EnviroLink Forum

Gore versus Chrichton on Global Warming
Page 1 of 1

Author:  greenpower [ Tue May 27, 2014 5:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Gore versus Chrichton on Global Warming

Michael Crichton’s fiction novel, “State of Fear”, is in opposition to Al Gore’s nonfiction book, “An Inconvenient Truth”, when it comes to global warming. Both authors use facts, graphs and tables to prove their sides of this argument. Al Gore being the politician that he is uses scientists, who feel man is responsible for global warming, to warn us that we are doomed unless we make changes in how we treat our environment. Michael Crichton uses scientists, who feel that global warming is a series of natural cycles, to show that we have always had both global warming and ice ages. Crichton is out to prove that the politicians, environmentalists, and the media are using scare tactics to persuade us to change our ways. While, Al Gore tries to convince us that he truly wants to save this planet by convincing us to alter the way we live. For those familiar with these men’s books (or Al Gore’s documentary) which one presents the most convincing argument?
P.S. ](*,) Sorry about the recent spamming guys. But my contract with my publisher ends in a few months. Just thought I'd let some of you know about a good deal.

Author:  Milton Banana [ Wed May 28, 2014 9:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Gore versus Chrichton

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/gores-foota ... real-there

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 008-9125-0

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 008-9129-9

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthn ... ganda.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthn ... ruths.html

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monck ... rrors.html

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Wed May 28, 2014 5:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gore versus Chrichton

Odd the first post was about the book and the reply was related to the movie, but Milton lost when he posted the reference to Monckton as a source ... epic fail.

Author:  Milton Banana [ Wed May 28, 2014 7:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gore versus Chrichton

I had to include Monckton. I know how much you love that guy. 8)
Say what you want about the former Thatcher advisor.

Washington DC – UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

“The House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”

So, Gore ducked Monckton in a committee room. And...
http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/13/lord- ... o-al-gore/

Lord Christopher Monckton, former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, has a challenge for former Vice President Al Gore: debate me.

Think the science of climate change is settled? Monckton is ready to go toe-to-toe with climate change’s leading voice.

“By the way, Al baby, if you’re watching, I’m still waiting for a proper reply to my challenge to you of 2007 that you and I should debate the issue on national television,” Monckton challenged in an interview with The Daily Caller’s Ginni Thomas.

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapit ... s-critics/

But he was challenged by Mr. Lomborg, the Danish skeptical environmentalist who thinks the world would be better off spending more money on health and education issues than curbing carbon emissions.

“I don’t mean to corner you, or maybe I do mean to corner you, but would you be willing to have a debate with me on that point?” asked the polo-shirt wearing Dane.

“I want to be polite to you,” Mr. Gore responded. But, no.

http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/ ... /21572.pdf
Dennis Avery's invitation to Gore.
Therefore, I formally challenge you to debate me at a public event, preferably to be televised or carried by a radio station, sometime in the coming months.

http://heartland.org/press-releases/200 ... rtId=20873
But Gore refuses to debate Lord Monckton, just as he refuses to debate Dennis Avery and a growing list of prominent scientists, economists, novelists, and policy experts.

If the scientific debate over global warming is over, as Gore and other climate alarmists so often claim, why is Al Gore afraid to debate?

Epic fail goes to Gore who won't debate Monckton, or anyone else for that matter. If I'm Al Gore and I'm certain I have the facts, science, and consensus on my side I'd be chomping at the bit to debate. I'd be convinced I'd wipe the floor with any opponent who doesn't have the facts or science on his side. Gore is behaving like he has something to hide so pardon me for not taking his word for it.

The OP compares two works of fiction. What is that going to get us?

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Thu May 29, 2014 5:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gore versus Chrichton

Here is more on the denialist DRIVEL;
The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming
Posted on 28 May 2014 by dana1981

"Rupert Murdoch’s The Wall Street Journal editorial page has long published op-eds denying basic climate science. This week, they published an editorial denying the 97% expert scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming. The editorial may have been published as a damage control effort in the wake of John Oliver’s brilliant and hilarious global warming debate viral video, which has now surpassed 3 million views. After all, fossil fuel interests and Republican political strategists have been waging a campaign to obscure public awareness of the expert consensus on global warming for nearly three decades.

The Wall Street Journal editorial was written by Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute political advocacy group of Unabomber billboard infamy, and Roy Spencer of “global warming Nazis” infamy. Spencer previously claimed in testimony to US Congress to be part of the 97% consensus, although his research actually falls within the less than 3% fringe minority of papers that minimize or reject the human influence on global warming.

Spencer’s claim to the contrary was a result of failing to understand the consensus research he referenced. In The Wall Street Journal this week, Spencer and Bast continued that tradition of misunderstanding and misrepresenting the scientific literature on the expert global warming consensus.

For example, in order to reject the findings of the paper my colleagues and I published last year finding a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature, Bast and Spencer referenced a critical comment subsequently published by David Legates et al. in an obscure off-topic journal called Science and Education. That paper was based on a blog post written by Christopher Monckton, who's infamous for calling environmental activists “Hitler Youth.”"
http://www.skepticalscience.com/wsj-den ... ensus.html
Gore IS hiding something. He is trying to get the HGHGs lowered in a way that does not scare people.
Fiction comparison is nothing, compared to reality beyond imagination by most.
It is not understood by most that what we are facing is even worse than our own extinction.
I am not a Hitler Youth. I am a nearly 65 year old very educated decorated disabled by combat veteran, and a Green Republican Nationalist, an American Patriot. Not only have I educated many, I have faxed and written to many over the years. There is not enough one person can do to change world emissions and overpopulation dilemmas.
It started out with math and knowledge of the impending population crash from 1967 on. My caring about the unborn of the future. Then it got much worse with AGW progressing beyond almost all worst case scenarios.
I tell you to pray to God as you understand Him, that we have enough time, power, and will, to stop methane turnover. Read the various links I have posted on both phenomena, and, if you are sane, your ass will pucker with fear. :shock: :razz: 8) :lol: #-o =; :mrgreen: :-({|=

Author:  greenpower [ Thu May 29, 2014 11:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gore versus Chrichton

Since no one has yet mentioned Michael Crichton novel, “State of Fear”, I thought I’d through out a few quotes to get the discussion going on Crichton’s novel.
Fist, let me take a quote from Crichton himself in his “Author’s Message” at the end of his book.
“We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a four-hundred-year cold spell known as the Little Ice Age.”
Also, let me quote from a review of a reader at Good Reads.
“I just finished reading "State of Fear," Michael Crichton's (creator of ER and author of Jurassic Park, Timeline, and many others) latest novel. We discussed this a few months ago but I must say this book really is a delicious slap in the face for ill-informed environmentalists. If you have environmentalist leanings, or think that global warming is important, or even real, do yourself a favor and read this book. It is an entertaining way to lift yourself out of the haze of junk science and histrionic propaganda that is disseminated by the media in order to promote the environmentalist agenda. The book, like all Crichton novels, is thoroughly researched and the result is a sublime mix of science and technology on one hand and suspense, mystery and action driven plot on the other. Moreover, while the book is fiction, the research discussed therein is real and thoroughly documented with real references. There is a lot to learn from this novel, in more ways than one, it is downright Randian.”

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Fri May 30, 2014 5:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Gore versus Chrichton

In order to have a reasonable discussion on the book, one would have to read it and I stopped reading his work a long time ago. His premise for Jurassic Park, as the real scientists knew, was critically flawed, which is fine for works of fiction, but when he came forward as an "expert" based on similar flawed research it was too much.

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Fri May 30, 2014 2:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gore versus Chrichton

Authors and denialists like to make conspiracy theories. The State of Fear book was fiction, but there should be a state of fear, but with enough will power to lower emissions enough to stop the starting methane turnover process guys like authors and denialist can not seem to comprehend.
Gore did not use the latest methane release data, because the presentation was scary enough. Crichton did wrong by giving people a conspiracy theory for real dollars.
27 May 2014, 5.52am BST
Forget ‘saving the Earth’ – it’s an angry beast that we’ve awoken
"Environmentalism is undergoing a radical transformation. New science has shown how long-held notions about trying to “save the planet” and preserve the life we have today no longer apply.

Instead, a growing chorus of senior scientists refer to the Earth with metaphors such as “the wakened giant” and “the ornery beast”, a planet that is “fighting back” and seeking “revenge”, and a new era of “angry summers” and “death spirals”.

Whether you consider yourself to be an environmentalist or not, the warnings from Earth system science have far-reaching implications for us all."
http://theconversation.com/forget-savin ... oken-27156
Get off your doof :eh: and work hard :shock: to reduce your own emissions to 1/10 of the average or less \:D/ , and do it all within 6 years or so. #-o [-o< 8-[
Unless data this late summer shows the tundra self release tipping point is passed. :cry: :-({|=


Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group