no personal attack. If you perceived it so, I apologize.
Steve Featherkile said:
Better appliances? More expensive, certainly. I just read an advertisement for a 53 gallon capacity solar water heater for only $1999.95 US. I has a 5 year limited warranty.That is almost 4 times as expensive as the 55 gallon capacity electric water heater that I got from Sears last year. And it has a 12 year warranty.
For an extra $1450, I can feel real good about myself for letting the sun heat my water. Except on real cold days, or when the sun don’t shine.
Michael Crichton is proficient in history, electronics, computers, gene therapy, paleontology, virology, art (painting, sculpture and photography) the study of cyborgs, railroads, archeology, robotics, meteorology, climatology, aeronautics, nanobots and the human genom. A true renaissance man.
For the extra $1450 that the solar water heater costs, I can buy a lot of electricity, considerably more than I will ever use to heat my water.
So where is the savings?
We are just purchasing a Kenmore Power Miser 12, 55 gallon Electric Water Heater: $329.99 (before rebates).
Wattage at 240V: 5500 Watts.
Energy guide reads: “This Model uses 4622 kWh/year. This Model’s energy use ranks 1 on the scale”
“This Model’s estimated yearly operating cost is: $397”
Our actual electric energy use is less than one half of the Energy Guide amounts because we use a set back timer and a solar collector. The solar panel will supply over 90% of our hot water needs in the summer.
Our solar system is currently out of service. We are getting ready to replace the piping to / from the collector as (after ~12 years) it has failed due to the corrosive action of the required deionized water. It requires a pump replacement every three or four years. Yes, it works and saves energy, but it requires a significant amount of attention, maintenance and parts when compared to the electric tank heater. All of this has a dollar cost as well as an energy cost: Pumps and piping require energy to manufacture, and maintenance and DI water have a cost, something that is largely ignored by the political hacks running the currently popular scare campaigns.
Meanwhile, our over twenty five year old electric tank style water heater has only required the replacement of one anode and one heater element. It’s now seeping from the tank and we will replace it with the above Kenmore unit in the next month or so. Since the Kenmore has twice the insulation value that our current unit has, I expect our energy use to be reduced even further.
Bottom line: There isn’t any free lunch!!
Jerry Bowers
Fascinating debate, gentlemen. I tend to lean more toward Steve’s view of the “big picture” than anything the eco-terrorist’s put forth. Common sense tells me that a planet that’s only 1-2% inhabited will probably have very little affect on the climate, while increased solar activity over the last 10 years may have more to do with it than anything happening here on this planet. I guess my ego isn’t big enough to think I can change the climate.
Back in the 70’s we had a couple of the coldest winters that I can remember. Dumped so much snow we needed a front end loader to clear the driveway. The frost line went down more that 3’ and broken water lines were a common occurance. Lifted the one end of my house where the garage and driveway are about 1/8". I was working outside at the time for the phone company on buried trouble and had a crew with jack hammers with me to dig up buried splices to fix the trouble. The “main-stream media” was crying about another Ice age caused by man. Now they have another battle cry and while I don’t think global warming isn’t real, I also beleive it’s more a climatic cycle than anything else.
This is a perfectly silly discussion to be having when we all know that a giant asteroid is going to collide with Earth in 2057, anyway.
My take:
Looking at the numbers, there’s no arguing that the earth’s “average” temperature is on the upswing. But that’s about as much as anyone can say for a fact. The rest is pure speculation. Man has only been able to take truly accurate measurements of what’s been happening to our climate for just about 30 years. Most of us have been in model railroading longer than that. The rest is based solely on analysis of what’s happened 100, 1000, 10,000 years ago. At that point, the best you can do is see what happened, but not really draw any hard conclusions about what precipitated what. We know that the earth has had a few “ice ages,” so it goes without saying that there had to be a warming period between them. Things go in cycles.
Clean energy is not a bad thing, however, so if the global warming theorists are providing a catalyst to get closer to that goal, I’m all for it. I’m sure all of the pollutants we’re dumping into the air aren’t necessarily good for the environment–regardless of their overall effect on climate–so reducing them certainly can’t hurt. And the less we have to rely on historically unstable regions of the globe for the lifeblood of our economy, the better off we’ll be.
Besides, we’ll never have flying cars until we get to fusion power, and dammit, I want a flying car!
Later,
K
Kevin Strong said:
This is a perfectly silly discussion to be having when we all know that a giant asteroid is going to collide with Earth in 2057, anyway. :)My take:
Looking at the numbers, there’s no arguing that the earth’s “average” temperature is on the upswing. But that’s about as much as anyone can say for a fact. The rest is pure speculation. Man has only been able to take truly accurate measurements of what’s been happening to our climate for just about 30 years. Most of us have been in model railroading longer than that. The rest is based solely on analysis of what’s happened 100, 1000, 10,000 years ago. At that point, the best you can do is see what happened, but not really draw any hard conclusions about what precipitated what. We know that the earth has had a few “ice ages,” so it goes without saying that there had to be a warming period between them. Things go in cycles.
Clean energy is not a bad thing, however, so if the global warming theorists are providing a catalyst to get closer to that goal, I’m all for it. I’m sure all of the pollutants we’re dumping into the air aren’t necessarily good for the environment–regardless of their overall effect on climate–so reducing them certainly can’t hurt. And the less we have to rely on historically unstable regions of the globe for the lifeblood of our economy, the better off we’ll be.
Besides, we’ll never have flying cars until we get to fusion power, and dammit, I want a flying car!
Later,
K
Cheers
SteveF
I got this from an un-named co-conspirator, an unusually “reliable source.”
Yeah, it is from a newspaper, but Dr Demming is a PhD Geophysisist. Algore is not.
http://www.mwcsun.com/opinion/local_story_129164511.html?keyword=topstory
We might be able to argue global warming and it’s causes until we are blue in the face. But one thing is certain, concentrated pollution (smog) does make people sick. We do need to clean up the larger cities. To do that it has to effect everyone. You cannot have a smog program like Washington does and expect it to work. Here we have smog testing for vehicles in our larger counties. So what does everyone do, register their cars in counties that don’t have smog tests. 
Another really stupid test procedure is that all vehicles 96 and newer are checked on a computer through the port under the dash. If the computer says your car’s smog equipment is working ok you pass…even though your car may be belching blue smoke. They are more concerned that your gas cap works than what the car is really doing. When you have political idiots with an agenda you get stupid laws.
Just stop all the cows farting and we’ll all be ok…