- Dec 11, 2002
- 18,409
- 40
- 91
Aliens Cause Global Warming
- Thread starter yhelothar
- Start date
Anyone who reads that and gets "aliens cause global warming" clearly is not the coldest beer in the fridge. I think Crichton hit the nail right on the head.
- Dec 11, 2002
- 18,409
- 40
- 91
Ok I just got done reading it.
He didn't mean literally that aliens cause global warming, but the same belief for aliens cause the belief for global warming.
To sum it up, he's basically starts off by stating a few variables to find the probability of ET life. But then he states that there is no way to determine the variables, therefore they are meaningless, and using that to back up extraterrestrial life isn't science, but a belief or the word he used, a religion. He's saying global warming is the same thing as you can determin what variables cause global warming, but do not know how much it takes to actually do any damage, therefore it's clearly just a belief.
Lots of good insights.
Personally i think he's a moron. He may have a medical degree, but he obviously doesn't know what scientific research is:
Why can't a group of scientists have a consensus in a theory... MOST of science is theoretical, and they apply the scientific method to those theories to either support it or find faults in it. Yes, Newton was great, because his scientific discovery wasn't 'consensus', but eventually there was a consensus on it and we adopted it as truth... until Einstein came along and proved many of the ideas that Newton had were just wrong (ie that gravity is a force). And now Einstein's GR is the 'consensus'.
Although analogies make complicated ideas easier to understand, it's not fact. No scientists are claiming they can predict the weather on January the 18th 100 years from now, that's just absurd. But there's a general idea of how it will be. Here's another analogy of my own... if you fire a mortor into a city during rush hour, will you know EXACTLY who died and where? No, but you'll know where the area the mortor will be landing and what kind of damage it will be doing.
Here's a simple prediction: if the growth rate of the world continues with the way it is in the 3rd world without any signs of reduction, the 3rd world countries will be even more heavily populated and suffer from even more population related problems. Is it just because i'm a genius that i figured this out? This is the same idea with Global Warming.... if you're increasing pollution at the rate we are, and it's much higher than what can be taken out of the environment, you're going to have problems eventually.
And isn't it interesting how he left out REAL effects of pollution on the environment that CAN be measured right now... like the big hole in the ozone over Australia.
Why can't a group of scientists have a consensus in a theory... MOST of science is theoretical, and they apply the scientific method to those theories to either support it or find faults in it. Yes, Newton was great, because his scientific discovery wasn't 'consensus', but eventually there was a consensus on it and we adopted it as truth... until Einstein came along and proved many of the ideas that Newton had were just wrong (ie that gravity is a force). And now Einstein's GR is the 'consensus'.
Although analogies make complicated ideas easier to understand, it's not fact. No scientists are claiming they can predict the weather on January the 18th 100 years from now, that's just absurd. But there's a general idea of how it will be. Here's another analogy of my own... if you fire a mortor into a city during rush hour, will you know EXACTLY who died and where? No, but you'll know where the area the mortor will be landing and what kind of damage it will be doing.
Here's a simple prediction: if the growth rate of the world continues with the way it is in the 3rd world without any signs of reduction, the 3rd world countries will be even more heavily populated and suffer from even more population related problems. Is it just because i'm a genius that i figured this out? This is the same idea with Global Warming.... if you're increasing pollution at the rate we are, and it's much higher than what can be taken out of the environment, you're going to have problems eventually.
And isn't it interesting how he left out REAL effects of pollution on the environment that CAN be measured right now... like the big hole in the ozone over Australia.
Thanks for the summary because I wasn't about to read all that this morning. In fact, I almost passed up on reading your summary as it skirts dangerously close to requiring Cliffs Notes.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,547
- 20,262
- 146
Here's a clue:
The "ozone hole" has always been there. It has been observed getting bigger, then smaller, then bigger again. It's size has never directly correlated with any human activity.
No one has ever seen an intact ozone layer over the South Pole. There is no reason whatsoever to suspect there ever was one, or that any of our activities have had a significant effect on it.
The reason for a thin or no ozone layer over the South Pole is obvious: Ozone is created by the sun hitting our atmosphere. For months in the winter, no sun hits the South Pole, thus no ozone is produced. Also, time lapse maps of the layer show the "hole" grow in the winter, and shrink in the summer.
In short, the "ozone hole" is hype and FUD.
Um it was largest in the late 70s and early 80s, because that was when CFC and other pollutions were the highest. Then in the late 90s it had shrink a bit, because CFCs and other pollutions were reduced. Sounds like a correlation to me.
So? That doesn't mean there isn't an effect on it. Measurements of the south pole shows that there are more concentration of CFC and such gases there. It's because the air currents dump more of it south.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,547
- 20,262
- 146
That all falls apart when you realize the WORLD WIDE usage of CFCs did NOT fall, but rose as the third world started using refrigeration, and were not banned from using CFCs.
The fact is, the sun makes plenty of ozone and there is no proof that CFCs destroy it faster than it is created. It's FUD based on skewed projections. Much like the article in the OP describes.
This is what happens when "scientists" with an agenda set out to prove a preconceived notion.
Interesting. Informative.Objective. Independant. Logical. Wise.
A great read for all.
I recommend that as you read it, you look up people that he referenced and terms as well. Made it that much more enjoyable for me becasue the subtleties that he was going for.
Brilliant man.
A great read for all.
I recommend that as you read it, you look up people that he referenced and terms as well. Made it that much more enjoyable for me becasue the subtleties that he was going for.
Brilliant man.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,600
- 1,005
- 126
Please take this stuff elsewhere. If you would take the time out of your day oread the speech, you would see how objective and insightful it really is.
Most educated and objective people probably have what he said in the back of their minds, and it is quite enlightening to see it spelled out.
TheLonelyPhoenix
Diamond Member
- Feb 15, 2004
- 5,594
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: TheLonelyPhoenix
Does this mean I shouldn't bother with SETI@Home?
Not really. What I think he was going for was a little too much for the average person stuck in drone mode.
Simply start by realizing the truth: that there is no scientific certaintly in SETI and that it is more science-fiction than not in ORIGIN.
Then realize what you wish. You can openly challenge it, personally explicate it to yourself for enlightenment, or do nothign at all.
Basically, realizing the truth is what will make you an enlightened human being. Doing something about it is what will make you a great one.
TheLonelyPhoenix
Diamond Member
- Feb 15, 2004
- 5,594
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Originally posted by: TheLonelyPhoenix
Does this mean I shouldn't bother with SETI@Home?
Not really. What I think he was going for was a little too much for the average person stuck in drone mode.
Simply start by realizing the truth: that there is no scientific certaintly in SETI and that it is more science-fiction than not in ORIGIN.
Then realize what you wish. You can openly challenge it, personally explicate it to yourself for enlightenment, or do nothign at all.
Basically, realizing the truth is what will make you an enlightened human being. Doing something about it is what will make you a great one.
Yeah, yeah, I know, it was a joke. Thanks for the correction though, Yoda.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,600
- 1,005
- 126
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter