Judith
Thanks for “heads up” on “cli-fi” as a new literary genre (just-in-time for last-minute Christmas shopping!).
Crichton’s <em>State of Fear</em> was certainly one of the first of this kind (and a good read). One could argue that Al Gore’s <em>AIT</em> film also fits the “cli-fi” category (even though it was billed as a “documentary” and there was no “love story”).
As a medical doctor, Crichton also wrote a good one about genetic research, <em>Next,</em> his last before he died (“gen-fi”?).
<em>Polar Red City</em> sounds like a “cli-fi” offshoot of the “cataclysmic disaster” techno-thriller (a genre that has been overworked, especially in Hollywood), but the other novels you cited sound more interesting.
I’ll check out what’s available on Kindle for some holiday reading.
Max
Comment on Cli-Fi by manacker
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Tonyb
A merry christmas and a happy new year to everyone at Climate etc and especially to those whose views do not always coincide with mine.
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker
Max_OK
Yes, you are playing the “stupid numbers game” with me.
How many of those “104,750 American science and engineering Phd’s past age 60″, which you cite have publicly stated that they fully support the IPCC CAGW premise?
Can you cite specific references?
Or are you simply “playing a stupid numbers game”?
Grow up.
Max
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker
Robert
You wrote:
But please tell me why you think the reality-based community is “in defens[e] mode.” I’m curious.
The “:reality-based community” is NOT in defense mode, Robert.
It’s the “CAGW community” that is.
Max
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker
Jim D
Thanks for your cherry-picked list.
You missed the “globally and annually averaged land and sea temperature anomaly” (surface and troposphere), which is not rising.
And, while there is a current pause (which only a true “denier” would deny), NOBODY is saying “that the warming has stopped for good” only that it has “stopped for NOW”.
Max
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker
Bob Droege
Is your last post a lead-in for moving Santer’s “17-year goalposts”?
Max
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker
Peter Lang
IF you and WHT and I have agreed on the “WHAT”, namely:
“Get off of fossil fuels as soon as an economically and politically viable alternate can be implemented”
we can move on to the “HOW”.
I’d agree with you that current nuclear fission technology already gives us that option for the major load (electrical power generation) – provided certain political barriers and public fears can be removed.
I suspect WHT also agrees, but I have not seen a specific statement to that effect.
In addition, IMO there should be basic research on promising future candidates, including nuclear fusion, with some selected government funding where this makes sense. (WHT seems to support this approach, as well). How about you?
Then there is the transportation sector. This is more complicated IMO, because there is no “economically viable alternate to fossil fuels on the shelf” for immediate implementation. Batteries are still too limited. Corn ethanol was a colossal flop. Sugar cane ethanol is geographically limited and involves undesirable land use changes. So more R+D work is needed, again with some possible selected government funding.
But these are just my thoughts – and I don’t know how you and WHT see this.
Max
Max
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker
Thanks for verses of holiday cheer.
Have a great one!
Max
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker
May they be enlightened…
↧
↧
Comment on The Goldilocks Principle by manacker
kim
You are right about the “guilt factor”. It’s the “white man’s burden” to feel guilty about the “white man’s (inherited) affluence” (when others are less fortunate). It also plays into the Judeo-Christian value system most “white men” in the industrialized world grew up with. There is also the concept of “fairness” (often played up by politicos, who are interested in anything but).
[It's also why the "rich white man's guilt-driven phobia with CO2" does not "sell” very well in China or India, where people have totally different mind sets and priorities.]
But I still believe that the strongest visceral emotion of all is that of fear.
And the promoters of CAGW have appealed to this emotion with a well thought out program of fear mongering – and it has worked up to now (for how much longer may be questioned, because all fear mongering campaigns eventually die, when people realize that the conjured-up hobgoblins are imaginary).
Since fear is such a strong emotion, people who are truly afraid are unable to think rationally.
This makes a rational debate with these people very difficult. We see evidence of that here.
But keep up the good work. Reason will eventually prevail.
And have happy holidays!
Max
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by David Springer
To sum up:
Vaughn Pratt is taken to school.
No film at eleven.
↧
Comment on The Goldilocks Principle by manacker
lolwot
Huh?
Come back down to Planet Earth, where Christmas is approaching and all is well…
Max
↧
Comment on The Goldilocks Principle by David Springer
Interesting. We see the hallmarks of design wherever we look in this universe from the smallest scales to the largest. But many of you insist it’s all just an accident and in the same breath imagine the universe is bursting with life. You deny the evidence you actually have and imagine things for which there is no evidence. Incredible.
↧
↧
Comment on Cli-Fi by Coldish
“Most climate scientists dispute Crichton’s science as being error-filled and distorted.” Well, yes, just like much of climate science, and for that matter like much science in many other fields. Incidentally, Crichton was of the stated opinion that ‘…part of observed surface warming [would ] ultimately be attributable to human activity’. Which perhaps makes him (like me) something of a lukewarmer. Or perhaps just an average well-informed sceptic.
There’s plenty of factual data about climate in State of Fear, if you can stand a story line which gets progressively more bizarre the further you read. .
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Arno Arrak
Robert: “…plain old proven AGW…” This “proven” part of your statement is complete nonsense. Haven’t you heard that the warming involved in AGW is based upon the greenhouse warming theory which has turned out to be false? Simple example: there has not been any warming for 16 years while atmospheric carbon dioxide relentlessly increased. Greenhouse theory requires that increasing carbon dioxide should warm the atmosphere but this isn’t happening. The theory, quite simply, is wrong. And any scientific theory that makes wrong predictions belongs in the trash heap of history. The real science you need to know is not the simplistic concept of Arrhenius but the advanced theory of Ferenc Miskolczi. According to him the the Arrhenius absorption is blocked by negative feedback of water vapor. As a result, increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not warm the air, period. That is what is happening now and it has never been any different. The issue is confused by falsified temperature curves that show warming in the eighties and nineties that does not even exist. I had proof of that falsification in my book that has been out for two years now and I bet you don’t even know it exists. It is called “What Warming?” and it will bring you up to date on this and other important things.
↧
Comment on The Goldilocks Principle by oneuniverse
Kim:
Three times in the last century and a half, the rate of temperature rise has been about the same, and in only the last of these was the CO2 rising.According to instrumental records and proxy-based reconstructions, atmospheric CO2 has been rising for the last century and a half. What is the basis for claiming that CO2 has risen only during that last period of temperature rise?
Kim:
I believe anthropogenic CO2 raises the temperature of the earth, but I’m with Jim; I don’t see it yet.How will you recognise it if it’s occurring ?
↧
Comment on The Goldilocks Principle by GarryD
Peter,
Could not agree with you more. Judith has had a good couple of weeks of thoughtful thinking and contribution on this blog (which is good for everyone).
GarryD
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Max_OK
jim2, I’m a little disappointed you decided not to describe your vision of the economy as a machine. I was curious about how you see it as a machine. But I can understand why you wouldn’t want to start writing a long and complicated description on Christmas Eve.
Re your “let’s consider the money one keeps from ones efforts to be a potential.” I’ll buy that. Any money not spent has potential. If I live below my means (always a good idea), the money I don’t spend can be invested with the potential for making me wealthy. Tax I pay also is not money spent by me, and has potential for enhancing national defense, infrastructure, education, and the health and welfare of citizens less fortunate than me.
Of course there should be a reasonable balance between the taxes I pay and what I have left over to save and invest, because being taxed too much might reduce my incentive to make money, which wouldn’t be good for me or anyone else. So far, tax rates have never been high enough to discouraged me from making all the money I can make, and I have in the past paid higher rates than I pay now.
I wish you a MERRY CHRISTMAS.
↧
Comment on Cli-Fi by Jim S
What are “reproducible results” but a form of consensus?
This is a blatantly ignorant statement. Bacon weeps….
↧
Comment on Cli-Fi by Max_OK
I wish hostess Judith Curry and all those who frequent Climate Etc. the best for you and your families during this holiday season.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
