michael crichton on global warming

[@dennisconway1703]

“Consensus science is not science”. Truer words were never spoken.

[@Sander-zj3wi]

"Are we moving away from science". I say yes, because we now really start to understand how fraudulent large parts if it are. Also honest scientists based their work on fraudulent data, making their efforts useless. At least in some area's you can not get away with it: "Yes sir, we did al the calculations and the Tacoma Narrows Bridge will hold a 100 years!"

[@trhansen3244]

Tell that to Obama who declared the science was settled.

[@HighRollersLounge]

do you people even know what the term scientific consensus exactly means? because it's not like there is some secret council of scientists that votes on what the consensus will be on a given issue

[@unitc87]

Came for this comment

[@Watcher3223]

Precisely. Mr. Crichton astutely points out that consensus is the business of politics, not science. Additionally, he also has said that all science requires is one person who's right and can consistently prove it with repeatable results.

[@shoobidyboop8634]

I get the sense that Crichton is frustrated because of the difficulty in having a conversation with a child.

[@kareemsalessi]

This guy, plus all MSM hosts are pure clowns!!!

[@bobwaller1649]

OMG You couldn’t be more right! You look at him and see the utter frustration in discussing science intelligently with Rose or Washington. I miss him so very very much 😢

[@mbriancohen]

Nearly EVERY scientist that isn't paid off by Oil Companies supports Al Gore. You are absolutely worthless, do you understand that?

[@pookiecatblue]

A petulant child, at that.

[@tristandufresne2870]

Crichton would have been on Joe Rogan's show at least 4 times by now if he were still alive

[@ivanhorvath]

I doubt it very much. He wouldn't go that low.

[@tristandufresne2870]

@@ivanhorvath i hope yr right but i have my doubts

[@eileen1820]

The desire of you both to promote censorship is just gross.

[@bsrfuchs55]

@@eileen1820 it's not censorship. it is just disappointment

[@churblefurbles]

@@eileen1820 Not censorship, if really based, he would understand CNN Joe is rather cucked.

[@billk8579]

Charlie Rose fired from his lofty position of inquisitor because his personal morals were as poor as his intellectual honesty.

[@gl2996]

Only if football strategy were beyond Griner's ability to understand. Football strategy isn't an incomprehensible black box, you know. Niether is science, and, in particular, climate science. It's in the public domain, and available to understanding, intellectually, by people who make the effort to understand. Nothing Crichton said in this interview has been proven wrong in the intervening decade and a half since his death. Nothing he said or wrote on this subject elsewhere has, either. Many of his positions, in fact, remain profoundly insightful. Particularly what he said about models and Complex Systems.

[@yuothineyesasian]

Jews in a nutshell.

[@isabellajones8535]

Rose wrecked this. Constant interruptions, arguing, trying to force his own views, all stopped us getting the best of MC view.

[@Torgo1969]

Agreed. His behavior was bad and he should feel bad.

[@rustybarrel516]

Agree with the point, although Charlie was mainly parroting the views of others rather than his own. Journalists are wired to want the most sensational things to be true.

[@chrisgreene2623]

He did because Crichton is FOS

[@williamrbuchanan4153]

He is there as an antagonist and his tries fell on deaf ears. Love that. Truth for a dose of medicine for humanities mindset existence of MONEY. They don’t mind the World ending as much as losing. Money

[@audioworkshop1]

that was his job... attack the heretic if there was a tribunal they would have burned him at the stake

[@JohnSmith-dh4gw]

Someone willing to say "I don't know..." The integrity to stand up in front of the world and say that is rare.

[@stevenlee9064]

He just oozes honesty and dignity. His commitment to truth took him down a dark lane he wasn’t fond of entering. But he did it anyway. Truth warrior may you RIP.

[@markcamsari8466]

rotff😂

[@fungussa]

Lol, you say that yet he denies a vast amount of science in which he had no expertise. He was trying to mislead others, including yourself, of course.

[@andrewcheadle948]

@@fungussa what science did he deny exactly? Do we all have to be experts in a field in order to have an input? And what if its you who are being mislead by a one way narrative? That in itself should set alarm bells ringing in anyone's head who is capable of critical thinking... So ask yourself that. How come pretty much all the msm is spoon feeding us with scaremongering shite, that there's a climate crisis.... Which of course there isn't. Not by anyone's wildest imagine, except maybe Al Gores!

[@fungussa]

@@andrewcheadle948 He clearly denied the fact that the recent rapid is due to mankind's activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels. The CO2 greenhouse effect is rooted in basic physics and chemistry. With every single academy of science in the world accepting the science, and there's not a single university course or textbook on climate 'skeptic' science. And heck, every single prediction made by the CO2 greenhouse effect has been shown to be true, incl satellite data. Heck of the CO2 greenhouse effect were doing then most university physics and chemistry textbooks would need to be torn up. Even ExconMobil, BP and She'll accept the science, and the science is also the basis of the largest agreement in world history.

[@csjrogerson2377]

Honest my arse. The reason so few scientists in the field agree with him is because he is just plain wrong. Many of his statements are untrue especially the 0.1C in the last 100 yrs. Its just wrong. His prediction is also crap.

[@artsmart]

Would love to hear Michael's take on our pandemic response to Covid19 were he still with us.

[@chadloosemore6627]

He did mention the bird flu is a potential catastrophe in this interview.

[@johnjames661]

As he was a Harvard educated medical doctor, rest assured that he would laugh at the suggestion! The suggestion of any pandemic having occurred. He would've likely howled with laughter at our so called response!!

[@777jones]

@@johnjames661 he would have rejected all the political hysteria and focused on the numbers. Where I live, the median age of covid deaths was 85. It hardly affected life expectancy at all.

[@cybersketcher1130]

You said it

[@JH-qy8no]

He most definitely would not fall for the hysteria and mass fear tactics by the media.

[@Mxsmanic]

A voice of reason strugglng against emotional hysteria.

[@fungussa]

You say that because Crichton is a fake expert, and we all know that climate change deniers love fake experts.

[@chrisgreene2623]

Bollocks

[@fungussa]

@@Shei-vei Are you trying to claim that a fake expert's opinion on data is important?

[@RobertMJohnson]

@@Shei-vei you again? "only the data matters". really? who vetted the data? who confirms the data? and "data" doesn't matter; the ANALYSIS of data matters. so we know you've ZERO EXPERIENCEwith predictive models.

[@noiceman]

@angus143 Just because Crichton didn't specialize in climate science, doesn't mean he can't read and understand/interpret the data. You're such an insufferable pseudointellect. Climate scientists are the bottom of the rung as far as science/math is concerned, lol. Where is your published, peer-reviewed work?

[@SunDevilinFL]

Maybe if PBS asks leading questions for another 10 hours they’ll get the answers they want.

[@rogerwilcojr]

I'm surprised he didn't ask if he had stopped beating his wife.

[@iguanaamphibioustruck7352]

He is a great author who creates good in our society through his writing. I have a son in law who is a doctor and lives in a house that is on foot above sea level in SW WA. When he expresses concern about his situation, while we are enjoying a bonfire dinner at his home, I point out that he can go within a rifle shot of where we are and build a memorial at the base of a cedar tree on Long Island that is a foot above sea level. The tree is 4000 years old. Iguana

[@AmericanNope]

What kind of story is this? The oldest tree in existence in America is estimated to be 4800 + years old. There are no known trees in Washington state of that age or even close to.

[@gl2996]

@@AmericanNope Not only is it a weird sort of story, but his son is right to be concrned, because he made a questionable decision. Sea levels have been rising a steady 7 inches a century since the last ice age ended, and will continue to do so until earth temperatures start to head back into the next ice age. Anyone buying a home "a foot above sea level," is already going to face catastrophy any time there's a serious storm. That is certainly a serious concern. Whether or not his great, great grandchildren - if they still have the property - will have to deal with storm damage that's 9 inches higher, rather than 7, isn't much of one.

[@fionawestbury7298]

Thus interviewer is SO irritating!! He is simply not open to alternative views. Crichton is SO rational, honest, sincere and professional in his assessments. It's a privilege to listen to him. He could see what was coming.

[@marcogasperoni2391]

Exactly like how it is today - different opinion? Canceled.

[@louishennick6883]

Crichen grossly underestimated the effects of co2 on heating the planet. How could a science fiction writer take on a community of scientists conducting valid work and study on climate?

[@marcogasperoni2391]

@@louishennick6883 he was a doctor/ scientist and also a writer. He is still correct - the co2 levels still haven’t caused a catastrophic event

[@TheoSmith249]

So far ahead of everyone else - " Are we moving to a society that is less interested in verified data?"... prescient question that seems to be fulfilled in 2022

[@dthornto31]

Miss this man and his intellect. I remember watching this 10 years ago on youtube. Amazing how well his arguments hold up. “Nothing is more sobering than a 50 year old newspaper article” -Michael Crichton

[@thewealthofnations4827]

I looked at 100+ year old newspaper articles to find out if there were more wildfire now than in Australia than reports 100+ years ago. The argument is every time we have a wildfire it is caused by global warming. I found something so profound. It was an article saying something like this. "Not a night goes by that there isn't a distant red glow of a wildfire in the distance."

[@777jones]

He was a (medical) scientist who couldn’t be bought. He didn’t have to worry about where his next grant was coming from. That’s quite rare.

[@stevecampbell7620]

Brilliant when MC stated "I am not a catastrophist" Don't let a catastrophy go to waste say the alarmists.

[@marktwainlover]

I think that is a direct quote from Rom Emanuel.

[@AviChetriArtwork]

Catastrophising has caused environmentalists to become a nuisance to the public, especially to conservatives. We need to show everyone that this is a fixable issue not requiring people to stop living their lives comfortably.

[@unsuckified3192]

Nope, they're (the left) coming after our way of life as the only solution. They'll spend us into oblivion and cause mass food poverty despite the damage they'll do to lives and the economy.

[@rogerandes8]

not just a nuisance, possibly dangerous. some of the strategies proposed by alarmists could kill millions if not billions. humans need energy, for most everything, to survive

[@margyeoman3564]

I think so much more could be done with oil and gas. In making things better. Better handling, better use. Cars and engines don't need to be so disposable. Use your brains for more than new, and sales, and planned obsolescence .

[@rogerandes8]

@@margyeoman3564 agreed. i've kept my tacoma for 20 years now. it has 350,000 miles on the current engine, not kidding. so it is possible to accidentally build and engine that will last a long time. think about what would happen if we did it on purpose. But the disposable thing goes for a lot of stuff not just cars. tvs, phones, radios, computers, accessories, i remember family owning a big console tv for almost 30 years. problem is all the rich oligarchs that rule us can't separate us from our money unless they can keep selling us stuff.

[@smokedbrisket3033]

Michael Schellenberger and Bjorn Lomborg seem to be the only 2 sane voices on the left WRT all of this, and Crichton acknowledged the latter in this interview.

[@phill2035]

What a bafoon Charlie Rose is. So glad he was finally exposed.

[@ivanhorvath]

They did him in because of the Larry Silverstein on 9.11 grill . . . "Where were you on 9.11/" Watch it on KZbin.

[@rustybarrel516]

“Exposed” 😂👍

[@chrisgreene2623]

Actually it was the tedious bore Chricton that was exposed

[@richlisola1]

@@chrisgreene2623you’ve certainly revealed your middling IQ

[@mwhite1474]

MC said "I might get killed for this". He was referring to his writing of State of Fear. Maybe MC was right.

[@txpete100]

I think he may have been killed. Imagined what his take would be on this whole pandemic thing ?

[@mwhite1474]

@@txpete100 Informed prophecy just like Orwell's 1984.

[@pookiecatblue]

I was thinking the same thing.

[@JohnBdog]

At minute 8:15 sec, Charlie Rose provides a perfect example of an angry preteen trying to convince their parent that they "want what they want when they want it" - damn reason, logic, and facts. A child interviewing an impressive adult.

[@Sander-zj3wi]

It is a typical interview method. If the interviewer doesn't like a certain direction or answer he does a 5 question rapid fire so the one interviewed is of track. We can remember about 5 things so the interviewer clears the memory cache and fills it with 5 new ones. kzbin.info/www/bejne/o3vOYWWOfsSmiKM

[@fredflintstone8048]

Well, there's no question that Charlie's mind is made up.

[@rogerwilcojr]

And all the good scientists agree with him.

[@fredflintstone8048]

@@rogerwilcojr Good behaving scientists, yes.

[@kennethjones4574]

@@rogerwilcojr i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you use the word "good" with sarcasm

[@rogerwilcojr]

@@kennethjones4574 I used "good" because that's what Charlie said. He actually expected Michel to show up with scientists that would refute his beliefs, because no "good" scientists would agree with him.

[@brokula1312]

Horrible interviewer, great guest. Amazing how Michael was spot on 28:38

[@JasonRasmussen]

He's totally right there. Now people can't even define what a woman is, and "birthing persons".

[@Torgo1969]

He just got finished talking about the inability to predict the future, yet he made a horrifyingly accurate prediction. He was too humble and Rose was a fool. MC brought up excellent points about epistemology and Rose immediately changed the subject to "regrets of the past". From intellect to emotion. Rose should have been shining MC's shoes.

[@rustybarrel516]

@@Torgo1969 Rose is a prisoner of the false security of the consensus he perceives from his social circle of politicians and media figures. It reminds me of a famous (perhaps apocryphal) line attributed to Pauline Kael, film critic for the New Yorker, following the landslide electoral victory of Richard Nixon over George McGovern in 1972 - "I can't believe Nixon won. I don't know anyone who voted for him."

[@johnjones6601]

@@rustybarrel516 Hahaha. Spot on. 👍

[@WildBikerBill]

@@rustybarrel516 Most of the scientists Charlie Rose talks to are in D.C. to lobby for their next years funding and will say whatever their political master(s) wants them to say.

[@21stcenturyjesuschrist85]

when i was a kid in the early 90’s they told us we’d all be brown and under water right now

[@matthiasnagorski8411]

That's weird. When I was a kid in the 90's they taught us that the climate can be effected by a myriad of things and that we've seen temperature increases roughly year to year since basically the 1960's. They taught us that the earth has cycles, but there's evidence that those cycles can be sped up or slowed down if certain conditions are met or maintained. They taught us not to put absolute faith in those above us, to form our own opinion, and to notice the trends in research. Crichton just sounds like a Do Nothing person, which bothers me. He seems to think that we will just work it out, not realizing the stagnation we hit for nearly one hundred years regarding fossil fuels. We WERE innovating tech like that quickly. Then we found tech that worked and we stuck with that and it was fine. But now we have 2-3 times the population as we did a century ago, we're realizing the finite nature of many of our natural resources, and we have the technology and systems in place to absolute destroy humanity with the push of a button. There are reasons we should be working globally to develope new technology. There is a reason to be concerned with how fast we do exactly that. It may not be the extreme weather that kills most of us. We'd probably do that ourselves.

[@amariner5]

And that we would all have AIDS. Man, the fear machine was really working overtime, but it had to, it was set to "GEN X" mode, and we really dgaf.

[@Torgo1969]

And when I was a kid in the 70s there was a state of fear inculcated by the media and scientists (writing to President Nixon) about The Coming Ice Age.

[@johngeier8692]

Indeed, there was widespread media reports of forecast rapid sea level rise.

[@kevinpils4716]

@@johngeier8692 You probably should stop listen to the media when it comes to scientific topics, because science never said we would be underwater by 2022.

[@lornaaltemus6755]

This is an excellent example of a Interview of Agenda, where the interviewer badgers and hectors Michael Crichton. This is proof of the hostility to differing opinions.

[@marcogasperoni2391]

Yes and all those years ago - look at it now ! The exactly the same

[@raythackston1960]

Nothing Al Gore said in his movie has happened...NOT ONE THING.

[@kareemsalessi]

12:00 Al-Gore is a fraud, just as this host & his global-warming are both frauds !!!

[@thewealthofnations4827]

He's rich, he doesn't care.

[@louishennick6883]

Cuz you say so?

[@liberty-matrix]

"The problem with science is science follows the money." ~Russell Brand

[@AapVanDieKaap]

But then it isn't science anymore. It's just fraud.

[@artsmart]

True, but don't most of us one way or other.

[@starlight14118]

the problem with russell brand is he knows nothing about science or how knowledge is advanced via the scientific process and therefore has no basis for knowing what is going on or not. ANYONE can view the world through a lens of conspiracy and see what they want to see. If FACTS rather than showmanship and sensationalism were what he presented to support his view, then it would be worth considering. Still waiting for that

[@028fn48dne]

The problem with russell brand is he's a twit.

[@brianjacob8728]

they sold their souls and sold out the public who finances them. Bad move academia.

[@meb280]

I wonder what MC would think about the terminology change from global warming to climate change, where now every hurricane, flood, drought, etc. is blamed on man’s CO2 output?

[@i_unfriend_u]

The biggest thing about the change in terminology is that “climate change” is much more broad than “global warming”. Therefore, the argument becomes much more opaque and propagandized, so people are more inclined to believe in the modern narrative based on climatic events that have occurred for all of human history.

[@lakaskafad]

Gone way too soon. Really wish we could have his perspective about what’s going on today.

[@fungussa]

Lol, he made so many easily debunked claims. eg he said that he thought the sun would be shown to be the main driver, of increasing global temperature. Yet satellites clearly slow that solar radiation has been in slow decline since the 1970s, the same time since which there's been rapid warming. But that doesn't bother climate change deniers, as so many science services not only lack basic scientific literacy, but they also like false experts.

[@ericmichel3857]

Fundamentally nothing has changed, his opinion would be the same.

[@fungussa]

@@ericmichel3857 What do you mean?

[@ericmichel3857]

@@fungussa I mean that nothing has changed to alter the opinion that Climate change is any sort of existential threat. The things he said back in 2006 are still valid today.

[@yoyoma17]

@@fungussa Ok, so what other claims has he made that have been debunked? And since this interview how many of the climate "scientists" claims have been debunked? Or are we not not allowed to question, let alone, debunk anything they say?

[@Ajax-0137]

God, I hate KZbin inserting their climate change bullshit in the description

[@rabbalam]

It wasn't there when I first uploaded the video....but eventually, they found it!

[@sarinazianour2729]

@@rabbalam can you describe this please?

[@athulfgeirsson]

I don't have it. Based?

[@ubuu7]

cry harder, don't like it create your own google

[@nickmontanaro9638]

@@ubuu7 thanks for the ammunition (not that we need any more). Funny how us climate "deniers" are the fascists while leftist "woke folk" like ubuu7 make comments like this.

[@anthonymorris5084]

I have it on good authority that the Arctic will be completely ice free by 2013. Um, wait.

[@randymarshall1267]

I keep asking the same question. What happened to cause the relatively rapid warming that resulted in the end of the last Ice Age 15,000 years ago ? BMW's tearing across the ice packs , Ya' think?

[@frankpocius6196]

When I was a child I asked my father what we should do in preparation for the recent forecast of gloom and doom. His response was that the disaster never comes true and there is always a new threat imagined every 10 or 12 years because the old threat never happenes. My children can’t believe that politicians would be so corrupt and use fear to distract and to control people. In my 76 years I have observed the failure of every prediction of gloom and doom so proving my father’s observations to be correct. One day, my children will no doubt reach the same conclusion and warn their children to fear only the politicians wanting to create nuclear war.

[@rabbalam]

Amen!

[@fungussa]

Quite sad that so many people (esp conservatives) lack even a basic level of scientific literacy and critical thinking skills. 🙄

[@dontownsend3434]

Important Climate Anniversaries kzbin.info/www/bejne/a2fUcmqJi8-bpKs

[@brodyhess5553]

@@fungussa you could say the same about the vast majority of agw hysteria politicians

[@fungussa]

@@brodyhess5553 Yes, some people get confused about who're scientists and who're politicians. eg trying to dismiss scientific facts because they don't like what Al Gore said.

[@blairribeca5858]

Michael Crichton studied science and medicine at Harvard.Al Gore studied journalism. Which one,do you think,got the Nobel Prize?

[@mbriancohen]

He studied biology, you pathetic moron. Nearly EVERY scientist that isn't paid off by Oil Companies supports Al Gore. You are absolutely worthless, do you understand that? Crichton also denied that DDT was bad for the environment. Please feed some to your kids, ok?

[@trhansen3244]

But Al Gore did write the bestselling science book of all time.

[@Rainy_Day12234]

@@trhansen3244And all his conclusions were based on a debunked hockey stick theory.

[@scottb3034]

@@trhansen3244 No he didn't. He is neither Carl Sagan, Benjamin Spock nor Shere Hite. Nor any plethora of other author that've actually sold more copies of a singular science book.

[@allenanthony2651]

Years ago this segment of the interview wasn't available on Charlie Rose's website and removed from KZbin. Now that MC is not as well known and his influenced diminished I guess it's safe to let a few people hear the argument.

[@SimonHaestoe]

Maybe but let's give the benefit of a doubt.

[@pookiecatblue]

That's very, very interesting.

[@thomassites4774]

Thank you Mr. Chrichton for your courage in stating your opinions

[@electricdreamer]

Just because the majority of scientists believe in something doesn't mean it's true because science is not a vote. It's science. If you go back to 1500s, the majority of "scientists" will tell you that Earth is the center of the Universe, except one guy, his name was Copernicus Earth is not. But guess who's right? I have a lot of respect for Michael Crichton for calling out the hypocrisy of the climate change society.

[@Torgo1969]

Agreed. And the consensus regarding the pathogenesis of gastric ulcers was "stress" for many years, then that utter madman Marshall drank a petri dish of H. pylori bacteria and gave himself gastritis and then published an article about the result of his self-experimentation. And eventually won the Nobel Prize for his work with his colleague Warren. Consensus is NOT science. Computer models are NOT sufficient science, according to the UN itself, as Crichton mentions in this interview.

[@johngeier8692]

He called out the Climate Delusion: The false and delusional belief that mans effects on the earth’s climate are significant and dangerous.

[@kevinpils4716]

Thank you for showing everyone how science works and that all the evidence right now points in the direction of human made climate change. Maybe you should read the science yourself and accept it?

[@stevecampbell7620]

Just to add "consensus" for 3000 years bloodletting was a benificial medical practice. And consensus was the earth was flat. The possiblity to have an opposing opinion must be silenced.

[@kevinpils4716]

@@stevecampbell7620 Exactly, and the reason why science was held down was the church and/or "governments". But the evidence was overwhelming and in the end even they had to accept it. Nowadays its the deniers who dont believe published science, even though the evidence is once again overwhelming.

[@jasonfredensborg7646]

This man was taken from us far too soon, imagine what he would have to say about the state of affairs in the world today.

[@j-555]

His passing still stings. If he could have been with us at least through 2020 I'd be satisfied. We really needed him through the 2010s as the internet, social media and censorship grew. He would have been a voice of reason during the shutdowns too.

[@robinvegas4367]

They would have cancelled him or he would have caved. Likely the former.

[@megawavez]

I remember reading "State of Fear" years ago and then reading Crichton's comments about climate change. I decided that he's a really smart guy who looks like he's done his research, so I'm not going to worry about this stuff. Since then, the clamor has substantially risen regarding this issue so I decided to start digging back into the science behind global warming. My conclusion is roughly what Mr. Crichton is telling us here. Yes, there will be more warming, but don't panic. I actually think we're on the right road to solving this issue, but it will be in a different frame than is suitable for the alarmists. Thanks for posting !

[@StrangeAttractor]

you got any, like, er, evidence for that, bro?

[@megawavez]

@@StrangeAttractor The reason for the large climatic swings over the last 800,000 years is not particularly well flushed about, but there seems to be a general consensus that it is highly dependent on the Milankovitch cycles which would indicate the Earth's climatic cycles are solar forced not CO2 forced. If that's the case, then should be we in a *panic* about the current rise in CO2?

[@williamrbuchanan4153]

Not needed by logical thinking people. Let them be our rulers, we can’t do better than that for our future. Even they are faceless back room boys, men, creatures even, brains you have or not been Mindset by reading others junk ,non fiction, is where we should be, not persuaded by Money, ! it’s a hypothetical controller to humanity. Don’t look at wealth as a life saver for Earth. Belief is your only natural weapon,backed by logic and DNA . Put mass Belief on a Global United mindset. We are good at getting that, control factor. Belief I mean, is what all humans have. No matter where are what the were told to believe, it’s a fact, we use it ever minute of our life. Not mindset Religion, the Divider of humanity, the wars for more greed or mindset to it. Mass belief in the thing , we were given. BELIEVE. In truth logically , spiritually. From your soul.

[@peregrinedalziel4999]

@@megawavez The planetary and solar effects are real and significant. But we should be in a cooling period based on those currently and they are estimated to account for about 0.5 degrees of temperature change. To be sure these effects can be profound over the time frames of the cycle and can induce the ice ages. Per NASAs website: "If there were no human influences on climate, scientists say Earth’s current orbital positions within the Milankovitch cycles predict our planet should be cooling, not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend that began 6,000 years ago." and further "The amount of incoming solar radiation has increased only slightly over the past century and is therefore not a driver of Earth’s current climate warming." I think they are referring to sun spot activity in the second quote.

[@standTrueNorthStrongandFree]

very respectfully, we won't 'solve' climate change. Climate on Earth changes, always has, always will. What we can do ..to what miniscule change in average temps there may be over any of out life times, is adapt. Everything else; all other policy is massive wealth transfer and globalist's control scam.

[@j2248]

By the end of the 19th century the consensus among scientists of the time was that the earth would run out of food by the middle of the 20th century and there would be mass starvation across the globe. But we figured it out. We'll figure climate change out too.

[@the_narthex]

Even the environmentalists have not gotten their story straight. In the 70s, it was "the ice age is coming" then it became, "global warming is coming." Now it's merely "climate change" so.... whether it's too hot or too cold, it's the fault of our cars, microwaves, refrigerators, etc. Now we're supposed to just stop using oil and that'll solve everything. But people who say that need to really THINK HARD. It's not just our cars that use oil/gas. Machines do too. And we use machines to manufacture. We use machines for farming/food. We use oil as an ingredient in the very paint activists are spraying on paintings. We would see major economic problems and global starvation if we just drop oil with nothing ready to replace it. Let's PLEASE be smart.

[@johngeier8692]

The main regulators of climate are Milankovitch cycles, continental drift and stellar evolution of the sun. Major natural events such as nearby supernovae, asteroid impacts and flood volcanism may trigger significant changes to the earth’s climate. The current mean surface temperature of Earth (15 degrees centigrade) and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (415ppm)are suboptimal. Anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are actually beneficial. Benefits include increased agricultural yields (main effect) reduced winter heating costs and fewer deaths from hypothermia. Dr Crichton called out the Climate Delusion. The false and delusional belief that mans effects on the earth’s climate are significant and dangerous.

[@probablynotmyname8521]

@@johngeier8692 id recommend the potholer54 channel, you seem to be far out of date in your understanding of climate change.

[@andreipopescu5342]

@@probablynotmyname8521 not on the fact that cold is a bigger enemy to humans than heat though. At current and foreseeable levels, heat is a friend even.

[@dyandavison9744]

Paul Ehrlich said this in 1970! None of his predictions have come true.

[@jacobmorris7532]

My favorite author of all time he will be missed

[@GreatOldOne9866]

He’s been missed for fifteen years now.

[@pdeforest]

A brilliant man. Prescient about politics over science. Gone too soon.

[@clivehorridge]

Good post, it’s a tragedy that this man died only 2 years after this interview. We need critical thinkers in this age of alarmism. Alarmists don’t think…

[@academyofchampions1]

The CIA probably killed him

[@blogintonblakley2708]

I'm curious just how you are able to judge what this guy is saying. I mean how much time have you spent as a scientist studying climate change? Crichton gets his fame from writing fiction books. To my knowledge he hasn't built a career in climate science doing research. There are people that have done that, and the bulk of them are saying that the sudden shift in climate IS a catastrophe. Crichton writes fiction...

[@AnAntidisestablishmentarianist]

​@@blogintonblakley2708 You're using an argument from authority, which is an invalid argument, look it up. And you're piling an ad hominem attack on top of that. You, like the interviewer, don't address a single point that Crichton makes. Every time Crichton made a point, Rose changed the subject, never challenging a single one of his statements. Plus you're assuming, and it's a huge assumption, that people studying climate change are unbiased and not influenced by, say, the ability to get funding and prestige. You're also blind to the danger of the power and profit that can be gained by alarming people, ignorant of the allure of prophets shouting "the end is near" throughout history, and foolish enough to think what looks like a sheep could never be a wolf. Also, define "catastrophe". And how much time have you spent as a scientist studying climate change? Obviously none, because if you did you would present counter arguments to Crichton instead of your invalid arguments. Crichton looked at the data, you didn't. Crichton understands human nature enough to know that fear sells, but you are unaware of your own nature. And Rose openly admits that it's an irrational, sheepish, emotionally driven belief - "I think you're wrong but I don't know, I can't prove it"

[@blogintonblakley2708]

@@AnAntidisestablishmentarianist Crichton writes fiction. He is not a climate scientist. But you know if you are a credentialed climate scientist, by all means, please give me a list of your peer reviewed papers. Are you? A credentialed climate scientist?

[@blogintonblakley2708]

@@AnAntidisestablishmentarianist Oh and concerning an appeal to authority. "Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a non-fallacious argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources,[6][7] as some hold that it can be a strong or at least valid defeasible[8] argument[9][10][11][12] and others that it is weak or an outright fallacy.[4][13][14][15][16]"

[@bobmester3475]

I think Michael Crichton is essentially 100% spot on. This is way too important a topic to not analyze the data completely and transparently.

[@stevelawrence5123]

He was one of the greatest minds of a generation.

[@kayakMike1000]

This aged well, Kilimanjaro still has snow on it in 2022.

[@chrisgreene2623]

True but that will be the case in 2042 as we see glaciers retreating on many mountains compared to fifty years ago

[@AndrewBurbo-zw6pf]

@@chrisgreene2623 they have been retreating for the last 10,000 years since New york was covered with 1000's of feet of ice. it has slowed down quite a but and it may speed up but it will not stop until this ice age is over.

[@stevecampbell7620]

Yes and the NPS removed the signs from Glacier National Park that read the Glacier would be gone in 2020. The signs have been replaced many times that said the same thing but with earlier dates.

[@megamus3]

@@chrisgreene2623 aren't glaciers the remnants of the last ice age, will you miss them?

[@kayakMike1000]

@@chrisgreene2623 False. Some mountain glaciers are actually growing.

[@plywoodcarjohnson5412]

I used to say stuff like this. A catastrophe is fast, like a carcrash. If not, you can adapt to it. Nowadays I am so poor I could not care less. And that comes from borrowing to much money.

[@rustybarrel516]

The reporting of the science from the IPCC has always seemed fraught with compounding exaggerations in one direction. The model scenarios are necessarily broad and extreme to provide a broad range of insights into various potential interactions. The summary for policy makers (written mainly by bureaucrats) highlights ranges of outcomes from those scenarios without the context of the nature and likelihood of those scenarios. Then politicians and media outlets grab the most sensational bits from that summary and portray it as certain doom that awaits us if we don’t act immediately. I appreciate how Michael Crichton draws this important distinction between the scientists and bureaucrats, even as Charlie tries to discount it.

[@kevinpils4716]

You do realize that the authors of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers are available online and that literally each one of them is a researcher who holds a PhD on a specific topic related to climate change? Why are you lying so blatantly?

[@rustybarrel516]

@@kevinpils4716 Certainly those people are involved, but the entire summary report is reviewed and rewritten line-by-line for days on end in rooms full of people from government delegations in addition to panels of scientists from each working group. They ultimately decide whether and to what extent the full scope of work and its underlying uncertainty are faithfully portrayed in the summary and how to portray it. This includes seemingly mundane word choices such as changing ‘could’ to ‘would’. Because there is inherently so much uncertainty involved in the scientific work itself, it is relatively easy for government reps to question it and bend conclusions to fit a view. My point is that a summary that goes through such a process simply cannot convey the full breadth and depth of the research performed by each working group at the same level of the full report, that important points regarding uncertainty are lost at each step of reporting, that what we end up with more easily lends itself to misinterpretation, and that such misinterpretation has reliably been in one direction - imminent catastrophe.

[@kevinpils4716]

@@rustybarrel516 This is just another lie, unless you are able to substantiate your claim of "rewriting line-by-line" with a source that proves it. The authors of the report write that report, and only them. These reports then undergo a rigorous review process including experts and governments, but none of these reviewers gets to rewrite a single world of the report. They need to specifiy and give reason for changes and the reviewers need to give answers to those comments. Both the ​reviewers comments as well as the authors' responses are published alongside the report, for a first and a second draft. This is quite literally the gold standard of peer-review and it does not get more transparent than this. Why are you telling lies?

[@rustybarrel516]

@@kevinpils4716 For the sake of argument, and in spite of your choice to be accusatory rather than polite, let’s say your characterization of the process is completely accurate and that the representatives of the governments that pay for the reports and want to use them to drive their own policies and travel thousands of miles to participate in review sessions just look at the conclusions in the context of the broad uncertainty inherent in the analysis and say, “looks good to me.” There would STILL be no way for that summary to faithfully convey the full breadth and implications of that uncertainty. Something will necessarily be homogenized, glossed over or omitted. That’s what a summary is. As a result, it is inevitable that they don’t give the whole picture. And that’s the point. There is much good work done by members of the IPCC working groups and analysts on whose work they rely. I’ve based some of my own work on theirs, and in doing so have developed a professional relationship with an individual who has participated as a lead author on the last three IPCC assessments (4-6). But the very fact that good work goes through multiple interpretations before reaching the public means that it is prone to misinterpretation and misuse. Anyone who is involved in analysis and report writing for a government or corporate entity knows this. If you want to politely discuss this point, I’m happy to. If you want to be rude or pick nits about how I characterize the process, I’ve got better things to do.

[@kevinpils4716]

@@rustybarrel516 Your whole point is that governments use the summary instead of the full 3068 pages report? What a useless discussion. Whats the point of every abstract at the beginning of every publication then, I mean everyone could just read the whole paper? Why would policymakers care about the mathematical & methodical background of those findings if they are peer-reviewed by other experts in the first place? This is nonsense, nobody has time for that, that is exactly why the summary exists. Policymakers would probably not even understand what is reported in detail because they lack the proper scientific education for this. And of course I am rude when someone blatantly lies about the IPCC report being written by bureaucrats, when in fact it is written by scientists and bureaucrats are merely one part of the review process, a process which is then subsequently released to the public for transparency. You make the IPCC report look like some agenda-driven piece of paper and that is exactly why I called you out. Cheers!

[@kjr2868]

Great Interview! I am in total agreement with the points Michael Crichton makes. I like his analogy of comparing Climate change with a corporate company, he is spot on with that!

[@TheShrimpdoctor]

Read his book state of fear in 2004 - what he reported was confronting but he got me thinking about global warming and looks like he was right

[@billisaacs702]

One thing that always bugged me about Charlie is that he would step on his guests' answers and try to spin them as an idealogue.

[@pookiecatblue]

Yep. He sure was trying here but was not successful.

[@davidusa47]

“I might get killed for this” Dead less than 2 years later at 66

[@andymullarx6365]

Like Kerry Mullis. Luc Montagnier was old enough that his demise may have been natural but he said what he said and each time I see another young or youngish vaxxed person suffer a sudden and unexpected health event I consider his predictions.

[@jgg2220]

This is like Britney Griner debating Tom Brady about football strategy.

[@stevemarshall3986]

Interviewer: I think you're wrong but I don't know, I can't prove it.

[@donaldclifford5763]

Brainwashed.

[@andymullarx6365]

Charlie was in over his head and let his politics show.

[@ericcrittenden2166]

The catastrophe is we need this guy, Christopher hitchens, and george Carlin NOW more than ever.

[@outofcompliance1639]

All dead... I guess we are screwed.

[@gl2996]

It is certainly troubling that some or our most respected thinkers don't seem to be finding replacements in more recent generations. Says something about changes in parenting, society, and education, it would seem.

[@wowadamshiffsaturd1469]

I think scientist will find data that supports the theories of whoever is funding the research.

[@Dico6]

Both An Inconvenient Truth and Charlie Rose have not aged well.

[@tugginalong]

They can’t predict tomorrow’s weather accurately much less 109 years from now.

[@marcusimpresario7724]

~ I am so disappointed in Michael Crichton. It was so inconsiderate of him to drop dead just when we needed him most! ~

[@seaknightvirchow8131]

Crichton’s death was a terrible loss. We need more critical thinkers and communicators like him and Tom Wolfe. Wolfe did his homework and Rose didn’t. If Rose went against the globalists, he would be on the air.

[@fungussa]

But Crichton didn't know what he was talking about. He was a non-practising MD with exactly zero (nil) expertise in any of the physical sciences. His opinions on climate change were useless and irrelevant, but people who don't know the difference between fiction (the books we wrote) and reality, often end up lapping up everything he said.

[@GuymontagFahr451]

"The people with fancy titles wearing lab coats told me to be afraid, so I'm afraid!" - Charlie Rose

[@doglabdogtraining-gus.8873]

This guy had it right

[@alberthopfer3087]

A computer model will react to any input as that the model has been programmed to react to that change of input. So if it is assumed that CO2 is the prime mover and mostly by human activities then you will get just what the programming has been programmed to do.

[@sana-cm7oc]

If it really is catastrophic, then why aren’t China and India required to cut carbon emissions to zero?

[@lucasjaramillo3478]

Required by who 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@sana-cm7oc]

@@lucasjaramillo3478 paris climate treaty

[@lucasjaramillo3478]

@@sana-cm7oc they don’t have to do shit lmao. Who’s going to make them?

[@sana-cm7oc]

@@lucasjaramillo3478 UN exempts China and India from carbon reduction requirements.

[@lucasjaramillo3478]

@@sana-cm7oc even if they did, there’s little they could do to make them comply besides sanctions. There’s a good chance that China and India will associate efforts to curb climate change as a western idea and not want anything to do with it

[@chrismackerdush7728]

Charlie reminds me a heck of a lot of Piers Morgan in his interviewing approach. And that’s not a good thing.

[@mikemcdaniel5025]

MC favorite writer. More brilliant than I remember

[@99kishen]

State of fear indeed

[@donaldclifford5763]

What Crichton misses here is the machinaions of the powers that be to use this created issue, to install a stae of fear.

[@andrewstout5400]

(1) Crichton was worth Ten Thousand "Scientists" RE promoting reason, restraint, logic. A huge inspiration, who left a mark in our imaginations and minds, and is much missed.

[@robdow6348]

A majority agreeing something isn’t science, it’s a political poll.

[@donaldclifford5763]

A nd every one polled depends on government grant money.

[@flimflannery3192]

Scientists have a wonderful capacity to believe in scientists.

[@caeserromero3013]

Just because something is 'in a newspaper' doesn't make it true. They once said in a newspaper that the Loch Ness monster had been found...

[@burntsider8457]

Good to hear from at least one rational thinker.

[@Ali-jm5jm]

I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of foul play in regards to his death.

[@pookiecatblue]

I would not either.

[@trhansen3244]

Shocking speculation. But it reminds me of just how far the Dems would go to stop Trump.

[@Roman-zq8wp]

Rather than having an open conversation about global warming, the interviewer puts him through a series of loyalty tests. Kangaroo interview.

[@stanbarnes7284]

He’s spot on. RIP.

[@fungussa]

Nah, he was a science denier with exactly zero expertise in any of the physical sciences. Do you know what that means?

[@GreatOldOne9866]

@@fungussa you clearly don’t know what any of it means. Leave people alone.

[@fungussa]

@@GreatOldOne9866 You're right, so far as my not knowing exactly what goes on in the minds of the scientifically illiterate.

[@SoshitoNakakata]

Thank God for Michael Crichton. He gave us so much!

[@stephenmaniloff4374]

That Charlie Rose is a real genius.… Not

[@joejugashvili3616]

Where do Milankovic Cycles come into the CC models?

[@leonardcollings7389]

Milankovitch cycles

[@joejugashvili3616]

@@leonardcollings7389 I humbly accept your correction, Sir. 😀

[@notanotherguitarchannel]

hit the like as soon as I saw the UN warning

[@donaldclifford5763]

Perfect example of how hard they try to push this on us.

[@marcogasperoni2391]

MC the world needs you now ! Wish you were here !

[@louishennick6883]

So he could see how wrong his optimistic predictions were?

[@marcogasperoni2391]

@@louishennick6883 they were all right.

[@rabbalam]

funny that this video is over 20 years old, and the "catastrophe" still hasn't happened.

[@FactualCounterpoints]

In 10-20 years (by when the climate is very likely to have actually cooled) Michael Crichton will be seen as the extremely bright man he was, not just the writer of Jurassic Park. Most scientists cannot think like he does as he has a very open mind, along with strong critical thinking - and modern scientist lack one or the other, if not both… majority are merely brainwashed proselytising preachers from the Secular Church of Scientism. He was someone who thought for himself, instead of falling for Group-think.

[@jeremybr2020]

The scientists that talk about an inevitable catastrophe if we continue the way we are going don't typically say that the catastrophe is going to happen in the near future. Most talk about it happening many many years, or many decades from our current times. At least as far as the event getting to the level of being classified as a catastrophe.

[@lucasjaramillo3478]

Except it’s beginning already Lmaoooo

[@denisdaly1708]

It has, you just do not read. Over 1 in every 5 deaths are due to FF pollution alone. Wild animals only account for 1% of all the biomass. Humans and cows/sheep/goats take up all the rest. The planet has heated up 1 degree since 1900. The US has a mega drought, with food production down, and no water for New Mexico, Utah, California. Even Texas. Miami is becoming too hot to live as are cities in Texas. In the Middle East, children cannot go out to play due to temps over 55 degrees C. Famines, wildfires, and droughts have increased. Food production is down, we now have shortages. Heat produces conflict, more infectious diseases, with over $3.5 trillion lost due to climate change illness.... Ignorance is awful.

[@probablynotmyname8521]

@@jeremybr2020 dont get confused about what scientists say in journal articles and what journalists write about what “scientists say” in newspapers, the two are very different and only one is reality.

[@gbonkers666]

One of the most brilliant, most intelligent men to walk this Earth in the last 75 years. All of his novels are awesome.

[@trhansen3244]

Yep, he was one of a kind.

[@edwardhalpin7503]

Mike Wallace knows a good scientist when he sees one. He holds multiple degrees in fields as varied as biochemistry, engineering and astrophysics. Oh wait a minute FACT CHECK: Mike Wallace was actually a game show host

[@fungussa]

Yes, oh wait, ... Michael Crichton denies a vast amount of incontrovertible science in a field in which he has no expertise 🤔

[@linjicakonikon7666]

@@fungussa "incontrovertible". Not a very scientific thing to say. Your minds made up.....of ideological sludge.

[@fungussa]

@@linjicakonikon7666 Lol, dummy, the American Institute of Physics said: ""The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." So you can now apologise to everyone for being such a dummy dumb dumb. Thanks 👍

[@chaoticiannunez2419]

3:35 I can't help but wonder if that's Michael playing up frustration or if he was genuinely feeling ill.

[@stevenh6589]

The wisdom of the wise take years , decades to be proven correct in an emotionally susceptible society . The sad thing is the corrupt apply perverse methods to manipulate the susceptible.

[@specialkonacid6574]

Charlie's brain could not compute 😆

[@michealrcnicholson9342]

God bless Michael and I hope he rests in peace. The computer climate model the UN relies on is probably similar to the computer models governments the world I've relied on for the pandemic....... Which created wildly over exaggerated outcomes! I'm with Michael on this, and the sooner the world gets real in this, the sooner humanity can breath and live without the agenda driven fear mongering from the over represented left lobby.

[@eddieirving1378]

Global cooling then global warming then climate change! Really?!???

[@kevinpils4716]

In fact, the vast majority of scientific papers back then predicted global warming, only a few mentioned global cooling. It was the media (and it is still the right wing denier media) that pushed this "global cooling" thing, even though it was discarded by every scientist with a relevant degree.

[@ClaudiusDenk]

CO2 has (almost) zero thermal impact on atmosphere.

[@kevinpils4716]

Please cite your scientific paper that proves this!

[@shreddedhominid1629]

dumbest shit I've ever heard. Do you know there is mountains of direct scientific evidence proving that incorrect, right?

[@donaldclifford5763]

@@kevinpils4716 How about dr. Steven Koonin here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZqOZdmtqgNFneqM

[@kevinpils4716]

@@donaldclifford5763 I am not interested in your videos, I asked specifically for a peer-reviewed paper.

[@Renato.Stiefenhofer.747driver]

Consensus science is not science. Period. There is NO man made global warming. It's a huge business... and they know it. And... CO2 has zero impact on global temperature. Read my books, incl. peer reviewed papers.

[@lornaaltemus6755]

His book, "State of Fear" right on Target. Then and Now

[@robcoghan5204]

1 year and 21k views ,not too many open minds on KZbin.

[@andymullarx6365]

I considered that but we don't know how much it might have been shadow banned and it has been posted before this as well.

[@lego4av]

There should be a movie about the life of MC

[@48Ballen]

CO2 has limited effect on temperatures which is decreasing . It takes an exponential rate if increase in CO2 to produce a linear temperature change . With time its influence temperature decreases however its benefit to plant life is amazing. Already we have 30% more leaf area and we can solve global hunger with an increase in CO2 to 1000 parts/million.

[@genesmith3582]

What nonsense is this? We can see the rate of change and we know we are at about +1.3 Celsius since 1850. That is an insanely large amount of heating in a very short period of time. 1000ppm of CO2 to solve global hunger? lmao stop reciting Lomborg propaganda.

[@peregrinedalziel4999]

Are you a Shell Oil bot?

[@TXL-BER]

Charlie Rose does a poor job interviewing. He can’t get by his own bias and he interrupts.

[@anthonywilson8998]

Data and graphs can be tampered with watch tony heller

[@michaelodonnell7580]

Disappointing "interview". Charlie is usually much better than this. However, in this instance, he could not get out of his own way enough to get to the bottom of what Michael Crichton believes (and says). Doctor Crichton believes the Earth is a far-from-equilibrium, coupled dynamical system. Charlie's response was (essentially): "How dare you!" ... instead of seeing how that belief of Doctor Crichton bears on his NOT being a catastrophist.

[@Malkier67]

Favorite part of this interview when Charlie says if I bring back a scientist who disagrees with you will you come back and discuss it again and of course Michael says yes. Notice how we never saw that interview, it’s because no warming alarmist will ever debate their point of view ever. To them it’s a religion and disagreement or discussion is heresy. To them it’s “settled science” no need to discuss or debate unless we are only discussing how to solve it. This is the exact opposite of what real science is, science is always question and try to prove your theory.

[@alberthopfer3087]

CO2 is our friend.

[@JDPri77]

29:10 "...Biggest regret". Sadly, he should have said smoking. Such a great author and mind.

[@blipco5]

If MC were still alive, I wonder what his present day view would be?

[@rabbalam]

Amen!

[@96stealth]

The same. Nothing has changed from what he has claimed.

[@divechart4269]

96stealth ... You need to research the global temperature and co2 charts dating to 2021. MC wrote that book in 2004. I'm sure he's rolling in his grave from embarrassment, though IMHO, his decline started at "Sphere". The scariest part is that a US president treated this work of fiction as fact and made policy with these distortions.

[@blipco5]

Dive Chart.. I concur. 🍻

[@HotelCharliHill]

he'd be writing a thriller about fauci and dazsack and barric(?) making a freaking virus to bring about a one world government.

[@mikeofallon]

See interviews with physicist William Happer of Princeton -- interesting, informative & entertaining.

[@johnjones6601]

One can question whether he's right on the science, but not on his right to question it! If the world moves forward at all, it does so thanks to guys like Mr Chrichton, not slavish parroters of other's opinions like Charlie Rose.

[@Apjooz]

He's wrong on one simple logical thing. He says we can't predict how systems react. But we can say that the more a system is pushed the more it will change. So question of scale comes into play.