[RdSnt]

His book certainly is well timed for the US public. The message being, "Be happy, don't worry, go back to sleep." I wonder what kind of advance he got?

There is a growing awareness in the general that things are going wrong and they are starting to worry. Along comes this book of poor examples that are easy to hang complacency on and declaring pretty clearly that we don't need to change a thing.

All the while, the very solid concensus is that global warming is here and because of reaction time required for any solutions a bit of panic right now wouldn't be such a bad thing.
The area surrounding Chernobyl is an uninhabitable wasteland.
More people are starving now that every before.
Nuclear war is now more likely than has been the case the past 40 years.
The hydrogen economy is an illusion and PeakOil is here.

I think there is good scientific evidence to suggest we have plenty to worry about and immediate actions to take.

[mgibbons19]

You're stoned. That's not the message at all. The message is to not get swept up in the next biggest fear. Analyze this stuff as coldly and as soberly as you can. He in no way says that we should just ignore the environment. In fact, he seems to be saying that letting self-styled experts and fear mongers decide what pains we should all take immediately is often just as bad.

I have studied the Eugenics movement, and the whole thing was horrible. The idea that this could be going on with the neocons in the oil states, or the enviros in greenpeace is not shocking at all.

You know who the sheople are? It's us. And I'm not comfortable at all letting these guys act in "my own best interest".

Perhaps what's scary is he's pegged this board to a t, and we don't like the idea that we might not be right. Or that the rest of the world isn't obligated to follow our prescriptions.

PS Whale tastes good when it's cooked right.

[Pops]

I picked the book up used at the airport and found myself as ill-informed and yet as convinced as Evans.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mgibbons19', '
')Perhaps what's scary is he's pegged this board to a t, and we don't like the idea that we might not be right. Or that the rest of the world isn't obligated to follow our prescriptions.

[backstop]

Pops -

I wonder if I could convince you, by recourse to the discipline of science, that the sun will not rise tommorrow ? Not as a guess, but as a scientific prediction ?

Discounting, first, the possibility of a significant asteroid having escaped our attention, the possibility of the sun not rising seems remote. But science, via several centuries of study of physics, says it will not do so.

The phenomena known as momentum, which science has proven to be retained by a mass until such time as it is eroded by interaction with another mass, is relevant here.

The planet has been shown by science to have momentum both in its orbit around the sun, and in its daily revolution.

There being no known threat to that latter momentum, science can predict with certainty that the sun will not rise tommorrow - but rather that the Earth will continue to turn . . . .

Given that the US gov.t, its agencies and the fossil fuel lobby have very clear information on the threat of GW,
but evidently wish to keep the public in ignorance (e.g. GCC),
I'd suggest that Goebels himself would have been glad of a Crichton to discredit inconvenient science so creatively.

Given the constraint of the CoC, I find it hard to express my contempt for this treasonous apologist for terracide.

However, given that the Oil lobby could not have invented a more persistently and culpably inneffectual opposition than Greenpeace if they'd tried, I guess I'm excluded from both camps.

regards,

Backstop

[Pops]

Backstop, once again I have to say that the internet is a wonderful thing to allow me to converse with someone as interesting and intelligent as you!

I think Crichton is making the argument that science can predict with certainty the sun will not rise tomorrow, the media can scream it on page one and every single interest group can work the prediction to their advantage but that still doesn’t make it more than a guess.

The bigger argument it seems to me is the pervasiveness of fear as a sales tool for everyone from politicians to pharmaceutical companies to media outlets.

[Z]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'I') think Crichton is making the argument that science can predict with certainty the sun will not rise tomorrow, [...] that still doesn’t make it more than a guess.

[mgibbons19]

You all are what might be termed

True Believers.

Only your religion is enviro-peak oil instead of good old muhammed or jesu and his buddies.

And now, those who aren't 100% convinced that your rapture is coming, or your prescriptions are the right way to deal with it, incense you the way any blasphemist or heretic would.

[Z]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mgibbons19', 'Y')ou all are what might be termed

True Believers.

Only your religion is enviro-peak oil instead of good old muhammed or jesu and his buddies.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Z', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'I') think Crichton is making the argument that science can predict with certainty the sun will not rise tomorrow, [...] that still doesn’t make it more than a guess.

[mgibbons19]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Z', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mgibbons19', 'Y')ou all are what might be termed

True Believers.

Only your religion is enviro-peak oil instead of good old muhammed or jesu and his buddies.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I') don't really see how anyone can claim the environmental movement has had an enormous impact on our lives. It certainly hasn't.

[UIUCstudent01]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'H')e'd probably conclude that not only did environmentalism had no impact but society must of decided to declare war against environmentalism!

[Liamj]

OR they'd see that as we no longer spray DDT on our skin, pump lead out of our cars or dump cyanide in our water (except near gold mines) that perhaps the greenies won a few.

Then theres parks in cities (a trend started by some hopeless bleeding hearts back in Viccy I's day), sewerage (ditto Roman empire), and rubbish collection.

There have been 'environmentalists' for millenia, including nearly everybody who ever looked beyond their own personal immediate interest. This qualification rules out Crighton and fellow economic rationalists, hence their willful ignorance ('what keg party?' said the geek).

Letting the pointy heads define discussion is volunteering for brain damage. Crightons article is very well written, cunning as a kid-friendly bomblet, and as meaningful as 60 Minutes. He discovers complexity and thinks its news to ecology rather than its birthplace. Of course there have been numerous environmental management f'ups, usually because managing for complexity is over-ruled by profits/funding shortfalls, ego's, or other forms of stupidity.
E.g. A multidisciplinary panel decided that Australia's Murray Darling river system (our mini-Mississipi) needed a MINIMUM 1500 Ml of water a year for 'environmental flows', to save remnant wetlands and riparian veg. Three years later the gov says okay, have 500Ml, you'll get it someday soon. Betcha they'll blame the greenies & scientists when that 500Ml makes f'all difference, and Crighton will shake his head sadly but smugly and draft another joke to have with cigars after dinner.

[Doly]

Ignorant people writing articles should have their articles preceded by a warning, something like: "This person is NOT an expert and any arguments expressed in it may contain major flaws."

[mgibbons19]

Except that rules out most of our bullshit here at PO, myself included.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Liamj', 'O')R they'd see that as we no longer spray DDT on our skin, pump lead out of our cars or dump cyanide in our water (except near gold mines) that perhaps the greenies won a few.
....

[Rincewind]

Finally a topic area where I feel am somewhat qualified to comment. But bugger me were to begin?

First the term environmentalism. Like all name tags for groups of people it captures a diverse range of views and objectives. From your advocates of sustainable development (continued economic growth is good but just needs to be done in a more thoughtful way) through to the Deep Ecologists (nature first and the quicker Homo sapiens becomes extinct the better). In the middle a whole bunch of people - informed and ill informed, those that are just concerned through to those that are passionate (and somethimes violent). Basically people like anyonw else but with an underpinning belief that humans are part of nature and that for reasons of morality, self preservation, or profit we can and should do better.

Second the economics of environmentalism. Lead is a good example of what ecological economist call an negative externality. Externalities are an unpriced benefit or cost imposed on a third party (in this case a cost).
Because they are unpriced the market (really people making decisions in a market) cannot take account of them and there is either an over supply (if it is a cost) or an undersupply (a benefit) of that product or service.

Economic theory clearly states that when you have a signficant externality you have a market failure and their is an economic justification for intervention to correct that failure.

Most attempts to do include a price of a negative externality into a market involve environmental taxes, or cap and trade regimes. When these are well designed they can result in environmental gains (the SO[sub]2[/sub] market in the US has often been cited as a good model). The emerging carbon trading market is another example of a cap and trade regime (too early to tell what effect it will have).

However, these changes to the market are designed to impose extra costs on pollutors with the specific aim of changing their behaviour (i.e reducing emissions or moving into another activity). If the regime doesn't result in changed behaviour it is just imposing a cost on society with no net welfare improvement. In this case the regime design needs to revisited.

Often those that are benefiting from passing on their environmental costs to others for free have considerable political clout and use this to retain their 'rental' at the expense of the rest of society. In these cases the market design is often eroded or set up to fail from the outset.

Third point on Michael Crichton. Dr Crichton is an example of an all too common problem - the unqualified pundit acting like an expert in a field outside their expertise. His tactic is a common one - first redfine the problem in a way that has nothing to do with what the science is actually saying (which is always much more complex and subtle than what is reported). This is the 'strawman'. Then set about in witty and erudite fashion to destroy their own strawman. I have seen this done with regard to:

Climate science
Evolutionary theory
Cosmology
Ecological sciences (pretty much all of Lomborg)
and of course the Peak Oil theory.

People like Crichton and Lomborg can do this because the body of science/evidence that explains these theories is:

complex and uncertain
always wrong (a better theory will come along) and will never proven to the satisfaction of those that want the "Truth" (What is this Truth shit anyway)
changing with new intreperations and evidence.

Most people don't have the time, inclination, mental capacity (sorry its true it takes talent, effort and discpline to be a good scientist and even then they often don't grasp it all) to come to grips with what science can tell us and is telling us. People also want certainty and science does not provide this either.

All these factors gives the pundits a huge amount of wiggle room.

Anyway for those of you that want to take the time to grapple with some science (which is most probably wrong but is the best understanding that we have at the moment) gird your loins and go to

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

Wher they discuss Dr Crichton and his comments on human generated climate change.

Good luck

Rincewind

PS I do agree with Dr Crichton on one point. We cannot destroy the planet and there will be life on Earth long after humans are gone. Extinction is a normal part of life (at least on this planet). I would rather, however, have it occur later rather than earlier.

[Liamj]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Liamj', 'O')R they'd see that as we no longer spray DDT on our skin, pump lead out of our cars or dump cyanide in our water (except near gold mines) that perhaps the greenies won a few.
....

[Odin]

Crichton is a moron. That said, the problem I see is that a small group of idealist/moralist enviomentalists give ammo to right-wingers so they can brandish all us enviromentalists as nutters. The eco-doomers here who think mankind and technology are the root of all evil are a good example of the extremist enviromentalists i'm talking about.

[Liamj]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Odin', 'C')richton is a moron.