Crichton on the integrity of science (http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/GW-Aliens-Crichton.html)

Excellent read, thank you.

I am very ambivalent about this article.

Crichton makes two main points:

1. It's a bad thing to claim to know more then you know or things you ought to know that you cannot know, or to make statements based on what sells rather then on what is accurate - and this kind of fraud is way too common.

2. Aliens are connected to global warming.

I love the first point, and hate the second.

I have seen too much of the kind of bullshit he critizises. lets start with "Mörkertal". I think it's called "hidden numbers" in english, not sure. Lets say a number of rapes are committed, but not all of them are reported. The real number of rapes is thus the official number plus the hidden number. This hidden number is, by definition, unknown. It irks me when certain feminist groups claim to have exact figures for the hidden numbers.

As for the other point, however...

For starters, I feel that the second point weakens the argument for the first point: It's not a good example at all that he pulls the same kind of bullshit that he critizises. Granted, presenting things in a way designed to catch the eye and get attention is tle smallest of the sins that he critizise. But still.

Second, there are also some strange statements he makes, and most importantly one fundamental fact that he leaves out:

Global warming is real.
Meassured and empirically proven.

Crichton is correct that we don't know for certain if this global warming is a natural phenomenon or a result of pollution, and that we don't know if it will continue to get warmer or if it will get colder again, but leaving out the fact that the planet is indeed getting warmer for every decade makes him seem a bit dishonest.

Third, his critique against the Drake formula seem kinda misplaced. I agree that the formula might have been misused and that later formulas of the same kind have definitly been misused. But there's nothing wrong or unscienfific with the formula as such. It shows us what we must know in order to know how many other civilizations we have a chance to communicate with. And that's good to know. helps us rebutt extravagant claims from people who think they know how much life is out there. Just aske them for the parameters. If they don't have numbers or can't show how they got them, then they are bullshitting.

Fourth, his analogies about horseshit and weather forecasts are misleading. We don't trust weather forcasts? Well, not so much that we get supprised when they turn out to be inaccurate. But we usually DO trust them enough to bring a umbrella when they say there might be rain. And as for the horseshit, people a hundred years ago did dispose of their own horseshit. They didn't leave it for the next generation to deal with - and thus it's a very flawed analogy that we don't have to worry about how our pollution will affect the next century since the last century didn't worry about how their pollution would affect us.

Fifth and Finally, his argument against consensus is partly missplaced. He is very correct that consensus in itself isn't proof, and shouldn't be treated as such. However, consensus isn't a argument against the thesis, either. He takes as example that there once was a consensus that continents doesn't drift. But now we have a cosnensus that continents do drift, and this doesn't mean that they have stopped drifting. On a side note, Crichton wrongly describe it as a accurate theory that was dismissed outright. In reality, the theory wasn't accurate, and it wasn't dismissed. Alfred Wegener's theory was weak and not entierly accurate, although it's general conclusion was correct. The scientiffic community asked for more evidence and more accurate theoried for how the continental drift worked, and the theory was accepted once this had been presented.

All in all, Crichton have a lot of good points. But also some bits of BS that needs to be critizised.

For starters, I feel that the second point weakens the argument for the first point: It's not a good example at all that he pulls the same kind of bullshit that he critizises. Granted, presenting things in a way designed to catch the eye and get attention is tle smallest of the sins that he critizise. But still.

To a minimal extent. Would you criticize Sartre because telling people that they have to decide things for themselves is still telling them what to do? Sure, an inkling of hypocrisy is inherent, but it's beside the point.

Crichton is correct that we don't know for certain if this global warming is a natural phenomenon or a result of pollution, and that we don't know if it will continue to get warmer or if it will get colder again, but leaving out the fact that the planet is indeed getting warmer for every decade makes him seem a bit dishonest.

Do you know that it won't begin to get colder tomorrow? It's a reasonable assumption but by no means a known fact.

Third, his critique against the Drake formula seem kinda misplaced. I agree that the formula might have been misused and that later formulas of the same kind have definitly been misused. But there's nothing wrong or unscienfific with the formula as such. It shows us what we must know in order to know how many other civilizations we have a chance to communicate with. And that's good to know. helps us rebutt extravagant claims from people who think they know how much life is out there. Just aske them for the parameters. If they don't have numbers or can't show how they got them, then they are bullshitting.

The point is that the Drake formula is absolutely irrelevant until we have the means to determine the exact values of at least some of those variables. Yes, it's a good formulation - Crichton doesn't inherently hate it; in fact, I think it's cited in Sphere. But with our current knowledge it has absolutely no use.

Fourth, his analogies about horseshit and weather forecasts are misleading. We don't trust weather forcasts? Well, not so much that we get supprised when they turn out to be inaccurate. But we usually DO trust them enough to bring a umbrella when they say there might be rain. And as for the horseshit, people a hundred years ago did dispose of their own horseshit. They didn't leave it for the next generation to deal with - and thus it's a very flawed analogy that we don't have to worry about how our pollution will affect the next century since the last century didn't worry about how their pollution would affect us.

To the best of my understanding, the horseshit analogy isn't about cleaning up in the current state - it implies that we see our descendants a hundred years ahead dealing with problems identical to ours but on a much larger scale. In other words, we have cannot predict the future accurately. In Crichton's view, approximation is not science. That's the disputable point there.

As for the fifth point, my knowledge in that area is lacking. I'll take your word for it.

I pretty much disagree with you here Edeina.

Granted, presenting things in a way designed to catch the eye and get attention is tle smallest of the sins that he critizise.

I dont remember reading anything that critisized presentation in that work. Creating a title that makes you want to figure out what the hell someone is talking about is practically the basis of everything everyone reads. As long as he didnt go on to justify that aliens REALLY WERE responsible for global warming, I dont see what the problem is here.

Global warming is real.
Meassured and empirically proven.

I dont think Ive ever seen this proven before, so I would like to see your source on this.

But there's nothing wrong or unscienfific with the formula as such

The formula, in and of itself, is inherently unscientific. Its just like me saying the chance of me dying in the year 2050 by getting rolled over by a bus is proven by the formula Dm = Hm*Am pHA pS pC pT pC, assigning a bunch of numbers into the formula and presenting it as fact. Its not fact - its a guess - and therefore unscientific. Youll know if I get rolled over by a bus in 2050 IN the year 2050, and not a minute sooner. I agree with you that there is nothing WRONG with the formula, but there is only nothing wrong with it until it is presented as fact, or used to base any kind of policy.

And as for the horseshit, people a hundred years ago did dispose of their own horseshit. They didn't leave it for the next generation to deal with - and thus it's a very flawed analogy that we don't have to worry about how our pollution will affect the next century since the last century didn't worry about how their pollution would affect us.

I think you misinterpreted this whole part, he never said we dont need to worry about our own pollution. You shouldnt read more into it than what he said. He was simply pointing out that their problems are not our problems. What is true 100 years ago might not be true today. And therefore for us to state facts about the future is purely opinion and has no basis in science.

However, consensus isn't a argument against the thesis, either. He takes as example that there once was a consensus that continents doesn't drift. But now we have a cosnensus that continents do drift, and this doesn't mean that they have stopped drifting.

An argument against the thesis? Im not sure where you got that from. Maybe I dont understand what youre saying here.
As for continental drift, in my (admittedly limited) knowledge of plate geology I was under the impression that continental drift is put forth as fact, not consensus. Satellites have measured exact yearly amounts of plate movements. I suppose the means of their movement could be in dispute, but I was not aware that there is a portion of the scientific community that says the continents are not drifting. Again maybe I missed what you were trying to say here.

Found the article a very interesting read, thanks for posting it.

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

As long as he didnt go on to justify that aliens REALLY WERE responsible for global warming, I dont see what the problem is here.

It's not just the title.

The entire thesis about SETI is farfetched, and I got the impression that it was made more to get attention then to be accurate. Micht be just me who is cynic, of course. :)

I dont think Ive ever seen this proven before, so I would like to see your source on this.

Oh, it's nothing fancy.
Just the simple fact that metreological records have been kept for the last 150 years or so, and they do show a steady trend that it is indeed getting warmer. We had big newspaper headlines about it a few years ago: "warmest summer in over 100 years". As far as I know, there is no controversy about this fact. I took some 90 seconds to search SMHI.se, the site for the swedish meterological institute. Didn't find anything in the quick search, might call them one day or another and ask.

Of course, like Willgatus said, this does not prove that it won't start getting colder. Like I said, we don't know if the warming is part of a natural cycle or if it's due to human civilization.

I agree with you that there is nothing WRONG with the formula, but there is only nothing wrong with it until it is presented as fact, or used to base any kind of policy.

Please note the difference between "the formula itself" and "numbers attributed to the parameters of the formula".

That the formula itself is accurate can be proven mathematically/logically. Nothing unscientific about that. HOWEVER, if you are to make a prediction based on the formula, then you need numbers to fill the parameters with. And if you make up numbers rather then basing them on scientific observation, then you are being unscientific.

Since we don't have scientific observations for the parameters, it would be very unscientific to claim any specific number of civilizations to be anything more then a guess. But the SETI project have done no such claims. Not to my knowledge, and if they had done it then I'm sure C. had brought it up in his critique.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/images/20020313-figure2.gif

Figure 2 -- Surface temperature changes sampled worldwide and analyzed by Cambridge Research Unit (CRU) and NASA-Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS). The pattern of 20th century temperature change has three distinct phases: an early 20th-century warming, a mid-century cooling, and a late 20th-century warming.

First, a strong warming trend of about 0.5 C began in the late 19th century and peaked around 1940. Next, the temperature decreased from 1940 until the late 1970s. Recently, a third trend has emerged -- a modest warming from the late 1970s to the present.

Because about 80% of the carbon dioxide from human activities was added to the air after 1940, the early 20th Century warming trend had to be largely natural. Human effects from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases amount to at most 0.1 C per decade - the maximum amount of the surface warming trend seen since the late 1970s. This surface warming would suggest a temperature trend of about 1 C per century, which is less than that predicted by the computer simulations of the air's increased human-made greenhouse gas content. Accumulated over a century, civilization will readily adapt to such a modest warming trend. However, the recent trend in surface warming may not be primarily attributable to human-made greenhouse gases.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/images/20020313-figure4.gif

Figure 3 -- Monthly averaged temperatures sampled nearly globally for the lower troposophere (roughly 5,000 to 28,000 feet altitude) from Microwave Sounder Unit (MSU) instruments onboard NASA satellites. The large spike of warmth resulted from the temporary natural warming of the Pacific Ocean by the 1997 - 1998 El Niño event. The linear trend is +0.04 C per decade (data are from http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/)

Record of lower troposphere temperature

Computer simulations of climate in which the air's greenhouse gas concentrations increase owing to human activities predict detectable warming not only near the surface but also in the layer of air above the surface, the lower troposphere, which rises in altitude from roughly two to eight kilometers. Records from NASA's Microwave Sounder Units aboard satellites extend back 21 years and cover most of the globe (Figure 3). The satellite-derived record is validated independently by measurements from NOAA balloon radiosonde instruments, and those records extend back over 40 years (Figure 4). Those records show that the temperature of the lower troposphere does vary, e.g., the strong El Niño warming pulse of 1997-98 is obvious. However, no meaningful human warming trend, as forecast by the computer simulations, can be found.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/images/20020313-figure3.gif

Figure 4 -- The seasonal average temperature anomaly sampled worldwide for the lower troposphere as measured by radiosonde instruments carried aboard balloons. Although a linear trend of +0.09C per decade is present if fitted across the entire period of the record, that trend is affected by the presence of the abrupt warming that occurred in 1976-1977, owing to the action of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The trends before and after the 1976-1977 Great Pacific Climate Shift indicate no evidence of a significant human-made warming trend (source of data http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/angell/glob.dat)

The radiosonde record from balloons confirms the results of the satellites. Although the radiosonde record lacks the dense spatial coverage from satellites, the radiosonde record extends back to 1957, a period that includes the recent rapid rise in the air's carbon dioxide concentration. The balloon record shows no warming trend in global average temperature prior to the dramatic shift in 1976-77. That warming, known as the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976 - 1977, is not attributable to human causes but is a natural, shift in the Pacific that occurs every 20 to 30 years, and can affect global average temperatures.

When compared to the observed response of the climate system, the computer simulations all have forecast warming trends much steeper over the last several decades than measured. The forecasts exaggerate to some degree the warming at the surface, and profoundly in the lower troposphere.

The complexity of the computer simulations of climate is one reason the forecasts are unreliable. The simulations must track over 5 million parameters. To simulate climate change for a period of several decades is a computational task that requires 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 degrees of freedom. To improve the forecasts, much better information is required, including accurate understanding of the two major, natural greenhouse gas effects - water vapor and clouds.



As far as I know, there is no controversy about this fact.

Doesnt look like such a clear cut case of fact to me... More like... big business. Not saying that the world isnt VERY slightly warmer than it was 150 years ago, 1 degree or less and even less variation as you go higher, but such grandiose terms as 'global warming' make me think of nothing akin to science.

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

Thanks for the data.
It's a bit lower then I remembered, but that's consistent with me reading about it a few years ago, when there was that huge peak.

I was gonna latch onto it but you beat me to it Slant :/

Global warming is a way to sell more expensive "earth safe" products, mainly to industry(which have been forced to switch to them). An interesting thing to think about is how the average global temperature actually decreased from around 1950-1970, the time when the industry boom mixed with almost no environmental standards should have caused it to rise if the global warming theory were correct.

'Global warming is a way to sell more expensive "earth safe" products,'

- Oh dear god.

'Global warming is a way to sell more expensive "earth safe" products,'

- Oh dear god.

Cmon Halo have a discussion for once.

Im not sure if I agree about selling expensive earth safe products, although that might be part of it. However I do believe that the enviroment friendly groups that collect money and do government lobbying have grown into an entity of their own. As with any business, you have employees and assets and at this point it is by far in your best interests to stay in business. They mail millions of requests for donations and get funds from the government, it has become big business. Why would they want global warming to be solved? Then they are out of work. Its still a problem because they want it to continue to be a problem.

Again, Im not saying that they do no good and are leeches or anything, or even that I blame them for looking out for their own best interest - thats capitalism. However, if you think that I donate money to those funds - I do not, and never will.

I think if you look at the numbers in a completely subjective and impartial light, maybe they warrant the existence of one or two "global health" watchdog groups - but you have literally thousands of organizations vying for our money. I wonder how much of the funds they receive actually go to a worthwhile end and how much of the funds go to pay their staff. Ill bet youd be surprised if you knew.

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

I realize you have absolutely no real world experience with this topic, so I'll give you a little insight.

"Environmentally Safe" products generally cost 1.5-2x more than the old ones. It's all about the buck.

Just as an example, if you wanted to go to the auto store and buy the freon to recharge your car's ac you wouldn't be able to if you were professionally certified in refridgeration. You could go to school for it, take the test to prove you know what you are doing, and still be told they can't sell it to you.

You know why?

What you need to have is a little card you send in some cash for. No test, no checking to see if you actually know what you are doing..just send us 50 bucks and we'll send you the card so you can buy freon.

That's just one small example a friend of mine went through... I could probably find 100 more just like this if I tried.

I understand that in Happy Halo Land, you believe what they tell you and think the world will all be better if everyone does what the greenies tell them(and they can't possibly be out to make cash for themselves or their buddies), but this is the real world.

Cmon Halo have a discussion for once.

That would get in the way of him raising his post count legitimatly. That's a negative.

The dispute isn't so much over whether the planet's temperature is generally increasing or has increased since measurements first began. Rather, it's about the cause of the increase, the ramifications of such an increase, and how much this increase might continue (which Critchon touches on).

Edeina's criticism are a bit over-stated, but generally on track except where pointed out above. It's important not to let that get in the way of the message, that science must resist becoming a political or commercial enterprise.