Danny ChaiOne thing that annoys me about Henry is his stance on global warming. He applies a standard of proof to global warming that he applies to nearly nothing else. I think nothing would change his mind about it short of Jesus himself returning to earth and declaring that global warming is real. Although even then Henry might want clearer data.
I’ve done the research, and that there is global warming is a foregone conclusion. Addtionally, the vast, vast majority of scientists connect human activity to global warming.
But you know, I’m still willing to keep an open mind about things, so when I see evidence to the contrary, for example, this article Henry referenced, I’m willing to reconsider.
Then I do some research and get angry that Henry would give any credence to trash like this. There’s a reason why so many (most?) anti-global warming articles you see are written about or feature Bob Carter. He gets his funding from Exxon and the Australian Institute of Energy, which is filled with representatives of the oil, gas, coal, and power industries. He’s pretty much the energy industry equivalent of the tobacco funded scientists who insisted that there’s no link between cigarettes and lung cancer. Hardly an objective source.
Just because he’s essentially an industry shill doesn’t automatically mean he’s wrong, though. But look at the text of the article. His entire defense hinges upon the records of a single group, the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Anyone ever heard of this place? Talk about cherry picking data. And Henry finds merit in it. Ridiculous. Henry’s position would be a lot easier to accept if every single source he’s ever mentioned hasn’t turned out to be discredited upon further investigation.
Kinda related, but the Monty comic strip randomly slammed Michael Crichton and his stand on global warming for a week recently. Saying, why should we trust the scientific interpretation of someone who believes we can clone dinosaurs? It’s a complete cheapshot, but hidden in there is a valid point: why should we trust Crichton’s authority? His books consistently misunderstand science. But that’s OK, since they’re just novels, and you need to have a plot.
More troubling is when he interprets data and makes predictions about the future that turn out to be way off. I remember reading Rising Sun, which is essentially an anti-Japan diatribe, and coming away completely convinced that the Japanese were going to take over the U.S. unless we enacted specific policies to counteract it. Whoops. Talk about a bad prediction. After the book came out, the Japanese economy imploded, and they’re still recovering. Completely, utterly wrong. Only one example, but I can’t actually think of a societal trend he actually got right.
So yeah, Crichton demonstrates both an inaccurate understanding of science and a poor track record in predicting the future. So why should we trust what he has to say?