the late Michael Crichton.
the late Michael Crichton.
I have just read this transcript of a lecture by the late Michael Crichton re-posted at Anthony Watts Blog I invite my Warminista friends and JM to read it and the explain why what it says does not make perfect sense.
Cheers Comrades
😉
Iain Hall's SANDPIT 
As most of the commenters on the site said, ‘thanks for posting this’.
Of course the leftards don’t want to hear this….
You’re kidding me, right?
Anthony Watts, ex-TV personality with little scientific training, who has a financial motivation for questioning climate science – because his company sells climate science products that replace old equipment – publishes a post by Michael Crichton who was a bad author who wrote a few books with a single structure (a ticking clock) no better than tieing the girl to the train tracks that are barely even science fiction at all.
And what’s the central claim?
I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming.
You want me to discuss that? Have I understood you correctly?
Yeah right.
by all means dispute the article, JM…I read it as believable as anything your lot have delivered up, so please convince me otherwise…
the central claim wasn’t the extra-terrestrials, that was only to get us dummos to read it…it had nothing to do with extra-terrestrials, which just shows that you didn’t read the article….
‘I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming.’
JM you obviously didn’t read the article.
I skimmed it. It’s the argument from analogy (very weak) – because the Drake Equation has flaws (although not the ones Crichton identifies, he was too dumb to know the real ones), he argues that global warming is just as unsoundly based.
He’s flat out wrong. I’m not going to bother with it.
Keep using your computer GD, it relies on exactly the same physics as global warming, but then I guess you believe that it doesn’t really work. Maybe there are just pixies inside it, hey?
hmm, well thank you for that response, skimmed it hey? didn’t really read it, did you? I know you didn’t because it takes a bit longer than those few minutes to absorb what he was saying.
BTW, JM, what exactly is your premise…regarding global warming…I’ll remind you of the question, because previously on this blog you’ve asked what was the question when it was staring you in the face!
What is my “premise”?
That its real and there is no serious argument about it. At. All.
That weenies like Chichton and Watts either don’t know what they’re talking about, or like Watts have serious conflicts of interest.
I respect that you have firm convictions about a scenario that is unprovable. Neither of us will live long enough to see this proven, neither will the next couple of generations. I suggest you read Crichton’s exposition. And then get on with the rest of your life, because this debate is pointless.
JM
.
Your entire rebuttal consists of an ad hominem attack upon Anthony Watts for reposting the piece (because he has absolutely nothing to do with the content) and upon Michael Crichton because he is not a member of the temple that you subscribe to. You make an incredibly vague defence of an indefensible Drake equation which even someone like me who has only the most basic maths can appreciate has almost no known variables and you expect to be taken seriously?
Admit it you are pissed off because the reality is that what Crichton says is a reasonable argument, namely that there is not enough known to substantiate the certainty that AGW zealots like yourself insist there is about climate science.
If it was as deficient as you claim then you would have had a better argument than the one that you have just put (so badly) here.
But thanks for proving that your understanding of the scientific method is, well, totally deficient.
GD: I respect that you have firm convictions about a scenario that is unprovable.
Entirely provable. Proved over a hundred years now, and validated over the last 30-40. You want authorities? I have Maxwell, Planck and Einstein behind me, who do you have? A couple of shysters.
Neither of us will live long enough to see this proven,
Happening right now, in front of both of us. Since they hey-day of Shawn “Canadian Geologist” and “Premier Auto-Engineer of Detroit” Whelan we’ve been discussing this; where is he now?
Iain: ad hominem attack upon Anthony Watts
An entirely provable attack. Watts has made frequent errors in his postings. Further he runs a company that sells weather station products to the US Government. It is in his interest to undermine public confidence in weather stations – which he is doing through his weather stations project – in order to sell more of his stuff. He is succeeding.
vague defence of an indefensible Drake equation
I didn’t defend it. Quite the opposite.
almost no known variables
1. This is not the problem with it. And neither you nor Crichton realize that, so “basic maths” isn’t up to the task. The problem is that the variables are not independent. If you don’t understand the importance of that statement, learn more than basic maths
2. That said, at least some of the variables can be estimated. You and I are intelligent beings talking to each other using advanced technology that involves some transmission of coherent signals into space right? ie. something several of the variables in the Drake equation depend upon, right?
So, we’ve got a minimum bound. We can also place an upper bound on those variables by considering things like the number of G-type stars in the galaxy, the length of time we’ve been up to doing the above etc, etc. So we can get a maximum bound.
ie. we can estimate, not with spectacular accuracy, but estimates nonetheless.
Neither Crichton nor you understand those points because he was too dumb and you lack the education for it.
there is not enough known to substantiate the certainty
Yes there is Iain, because we don’t rely on anything like the Drake Equation.
We use real science, the same science my laptop runs on and your computer is running on right now.
And the uncertainty? We know that. We’ve been upfront about it and we have both upper and lower bounds.
The lower bound isn’t pretty, and the upper bound is disastrous.
Chricton was a numbnut, and a bad psuedo-Sci-Fi author. Watts is a snake-oil merchant.
Live with it.
JM
You really do make me laugh sometimes so full of piss and vinegar and so arrogant and well, full of hubris.
How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that Anthony Watts has done nothing towards the text in question except to repost it? as for your “Proved over a hundred years now, and validated over the last 30-40” if that were the case we would not be having this conversation. what by the way does Einstein or your other citations have to do with the global warming argument?
Why are you citing a commenter at my blog who is not party to this discussion as any part of your argument? If you really were the man of science that you claim to be why would you be obsessing about someone who has not posted here for ages?
This further ad hominem is entirely irrelevant to the topic and just makes YOU look petulant and desperate. His business certainly is selling weather equipment, so what? All of the pieces that I have read in his weather stations project have absolutely nothing to do with the nature of the gear used to measure temperature and everything to do with their locations and the encroachment of the built environment upon those sites. And what did I point out earlier? The fact is that All that Anthony Watts contributed to the piece in question was a rather chatty introduction and a link to source So why are you so keen to shoot the messenger?.
Sure you cited some vague crap about it being wrong but for a different reason to the one claimed by Crichton As far as I am concerned wrong is wrong and it does not matter that much if you want to spell it “wrong” or “wrong”
If you get to the right conclusion why does it matter that the path taken is different to yours?
That is a non-sequitur 🙄
You are still talking about what are essentially unknown values because no matter how you try to slice it an estimate is really not much more than a fancy guess.
Frankly anyone who can earn a medical degree just can not be dumb and my education is fine fro understanding the basics
Your arrogance never ceases to amaze me JM . You use the word “science” as if it is the most powerful incantation that can be invoked but on this occasion I just have to ask you how the workings of any computer proves the AGW thesis?
What nonsense you sprout!!! On a scale of one to ten you demonstrate a commitment level of eleven on the AGW thesis which is actually profoundly unscientific in itself, real scientists will always acknowledge some doubt and I have never seen you do so at all. Sure you have all of the appropriate citations of your scriptures and you can quite them chapter and verse but that just makes your argument a religious one.
You are the one with a bigger burden to carry JM you have to carry the weight of you misplaced faith in AGW and the fact that the tide of this debate is running against you.
You have a lovely day now 😀
Iain: what by the way does Einstein or your other citations have to do with the global warming argument?
Radiative physics. The properties of CO2 where it absorbs and re-emits infra-red. Einstein won his Nobel Prize because of a major contribution he made to this understanding. These cannot be explained without Einstein’s 1905 paper. Contrariwise, if global warming were wrong, that paper would be wrong.
You don’t know this because you’re ignorant (despite me explaining it to you several times).
I just have to ask you how the workings of any computer proves the AGW thesis?
See above.
that just makes your argument a religious one.
John Gray, philosopher:
“Post-modern philosophies that view science as just one belief-system among many are too silly to be worth refuting at length – the utility of scientific knowledge is a brute fact that is shown in the increase in human power.”
You’re getting a bit post-modern there Iain.
JM
So how precisely does any concept of radiative physics relate to modern electronics? I would suggest that the computers that we both use owes much more to the invention of the transistor than it does to any theoretical physics from Einstein.
I think that it must be you who is showing your ignorance , of how electronic devices actually work my guess is that you would be hard pressed to understand the difference between a transistor, a thyristor, a diode or a resistor.
Well I saw above and it is another of your Non-sequiturs 🙄
that just makes your argument a religious one.
Nah not at all when it comes to your faith based arguments …
Electronic devices work because we understand – in detail – the nature of the atom, and in particular the electron. Which is why they’re called electronic.
A major step forward in our understanding, in fact the major breakthrough was Einstein’s 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect (where electrons are ejected when material is illuminated by light). Without that (and the quantization of the electromagnetic field that Einstein justified) we wouldn’t have modern electronics only primitive electric circuits like those of Edison.
This is also the same basic phenonomen that lies behind CO2’s absorptive properties.
You see that’s the problem with Crichton’s “lecture” – he never actually tells you what the global warming supposed equivalent of the Drake Equation is. Want to know why?
Because he would have to admit that the science behind global warming is based on very accurately known physical laws. And that the rest of his polemic was utterly irrelevent rubbish.
JM, are you talking about anthropogenic global warming or global warming/cooling that has naturally occurred throughout the history of the planet?
I would normally of thought one needs to prove the existence of aliens in the 1st instance, before worrying about moving on to try to prove they are causing AGW…or is that ET-GW??? 😉
But, assuming you get that far, perhaps we could speculate the aliens (and lets hope they’re better looking than the ones in ‘V’) need it warmer to make the planet more suitable for a mass invasion to wipe us out…therefore justifying the ludicrous $$$ spent on a SDI!
Is that what the permise of the whole thing is – to come up with a right-wing conspiracy theory to satirise the denialist rights attempts to create left-wing conspiracy theories??? 😉
JM
In theory you are close but really you don’t deserve a jersey!
Modern electronics owe their existence to the constant developments of things like the transistor, photography, photo lithography and the integrated circuit more than they do to understanding of the nature of the atom. I am happy to acknowledge that the work of Einstein in understanding the theory but really developments in electronics has more to do with practical engineers appreciating the possibilities of firstly the valve, then the transistor, the printed circuit and more recently the microchip than it does with atomic theory.
As I understand it Marconi was not a theoretical physicist yet his work is probably more significant than Einstein when it comes to electronics
How can you claim this?
He does actually he correctly points out that like the equation that was used to justify the SETI program just about none of the variables used to justify the AGW proposition are or can actually be known.
The science may be using “very accurately known physical laws” but it also contains HUGE amounts of dodgy proxy data ( in paleo climate reconstructions) and what amounts to guesswork (computer modeling) about what will happen in the present and the future.
Iain: like the transistor
And how do you think Fairchild and Co. understood how to make the thing in the first place? Guesswork? No. They built on the physics kicked off by Einstein.
As I understand it Marconi was not a theoretical physicist yet his work is probably more significant than Einstein when it comes to electronics
(You really are precious Iain, you’re the gift that keeps giving)
Marconi was significant in early radio, his “work” had very little to do with anything that followed, the Wiki reference on his legacy contains about 6 items which get pretty thin after his patent portfolio, item 4 is that he gets a namecheck in the Jefferson Starship song “We Built This City”
Einstein on the other hand – I just checked one of my old electronics texts and in a chapter entitled “Transport Phenomena in Semiconductors” it describes the “Einstein Relation” which is a formula for determining the diffusion of electrons through a material (aka semi-conductor) with a voltage potential across it.
Later this is used to describe how to design and build a “p-n junction”. You know what you do with them? You need one to make a diode, and two … [ drum roll ] … make a transistor.
Sorry Iain, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
The rest of your assertions are equally ropy (as are Crichton’s)
As much as I’d like to say Iain is the product of a Queensland education, he’s a fellow pom – but I thought ‘O’ levels actually meant something…obviously not! 🙂
JM
With any development there is much more to it than the theory in some cases I will suggest that the “science that underpins a development may come after the characteristic or potential of an idea like the transistor has been invented.