Aliens Cause Global Warming

Speaking as someone that works in the sciences I would say that's wrong. What's becoming more political is science reporting, by and large. Unfortunately, people have a hard time separating the two since most folks can't simply read peer reviewed articles and make up their own minds. To generalize, reporting from the left tends to try to take science and draw conclusions from it that can't be supported by the evidence (or even full-scale distort it into something it never said in the first place) to support their particular agenda while the right tends to try to deny any scientific conclusion that is inconvenient to theirs.

On a side note, I think it's interesting that Michael Crichton's turned into a crazy person. It looks like he's having good financial success with it, though. I suppose it is a growth industry.

Crazy person? The article made perfect sense to me. Did you even read it?

Hi!

Aliens? We don't need no stinking aliens to kill ourself.



BR, Iztok

How can anyone take him seriously after, "My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming." Im afraid, that if I waste my time, and read it, it will turn out to be another ludicrous rant by some conspiracy theorist. -.-

Gemini, try reading a little more... like perhaps the very next sentence.

"Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming."

At least read the speech and explain what you guys disagree with, instead of feigning stupidity to avoid addressing it.

Way ahead of you buddy, I already started reading out of curiousity.

So, a belief in et's has paved the way?

So then, a disbelief would unpave the way?

All is subjective, and none is absolute?

Simply, no black and white - merely shades of gray?





What, may I ask, are the boundries of those shades of gray?

After I read the article(after frequent MSN interuptions), I noticed, that he never did explain how belief in aliens is the cause of "global warming." He just talks a LITTLE about some dudes theoretical formula. The rest was just compiled instances, where government consenses(sr?) are usually innacurate..

And i thought this topic was going to be about frying some torians.

Interesting read. It just solidifies my statements that corporate greed and power have grown too far out of hand.

What he said is that SETI being accepted as science helped pave the way for more ideas like "nuclear winter," "secondhand smoke," and "global warming" becoming widely accepted, even though they have no basis in real science.

Sometimes all this intellectualizing of science shoots people in their own foot. Towards the polar caps, it doesn't take much rocket science to see global warming is occurring. 10 years ago, a glacier was sitting right there, now it's not. I'm looking at it. Lots of houses were built without air conditioners, because they didn't need it. Now it's wildly uncomfortable in the summers not having it. Fireweed is growing on the tundra in spots where it didn't before. You used to be able to walk out on the lake when it was frozen over, now the ice is too thin.

If you want to contend that global warming not man-made, okay, we can retreat to science to determine that--but don't tell me it's not happening. It's the same way with secondhand smoke--if you want to claim it has no hurtful effects on your health, okay, but don't tell me it doesn't exist. Sorry, but secondhand smoke exists, and you breathe it. We don't need some postdoctoral thesis to know that.

I don't need a bachelor's degree to know that there is an Easter bunny, either.

I think Batman is to blame for global warming.

Out of curiosity I read the article. It did get a chuckle out of me since, although there were some intriguing ideas, it was full of assertions and ‘facts’ that struck me as just plain wrong.

Of course, Mr. Crichton is selling his point just as hard as those he criticizes. He has an agenda – and is pushing it hard: he cherry picks his examples, sets up strawmen (the SETI formula – and his silly hook statement that got us all to read the article), and then obligingly knocks them down – all very neat and tidy, but not terribly persuasive.

In general I am wary of anyone who claims Special Knowledge, or those that say that everyone else is wrong. Sometimes they are right. But in the vast majority of the time they are simply cranks.

Hydro

If you saw him with your own eyes and you weren't on acid at the time, then no, you don't.

hehehe, the easter bunny must be Australian. Since Australia is the only place in the world where you find monotremes (egg laying mammals).

Certainly Crichton isn't arguing that global warming isn't happening, just as nobody argues against the existence of secondhand smoke. He, and many others, are skeptical of the severity of it, though.

The thing is, there wouldn't be a global warming debate if any of it had a basis in solid science. There wouldn't be a need to use the term "consensus" in relation to global warming. As great as democracy is, it has no place in science.

The whole speech is an attack on this trend of dismissing the actual scientific method in favor of "consensus," and damning anybody who doesn't buy into it.

There's a reason to investigate these things with a magnifying glass. Isn't anybody else concerned that our leaders might be making policy decisions based on faulty science? Can you imagine if we signed the Kyoto Protocol (which was a terrible proposal to begin with), only to find out later that, oops, global warming wasn't such a big deal after all?


"it was full of assertions and ‘facts’ that struck me as just plain wrong."

Anything in particular? I'm genuinely curious.

Me, too.



It is clear that it is happening. There is no clear link that we caused it, just as their is no clear proof we can stop it.



Then it would be the Easter 'roo, wouldn't it? And what is Latin for egg hiding mammal?



Don't even ask about Santa Claus...wait - it's those damn elves that are melting the icecap, what with their BBQ grills and jacuzzis and whatnot! Get Al Gore to the North Pole!

Oh yea, also the kangaroo has a pouch to carry all the eggs, ah it's all so clear now - you know, kangaroos could easily be mistaken for giant rabbits,, hmmm or if you were to ask Sylvester the cat, he would say it was a mouse!! (i remember the old sylvester cartoon where he thinks a kangaroo is a mouse).

Braddock – you asked for what struck me as wrong in Crichton’s discussion. There were several, but the one that caught my attention and set off my BS Detector was his discussion on Consensus Science.

In the speech text he states that consensus in science is irrelevant. His point is that science is not a democracy where anointed ones will decide what is true. Further, this statement is meant to impugn the statements made by all the major scientific organizations in the US, Europe, and the UN that global warming is a fact and that the likely cause is due to human activities.

He is, however, completely wrong. Science is about weight of evidence as judged by the quality of the data and multiple lines of evidence. Data quality is judged by peer-reviewed journals to ensure that Joe Smith’s ‘documentation’ of his anal probing by green space aliens does not have the same scientific credibility as a double blind study or reproducible research. Multiple lines of evidence are useful to show that a given theory is likely to be correct since, individually, a single line of data may not be conclusive. Moreover, there will be conflicting data (some of which may be incorrect, erroneous, or just in conflict), and the best way to evaluate whether a theory is likely to be true is to weigh data quality AND the number of supporting data lines.

So, why would Crichton talk about Consensus in this context? The only conclusion I can come to is that he is either rather uninformed (which seems unlikely considering what I know about him) or he has set up a strawman that misrepresents the situation that he can easily take apart. The former is unfortunate, the latter is disingenuous at best. He seeks to discount the views of the vast majority of scientists – and by extension the weight of evidence – by a shallow debating tactic.

Now, as to global warming there is absolutely no question it is happening. All we have to do is look at global temperatures with accurate data for the last 100+ years to reach this clear conclusion. As to the cause, there are many possibilities that fall into the categories of natural and as a result of man’s activities. Right now most natural causes (sun spots, climate epicycles) have been largely discounted or can’t be shown to have the impact necessary to cause the current global temperature rises. Data that show a likely human cause (rises in greenhouse gas, the validity of the greenhouse gas model) have been judged as ‘likely’, meaning that the weight of evidence shows that although not definitive this is the cause for which there is the most evidence.

One of my favorite journals is the Skeptical Enquirer, which as you may guess debunks alien abduction accounts, the paranormal, issues like Intelligent Design, and evidence of bad science. I love this periodical since it skewers non-linear thinkers and folks with a thinly disguised (typically political) agenda – turns over the rocks so the slimy can squirm in the sunlight, as it were. I was surprised when the last issue came out with the first of a rather lengthy discussion of global warming, and they agreed that the weight of evidence does show that humans are the likely cause of documented global warming. It had a very intelligible summary – a complete rundown. Fascinating.

Hydro

Would you care to summarize any of these points?

Michael Chrichton does a great job pointing out the weaknesses of computer models. If any of your evidence is based on computer models I would discount that. As he points out, we can't predict the weather a week in advance. Why should we think our models are so accurate?

exactly. scientific knowledge is all about consensus among the scientific community. this is why science never produces facts in the strictest sense: only theories. some theories are so accepted that they're considered as good as fact, but that's a casual and informal practice. in other cases, there's such limited evidence (often the case with historical sciences such as the archaeological study of evolution) that a theory will never be treated as fact.

but if you're talking about the Earth possibly becomming a giant easy-bake oven, i'd rather err on the side of caution.

and to say democracy has no place is science is naive. it's correct: communal decision-making is rarely a part of science. take HIV research as a perfect example. several of my friends who've pursued biological degrees (biology, molecular biochemistry, bioengineering) have said that there would be an HIV vaccine by now if there'd been more money put into developing it. but most HIV research money goes into developing the cocktails used to treat HIV+ persons. why? HIV+ people remain on those very expensive drugs for the rest of their lives. vaccines are one-shot deals. on which project would the comapnies developing these drugs stand to make more money?

while i certainly can't say there would definately be an HIV vaccine by now, i feel confident we'd at least be closer. in any respect, the decision was made, and make no mistake that a big chunk of the research budget was federal grants --the decision was made with no say from 'the people.'

science isn't Truth with-a-capital-T. scientists are in the business of producing theories, not facts, and they are human beings producing knowledge under a set of social norms. so i'd say there's no 'democracy' in science -- in the sense that the larger population is not deciding what scientific questions are pursued or how scientific knoweldge is used.

that's all i'll chime in on this topic. if you want to know more about the science behond global warming, i'd suggest wikipedia as a good starting point.

Friend Oz,

My much-abbreviated summary of the causes for global warming is below. This summary is based on the article in the Skeptical Enquirer: Global Climate Change Triggered by Global Warming by Stuart Jordan, senior staff scientist with the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

I tried to keep the summary accurate and concise, and any errors in my summary are mine and I apologize in advance. If you’re interested in the entire text, it is available at the Center for Inquiry’s web site: www.cfidc.org/opp/jordan.html

*~*~*~*

There are two possible sources for climate change: anthropogenic (human caused) and natural processes, over which we can have no meaningful influence. The questions on what is likely to be mainly responsible for the rapid rise in global temperatures are as follows:

Can natural climate change be rapid? YES. Paleoclimatology has shown that changes of 10o C in a few decades have occurred many times over the last 600,000 years by examining ice cores. But, these cores also show that the last 10,000 years have been more stable than any time in the last 600,000 years – until very recently. So, this shows that natural process COULD be the source of climate change, but doesn’t discount human causes.

Is the sun causing global warming? NO. Several theories have been investigated (solar flux, UV radiation increases during sunspot activity cycles that triggers warming, and cosmic rays in combinations with solar cycles and magnetic fields). All these theories have not been demonstrated, and solar forcing of global warming is unlikely.

Is the Earth or Earth-related cycles (such as El Nino) responsible? NO. To date no Earth-centered mechanism for observed global warming has been identified for global warming. Earth-driven causes are unlikely to extremely unlikely.

Is ‘Urban Heating’ responsible? NO. This theory states that measurements of global warming are actually an artifact of extra heat from cities - in short, that there is no global warming but only erroneous data. But, climatic temperature measurements take into account these ‘urban heat’ islands.

Are scientists biased toward an anthropogenic cause of warming? NO. Science works by proving and disproving theories, with a bias toward disproving someone else’s treasured ideas. Moreover, doing this would require falsifying data or flawed experiments, all of which would fairly quickly be revealed – to the extreme detriment of that scientist’s career. ASIDE – I doubt global warming skeptics would give them a free pass, do you?

Is the Earth’s (eccentric) orbit the cause? NO. The wobble in the Earth’s orbit is the likely cause for cyclic ice ages (the Milankovich effect). But, this effect is over far too long a period to explain the extraordinary increases in global temperature that have been documented. Moreover, existing data show we should be entering a cold spell – not a period of global warming.

At this point the Skeptical Enquirer article says it will continue in the July/August issue. But, as you survey the disposition of likely causes there isn’t much left besides an anthropogenic driver. Part 2 will have more, I’m sure.

*~*~*~*

ASIDE: climatic models shouldn’t be thrown out simply because Crichton uses another debating tactic to try to invalidate climatic models. Quite simply, just because predicting the weather in Des Moines, Iowa nest Tuesday is problematic does not mean that modeling of regional climates isn’t possible and accurate. In fact, climatic models have been run backward to see if they can recreate known climates of the past and have been modestly successful. That said, models are only as good as the data and assumptions used, but in the end they are no more than elaborate engineering calculations – a tool, not an end. The benefit, of course, is that the data and assumptions are open to examination and criticism. If they are flawed then they can be fixed. But don’t discount models just because Crichton says so and tries to persuade you with a critically flawed analogy.

To be quite honest, it can also be theorized that neither aliens nor humans are responsible for the global increase in average temperatures. As stars age, their overall temperature decreases. Where does the heat energy of these stars go? It spreads itself out over the entirety of the universe. Now assuming that general laws of physics apply to the macrocosmic instance of the universe, we are in a state of imbalance that is going through a process of becoming balanced. Specifically, decreasing star and other celestial body temperatures while increasing the temperatures of relatively lower temperature celestial bodies such as our Earth.

This is my view on things, not to say that humans and aliens are not contributing in some way to the overall increase in global temperature, but this is a rational answer to global warming.

GalenEvil