Book that caused me to question my beliefs

I just finished reading a book that rattled my cage quite a bit: Michael Crichton’s State of Fear. He basically takes the position that the scientific data does not support the idea that human activity is causing global warming, despite the fact that it is widely reported that the scientific community is in nearly a complete consensus about this. His character, Kenner, some sort of Government agent who is chasing evil Earth Liberation Front villains who are trying to create environmental catastrophes to keep the supposedly hugely well funded environmental organizations in the money – the Kenner character challenges what he sees as conventional wisdom about global warming. The book has lots of footnotes and citations and charts that supposedly prove his premise, that weather and environmental activity are too complex to draw conclusions or even think in terms of managing it. (It’s interesting to have so much scientific looking data included in a book that is an action adventure with narrow escapes and all sorts of excitement. I’ve never read Crichton before and have to be impressed with his narrative skill in pulling this fete off.)

As to the presumed consensus of scientists about global warming caused by fossil fuel burning, he compares it to the eugenics movement of the early 20th century which was supported by nearly everyone, even leftist liberal types who should have known better (actually, to me the idea of eugenics has some merit even it did lead to the German holocaust; the only problem is the old “who decides” as to who is “feeble minded” enough to be taken out of the reproductive loop, a responsibility that provides too much easy temptation for abuse).

More ...

http://paranoidpessimist.blogspot.com/2005/12/book-that-caused-me-to-question-my.html

It's all the fault of those massively funded environmental groups!

I just bought the book over the weekend but haven't had a chance to start it yet. I'm even more interested in it now!

I have heard scientists discuss this before - that you can't prove global warming, that actually the increased hurricane activity is due to the cycylical nature of the storms and not gw, etc. And, these are not scientists on Bush's payroll (or don't appear to be). I don't know though - how else can you explain the warming of the oceans and the iceburgs melting and all the other things that do point to global warming.

Well, I see I have some homework to do!

That's one of the foundations of scientific principles. You can only go with the best explanation for the preponderance of evidence, and be prepared to go with new explanations if the evidence ceases to support the earlier explanations.

The level of scientific illiteracy in this country allows hucksters like Crichton to get a hearing that they don't really deserve.

For your homework, you might want to do some research into the basics of how science actually operates. I don't mean this in a snarky way. I think it's a valuable exercise for anyone living in our society and attempting to grapple with these issues.

Andromeda Strain, Sphere or Jurrasic Park. (Avoid Congo)

There is no real organized environmental movement anymore. Read this- http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly12272004.html

Do you think those goody-goody corporations are giving away billions for the environment? :rofl: That would be great since * stopped the collections from the chemical industry for the Superfund.

Longer answer: Many, many scientific organizations and research institutes not only decried Crichton's "scientific footnotes," they also decried his obvious use of fiction to promote the White House's views on global warming. Here are a few references:

Natural Resources Defense Council: http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcrichton.asp
Weather Underground's chief meteorologist: http://www.wunderground.com/education/stateoffear.asp
Slate.com: http://www.slate.com/id/2110815

generally persuasive and more dangerous, since he really isn't saying anything different from those guys, just doing it more smoothly and more subtly in order to more effectively ensnare more people.

E.g., his book about a female exec sexually harassing a male employee. Real common occurrence.

is not a scientist," but has a real scientist debunked the graphs, etc.? An ad hominem attack is not enough.

A DUer I've talked to claims to know climatologists who think we're totally fucked and that all life on earth may disappear much sooner than anyone anticipated. I don't know enough about climatology to even analyze the data, but I believe oil companies have more power than environmental groups. I have no doubt oil companies are trying to stay in the money game. I'm not so sure about environmental groups.

As for whether or not we're totally fucked: :shrug: I'm tired of worrying about global warming, peak oil and million other things I can't change. First we have to change to politicians who might actually listen to these ideas and that isn't happening anytime soon.

you're seriously letting Michael Crichton change your worldview? This is the guy who wrote Jurassic Park :eyes:

much needed giggle

Were murduring, bigoted, idiots?

I won't touch his works.

Not the ones I have known.

Crichton makes the same mistake Bush did. He cherry picks data to support his point of view. Real scientists make his point, but they are outnumbered hundreds to one. That is the reality. Hundreds of studies against his few.

We are pushing too hard. Loading the planet past its ability to cope. As we fill our skies with greenhouse gasses, we come closer to the tipping point. Perhaps in the end it will be us, or us in combination with a natural event. But it is the total load that counts.

As always Crichton uses junk science to provoke a reaction. He is the king of junk science.

Remember, T'Rex's don't hold a grudge, but right wingers sure do....

Scuba

"Everyone has an agenda. Except me." There's a credibility killer right there.

i'm sure chricton cares only for the truth :rofl:

to be shaken by a work of airport fiction.

The one thing he said that I agree with is "I am certain there is too much certainty in the world."

books and movies, but I think global warming is a result of us humans carrying on with activity. Relax, read, absorb from this site. :hi:

Meanwhile, as the huge fossil fuel and energy corporations continue to deny that there is any link between mounting industrial CO2 emissions and climate change, including more frequent and powerful storms and other weather-related catastrophes, other sections of the capitalist class whose profits are directly affected by global warming are sounding alarm bells. Peter Hoeppe of Munich Re, the largest insurer of insurance companies in the world, estimates that the impact of global warming-linked weather disasters is already taking a toll on the insurance industry, and this impact will be much greater as time goes by if action is not taken by governments to reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions....


Munich Re has assembled a team of 25 meteorologists, geologists, hydrologists and economists to study the likely consequences of global warming. Swiss Re, another reinsurance corporation, is funding studies to determine how rising global temperatures could increase the spread of diseases and allergens, which would negatively affect the profits of health insurance and life insurance companies.


http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0512/S00104.htm

as insurance companies, that's good to hear. I still have hopes for global warming.

It was a good story, but seemed dumbed down.

the earlier ones, such as "Andromdeda Strain" were pretty good (it was his first best-seller, and tremendously popular), but I haven't read anything by him in ages. I remember he was a guest lecturer at a class of mine, a very long time ago.

Interesting person, but this thing, saying that global warming isn't true, is goofy.

non fiction thrillers like "The Cuckoos Egg" to be just as thrilling as any work of fiction.
http://tinyurl.com/d57mu

John Toland knew how to turn history into an adventure.
http://tinyurl.com/c84nu

mental scientist and research document over the past twenty years, I'll take the scientists. Either we get on board about this or its like Clinton said: "We'll be having this same meeting in forty years on a raft."

as for eugenics.. good lord. a society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable. Fuck eugenics.

the wind is blowing, and his sales verify it. Secondly, even if we are not causing it, reducing our impact on the environment couldn't hurt. :shrug:

the government says, hell I don't care what the scientists have to say. It's pretty obvious to anyone not 6 feet under that the weather has been getting worse year after year. Even if people have nothing to do with it, we ignore the weather at our own peril. As was well demonstrated this summer.

who's taking advantage of the current political climate in this country to sell lots of books that will make people feel good about driving their SUV's and ignoring the signs of serious environmental degredation, and allow the scapegoating of real environmental experts.

Comparing the general consensus of environmental scientists to the views on eugenics in the early 20th century is disingenous, guilt by an imaginary association. You could take any scientific discipline in which there's any consensus and dismiss it with the exact same tactics. That does not make the comparison valid, or invalidate the science.

It's quite possible that the hurricanes are more related to cyclical climatic events than to gobal warming, but what about the thawing of the arctic permafrost or the melting of glaciers worldwide, or the tremendous increase in C02 levels that all scientists agree are a greenhouse gas.

How could anyone buy the notion that environmental activists have the capacity to create environmental catastrophes, but massive industrial activity and general environmental destruction doesn't?

I'm afraid that a previously decent author has been reduce to being a shill for the most reactionary, head in the sand elements of our Right Wing dominated society, and some people who lack well developed critical faculties are going to be sucked into his fallacious reasoning.

While I agree with the idea that Earth goes through periodic climate changes with or without our help, to imply that humans have made no impact upon the Earth is silly, imo.

A good friend of mine in Florida is a Geologist and Marine Biologist. She tells me all the time about changes she has personally witnessed in the coral reefs due to the average ocean temperature changing every year. Coral is fairly fragile to temperature changes and will show damage before other things.

The way I look at it is this: why not consider trying to conserve energy and reduce our impact upon the planet while we can. If we were on a spaceship that was leaking air and one out of 100 people on the ship said there was nothing to worry about, even if I was unsure I would rather err on the side of caution.

is a conservative Republican hack. I enjoyed Jurassic Park - as a work of FICTION. It certainly didn't make me change my mind about dinosaurs.

while one was driving along in their gas guzzler.
You weren't supposed to actually read it. Bad!

That book? That book?

He studied "global climate change" for three years and all of a sudden he's an expert? I don't mean to be nasty or rude, but try reading some non-fiction science books, written by scientists, not novelists.

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

occasionally I get curious. I do read some of the kinds of things you recommend; not as much as I should because, truthfully, I'd rather watch TV -- Discovery Channel, Science Channel, History Channel. And, of course, Judge Judy.

His writing has influenced loads of people who claim to know all about Chaos Theory.

:puke:

whether or not the earth is going through natural changes or man made changes. We as a the tenets should ALWAYS error on the side of preservation. If it COULD be true that we are damaging the earth, then it is our responsibility to stop. I know there are people who say that what if nothing happens and we've changed our way of life for nothing. But, the truth is, that there is a possibility of earth's destruction, and even if this warming trend is nothing more than a fluke, it will be the better if we change our ways now, rather than wait for the destruction we can't stop.

zalinda

You have symptoms that may indicate cancer. Do you hold off viable treatments until it is 100 percent proved that without question you have cancer?

scientists on the planet (one of which I know personally). Sorry kid, no contest.

...they were not very secure to begin with.

The thing that did jar me was finding out that I WANT global warming to be true. I'm still not sure what to think about that.

read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg. He makes the best and most cohesive arguments, in my opinion, against human influenced climate change.

Then go read the reports from the National Academy of Sciences on Climate Change. Then the reports from the UK's Royal Academy. Then the Swedes, French, Canadians, Germans, Norwegians, Russians, Poles, Spainiards, Portuguese, Japanese, Chinese, etc. Every National Science organization which has released a report on this issue trends towards the idea that humans are adversely affecting the climate of the planet, leading to systematic warming. Hell, even BP has admitted that the preponderance of the evidence leans towards human influenced climate change.

don't take my word for it, read about it. the strong evidence overwhelmingly trends towards the side not complimentary to Dr. Crichton.

Crichton does have a point about the well-organized environmental groups playing off of outrage, it does happen. But not on this one, the consensus is just too great. And, believe me, there is much, much, more money on the other side of the issue, if you want to go get it.

on edit: questioning is good. but find the information you need, or failing that, sources that you trust, and go with that.

Try visiting some real scientific sites and study up..

Crichton's analogy to eugenics is misplaced. Widespread racist thinking, even among liberals of a century ago, created a fertile ground for overemphasizing eugenics. By contrast, nobody had a vested interest in developing the global warming hypothesis. It emerged from the data. The accumulation and analysis of data over the last several years has continued to build the case for global warming. For example, last month there was an important new finding by scientists who took a two-mile-deep core sample of Antarctic ice. "Shafts of ancient ice pulled from Antarctica's frozen depths show that for at least 650,000 years three important heat-trapping greenhouse gases never reached recent atmospheric levels caused by human activities, scientists are reporting today." (New York Times story)

This is how science works. People can sometimes formulate wrong theories, even crazy racist wrong theories, but the wrong theories are always subject to challenge as new information is available. A lot of the eugenics ideas collapsed under this kind of scrutiny. With global warming, on the other hand, the scientific consensus has been strengthened, not weakened, by further research. You'll find some summaries of and links to analyses of scientific opinion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

sorry.

3 points that are of significance, and that Crichton would, and I believe has, pointed out:

1. Science isn't done by "consensus". Science isn't a democratic process. When was the last time you heard "a majority of physicists agree, E=mc2", or "we took a vote, and evolution by natural selection is what we decided as the origin of species"? You haven't, because such a claim would sound ridiculous. Science isn't decided by consensus. Science involves the generation and testing of hypothesis that can be checked in reference to the real world, and it only takes one researcher to be right. When someone falls back on "consensus", take it as a warning sign.

2. The climate change hypothesis rests upon a series of claims. Laying it out entirely: 1) The climate currently appears to be in a warming trend (there's currently little argument about this over the time period for which we have good data, about the last 150 years or so); 2) the preponderance of carbon dioxide, methane, and other "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere bears a significant degree of responsibility for the climate change (there's somewhat less agreement about this, and no one can yet say exactly how much or little an effect (on an interval scale) specific greenhouse gases are supposed to have); 3) Human production of these greenhouse gases has a demonstrable link to the warming trend (here's where things start to break down. We can show a warming trend over a period of increasing greenhouse gas production, but we can't rule out either a spurious association nor even find the exact degree of association that would support the link). All three claims would have to be true for global warming to be attributed to human cause.

3. When people make the claim that we ought to have less of an impact on the environment "just in case", and "who could it hurt?", they're ignoring the costs and consequences of retooling or limiting human economic activities in order to produce such an outcome. The fact is that "going green" will cost something and will be paid for in lost production and trade in the economy. If you're relatively well off, maybe that's not so many car trips or plane trips here and there or something. If you're not so well off, that means something else altogether.

Once in a rare while I hit on a topic that gets discussion going.

Typical reactionary bullshit. Read the "Republican War on Science" where the author (Chris Mooney) talks about the abuse of science in this administration in particular regarding global warming. The evidence is there. Mr. Crichton is another Republican whore out to make a buck.

through the use of cloning.

Did that make you question your beliefs?

LOL

I was having major parkinson type reactions and i couldn't tell if the government was doing or it was natural. i was also sleep walking alot and fallling asleep during the day and waking with stiff muscles.

was a book that changed my life . . .

i never knew that clinton was a 33rd degree mason and has ties to the illuminati.

SHE CITES SOURCES FROM THE INTERNET!

very impressive.














now let me go and puke in response to the very feeble original post.

the poor energy companies are outmatched by the better financed ELF - HAHAHAH - what a fockin' joke.

And the media is "Liberal" and controlled by Barbra Streisand.

Furthermore, comparing global warming to a eugenics movement is clinically insane.

And the consensus among scientists about global warming is not fucking presumed. It's real.

I can't believe I'm even responding to such an idiotic post.

Maybe you should read a good book about Intelligent Design next. That ought to have lots more "revelations" for you.

Redstone

I spent the summer of '94 in Seattle and went on a Michael Crichton reading Jag. I went through most of the books he'd published to that point. I hate to say this because I loved Andromeda Strain, and Jurassic Park has a terrific premise...but. One thing about Crichton that becomes clear early on: He's a formula hack. A wildly successful and skilled one, but a hack nonetheless. His books appear to be written with the structure and dialog of a screenplay adaptation in mind from the beginning. The formula becomes obvious and predictable pretty quickly.

This tells me a lot about Chrichton's mind set. It's about money. Obviously, a book that gives credence to the prejudices of the "majority" opinion is more marketable than one that provokes thought through dissenting views. I don't think he's a Repub shill. I think he's a big money maker for a lot of people and likes his gravy train. An entertainer who wants to stay relevant, wets his finger, tests the winds, and bends like a reed. He writes prose cartoons in the form of looong screenplay treatments. I wouldn't put much stock in his fiction. It's been pretty thin for quite a while.

On the other hand...

An "environmental" novel I LOVED is "Zodiac" by Neal Stephenson. Actually, anything by that guy is GREAT stuff. I loved "Diamond Age" and "Snow Crash". His newer stuff looks great, but I haven't gotten to it yet!

http://www.nealstephenson.com/

I mean, seriously. What's next, we get our positions on particle physics from Danielle fucking Steele? Gimme a break.