the rainforests are absorbing CO2
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0508-amazon.html

"I thought this conversation was about science. Come back when you're ready to talk it."

No, this conversation is about the embrace of speculation as fact. Its about fear-mongering, sensationalism, and trying to pass off as a certainty what is nothing but wild guesses about a system so complex that we have barely begun to understand it.

I asked for proof that the planet wouldn't stop warming on its own as it did over 400 years ago (during a warmer period than this) and has done for millions of years.

I asked for proof that there is an ideal climate temperature that we are supposed to strive for.

I asked for proof that global warming would be a net loss for a civilization over a century away of whose technology we couldn't start to predict.

You have given me sob stories about polar bears dying in a scenario that could happen at any time during the history of the planet.

Science is provable fact. If you have any double blind studies that prove any of my points, please direct me to them.

(Incidentally, this is why double blind studies are needed.)
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2005/06/09/sur...

rancorcrankor

Climate and weather are really very different things and the level of predictability is comparably different. Think of it as the difference between trying to predict the height of the fifth wave from now that will come splashing up the beach versus predicting the height of tomorrow's high tide.

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/we-cant-even-pre...

See also:

Why global climate models do not give a realistic description of the local climate

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/inde...

Lazy

MS -- if you gave a fuck about the environment you'd ...

Whatever. Count the reasons. I'm not going to even take the time.

Gawd, MS are opportunist assholes full of more shit than a compacted rectum.

Sloopydrew

"God forbid you do some alternate research and find out both sides of an issue before you start to call the otherside crazy."

Really funny coming from someone offering up Frederick Seitz's work as reasonable contributions. You would do well to do some "alternate research" yourself.

I mean, seriously, who do you think has more political clout in this world, oil companies, auto manufacturers, textile industries... or environmentalists?

If you answered environmentalists, please let me know what planet you're commenting from so I can hop the next shuttle ferry.

OneFreeMan

They got 19,000 signatures by posing very specific, very carefully worded, very weighted (read: biased) questions about an article that was written to appear to be a valid, peer-reviewed piece of scientific research when in fact it had never been peer reviewed and was written by 3 corporate hacks and one of their 21-year-old sons, none of whom had any experience in climate research or a related field.

The petition can easily be scoffed at, the same way you can scoff at Seitz's $50M worth of research that found no long term health risks associated with cigarettes. He's a corrupt corporate charlatan who is on ExxonMobil's (and RJ Reynold's for that matter) payroll and has been trying for over a decade to "prove" that increased CO2 emissions are helpful to the environment. In short? He's a fucking quack and a con-man.

-----------

...

OneFreeMan

Whether you believe the original paper or not on that site is irrelevant. The fact that they got over 19,000 signatures (of which 95% are PhD holders and the vast majority are in fields of science directly related to global warming) is nothing to scoff at.

Weather forecasters can't even predict the weather tomorrow with more than 50 - 60% certainty. How in the hell can we be so bold to predict how the Earth with be affected 100 years down the line?

@Clive Richmond:

Actually, its more in line with Jack Thompson to just see something at face value through the media and instantly believe the topic. God forbid you do some alternate research and find out both sides of an issue before you start to call the otherside crazy.

AdeptVoice

For anyone denying global warming, you are giving gaming a bad name: high saturation of games does not subdue one's ability to differentiate between reality and fiction. If you want to deny global warming, go ahead and affirm to the public sphere as fact what Jack Thompson believes. Not my delusion.

Zach Isso

The Global Cooling Myth:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Lazy

If there was really global warming, it would probably be from the loads of hot air these people are spewing.

KM91

Wow, that's interesting. You mean you've been arguing for this long, and you don't even have the most basic understanding of the issue? Is this a widespread problem?

FYI, the problem is that local temperature is changing too fast for animals to evolve to cope with it. It has nothing to do with ideal anything, it's the sudden but permanent change that's the problem. Some of these animals have lifespans as long as ours, and they need generations to adequately adapt, or they'll roast (or freeze, depending on their tolerance limits. it's all bad). If those animals are part of a food chain then everything thats above it goes extinct too, you know.

And finally you cannot prove that the earth's kickback systems will not put the climate back into a cooling cycle long before we even see any substantial negative impact. (In fact the rainforests are already rapidly growing and absorbing much the additional CO2 in the atmostphere)

Kickback system eh? That's a neat idea. Did you invent that on your own? We'd better watch out for that, and of course the whole cooling system of the earth, that just gets switched on whenever the planet gets too hot. Good thing nature invented that eh? Honestly, I don't know where you got those ideas from, but your post isn't grounded in fact at all.

It's also nice to know that the rainforests are growing back, especially in those areas of south america where the ecology of the soil has been destroyed, making it nearly impossible.

You cannot prove to me that global warming will be a net negative influence on the population of the world in the year 2150, or even before it.

Tell that to the polar bear. "I'm sorry you're almost extinct, but on the plus side now there are more krill in that area where we melted your entire habitat. And hey, at least you aren't alone, we got the arctic fox, the leopard seals and all the cold weather penguins too."

I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to your beliefs

I thought this conversation was about science. Come back when you're ready to talk it.

Lov3

By the way:
"After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in news release[7] that "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal." It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."[8]"
...
Because of various criticisms made of the two Leipzig Declarations, the Oregon Petition Project claimed to adopt a number of measures, though none of these claims have been independently verified
...
In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field.

Thanks for playing, though...

OneFreeMan

Wow. Are you serious? Did you really just link to a site created and sponsored by Frederick Seitz? The same Frederick Seitz who oversaw $50M worth of research into tobacco use without uncovering any potential dangers or long term health risks? That Frederick Seitz?

I guess if I don't trust him, I can rely on the ten year old study to which he refers.

Yah. Not like any relevant research into the topic has gone on in the last decade which might revise the conclusions of that paper. Nah. Couldn't be...

OneFreeMan

that said, i applaud MS's efforts here, in whatever venue.

TheIrishNinja

Hmmm, the same scientific community that has over 19,000 scientists sign a petition that says there is no proof Global Warming is man made and necessarily a bad thing?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Science is far from a general consensus on this issue.

Environmentalism is the new religion. Join it and feel good, reject it and be damned forever.

AdeptVoice

I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to your beliefs

Translation: "I choose to ignore nearly every scientist involved in studying the phenomenon. I actively eschew their findings and opinions in favor of my own because I'm clearly more qualified than the scientific community to make predictions about the impact of emissions on global climate."

Right? Okay. You and Bush would get along. You both apparently subscribe to "Neener Neener I Can't Hear You Quarterly."

You cannot prove to me that global warming will be a net negative influence on the population of the world in the year 2150, or even before it.

Umm, he can't, perhaps, but most qualified scientists can make educated predictions based on their evaluation of the current impact of CO2 emissions and the extrapolation of that impact over time. You're right, though. Best to stick with your own qualified opinion since you've spent so many years studying the subject every day.

You cannot prove that the world has an ideal overall climate mean temperature and somehow we are moving far from it.

Umm, actually you can. There are plenty of instances in which it can easily be proven that even minor fluctuations in mean temperature would have devastating impact on human, animal and plant populations.

And finally you cannot prove that the earth's kickback systems will not put the climate back into a cooling cycle long before we even see any substantial negative impact.

Ahh. "The problem will fix itself." Forever the mantra of the lazy and ignorant.

If you want to walk around everywhere barefoot, eat tofu and buy your carbon credit indulgences so you can feel good about yourself, go right ahead. Leave the rest of us out of it.

If you want to tell yourself that being ecological conscious is about "walking around barefoot" or eating tofu so you can feel better about your laziness and ignorance, go right ahead. As for "the rest of us," who do you think you're talking about? Look around, buddy. You're in the minority. "The rest of us" are already on board, taking action instead of sitting on our asses with our fingers in our ears.

OneFreeMan

I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to your beliefs

You cannot prove to me that global warming will be a net negative influence on the population of the world in the year 2150, or even before it.

You cannot prove that the world has an ideal overall climate mean temperature and somehow we are moving far from it.

And finally you cannot prove that the earth's kickback systems will not put the climate back into a cooling cycle long before we even see any substantial negative impact. (In fact the rainforests are already rapidly growing and absorbing much the additional CO2 in the atmostphere)

If you want to walk around everywhere barefoot, eat tofu and buy your carbon credit indulgences so you can feel good about yourself, go right ahead. Leave the rest of us out of it.

rancorcrankor

@OneFreeMan
The disagreement here is on just how big the level of dissent is. I've seen evidence that the "vastness" of the majority has been misconstrued. And it seems odd that the adjective "vast" ALWAYS gets used in these discussions- sounds like a talking point.

Remember, too, that the argument about specialty goes both ways. The global warming movement has included the opinions of many whose specialty doesn't really tie into global warming. Because they're "scientists", though, they must have privileged opinions.

Chrysalis

back onto the topic: I'm just seeing this as an opportunity for cheap game development, advertisement/promotion and sounding morally good for MS... more so the latter two, as they said that the winners "*could* end up appearing on the Xbox 360 Live Arcade, Games for Windows Live Arcade or MSN Arcade, but that a final decision had yet to be made".

Also, when I read:
"What we really want to do is to use the vehicle of games as a way to increase education and information and engagement on the part of all different constituents"

It sounds like:
"What we really want to do is to use Games 4 Change as a way to increase XBox 360 sales to all different constituents"
to me (or maybe i just dislike microsoft too much :/ )

Archangel

Gaza Strip: The Officialy Licensed FPS of the Officialy Licensed Politcal Tension!

Pre Order Now!

poematik14

Umm, once again, why should we wait until one problem is SOLVED before starting on another? Should we wait until cancer is cured before working on AIDS research? No. Why would we? We can solve more than one problem at a time.

You seem to live in this fantasy world where scientists and humanitarians all work together on a single issue until it is completely solved or eliminated, and then move on to another. Here in reality, people specialize in a particular field and that is where they do their work. Some researchers and activists focus on AIDS research and education. Others on humanitarian efforts in trouble areas like Darfur. Others on global climate change and its impact on the species. All of these things happen at the same time. Doing one does not mean we ignore the others.

As a final note, global climate change is not a "theorized problem for future generations." It's happening right now. Today. This generation. True, if we do not implement solutions today the impact will grow in the future, but that does not mean the solution can wait. In fact, it means exactly the opposite. If we wait for the most devestating impact of global climate change before taking action, it will already be too late.

If the US, Canada, and the EU where able reduce CO2 emissions (and consumption of oil)...India and China would then be in a position to buy more of it to fuel their economies thus emitting the same amount of CO2

The problem is global. The solution will be global. Movements and talks are already in place between the US, European countries, China and India to reduce CO2 emissions globally. Countries which refuse to accept their responsibility for reducing CO2 emissions worldwide will face increasing economic and political pressure to do so. Systems based upon unchecked emissions will not thrive in this global economy.

@Chrysalis:

even the chief of NASA was expressing his doubt that the issue was even dangerous.

And his area of expertise are laser altimetry and volcanology.

Look, nobody is arguing that there are a handful of reputable scientists expressing their doubts. That doesn't change the fact that the VAST majority of respected, reputable scientists have reached the same conclusion on the topic.

Perhaps in the future the dissenters will present some basis for believing that CO2 emissions are completely harmless and that their impact on the Earth's ecosystem is likewise harmless. To date, they have not, so all we have to go on is the fact that an overwhelming majority agree that current data and research suggest just the opposite - that our growing emissions and their ecological impact pose grave dangers to the Earth's ecological balance, and ultimately our ability as a species to survive on its surface.

OneFreeMan

I feel oppressed from both sides of the fence. Both [parties] are power hungry whores!

EnigmaNemesis

I got rid of my car and walk everywhere to help ameliorate global warming (in a small way). What have you done for anyone? If I had to guess your response to, say, Darfur, I would presume you go on message boards telling people, "We shouldn't worry about some African region nobody's ever heard of! Let's worry about the big problems, like global warming!" I think your mission is just to prevent anything from happening so you have more time and money for video games.

sxp151, the happy-headed nose

And why do conservatives feel so persecuted (by Al Gore, no less, who holds no position of power anywhere)? You guys have the White House and control the EPA, NASA, and the other agencies. Why does any criticism feel like oppression? If you can't handle government (and the evidence is persuasive on that), maybe you should, um, get out of it.

sxp151, the happy-headed nose

Power to the sheeple!

EnigmaNemesis

Chrysalis

A side note:

If the US, Canada, and the EU where able reduce CO2 emissions (and consumption of oil) to zero overnight, what do you think would happen? You would have middle eastern nations (and russia) producing oil and a reduced demand. The result? Oil prices would drop through the floor. India and China would then be in a position to buy more of it to fuel their economies thus emitting the same amount of CO2, resulting in a net reduction of:

anyone?

Bueller?

Net CO2 reduction = 0%
(at least the pious followers of the religion will have their own collective guilt absolved)

Incidentally, which of the faithful here lives a carbon neutral life? From my experience, most global warming believers are colossal hypocrites.

rancorcrankor

same here.

good on msoft of this one.

hopefully something fun comes out of the contest as well.

joelface

"Need for Speed: Carbon Footprints"
"Celsyis"
"Burnin Sphere"
"Recycled Paper Mario"
"World of Gorecraft: The Burning Crusade"
"Osu! Kyoto! Protocol!"

UltraMagnus

@All_Denyers: The brilliant thing about a consensus is that it takes a long time and a lot of experiments to form one, but only one conclusive study to disprove it. No such study on global warming exists - only those which cast doubt. Now there are some knowledge gaps here and there, but ignoring the entire theory is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Now, Crichton has some interesting points that he lists in his article where scientific consensus has been wrong. Well, no shit shirlock, hindsight is 20-20. You could use that argument for every piece of science ever written, most of it is going to be amended at some point in the future. Now that we have Einstein, we know that Newton was wrong... but that didn't stop people using his principles to fly to the moon, did it? Kent Hovind began every single speach he gave with the same point, which was repeated ad infinitum, not realising that if that logic were capable of disproving your opponent, then it would disprove you too.

Lov3

Are you sure? Didn't Nature produce Humans who eventually developed the drive to preserve endangered species? Humans are part of Nature too, you know? If Nature's plan for the Panda was to be "on its way out" humans would have developed an insatiable thirst for their blood or meat instead of the desire to prevent their extinction, no?

OneFreeMan

It involves you shooting lasers at private jets. You shoot them in such a way that they crash into cars and livestock (livestock "emissions").

Make sure you don't hit the hybrid and electric cars though, or you'll lose funding for your laser upgrades.

Zeig

Are you trying to argue that dealing with global warming and dealing with other problems in the world are mutually exclusive?

Not 100% on this but I'm pretty sure we have figured out, as a species, how to do more than 1 thing at a time.

OneFreeMan

rancorcrankor

Perhaps the American political system is at fault. There is white and black, conservative and liberal (or the other way round).
If you are conservative, then every position that can somehow be called liberal is automatically wrong.
If you are liberal, than vice versa.

Most other countries have more than two parties (or just one, in that case they are fucked to begin with), so people don't flock to camps as easily and just sheepishly stay there.

Are a lot of overstatements made in the name of global warming?
You can bet.
Does that mean there is no global warming at all?
Most assuredly not.

If you believe a science fiction author or some random lobbyist over a scientist (or in this case, the vast majority of scientists, who sometimes over- sometimes underestimate the effect), then please get of my earth.

Anthriel

So your solution to the immediate problem of malaria deaths is to reduce CO2 emissions in hopes that in 120 years a couple of degrees might knocked off the natural warming of the planet will save some future generations from a potential malaria increase?

Tell that to the thousands of people dying of it right now.

Just so you all know, this is the turning point in these arguments. Most environmentalists aren't humanitarians at all, but in fact are neo-pantheist elitists that actually believe that they alone deserve to walk the earth.

rancorcrankor

hikkifan1986

Sure, people, global warming does not exist, and if it doesn, it's not man-made, and if it is, we can't do anything about it anyways. Whatever makes you sleep well at night. But please, shut the hell up while the reasonable people amongst us try to fix this problem before we're all toast. Thanks.

L_K_M

So your solution to the immediate problem of malaria deaths is to reduce CO2 emissions in hopes that in 120 years a couple of degrees might knocked off the natural warming of the planet will save some future generations from a potential malaria increase?

Tell that to the thousands of people dying of it right now.

Just so you all know, this is the turning point in these arguments. Most environmentalists aren't humanitarians at all, but in fact are neo-pantheist elitists that actually believe that they alone deserve to walk the earth and will work to that end.

rancorcrankor

poli = many

tics = blood sucking parasites

It is all bullshit, and consensus science is NOT SCIENCE, but formed opinions through policies and politics, because one is too lazy to find or adhere the truth.

EnigmaNemesis

Another famous Libertarian in the public spotlight would be Penn and Teller, for example, their Bullshit! program has had episodes debunking religion, supernatural (like Houdini) as well as episode denouncing anti-smoking campaigns and environmentalism.

Libertarianism is not evil, but it's just a little short sighted, even if well intended.

onikuwagata

Psychotext

You can easily use Google to find plenty of "scientists" who think the trails planes leave in the sky are brainwashing chemicals being dumped by the CIA, too. Just being accessible via Google does not lend credence to an argument, I'm afraid.

Bottom line is the vast, VAST majority of respected scientists reached a consensus long ago that global cimate change is a real, and largely man-made problem that will have (and already has had) devestating impact on ecosystems worldwide. They also agree there are steps we can take to abate (and reverse) these changes.

These people know more about the issue than you. And believe it or not, more than Michael Crichton.

@rancorcrankor:
"1) Nature and the natural world does not include humans. Humans are the only creatures on earth that have no right to impact their environment.(100% faith based value judgment)"

Umm, no. But we are the only ones who can reflect upon and think logically about the ways in which we impact our environment and the effects that will have on our species in the future.

Some might argue it would be wise of us to do so on a more regular basis, no?

OneFreeMan

We know that there is definitely a man made impact on the atmosphere. You can measure the amount of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and CFCs in the upper atmosphere. We can also measure the reflected spectra of the earth and compare it over time, to observe how much energy is retained longer in the atmosphere before being released back into space, since energy in equals energy out. Short term measurements can tell us very simply that as the gas emissions increase, a trough near 16.7 micrometer occurs, representing a reduction in radiation of that wavelength being reflected back into space. This energy is eventually re-released back into space, energy in equals energy out, but basically energy of this lambda is absorbed and reflected back into the atmosphere for a while longer. This means more energy at any given time is being kept in the atmosphere, since the solar radiation being poured into the atmosphere by the sun is still occurring. In theory, if the earth was simply recieving more radiation from the sun as a result of obliquity or eccentricity of orbit, the spectra reflected would not change in such a specific way, since all radiation from the sun would increase, as the sun becomes closer or earth tilt exposes it to more of the full spectrum radiation of the sun. However, the spectral change seems overwhelmingly to point solely to the deepening of a trough at a specific wavelength (and a subsequent peak at a lower wavelength as energy in eventually means energy out). Change in climate cannot simply be attributed to a change in obliquity or eccentricity. The change is quite convincingly manmade, although the exact extent of how much climate change will affect us is debated.

Temperature charts are often highly up to interpretation, it's matter of how many samples are taken over what extent of time. Take too few samples over a selected short period of time and you can verify any theory you like. Over a large enough period of time, with many samples, you can sometimes prove anything you like as well. It's a matter of on which scale the patterns or lack thereof occur. For example, you could take an oscillating line and take a small scale when it is going up, going down, or staying steady, at the peak. Or you could take a huge sample which would make the sample look as if it was staying steady. Or if the line was going up with oscillations, you could make the scale so small as to make it look like there was only negligable change.

As for the exemption of China and India from pollution regulations, it's not so much an error on the part of the policy makers, but rather these nations, especially the powerful China, leveraging its influence, to seek its own needs. China and India have a bit of influence and power in the global community and to ignore or snub them in any way tends to spell misfortune for any goal you have. It's the reason why the U.S. ignores Tibet, and human rights violations at large, because their influence and trade is so important, that angering them would be disastrous. Same goes for India, which we also have strong economic ties to.

onikuwagata

The fact that they're piggybacking on the global warming issue is just the icing on the unethical cake.

(BTW, I'm having a nightmare getting this to show up. whats with the commenting section today?)

Lov3

The fact that they're piggybacking on the global warming issue is just the icing on the unethical cake.

Lov3

The alternative of course is to swap your Xbox 360 for a Wii which consumes about a 10th of the power. You might want to get some rechargeable batteries for the Wii-mote though.
http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-356-2.htm

I would have thought a positive thing for Microsoft to do would be to encourage low wattage hardware rather than "right on" software.

tepidmunroe

No, you aren't. You're told to shut up when you start blabbing off about how celebrities shouldn't go around giving opinions.

"But when a guy writes about a scientific subject 9 times out of 10 and has done the research to back it up... we're supposed to dismiss it?"

Yeah, you are. It's SCIENCE FICTION. He doesn't really know anything.
Oh, or are we still planning to revive dinosaurs with ancient DNA?
Hey, did Crichton get that Washington Post book reviewer sent to jail for child rape yet? Oh, you DID read about that in his last book, right?

Yeah, Crichton is SO based in reality, isn't he?

Michael Crichton engages in something called PSEUDO-SCIENCE.
Because here's what you don't get:
"Crichton is a smart motherfucker. He's done his research, and he was a scientist before he was a writer (in addition, a medical doctor... because you know they hand those degrees out to anyone). There has been a ton of research done based off of ideas and concepts he's put forth in his books."

He's a WRITER. He gets an idea for a book and gathers information that would make that book seem more realistic. It, by nature, is a VERY selective amount of research.

"And, I love how people are now saying "Hey, even Bush says it's man made." So, one minute he's a drooling retard to you people and now he knows what he's talking about?"

No, it means that even if someone as DENSE as Bush can get it through his head, there might be hope, too.

I mean, are you REALLY dumb enough to tell me you're going to believe a sci-fi writer against the OVER WHELMING scientific consensus? From REAL scientists?

Oh, by hey. Don't worry about it. I'm sure everyone else in the world is wrong and it IS just a liberal plot to...what is it this week? Destroy capitalism, still?

Oh, by the way - we STILL don't know with 100% certainty why or how cigarettes cause cancer. I guess we should just wait until the evidence is fully in before we start telling people cigarettes are bad.

MR. FAP☆FAP!

Thitsa

Here's the thing... Most scientists used to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe. Most scientists believed that time and space was a constant. Most scientists believed that you couldn't use a live virus vaccine to prevent illness. Most scientists believed that after a nuclear strike, nothing would grow at ground zero for 50 years at least.

Science is made by people who BROKE consensus and PROVED things beyond a shadow of a doubt with facts. They didn't make their case in a TV talk show studio or a movie theater. They made their case in labs and with formulas whose results COULD be duplicated.

I mean, my god... I'm not saying there isn't a climate change. That's irrefutable. But, what I am saying is that to trend it forward for the next 100 years and say "This is how it's going to be, mark your calendars" is ridiculous. We have literally been tracking weather changes for a little more than a century in a real and scientific way. So, we can't even predict what the weather will be like tomorrow over a limited range but we can predict what the weather will be like next century?

We have little to no hard evidence that the change in weather is unnatural. Hell, a two decades ago we didn't know about the El Nino phenomena that has a massive impact on the global weather system. How can we possibly know for a FACT that this is 1. Man-made and thus unnatural, or 2. Preventable in either case?

It's not a fact. It's a widely held belief. And if you really think that most popular beliefs are RIGHT and IRREFUTABLE... well, who is the moron?

Evil J

Evolution spurred by man often is inconvenient to us, which is perhaps why it doesn't get much press.

onikuwagata

Now the fact that Michael Crichton has no credentials doesn't automatically mean he's wrong. But the fact that he's denying a widely-held theory without convincing evidence for its falsity or any compelling alternative makes him...
well...
a crackpot.

Don't worry, science has lots of them. Here's one who denies relativity. He's got as much credibility as Crichton: he writes fanciful sci-fi tales to entertain while insulting real scientists.

sxp151, the happy-headed nose

Plum

Evil J

Mosquitos are insects, and are ectotherms. This means their metabolism is tied to the ambient temperature. In essence, a mosquito egg, larva and pupa, in its aquatic form, has a temperature quota; this is called the degree days. If the temperature increases, then the time needed for an egg to hatch and become an adult decreases. If this occurs, then more life cycles can occur in a shorter period of time. As a result, in any given period of time there is an increase in the number of pregnant females which need one or more blood meals in order to oviposit. This results in an increase in population, an increase in bites. The equation for vectorial capacity is equal to (ma^2VP^n)/-LogeP, and as a result since m and a increase, the vectorial capacity of the mosquito in malarial stricken regions will increase. Also, as temperature warms, mosquitoes will be able to infest a wider range of regions, and it is likely that, not just malaria, but other arthropod vectored illnesses will increase, including yellow fever, dengue, leishmaniasis and typhus. These typically only have light footholds in regions like Europe or East Asia, but with an increase of ideal habitat, the range will increase.

onikuwagata

And, I love how people are now saying "Hey, even Bush says it's man made." So, one minute he's a drooling retard to you people and now he knows what he's talking about?

I said it once and I'll say it again... I'll trust the guy who does the research and writes a fictional book and calls it a novel more than I'll trust the guy who doesn't do the research and makes a movie based on fictional material and calls it a documentary.

Evil J

UltraMagnus

Since when did someone being creative automatically make them incapable of being smart? I mean, we're told to listen to Bono and Bruce Springsteen all the time to get our "facts" and how we should vote, etc...

But when a guy writes about a scientific subject 9 times out of 10 and has done the research to back it up... we're supposed to dismiss it?

Crichton is a smart motherfucker. He's done his research, and he was a scientist before he was a writer (in addition, a medical doctor... because you know they hand those degrees out to anyone). There has been a ton of research done based off of ideas and concepts he's put forth in his books.

Evil J

Second, since when are 18-21 year olds not adults? Try moving out of your mom's basement and get some perspective on life.

sxp151, the happy-headed nose

P.S. If you don't like global warming, you might want to check out the Creation museum. It's right up your alley. Those greedy scientists, always trying to get money for Bible-denying.

sxp151, the happy-headed nose

Because people were asking why it was fucking snowing in April if it's global warming.

I'm so tired of this... should we pollute less? Absolutely. Should we try and be more in-tune with the ecosystem? Definitely.

The problem is that most of the ecologically minded people think we should hit the PAUSE button right now, and do EVERYTHING in our power to ensure that it stays exactly the same from here on out. No more endangered species, they should all thrive with our help.

Look, Pandas are dying because they won't mate in the wild. Ones we do breed in captivity and then release... freaking die on their own. Pandas... are a species that clearly nature has tapped to be on its way out. But, since they're cute, we HAVE TO SAVE THEM FROM THEMSELVES. Right. because we know what's best.

As many stats are published about what species are wiped from the face of the earth, how rare is it for a comprehensive study to be made about the species emerging and adapting and being discovered?

Not as many, I assure you. The reason for this is that it's not dramatic, but it is the yin to the endangered species yang... it's why we do not see that nature is truly balanced no matter what we do to it.

Evil J

Where this all leads us is a bit up in the air, though, as climate change probably is going to be affected by the addition of such chemicals. Most modern proponents of global warming get most of the details wrong and make wild assumptions, and most opponents (targeting those incorrect assumptions) have the wrong idea. Despite what Chrichton says, there are at least a handful of opponents of global climate change that are definitely supported by corporations, such as Steven Jay Milloy, who runs the Junk Science website, and also holds shares in CSR watch, a corporate pro-free-market libertarian organization which funds attempts to remove social, environmental and other regulation from business. Once you get pas the smoke, there is a real issue, and sensationalism (in some sense, crying wolf), nor sticking our head in the ground isn't going to make it go away. Crying wolf, will do exactly that. Science will be discredited, and the average person, will ignore it. Of course the reverse makes us blind to anything coming our way. Although we do, as Chrichton says, have the potential technology to rectify many potential issues, such as the issue of hunger, with the Green Revolution, we cannot possibly avert issues by ignoring or dismissing an issue.

onikuwagata

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

And here's a bit about the consensus among scientists about man-made global warming:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/a-st...

Lazy

Seriously...a fucking SCIENCE FICTION writer?
Holy shit. No wonder Bush still has 28%.

MR. FAP☆FAP!

I am glad to see so many people more aware of how this is a PR campaign, not science.

I gotta say, I'm so pissed right now because one of the assignments for my wife's government class is to write an opinion paper after viewing "An Inconvenient Truth." What? How can you write an opinion other than "it's right" when you get 2 hours of propaganda with NO rebuttal and NO opposing viewpoint? It's bullshit. It's an experiment that has no other possible outcome beyond believing what the film wants you to believe.

I would be less pissed if I knew that it was an adults-only class, or whatever... but you put this in a classroom with impressionable 18-21 year olds, and they're going to believe it as fact when there is no basis for it.

Evil J

JimmyHACK

Environmentalism is the new religion for many in the press (esp the BBC), the teaching institutions, policy makers and political leaders. It is a belief system that has dogmas (see below), heretics (global warming 'deniers') , an "Eden" (the era before the industrial age), Hell (the earth if we do nothing to stop the warming), priests (politicians and compliant scientists), Sins (exceeding your allowed carbon footprint, driving an SUV, etc etc).

In order to follow this religion, you must adhere to a belief system. This system is not made up of facts that can be scientifically proven; it is instead a system of value judgments and articles of faith. The tenants of environmentalism and global warming include:

1) Nature and the natural world does not include humans. Humans are the only creatures on earth that have no right to impact their environment.(100% faith based value judgment)

2) There earth has an 'ideal climate' (as opposed to the millennia of drastic environmental changes that have occurred naturally)

3) The earth is warming at a rate that is abnormal (there is no scientific data to prove what is normal and what isn't)

4) Humans are responsible for the 'abnormal' amount of warming in the atmosphere (see above)

5) The earth warming will be overwhelmingly negative for the inhabitants. (history has proven that warming periods in the planet have been a boon to almost all life)

6) The kickback systems that send the planet back into cooling after it reaches a certain level of warming will not do so from this point on ( These systems are only vaguely understood, incredibly complex, and completely ignored by the global warming subscribers)

7) Only western countries are responsible for contributing to this "abnormal warming" (the Kyoto protocol absolves "developing nations" like China and India from its mandates)

8) Somehow, stopping the planet warming a couple of degrees in the next hundred years is FAR more important than solving the real problems of today, i.e. the AIDS epidemic in Africa, Malaria, Slaughter in Darfur, Starvation, Crime, etc etc…

The media loves global warming because they sell fear, and what can be scarier than this monolith of global catastrophe that is always just around the corner. Politicians love global warming because it serves as a vehicle by which they can increase the power of the state and execute control over the lives of the population. And then there are the true believers, people that live in fear that their lives on earth will somehow be less than heaven, and will do anything to change it.

If you want to follow a religion there are far better ones to chose from.

rancorcrankor

Evil J

Evil J

Evil J

If you look at the real facts, there are very compelling arguments for global warming. Al Gore's movie may have gone wild with the contemplative closeups while he reminisces about his childhood, but the facts about global warming were overall very good. The timeline of the consequences are still up for debate, though.

If you would like to use the Internet to see what actual scientists have to say, go to http://www.realclimate.org/. It's not peer reviewed in the traditional sense, but it's in a blog format where people can comment on posts so any mistakes or misunderstandings are usually resolved.

But back on topic, I'm not crazy about this game contest idea. Are they going to be judged on whether they are factual or just if they're fun to play? By the looks of the comments on this blog, it seems that misinformation is already running rampant and it is likely to only get worse if games sensationalize the issue one way or another. Besides, global warming isn't action-packed like Day After Tomorrow!

stev

:-p

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04...

EnigmaNemesis

The closer your politicians/reporters get to the topic, the more money they earn.

Or

A sun simulator which shows that when the sun gets warmer, the earth gets warmer too. The only logic solution? Destroy the sun.

AdeptVoice

An earlier poster mentioned Crichton. His book State of Fear is a great place to start, even if it's not his best. But you can easily use google to find plenty of articles about scientists that don't think the picture being painted by pop culture is accurate.

Chrysalis

(sorry man, nothing personal... but that was too good to pass up)

dv8godd

rancorcrankor

rancorcrankor

HAHAHAHA.

He didn't even mention anything about global warming or ANYthing.... XD sad they don't care about the actual ISSUE's(game's storyline) topic...

SliceWarriorX

PatMan33

CrimsonSin

CrimsonSin

Seriously, though, it's nice to see game companies take a charitable route. Yes, it's PR for the company involved (Folding@Home, or this deal here,) but it's also good PR for us as gamers.

Hell, Penny-Arcade's Child's Play was born out of the idea that gamers are known as anti-social folks that don't care about anyone else or doing anything to make the world around them a better place. And in my opinion, it's one of the best and worthwhile charities out there, especially when you add the fact that there are no "administrative fees" involved. There are no professional charity workers involved in it, so you don't have to pay anyone.

But the point is (I ramble a lot) that we, as gamers, are fighting a PR war with the likes of soccer Moms and the Jack Thompsons of the world with our image and reputations at stake. I'd rather have the reputation of people with a hobby that are just as charitable as anyone else than a crazed, wild eyed, blood thirsty killer.

PapaBear434

SolInvictus

Seriously, google Crichton and Global Warming and read the speech titled "UFOs Cause Global Warming" and see what you think after that about the whole climate change issue.

Evil J

What I really wonder is: can they put their money where their mouth is? How big is their ecological footprint?

minister.of.rhetoric

jimb213