Crichton, on complexity.

That was a great link. Read the whole thing. ( and Rand, you might say something more in the post so we can tell what this is).

I do have one problem with Crichton's thesis: Science and engineering have made tremendous progress carefully finding lots of the physical world that does scale in a linear way. It also has some other functions it knows how to apply too. Crichton is a bit too eager to misunderestimate science.

If you take his criticism as directed toward popular understanding of science and/or political understanding of science then I think it applies.

Cheers

Political Fred

Some people STILL don't get it.

Bill: "some people still don't get it".

What or whom are you refering to?

Overall I think an excellent paper that should be required reading by all adults. I am particularly bemused by his assertion that the NYT caused more casualties in Ukraine than the Chernobyl reactor incident. I am also astounded that the environmental movement is not lobbying for more nuclear power NOW. By all impartial numerical accounts (yes, that's the problem) it is by far the safest, cheapest, and most environmentally friendly way of making electricity. The following link is an excellent source of data.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip14.htm

Note particularly the factor of 42 times as many fatalaties from burning coal compared to nuclear power. Scroll around the site; there's a LOT of quantitative info there. The good news is that there are about 30 large nukes being built around the world at the moment; just none in North America. (Let's all cheer for the little dinky 10MW power reactor that might go to Alaska)

I do take issue with Crichton's assertion that coal emits less carbon into the atmosphere than wood as an industrial fuel. First, it does not contain less carbon than wood per unit of useful power. Second, the carbon in wood will mostly get into the atmosphere anyway after the tree dies and rots. Coal, OTOH, is already sequestered and I personally prefer we leave it in the ground.

It is a very good read. The example from "The Cooling" is wonderful.

I did notice one thing that seemed to be a bit off: the example about the changing attitudes toward magnetism and electricity. I don't think legitimate scientists ever believed the supposed benefits. Those claims go back at least to quacks like Mesmer, and their proponents have never completely disappeared. The supposed harm of EM fields did seem to have some supporting data (although further research has cast doubt on it), so it isn't quite the same.

>>"Crichton is a bit too eager to misunderestimate science."

He hasn't touched science. That speech was dealing with crud that is marketed under the guise of 'science' by politicians (syn. 'climate scientist') and the media.

>>"I am also astounded that the environmental movement is not lobbying for more nuclear power NOW."

The so called 'environmental movement' was subverted by whackjobs decades ago. Even Patrick Moore, the founder of greenpeace now disavows them.

Fantastic article! Crichton has the goods on the propagandists in the media, governments, NGOs, and other doomster groups.

I was steered here by the perfidious blog, and appreciate the ability of the web to circulate ideas quickly.

"First, it does not contain less carbon than wood per unit of useful power."

Bituminous Coal has roughly twice the BTU value of wood per mass equivilant.

First, it does not contain less carbon than wood per unit of useful power.

"Bituminous Coal has roughly twice the BTU value of wood per mass equivilant."

Coal also has roughly twice the carbon per unit mass, which roughly cancels out the higher heating value. Of course there are grades and conditions of coal and wood that are +/- 20% of the nominal, but I stand by my statement in principle.

I once had tremendous respect for Crichton- then he wrote "Sphere." Yes, I know- it's fiction- but until then he had developed his reputation for basing his fiction on sound science and extremely thorough research. "Sphere" showed that he did not have the ability to use a telephone to call the nearest dive shop and ask a few qestions- and showed that he has pretty much forgotten anything he learned in high school of college physics.

The fact that there actually IS a "Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy" is bizarre enough.... adding Crichton to the equation puts it right up there with the good old "Journal of Irreproducable Results."
If only Monty Python were still around.

Oh sure- Chernobyl was pretty minor and there is no global warming- but Crichton is not the guy I would trust to tell me. I can read- apparently better than he can.

high school OR college physics.

Space cat, I can eat your lunch any time. But Crichton is a cool dude, way cooler than you. You haven't done scat, cat. So get!

I stand corrected. I completely overlooked the fact that he's a cool dude. I must remember to always consult cool dudes for all of my scientific information.

fapmzs hdmrvo kdpqh amcwdspy pbgk thxuvzg pvgowae

fapmzs hdmrvo kdpqh amcwdspy pbgk thxuvzg pvgowae