Michael Crichton's State of Fear: Woo, meet woo.

[Silicon]

You got yer environmental woo's in one corner, and not to be outdone comes Michael Crichton with some SERIOUS anti-environmental woo.

According to the New Yorker review:

In “State of Fear,� it is money-hungry environmentalists whose illicit schemes are always being caught on tape. (As one environmentalist says to another, explaining the need for faked lightning and tidal waves, “Species extinction from global warming—nobody gives a sh**.�) Meanwhile, the scientists who could reveal the truth are all co-conspirators; they suppress results that don’t support alarmist conclusions because they, too, are part of the “politico-legal-media complex,� or “P.L.M.� The P.L.M. wants to control free-thinking Americans by keeping them in a perpetual “state of fear.�
http://newyorker.com/talk/content/?050103ta_talk_kolbert

Oh, those money-hungry environmentalists!

As someone mocked on the website www.crookedtimber.org :

Hank Scorpio + Ralph Nader + every climate scientist in the world = PROFIT!!!1!

Here's a review of the book by an actual Meteorologist.

http://www.wunderground.com/education/stateoffear.asp#


But beware.... he might be a part of the Politico-legal-media complex, and so he might just be getting rich off of global warming.

Crichton seems to be doing exactly what the creation scientists do. Cherry-picking data out of the context of the study, presenting extreme minority opinion as if it was the true view being supressed by a vast worldwide conspiracy of scientists protecting the status quo. Discarding data counter to his opinions and seizing on misinterpretations and misrepresentations of studies that he inhereted from anti-science websites that run counter to what the authors of the study say about the study. Drawing far broader conclusions from small pieces of data, and always simplifying the situation as if climate change is an either/or dilemma, rather than a broad array of indicators pointing in various directions.


And of course the sheer sillyness of the vast conspiracy of lawyers and media types who somehow get rich by telling us that our cars should pollute less.


As Elizabeth Kolber writes in the New Yorker:




And although, technically speaking, Crichton’s new book isn’t about the threat of global warming—it’s about the threat of believing in the threat of global warming...

The whole scenario is outlandish even by Crichtonian standards, but, when you think about it, there really isn’t much choice. What “State of Fear� demonstrates is how hard it is to construct a narrative that would actually justify current American policy.

[Silicon]

As a way of clarifying, here's an additional post about the book.


It seems to be a pseudo-science thriller where evil eco-terrorists are trying to blow off a piece of an Antarctic ice shelf, hit California with a Tsunami and fake some giant flash floods complete with artificial lightning... all to bamboozle the world into thinking that global climate change is occurring and dangerous.

All of this seems to be caused by a group with ties to NERF: the National Environmental Rescource Fund. I don't make this up, folks. NERF is funded by billionaire philanthropist George *coughSorosCough* Morton, and they mean to sue the United States for making the seas rise up and destroy the ilsand nation of Vanutu and thereby get rich off of global warming.

Ooops, excuse me. Fake global warming.


As realclimate.org has noted, politicos like George Will have taken up the cause, and have trumpeted this hokey techno-thriller as fantastic evidence of how the environmentalists and scientists are all wrong about climate change, and Crichton is right on.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=90


Nothing new to see actual scientists attacking a work of fiction, certainly. But disturbing when a respected voice on the political right seizes on such an outlandish work of fiction to make a point as if it is a scientific textbook.

People listen to George Will, and for that matter Michael Crichton (the scientist who previously proved that Dinosaurs can be cloned and that giant killer gorillas are protecting a diamond mine deep in Africa).

What's kind of worse and really hokey about State of Fear is that Crichton seems to be taking himself seriously. The plot slows or haults for page after page, as Crichton sermonizes on anti-environmentalism, complete with pages and pages of charts, graphs and footnotes. Then ends the book with 20 pages of scientific references, two appendices and an "Author's Statement".

Wow, FOOTNOTES! No wonder George Will was so impressed as to take Crichton's bona fides as a climate expert.



I can't wait for the Crichton novel where he uses these same tactics to disprove evolution as a vast scientific conspiracy created by the Secular-Psychotherapist-BarbaraStriesand complex.

[T'ai Chi]

An old paper (http://www.martini.nu/justin/long.htm) I wrote on a claim in one of Crichton's books.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Silicon
Crichton seems to be doing exactly what the creation scientists do.

Except that Crichton is writing fiction.

Uh, that Crichton says up front that he's writing fiction.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Except that Crichton is writing fiction.

Uh, that Crichton says up front that he's writing fiction.

true but...take Jurassic Park for instance. He acknowledged that getting viable dinosaur DNA preserved in amber wasn't feasible but he still wrote a light, entertaining novel around the premise.

From what I gather (I haven't read the book in question)but these are real world issues he's presenting so I just hope he's done his homework before offering information which thousands of people are going to take as fact because Crichton is a pretty bright guy and an author they enjoy reading.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Silicon
As a way of clarifying, here's an additional post about the book.


It seems to be a pseudo-science thriller where evil eco-terrorists are trying to blow off a piece of an Antarctic ice shelf, hit California with a Tsunami and fake some giant flash floods complete with artificial lightning... all to bamboozle the world into thinking that global climate change is occurring and dangerous.

All of this seems to be caused by a group with ties to NERF: the National Environmental Rescource Fund. I don't make this up, folks. NERF is funded by billionaire philanthropist George *coughSorosCough* Morton, and they mean to sue the United States for making the seas rise up and destroy the ilsand nation of Vanutu and thereby get rich off of global warming.

Ooops, excuse me. Fake global warming.


As realclimate.org has noted, politicos like George Will have taken up the cause, and have trumpeted this hokey techno-thriller as fantastic evidence of how the environmentalists and scientists are all wrong about climate change, and Crichton is right on.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=90


Nothing new to see actual scientists attacking a work of fiction, certainly. But disturbing when a respected voice on the political right seizes on such an outlandish work of fiction to make a point as if it is a scientific textbook.

People listen to George Will, and for that matter Michael Crichton (the scientist who previously proved that Dinosaurs can be cloned and that giant killer gorillas are protecting a diamond mine deep in Africa).

What's kind of worse and really hokey about State of Fear is that Crichton seems to be taking himself seriously. The plot slows or haults for page after page, as Crichton sermonizes on anti-environmentalism, complete with pages and pages of charts, graphs and footnotes. Then ends the book with 20 pages of scientific references, two appendices and an "Author's Statement".

Wow, FOOTNOTES! No wonder George Will was so impressed as to take Crichton's bona fides as a climate expert.



I can't wait for the Crichton novel where he uses these same tactics to disprove evolution as a vast scientific conspiracy created by the Secular-Psychotherapist-BarbaraStriesand complex.


I am sorry?

Did you just say scientist at realclimate attacking works of fiction?

So you mean Michael Mann, he of the statistical and academic and semantic slight of hand attacking works of fiction?

Oh, that's all right then,:rolleyes:

[Drooper]

And just to point out why I think the premise behind this thread is ridiculous.

I remember watching the Chief Scientific advisor to the British government on Newsnight when "The Day After Tomorrow" was released.

He sat there straight faced and insisted that although the plot was a work of fiction, it was a very good representation of what COULD happen to the planet.

Well, I just fell off my chair.

I wonder if true believers can compare and contrast the treatment of two works of fiction.

[Bikewer]

Ira Flatow had Chrichton on Science Friday yesterday to talk about the book
Flatow tried to pin him down as to his actual thoughts regarding global warming, but Chrichton was a terrible interview, and kept rambling about various studies. Finally, the segment ran out of time, and Flatow had to cut him off.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Harry Keogh:
From what I gather (I haven't read the book in question)but these are real world issues he's presenting so I just hope he's done his homework before offering information which thousands of people are going to take as fact because Crichton is a pretty bright guy and an author they enjoy reading.

According to the review of the book I read today he spent three full years researching the novel. According to the reviewer it impinges on the book's readability, since Crichton can't help himself going into lecture mode at times.

Originally posted by Silicon:
You got yer environmental woo's in one corner, and not to be outdone comes Michael Crichton with some SERIOUS anti-environmental woo.

According to the New Yorker review:

As a matter of interest, have you actually read "State of Fear" yourself?

What's kind of worse and really hokey about State of Fear is that Crichton seems to be taking himself seriously. The plot slows or haults for page after page, as Crichton sermonizes on anti-environmentalism, complete with pages and pages of charts, graphs and footnotes. Then ends the book with 20 pages of scientific references, two appendices and an "Author's Statement".

People listen to George Will, and for that matter Michael Crichton (the scientist who previously proved that Dinosaurs can be cloned and that giant killer gorillas are protecting a diamond mine deep in Africa).

So when did Michael Crichton "prove" that dinosaurs can be cloned? If I enter "Crichton, M." and "Giant Killer Gorillas" into bubmed or science direct will it turn up a plethora of research papers detailing the suitabilty of lethal simians in the corporate security sector?

[SRW]

Now when Clive Cusser's Dirk Pitt foiled the Nazi plot to shave off a piece off the ice shelf with stolen Nano-technology I don't recall anyone make a big deal out of it.

I suppose the moral of the story is that liberals can never be bad guys in a novel.

I just started reading it so I really don't know how well written it is. But I did not purchase it expecting to find any great truths.

[Silicon]

No, the point is that people like George Will treat Crichton's book like it's a textbook. All those charts and graphs and end notes and references and appendices.


And no, I haven't read it. I've read about 7 Crichton books, and I've had enough of them.


The problem with this one is that it's a political book, which distorts science to make a political point, tries to convince the reader through pages of cherry-picked references that the science behind it is sound, then dodges back behind a duck blind saying "I'm fiction!" if anyone questions it, while George Will trumpets it as the answer to our environmental woes.

[Silicon]

Thanks for the ad-hom, SRW.

I don't give a damn who the bad guys are in the narrative part of the book.

What I'm saying is that junk science is fine for science fiction, but when people like George Will start treating it like a science text, they're every bit as idiotic as that fool who said "The Day After Tomorrow" was credible in the least.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Silicon:
No, the point is that people like George Will treat Crichton's book like it's a textbook. All those charts and graphs and end notes and references and appendices.

Not having a clue from Adam as to who George Will actually is, I did a bit of googling and got this. (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20041223.shtml) On reading the text a number of times it doesn't appear that this George Will character is treating "State of Fear" as a text book. On the contrary he describes it as a "novel" and a "fable".

And no, I haven't read it. I've read about 7 Crichton books, and I've had enough of them.

Ok.

The problem with this one is that it's a political book, which distorts science to make a political point, tries to convince the reader through pages of cherry-picked references that the science behind it is sound, then dodges back behind a duck blind saying "I'm fiction!" if anyone questions it, while George Will trumpets it as the answer to our environmental woes.

Amazing. One the one hand you admit that you haven't read the book, and that you probably never will. Without missing a beat you then blast "State of Fear" for distortion of facts, for cherry picking references and influencing the impressionable, without having read it. To top it all you bemoan the impressionabilty of others. The mind boggles.

What I'm saying is that junk science is fine for science fiction, but when people like George Will start treating it like a science text, they're every bit as idiotic as that fool who said "The Day After Tomorrow" was credible in the least.

You haven't read the book, so you're in no position to judge the validity of it's scientific basis. Best not to lament the idiocy of others. BTW, did George Will actuall recommend using "State of Fear" as a scientific reference?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Drooper
And just to point out why I think the premise behind this thread is ridiculous.

I remember watching the Chief Scientific advisor to the British government on Newsnight when "The Day After Tomorrow" was released.

He sat there straight faced and insisted that although the plot was a work of fiction, it was a very good representation of what COULD happen to the planet.

Well, I just fell off my chair.

At one level, this could only mean that scientific advisors to Britain aren't necessarily any more clueful than those to the US.

On another level, there does seem to be a practice amongst enviornmentalists to have a high tolerance for false statements provided that they're alarming enough.

[Silicon]

While we're at it, Shane, I haven't read the bible either. But it's still crap.

George Will called State of Fear a fable, then proceeded to cite data from it.

I haven't drawn any conclusion personally about the existence and extent of human causes of global warming. I've said before in this thread that there's a ton of noise from both sides, and it's nearly impossible to get good unbiased information.

I'm objecting to the noise, not that it comes from one side or the other. I thought the Day after Tomorrow was utter crap and part of the nonsense noise as well, and I've said so.

But I do hate people who cherry-pick data, and misrepresent the data they use, when trying to make a political argument, and that's what Crichton's doing by citing for example the Killamanjaro deforestation study. He didn't make that up as an element of science fiction. It's a real study, and he cited it, and misrepresented it. The scientist who did the study says the results are being misrepresented. It's boiler-plate anti-global warming dogma that Crichton probably downloaded from a website, and didn't check. In that way, it very much resembles the way that creationists "cite" scientific articles which when you look at the full article say nothing of the sort. How many times have we read in creationist literature some quote from Stephen J. Gould that they say supports the Noahic flood?



Epepke, just as there is a tendency for the non-global warming believers to want to argue their case outside of peer-reviewed scientific journals.

To me it all stinks of the creationist debate. They'd rather argue it in the court of public opinion than in a scientific journal.

Which is why discourse and science are so messed up in this society. I posted a thread about science, politics and pop-culture and I got jumped on, and ad-hommed.

No, I haven't read the novel. But these weren't my reviews of the novel. I could give a damn about the novel, it sounds like typical Crichton technobabble. It probably starts off great, and then it ends terribly.

Instead, this was my discussion of the pitfalls we fall in as a culture when we use our popular media to argue our issues rather than science. When it's a battle between "The Day After Tomorrow" and "State of Fear", we all lose.

PS, This being a Crichton novel, the ending will suck, too. The guy can't end a book to save his life. Wait for the deus ex-machina ending and the phenomenal co-incidence and the nothing-short-of-a-miracle lucky happenstance. It's always in there.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Silicon
As a way of clarifying, here's an additional post about the book.


It seems to be a pseudo-science thriller where evil eco-terrorists are trying to blow off a piece of an Antarctic ice shelf, hit California with a Tsunami and fake some giant flash floods complete with artificial lightning... all to bamboozle the world into thinking that global climate change is occurring and dangerous.

All of this seems to be caused by a group with ties to NERF: the National Environmental Rescource Fund. I don't make this up, folks. NERF is funded by billionaire philanthropist George *coughSorosCough* Morton, and they mean to sue the United States for making the seas rise up and destroy the ilsand nation of Vanutu and thereby get rich off of global warming.

Ooops, excuse me. Fake global warming.


As realclimate.org has noted, politicos like George Will have taken up the cause, and have trumpeted this hokey techno-thriller as fantastic evidence of how the environmentalists and scientists are all wrong about climate change, and Crichton is right on.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=90


Nothing new to see actual scientists attacking a work of fiction, certainly. But disturbing when a respected voice on the political right seizes on such an outlandish work of fiction to make a point as if it is a scientific textbook.

People listen to George Will, and for that matter Michael Crichton (the scientist who previously proved that Dinosaurs can be cloned and that giant killer gorillas are protecting a diamond mine deep in Africa).

What's kind of worse and really hokey about State of Fear is that Crichton seems to be taking himself seriously. The plot slows or haults for page after page, as Crichton sermonizes on anti-environmentalism, complete with pages and pages of charts, graphs and footnotes. Then ends the book with 20 pages of scientific references, two appendices and an "Author's Statement".

Wow, FOOTNOTES! No wonder George Will was so impressed as to take Crichton's bona fides as a climate expert.



I can't wait for the Crichton novel where he uses these same tactics to disprove evolution as a vast scientific conspiracy created by the Secular-Psychotherapist-BarbaraStriesand complex.

Sounds like the anti-envirementalist answer to Day After Tomorrow. Nice post.

I've enjoyed some of Crichton's books but I think I'll skip this one.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Silicon

PS, This being a Crichton novel, the ending will suck, too. The guy can't end a book to save his life. Wait for the deus ex-machina ending and the phenomenal co-incidence and the nothing-short-of-a-miracle lucky happenstance. It's always in there.

There is a reason for it. Crichton is consistently anti-mainstream-science-and-technology in his work. Many of his characters are scientists whose work has directly led to or involved the major screw-up/disaster/problem that is the focus of the book. In order to keep his preaching consistent, he simply cannot have a scientist provide the means of escape - or even have the means of escape be overly attributable to mainstream science at all, with the exception of basic things like cars or airplanes, which nobody really connects with scientists anymore anyway. Think about it - if science were self-correcting, or could actually fix anything at all, we wouldn't need to be as worried about it as Crichton tells us we should be.

[Silicon]

What's really freaky is that his stories tend to be chicken little kinds of things that would have the normal result of getting people to back more stringent regulation on science and technology growth.

Think about it, they're mostly all about some technology that experiences an explosive growth of development that happens so quickly that it outstrips legislation, government oversite, or even whatever technical safety limitations were put in place. The dinosaurs find a way to mate and produce offspring and find lysine to eat. The nanobots grow and multiply and get smarter and smarter, etc.

If I was a dumbsh*t knee-jerk scienceophobe, I'd be calling my congressman and telling them to clamp down on the biotechnology industry, because I'm afraid of an Andromeda strain getting loose.


Not sure how he reconciles that with his premise that it's the media that's making us afraid for no reason. Earth to Michael, you ARE the media. At least a hell of a lot more than some climate scientist in Sweden is.

If your sick of the State of Fear, Michael, start writing stories where industry is the hero and science is the tool of the hero, rather than the key to pandora's box.

[Diamond]

Originally posted by Silicon
Crichton seems to be doing exactly what the creation scientists do. Cherry-picking data out of the context of the study, presenting extreme minority opinion as if it was the true view being supressed by a vast worldwide conspiracy of scientists protecting the status quo. Discarding data counter to his opinions and seizing on misinterpretations and misrepresentations of studies that he inhereted from anti-science websites that run counter to what the authors of the study say about the study. Drawing far broader conclusions from small pieces of data, and always simplifying the situation as if climate change is an either/or dilemma, rather than a broad array of indicators pointing in various directions.

Careful using up all those ad hominems and tu quoques. You'll be left with "tobacco scientists", "shills for the fossil fuel industry" and "like denying the Holocaust" and no AGW believer should be left looking bereft of crass insults and blatent lies.

As for the reference to
UnRealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org) , all I can express about the weblog is:

:dl:

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Silicon:
While we're at it, Shane, I haven't read the bible either. But it's still crap.

:con2:

What is your point? That because the Bible is "crap" (from a literary or factual point of view?) it must follow that "State of Fear" is? Like I said, the mind boggles.

George Will called State of Fear a fable, then proceeded to cite data from it.

Did he? I read the link I gave earlier, and as far as I can see he refers to a claim by Crichton that global warming has only amounted to half a degree celsius over one hundred years. It's not actually clear whether this was gleaned from "State of Fear". OTOH he cites "Science" twice and "Global Ecology" once, suggesting George Will isn't so stupid as to use fiction as a scientific reference.

I haven't drawn any conclusion personally about the existence and extent of human causes of global warming. I've said before in this thread that there's a ton of noise from both sides, and it's nearly impossible to get good unbiased information.


Maybe you shouldn't be adding to the din, in that case. I checked the literature databases again. Still no luck finding Crichton authored papers about apes and cloned dinosaurs.

[Diamond]

I picked up the book while on holiday, and rather than jump to conclusions based on third hand book reviews, I'm reading it for myself before coming to any conclusions.

By the way Crichton quotes many peer-review scientific articles and data which are real and can be checked, which is what I guess George Will was talking about. The fictional story and the factual information are pretty well delineated and its not reasonable to be able to mix them up (unless you're really, really determined)

Also in my library, I have some other interesting books on climate science including "The Genesis Strategy" and "The Cooling" both published in 1976 and warning about global cooling and the coming Ice Age. I also have several modern books which strongly favour global warming theory. I tend to read around my subjects by looking at primary sources - in other words, not like the OP.

[Rolfe]

I don't suppose last week's Horizon has its transcript up yet, but that programme concerned the hypothesis (strongly supported) that "global cooling" (I imagine that's the same as what was referred to in the programme as "global dimming") due to the sun's radiation being cut back by particulate pollution, and global warming, are both real (and strong) effects. The effects are pulling in opposite directions, which is why we haven't seen gross effects of global warming yet. However, in spite of global dimming, global warming is the stronger force.

Now, anti-pollution laws are making a bit of a dent in global dimming, and the possibility is that since nobody is making any sort of dent in the greenhouse gases, global warming will proceed much faster in future. And just putting the atmospheric pollutants back is no solution, as the system is inherently unstable and who knows what will happen, and besides, global dimming probably caused the Ethiopian famines of the 1970s and 80s.

I was speaking to some people who knew enough about this not to have watched the programme ("why watch the Noddy show when you're a professional" sort of attitudes), and when I explained the basic premise to me they gave me a pitying smile and said, of course, that's obvious, been known for years, told you it was the Noddy show.

Rolfe.

[Skeptic]

He acknowledged that getting viable dinosaur DNA preserved in amber wasn't feasible but he still wrote a light, entertaining novel around the premise.

Don't look now, but I think Isaac Asimov did something similar with faster-than-light travel, "positronic brains", "blasters", and quite a few other geegaws he put in his books.

That's why he called those stories "Science FICTION".

[Diamond]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I don't suppose last week's Horizon has its transcript up yet, but that programme concerned the hypothesis (strongly supported) that "global cooling" (I imagine that's the same as what was referred to in the programme as "global dimming") due to the sun's radiation being cut back by particulate pollution, and global warming, are both real (and strong) effects. The effects are pulling in opposite directions, which is why we haven't seen gross effects of global warming yet. However, in spite of global dimming, global warming is the stronger force.

Now, anti-pollution laws are making a bit of a dent in global dimming, and the possibility is that since nobody is making any sort of dent in the greenhouse gases, global warming will proceed much faster in future. And just putting the atmospheric pollutants back is no solution, as the system is inherently unstable and who knows what will happen, and besides, global dimming probably caused the Ethiopian famines of the 1970s and 80s.

I was speaking to some people who knew enough about this not to have watched the programme ("why watch the Noddy show when you're a professional" sort of attitudes), and when I explained the basic premise to me they gave me a pitying smile and said, of course, that's obvious, been known for years, told you it was the Noddy show.

Rolfe.

Perhaps someone can ask: if global dimming is real, and caused by man-made pollution, why is the pristine Southern Hemisphere not warming faster than the Northern Hemisphere (in fact, not warming at all)? Why, if the sun is being dimmed by man-made pollution, is the bulk of the Antarctic continent cooling (as it has since at least 1957, and in the dry valleys, markedly so)?

That's what most depresses me about Global Warming - it's infalsifiable. When the temperature goes up, it caused by greenhouse gases, when it goes down its caused by pollution. When asked why it appears to not warm where greenhouse theory says it should warm the most, its because of pollution (which isn't there). No allowance is made for natural variation (in fact, such natural variation is ignored). It's a series of propositions which cannot be falsified by any set of experimental results you care to think of. It's a closed logical system.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I don't suppose last week's Horizon has its transcript up yet, but that programme concerned the hypothesis (strongly supported) that "global cooling" (I imagine that's the same as what was referred to in the programme as "global dimming") due to the sun's radiation being cut back by particulate pollution, and global warming, are both real (and strong) effects. The effects are pulling in opposite directions, which is why we haven't seen gross effects of global warming yet. However, in spite of global dimming, global warming is the stronger force.

Now, anti-pollution laws are making a bit of a dent in global dimming, and the possibility is that since nobody is making any sort of dent in the greenhouse gases, global warming will proceed much faster in future. And just putting the atmospheric pollutants back is no solution, as the system is inherently unstable and who knows what will happen, and besides, global dimming probably caused the Ethiopian famines of the 1970s and 80s.

I was speaking to some people who knew enough about this not to have watched the programme ("why watch the Noddy show when you're a professional" sort of attitudes), and when I explained the basic premise to me they gave me a pitying smile and said, of course, that's obvious, been known for years, told you it was the Noddy show.

Rolfe.


And you wonder why this scare mongering industry lacks any credibility? Because they shoot themselves in the foot every time.


Trying to lump the blame for famine in Ethiopia during the 1970/80s on global warming/dimming (whatever) capitalises on peoples' ignorance. It's so handy to forget that at the time Ethiopia was the location of one of the longest, bloodiest, most destructive and ruthless civil wars of the last century.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
:Maybe you shouldn't be adding to the din, in that case. I checked the literature databases again. Still no luck finding Crichton authored papers about apes and cloned dinosaurs.

Next time look up the word "sarcasm" in the dictionary.

I was making a sarcastic point about the general credibility of science fiction authors when it comes to scientific issues of public importance.

[Diamond]

Originally posted by Silicon
Next time look up the word "sarcasm" in the dictionary.

I was making a sarcastic point about the general credibility of science fiction authors when it comes to scientific issues of public importance.

Then you should strike out Carl Sagan, Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov from your reading list.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Silicon:
Next time look up the word "sarcasm" in the dictionary.

I was making a sarcastic point about the general credibility of science fiction authors when it comes to scientific issues of public importance.

As someone who seems to credit the "New Yorker" book review with considerable scientific nous and credibility maybe you ought to look up "irony" in the dictionary. :rolleyes:

[Silicon]

Had to come in with that last quip a week later, huh Shane?

Come on then, don't let me get the last word in this thread. I'm sure you'll come up with a better zinger than that.


Diamond, I already have. Those three can't write fiction for crap.

Wait, I did like that Twilight Zone episode they made from Asimov's robot storys.

But that Robin Williams movie sucked.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Silicon:
Had to come in with that last quip a week later, huh Shane?

Come on then, don't let me get the last word in this thread. I'm sure you'll come up with a better zinger than that.

You asked for it. Try these "zingers". Is "zinger" a real word, oh literary lion?

Ever heard of the saying that it is better to keep your mouth shut and be presumed a fool, than opening it and removing all doubt? You're that proverb made flesh.

Do you know what your problem is? All that wide open space between your ears and your teeth.

I wouldn't try using sarcasm If I were you. Sarcasm is the highest form of intelligent discourse, and you'll only be writing cheques which that wide open space between your ears hasn't a hope of cashing.

Why should I take seriously the literary criticism of anyone whose book reviews consist of a single sentence using a monosyllabic term for ordure?

BTW ordure is a polite term for s***. I'm feeling generous so I thought I'd save you the trouble of looking it up in the dictionary.

[Diamond]

Originally posted by Silicon
I was making a sarcastic point about the general credibility of science fiction authors when it comes to scientific issues of public importance.

Originally posted by Diamond
...you should strike out Carl Sagan, Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov from your reading list.

Originally posted by Silicon
Diamond, I already have. Those three can't write fiction for crap.

Thank you for that masterful exercise in literary criticism. So Carl Sagan, Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov didn't produce any useful science and/or/because they were supposed to be bad at science fiction?

Speaking of which, did you get round to actually reading the Michael Crichton book, or is all of your literary criticism done through the distorting lens of newspaper columnists?

[Diamond]

Originally posted by Silicon
[B]
I haven't drawn any conclusion personally about the existence and extent of human causes of global warming. I've said before in this thread that there's a ton of noise from both sides, and it's nearly impossible to get good unbiased information.

Nice try, but after a lot of of ad hominems, straw men and ad populums, I don't buy it.

But I do hate people who cherry-pick data, and misrepresent the data they use, when trying to make a political argument

Which is exactly what those lovely global warmers have done. "To be skeptical of the global warming hypothesis is to be anti-environmental"

In that way, it very much resembles the way that creationists "cite" scientific articles which when you look at the full article say nothing of the sort. How many times have we read in creationist literature some quote from Stephen J. Gould that they say supports the Noahic flood?

And back to the ad hominems and abuse. You can't resist, can you?

Epepke, just as there is a tendency for the non-global warming believers to want to argue their case outside of peer-reviewed scientific journals.

I'll let you into a little secret. After the 27th January, you will no longer be able to seriously use that argument ever again.

To me it all stinks of the creationist debate. They'd rather argue it in the court of public opinion than in a scientific journal.

Back to the abuse. By the way, after the 27th, you won't be able to use that argument again. Use while it lasts.

Which is why discourse and science are so messed up in this society. I posted a thread about science, politics and pop-culture and I got jumped on, and ad-hommed.

Really? You didn't refer to Michael Crichton as an anti-environmental woo-woo?

No, I haven't read the novel. But these weren't my reviews of the novel. I could give a damn about the novel, it sounds like typical Crichton technobabble. It probably starts off great, and then it ends terribly.

Arguing from ignorance is still a fallacy.

Instead, this was my discussion of the pitfalls we fall in as a culture when we use our popular media to argue our issues rather than science. When it's a battle between "The Day After Tomorrow" and "State of Fear", we all lose.

....especially when we compare them with creationists.

PS, This being a Crichton novel, the ending will suck, too. The guy can't end a book to save his life. Wait for the deus ex-machina ending and the phenomenal co-incidence and the nothing-short-of-a-miracle lucky happenstance. It's always in there.

So ends the learned literary criticism.

[StuBob]

Okay, I'll bite. What relevant event happened on the 27th, Diamond?

BTW: I'm almost done reading Crichton's book. I find it interesting, but not especially well written. As I've pretty much ignored environmental issues for the last decade or so, it has me interested in looking into it again. No telling whether my interest will result in my becoming an eco-nut or an anti-eco-nut, or maybe I'll just remain the fence-sitter.

[Graculus]

Michael Crichton? The guy that is into psychic spoon bending?

I don't think he's exactly qualified to make any judgements about science.

[SRW]

I'm about half way through the book and I can see why the New York Times has their panties in a bunch about this book.


My goodness how terrible, portraying the Hollywood "environmental activists" as hypocrites, and the environmental groups as money hungry reactionarys. How could he possibly think that the billions of dollars these groups collect could ever be used improperly. Why everyone know only corporations are capable of greed. Any one who is skeptical of the environmental movement is just a...well a skeptic.

So far it's pretty entertaining, he does come out with some facts here and there but they do not sound preachy and are well woven into the story line. I can see how a closed minded environmentalist would have trouble reading it, after all they may have to question their dogma.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by SRW
So far it's pretty entertaining, he does come out with some facts here and there but they do not sound preachy and are well woven into the story line. I can see how a closed minded environmentalist would have trouble reading it, after all they may have to question their dogma. Speaking of which, have you read the links in the OP which call into question many of Crichton's "facts"? Surely, you're so open minded you have and are prepared to refute them.

[SRW]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Speaking of which, have you read the links in the OP which call into question many of Crichton's "facts"? Surely, you're so open minded you have and are prepared to refute them.

I have not researched the the questions from the OP, other than to verify some of Crichton's research, (for example 90% of the earths ice in on the Antarctic ice pack), I simply have not found the time to dig into much else. Once I complete the book I'll do some more digging.

[SRW]

By the way, the OP is a bunch of book critics, who blast the book but do not go after the Science. The one /Meteorologist/ he links says the following:

http://www.wunderground.com/education/stateoffear.asp#
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I found myself skipping page after page of his characters' interminable griping to get to the action parts. And Crichton's obvious gloom about the harm excessive environmentalism is doing to the world is reflected in the book, making the mood of the story very dark, and not much fun to read.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

So this guy scaned the book looking for the action parts...wow I am inpressed.

[Diamond]

I logged two factual mistakes:

1. The reference to a "high pressure system beginning to rotate.." which should have been a "low pressure system....".
2. The reference to environmental groups making $500 million in receipts. Last year, the top 16 or 17 environmental groups raked in more than $2 billion. Vested interests, anyone?

[SRW]

While doing some research I did come across a book that I think will be a must read for me. However I will wait until after I have read it to make any judgments. I put the link here for those of you who like to criticize things prior to reading them.


http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/

[ob986s]

Interesting thread no doubt (and my first post after lurking for a while)

As a writer I find Crichton interesting, his topics are better than the usual fluff, his concepts have enough basis in real science (obviously with some leaps such as the Jurassic park Amber thing, but he is pretty good about adding disclaimers) if I were to criticize him I would point to incredibly weak and predictable characters.


What I find odd is the contention the Crichton is a Woo. Has anyone else read this? I stumbled across it today and am interested in hearing the opinions of others on this:

A lecture by Michael Crichton (http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html)


I was quite impressed by it, doesn't sound like a woo to me at all.

Jon

[IIRichard]

There was a previous book by Larry Niven, Angels Down, that uses the same idea, however, in Niven's book, radical environmental wackos (not my opinion) have caused global cooling. Most of the Northern Hemispere is locked in ice. In order to enforce their beliefs, it was necessary to "dumb down" education so that most of the population is illiterate and ignorant of science. All technology is suspect.

The hero's turn out to be "angels", astronauts from a space colony who are shot down while collecting oxygen from the atomosphere.

IIRichard
QUOTE FOLLOWS
================================================== ======

Silicon
Graduate Poster

Registered: Jun 2003
Location:
Posts: 1411


Had to come in with that last quip a week later, huh Shane?

Come on then, don't let me get the last word in this thread. I'm sure you'll come up with a better zinger than that.


Diamond, I already have. Those three can't write fiction for crap.

Wait, I did like that Twilight Zone episode they made from Asimov's robot storys.

But that Robin Williams movie sucked.

__________________
This space available. Just say something pithy and I'll quote you.

"Something Pithy" - IIRichard

When you quote me, be sure to credit my authorship

[skeptigirl]

Originally posted by ob986s
Interesting thread no doubt (and my first post after lurking for a while)

As a writer I find Crichton interesting, his topics are better than the usual fluff, his concepts have enough basis in real science (obviously with some leaps such as the Jurassic park Amber thing, but he is pretty good about adding disclaimers) if I were to criticize him I would point to incredibly weak and predictable characters.


What I find odd is the contention the Crichton is a Woo. Has anyone else read this? I stumbled across it today and am interested in hearing the opinions of others on this:

A lecture by Michael Crichton (http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html)

I was quite impressed by it, doesn't sound like a woo to me at all.

Jon I heard part of an interview with Crichton on my NPR station only a day or so ago. I too was impressed. I had no idea the guy was such a promoter of science.