3 ms·

> Michael Crichton would have a better legacy if he had not turned to global climate disruption denialism in his final years. Wait. I read his stuff and he c

> Michael Crichton would have a better legacy if he had not turned to global climate disruption denialism in his final years. Wait. I read his stuff and he carefully didn't deny it, just pointed out that it's super important to have way more data than pop cultural opinions were being echo-chamber based on.

qvrjuec 5y ago
He didn't outright deny it, but he was not acting in good faith when rallying against the mainstream perspective. I remember seeing an example where he specifically made an argument using a projection model that wasn't accurate, conveniently ignoring the fact that that model was only 1 of 3 and another one of the 3 was almost spot on.
ncmncm 5y ago
That was his line. But (a) he was wrong, and (b) had the oncoming catastrophe been smaller than predicted, stalling action would still have been wrong. The massive build-out of wind and solar power generation has made energy radically cheaper than it has ever been. Had we started sooner, we would not only have a much smaller crisis now, but we would have spent overwhelmingly less on coal and oil, and polluted correspondingly less. Even without the looming crisis, we would be much better off, and Saudi Arabia and Russia would not now command nearly so much influence in the world. Exactly to the degree that Crichton personally stalled action, blood is on his hands.
- hulitu 5y ago
  "The massive build-out of wind and solar power generation has made energy radically cheaper than it has ever been." As far as i know nuclear power and to some extent hydro power made the energy cheaper. Solar is expensive and it is not clear what its benefits are. Wind ...
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Solar is by far the cheapest source of energy ever fielded, followed closely by wind. Nukes are among the most expensive still in common use. If you are hearing that nuke power is cheap, you are being lied to. Just now, nukes are about even with solar and wind backed with natural gas if, but only if, you ignore their capital cost. But solar and wind costs are still falling. Once renewables have been built out enough to be able to displace other energy sources, they will need to be supplemented with storage. (Before, there is no point: charging storage from fossil fuels would be counterproductive.) Storage cost is on the same exponential free-fall we saw for solar and wind, so that when time comes to start building out storage, renewables + storage will be cheaper than solar alone, today.

qvrjuec 5y ago

He didn't outright deny it, but he was not acting in good faith when rallying against the mainstream perspective. I remember seeing an example where he specifically made an argument using a projection model that wasn't accurate, conveniently ignoring the fact that that model was only 1 of 3 and another one of the 3 was almost spot on.

ncmncm 5y ago

That was his line. But (a) he was wrong, and (b) had the oncoming catastrophe been smaller than predicted, stalling action would still have been wrong. The massive build-out of wind and solar power generation has made energy radically cheaper than it has ever been. Had we started sooner, we would not only have a much smaller crisis now, but we would have spent overwhelmingly less on coal and oil, and polluted correspondingly less. Even without the looming crisis, we would be much better off, and Saudi Arabia and Russia would not now command nearly so much influence in the world. Exactly to the degree that Crichton personally stalled action, blood is on his hands.

hulitu 5y ago
"The massive build-out of wind and solar power generation has made energy radically cheaper than it has ever been." As far as i know nuclear power and to some extent hydro power made the energy cheaper. Solar is expensive and it is not clear what its benefits are. Wind ...
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Solar is by far the cheapest source of energy ever fielded, followed closely by wind. Nukes are among the most expensive still in common use. If you are hearing that nuke power is cheap, you are being lied to. Just now, nukes are about even with solar and wind backed with natural gas if, but only if, you ignore their capital cost. But solar and wind costs are still falling. Once renewables have been built out enough to be able to displace other energy sources, they will need to be supplemented with storage. (Before, there is no point: charging storage from fossil fuels would be counterproductive.) Storage cost is on the same exponential free-fall we saw for solar and wind, so that when time comes to start building out storage, renewables + storage will be cheaper than solar alone, today.