Showing posts with label Michael Crichton. Show all posts

Thursday, June 7, 2012

Doomsday Environmental Fearmongers Will Not Go Away

These "scientists" and the United Nations make a living from instilling fear in people, coercing them to pay higher taxes giving them more control. The late, lamented Michael Crichton was "spot on" with his book "State of Fear". Nature will pretty much take its course, no matter what us "insignificant" humans do. Giving money to these self-serving "scientists" and the United Nations is a total waste.

Do a search for Michael Crichton on this blog for much more information on his expose' of environmental fear tactics.

Peter

Environmental collapse now a serious threat: scientists

Climate change, population growth and environmental destruction could cause a collapse of the ecosystem just a few generations from now, scientists warned on Wednesday in the journal Nature.

The paper by 22 top researchers said a "tipping point" by which the biosphere goes into swift and irreversible change, with potentially cataclysmic impacts for humans, could occur as early as this century.

The warning contrasts with a mainstream view among scientists that environmental collapse would be gradual and take centuries.

The study appears ahead of the June 20-22 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, the 20-year followup to the Earth Summit that set down priorities for protecting the environment.

The Nature paper, written by biologists, ecologists, geologists and palaeontologists from three continents, compared the biological impact of past episodes of global change with what is happening today.

The factors in today's equation include a world population that is set to rise from seven billion to around 9.3 billion by mid-century and global warming that will outstrip the UN target of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

The team determined that once 50-90 percent of small-scale ecosystems become altered, the entire eco-web tips over into a new state, characterised especially by species extinctions.

Once the shift happens, it cannot be reversed.

To support today's population, about 43 percent of Earth's ice-free land surface is being used for farming or habitation, according to the study.

On current trends, the 50 percent mark will be reached by 2025, a point the scientists said is worryingly close to the tipping point.

If that happened, collapse would entail a shocking disruption for the world's food supply, with bread-basket regions curtailed in their ability to grow corn, wheat, rice, fodder and other essential crops.

"It really will be a new world, biologically, at that point," said lead author Anthony Barnosky, a professor of integrative biology at the University of California in Berkeley.

"The data suggests that there will be a reduction in biodiversity and severe impacts on much of what we depend on to sustain our quality of life, including, for example, fisheries, agriculture, forest products and clean water. This could happen within just a few generations."

The authors stressed it was unclear when this feared tipover would happen, given blanks in knowledge about the phenomenon.

And they said there were plenty of solutions -- such as ending unsustainable patterns of growth and resource waste -- that mean it is not inevitable.

"In a nutshell, humans have not done anything really important to stave off the worst because the social structures for doing something just aren't there," said Arne Mooers, a professor of biodiversity at Simon Fraser University in Canada's British Columbia.

"My colleagues who study climate-induced changes through the Earth's history are more than pretty worried," he said in a press release. "In fact, some are terrified." (Yes, they're terrified they're going to lose their funding and government pensions.)

Past shifts examined in the study included the end of the last Ice Age, between 14,000 and 11,000 years ago, and five species mass extinctions which occurred around 443 million, 359 million, 251 million, 200 million and 65 million years ago.

Earth today is vulnerable to fast change because of the growing connectedness between ecosystems, voracious use of resources and an unprecedented surge in greenhouse gases, the authors concluded.

In a report on Wednesday issued ahead of the "Rio+20" summit, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that burgeoning populations and unsustainable patterns of growth were driving Earth towards "unprecedented" eco-damage.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Piling On The Grave Of The Man-Caused Global Warming Myth

The list of scientists jumping ship from the USS Global Warming Myth continues to grow. They know it is a ship of lies and it would never float, it is now listing badly and they want to get off as soon as they can. I think people want to get off before their reputations are permanently tarnished. Or maybe they're afraid of going to prison. Whatever the case it warms my heart to see the truth being revealed.
Peter

Two Top Climate Professors Openly Trash Greenhouse Gas Theory

Posted: 06 Mar 2012 04:59 AM PST

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Esteemed German climate experts, Dr. Gerhard Kramm and Dr. Ralph Dlugi have now added their voice to a growing science crescendo asking climatologists to stop modeling Earth as if it were a flat disk greenhouse.

The reason say the Germans is that there is “a lack of

tangible evidence” for any atmospheric greenhouse

effect because the science is

“based on meritless conjectures.”

The late Michael Crichton had it exactly right in his book "State of Fear". Wherever he is, he must be grinning like the cat that ate the canary. Actually, Mr. Crichton was mercilessly attacked by the leftists and socialists pushing the global warming hoax. Alarmism is their tool to manipulate and control the public, and Crichton exposed their fraud. In the tradition of Michael Crichton and Andrew Breitbart I hope I and others can keep up the good fight for the truth.
Peter

RIP Michael

This Blog (4)

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Michael Crichton Gone

What a shame, what timing. His writing, his insight, his intellect remain. Do a search on this blog and read more. In tribute, a humble hats off.
Peter

More on Michael Crichton: Predicted Demise of MSM in 1993
'
Written by P.J. Gladnick, newsbusters.org
Wednesday, 05 November 2008

Michael Crichton passed away yesterday. Many of you might remember Crichton as the author of superb science fiction novels such as "Andromeda Strain" and "Jurassic Park." Fewer people will know Crichton as a prominent global warming skeptic. And very few of you out there might know that Crichton was also a prophet who predicted the demise of the mainstream media way back in 1993.

This seems like a good time to honor the memory of Michael Crichton by taking a retrospective look at his 1993 Wired magazine article titled "Mediasaurus" about the impending demise of the mainstream media (emphasis mine):
I am the author of a novel about dinosaurs, a novel about US-Japanese trade relations, and a forthcoming novel about sexual harassment - what some people have called my dinosaur trilogy. But I want to focus on another dinosaur, one that may be on the road to extinction. I am referring to the American media. And I use the term extinction literally. To my mind, it is likely that what we now understand as the mass media will be gone within ten years. Vanished, without a trace.

There has been evidence of impending extinction for a long time. We all know statistics about the decline in newspaper readers and network television viewers. The polls show increasingly negative public attitudes toward the press - and with good reason. A generation ago, Paddy Chayevsky's Network looked like an outrageous farce. Today, when Geraldo Rivera bares his buttocks, when the New York Times misquotes Barbie (the doll), and NBC fakes news footage of exploding trucks, Network looks like a documentary.

According to recent polls, large segments of the American population think the media is attentive to trivia, and indifferent to what really matters. They also believe that the media does not report the country's problems, but instead is a part of them. Increasingly, people perceive no difference between the narcissistic self-serving reporters asking questions, and the narcissistic self-serving politicians who evade them.

And I am troubled by the media's response to these criticisms. We hear the old professional line: "Sure, we've got some problems, we could do our job better." Or the time-honored: "We've always been disliked because we're the bearer of bad news; it comes with the territory; I'll start to worry when the press is liked." Or after a major disaster like the NBC news/GM truck fiasco, we hear "this is a time for reflection."

These responses suggest to me that the media just doesn't get it - doesn't understand why consumers are unhappy with their wares. It reminds me of the story of the man who decided to kill his wife by having a lot of sex with her. Pretty soon this beaming, robust woman shows up, followed by a wizened little man with a cane. He whispers to a friend, "She doesn't know it yet, but she has only two weeks to live."

It is this perception that the media, and our current concept of news, is outmoded, that I would like to address.
So for a moment, let's set aside the usual bromides about the press. Let's take it as given that the bearer of bad news is often executed; that all human beings have an appetite for gossip and scandal; that media must attract an audience; that bias is in the eye of the reader as much as in the pen or sound-bite of the reporter.

And let's talk instead about quality.
The media are an industry, and their product is information. And along with many other American industries, the American media produce a product of very poor quality. Its information is not reliable, it has too much chrome and glitz, its doors rattle, it breaks down almost immediately, and it's sold without warranty. It's flashy but it's basically junk. So people have begun to stop buying it.

Poor product quality results, in part, from the American educational system, which graduates workers too poorly educated to generate high- quality information. In part, it is a problem of nearsighted management that encourages profits at the expense of quality. In part, it is a failure to respond to changing technology - particularly the computer-mediated technology known collectively as the Net. And in large part, it is a failure to recognize the changing needs of the audience.

In recent decades, many American companies have undergone a wrenching, painful restructuring to produce high-quality products. We all know what this requires: Flattening the corporate hierarchy. Moving critical information from the bottom up instead of the top down. Empowering workers. Changing the system, not just the focus of the corporation. And relentlessly driving toward a quality product. Because improved quality demands a change in the corporate culture. A radical change.

Generally speaking, the American media have remained aloof from this process. There have been some positive innovations, like CNN and C-SPAN. But the news on television and in newspapers is generally perceived as less accurate, less objective, less informed than it was a decade ago. Because instead of focusing on quality, the media have tried to be lively or engaging - selling the sizzle, not the steak; the talk-show host, not the guest; the format, not the subject. And in doing so they have abandoned their audience.

Keep in mind that Crichton wrote this article in 1993 before many of us even heard of something called "the Net." And with newspapers now in freefall as more and more people are getting their news information from the Net, Crichton's predictions about the "Mediasaurus" now look incredibly prophetic.
Michael Crichton, R.I.P.
Source

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Michael Crichton Interview With Charlie Rose

This is a video of an interview of author and scientist (yes, he has an M.D. from Harvard) Michael Crichton by Charlie Rose. The primary subject is global warming, climate change and whether it is man-caused. Michael Crichton does not believe it is. He makes some very astute comments. Also, I highly recommend Crichton's book, "State of Fear". There is much more about Michael Crichton on this blog, do a search on his name.
Peter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AA5aIdOqlw&feature=related
(Charlie Rose -- An Hour With Michael Crichton).....the entire interview

Michael Crichton on Global Warming, Part 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noec6Xkx73k&feature=related

Michael Crichton on Global Warming, Part 2 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJJsDtSHjdE&feature=related

Michael Crichton on Global Warming, Part 3 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MagSO9L2Ns0&feature=related

Friday, August 24, 2007

Michael Crichton Speech: Environmentalism As Religion

I can't post the entire speech here without his permission, but this by Michael Crichton is worth reading and saving and contemplating. He sees environmentalism as becoming religion-like, and science being over-run. Read the entire speech here:
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html

He concludes by saying the following:

"Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a good future for the human race. That's our past. So it's time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that."

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Michael Crichton: Our Environmental Future

I wish I could post this entire speech, but I can only quote parts of it and encourage you to read it all here: http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/npc-speech.html

In the speech given January 25, 2005 before The Press Club, in Washington, D.C., Mr. Crichton talks about our environmental history, our perception of the present state of the climate, global warming, and the future. His insight, understanding, and interpretation are profound. It is unfortunate he is dismissed in some sectors as a "just" a fiction writer.
Peter

After his introduction, he says this about global warming:

"Okay. With this as a preparation, let’s turn to the evidence, both graphic and verbal, for global warming. As most of you have heard many times, the consensus of climate scientists believes in global warming. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. "

"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. "

"So we must remember the immortal words of Mark Twain, who said, “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”

He summarizes by saying:

"The idea of spending trillions on the future is only sensible if you totally lack any historical sense, and any imagination about the future. "

"If we should not spend our money on Kyoto, what should we do instead?"

and........

"Second, and most important—we can’t predict the future, but we can understand the present. In the time we have been talking, 2,000 people have died in the Third World. A child is orphaned by AIDS every 7 seconds. Fifty people die of waterborne disease every minute. This does not have to happen. We allow it. "

and finally,

"What is wrong with us that we ignore this human misery and focus on events a hundred years from now? What must we do to awaken our phenomenally rich, spoiled and self-centered society to the issues of the wider world? The global crisis is not 100 years from now—it is right now. We should be addressing it. But we are not. Instead, we cling to the reactionary and anti-human doctrines of outdated environmentalism and turn our backs to the cries of the dying and the starving and the diseased of our shared world."

"And if we are going to remain too self-involved to care about the third world, can we at least care about our own? We live in a country where 40% of high school graduates are functionally illiterate. Where schoolchildren pass through metal detectors on the way to class. Where one child in four says they have seen a murdered person. Where millions of our fellow citizens have no health care, no decent education, no prospects for the future. If we really have trillions of dollars to spend, let us spend it on our fellow human beings. And let us spend it now. And not on our impossible fantasies of what may happen one hundred years from now."

Pete'sPlace On Global Warming/Climate Change