Via James Robertson then Bill de hÓra:
A transcript of the Caltech Michelin Lecture given by Michael Crichton entitled "Aliens Cause Global Warming". The formatting is dodgy, but it's worth reading.
In the mean time we have predictions of massive extinction (also splashed across the front page of The Guardian), and on the Today programme this morning it was reported that Sir David King (RealAudio) was openly condemning the US for their attitude on Global Warming.
This is all very tricky for someone who finds the core of Michael Crichton's argument compelling, but who agrees strongly with Sir David that we need to do much more to reduce our profligate use of energy. Dressing up pseudo-science as science can't be the right answer, but when the politicians lie to stay in power and line their own pockets, and the press have no discernible interest in establishing facts if they get in the way of circulation, then how does one go about building up enough pressure for action to be taken?
At least the people I work with are most interested in quantifying uncertainty and in examining the value of data in order to improve our simulations as efficiently as possible. On the other hand one of the papers I have sitting on my "to read" pile is one by Peter Young which I believe (though of course I haven't read it) is critical of the whole approach taken by climate modellers.
What paper by Peter Young? I checked, but the link to
http://www.es.lancs.ac.uk/cres/staff/pyoung/ does not lead to anything obviously about the hazards of climate modelling.
Posted by: Xeno | February 11, 2004 at 07:10 AM