Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   State of Fear - Michael Crichton
custard
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 11 (187869)
02-23-2005 5:23 PM


I didn't see State of Fear listed in the book nook - it's been a while so I apologize if someone already posted a similar thread - and I thought that you folks might find this book great discussion fodder.
In many ways a typical Crichton thriller, State of Fear asks some very pointed questions about what we as a society have come to regard as truth: global warming is detrimental to our environment and is caused man's, specifically developed Western nations, wanton disregard of the environment.
Two of Crichton's main points are:
1- The evidence for global warming is weak (at best), misinterpreted and misreported at worst.
2- Politicizing science can have dangerous consequences.
Crichton actually has a short essay in the back of his book regarding the latter point where he compares the overwhelming public acceptance of current global warming theory to that of eugenics in the thirties.
While not as good as Andromeda Strain, the story still entertains and uses the effective device of confronting the protagonist, an environmental lawyer, with cold, hard facts regarding the evidence, and often lack thereof, for global warming.
Along the way Crichton takes a few potshots at the big business of 'not-for-profit' groups and Hollywood celebrities who ardently endorse political positions regarding concepts with which they have little or no understanding.
If you've done much reading on the topic, most of Crichton's information will not be earth shattering, but he documents his sources very well with numerous footnotes and a robust bibliography.
I enjoyed it because it was controversial and made me run to the web to double-check his 'facts.' Those with a strong Green bias will enjoy this book about as much as bleeding heart liberals enjoyed the outcome of the 2004 election; but if one is open-minded, whether you ultimately agree with Crichton's conclusions, readers will find State of Fear informative and thought provoking.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2005 6:37 PM custard has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 2 of 11 (187889)
02-23-2005 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by custard
02-23-2005 5:23 PM


I haven't read it, but I know that Crichton's evidentiary basis for the book has come under sharp criticism from science organizations. Having seen a lot of the evidence for global warming - as distinguished from anthropogenic climate change, though I believe that is substantiated as well - I don't see how anyone could come to any conclusion besides that the worldwide climate is warming, and anomolously so.
2- Politicizing science can have dangerous consequences.
I don't understand how science could be expected to not be political. If we set science apart and insist that its findings will always be disinterested and neutral, doesn't it become useless? If we don't use the results of science to develop policy, what's the point?
Along the way Crichton takes a few potshots at the big business of 'not-for-profit' groups and Hollywood celebrities who ardently endorse political positions regarding concepts with which they have little or no understanding.
Well hell I can agree with that. People who advance positions without understanding them are shooting themselves in the foot. But that a position may not be fully understood by some of its proponents is not evidence that the position is itself wrong; it's evidence that those who do understand it need to do a better job of educating their peers (as well as their opponents.)
The problem is that Crichton's book seems to cause exactly what he rails against. If he's using junk science to mislead people who don't understand climate models and climate change in the first place, how is what he's doing any different than those pernicious eco-freak hippies he so clearly doesn't like?
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-23-2005 18:39 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by custard, posted 02-23-2005 5:23 PM custard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by tardygm2, posted 02-23-2005 6:50 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 5 by custard, posted 02-23-2005 7:10 PM crashfrog has replied

tardygm2 
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 11 (187891)
02-23-2005 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by crashfrog
02-23-2005 6:37 PM


heaven
you are left behind cause your foolish and idiot remarks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2005 6:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2005 6:53 PM tardygm2 has replied
 Message 6 by AdminJar, posted 02-23-2005 7:27 PM tardygm2 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 4 of 11 (187892)
02-23-2005 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by tardygm2
02-23-2005 6:50 PM


Re: heaven
you are left behind cause your foolish and idiot remarks.
That's the second time you've implied/stated that I'm an idiot without any further comment.
There had better not be a third. If you think I'm wrong, put up or shut up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by tardygm2, posted 02-23-2005 6:50 PM tardygm2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by tardygm2, posted 02-23-2005 7:57 PM crashfrog has not replied

custard
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 11 (187897)
02-23-2005 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by crashfrog
02-23-2005 6:37 PM


Ummm
quote:
I haven't read it [State of Fear] but I know that Crichton's evidentiary basis for the book has come under sharp criticism from science organizations.
  —crashfrog
Not surprising as he is extremely critical of said organizations.
quote:
The problem is that Crichton's book seems to cause exactly what he rails against.
  —crashfrog
Don't you think it would be fair to actually read the book, or at least review the bibliography and the scientific studies cited therein before you imply that Crichton is guilty of using 'junk science?'
I'm curious to know which scientific paper cited by Crichton in this book you think is evidence of junk science?
Also, Crichton isn't claiming there is NO global warming, he's questioning the conclusions drawn by those who equate global warming with disaster. One of his most compelling points is that the most dire global warming predictions are based on computer models. He asks how the global warming advocates can predict climatological doom on a global scale one hundred years from now when we can't even predict the weather ten DAYS from now.
Another poignant example he uses is that until 1970 scientists thought we might be heading into another ice age because global temperatures had undergone a thirty year cooling trend. His point is that no one really knows what the consequences are, if any, of an overall increase in the global temperature of one degree celsius in the last hundred years.
At the end of the book Crichton entreats his readers to go out and actually look at the data for themselves before believing ANYONE's conclusion, including his own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2005 6:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2005 10:43 PM custard has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 11 (187903)
02-23-2005 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by tardygm2
02-23-2005 6:50 PM


Warning mitt
mitt, you have not made a single worthwhile contribution in even one of your posts. Please try to do better. If you have a point relative to the thread feel free to contribute but you little editorial comments have no value.
Check the links at the bottom of the page for tips on how to make worthwhile posts.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by tardygm2, posted 02-23-2005 6:50 PM tardygm2 has not replied

tardygm2 
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 11 (187909)
02-23-2005 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
02-23-2005 6:53 PM


Re: heaven
kenneth kitchen found price of slaves in josephs time so jososeph was real bible is true you are a real loser like a idiot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2005 6:53 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by CK, posted 02-23-2005 8:03 PM tardygm2 has not replied
 Message 9 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-23-2005 8:11 PM tardygm2 has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 8 of 11 (187912)
02-23-2005 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by tardygm2
02-23-2005 7:57 PM


Re: heaven
I feel your remarks add little to the discourse. In addition, you need to work on the use of the "period" as you american chaps refer to it.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 23 February 2005 20:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by tardygm2, posted 02-23-2005 7:57 PM tardygm2 has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 9 of 11 (187917)
02-23-2005 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by tardygm2
02-23-2005 7:57 PM


Mitt suspended
Mitt, your posting privileges are suspended.
Contact admin@ for possible restoration.
Adminnemooseus
Added by edit: Charles, we really didn't need your message 8. I won't do it, but I suggest you delete the content.
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-23-2005 20:16 AM
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-23-2005 20:19 AM

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by tardygm2, posted 02-23-2005 7:57 PM tardygm2 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 10 of 11 (187951)
02-23-2005 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by custard
02-23-2005 7:10 PM


Don't you think it would be fair to actually read the book, or at least review the bibliography and the scientific studies cited therein before you imply that Crichton is guilty of using 'junk science?'
Probably. On the other hand:
One of his most compelling points is that the most dire global warming predictions are based on computer models. He asks how the global warming advocates can predict climatological doom on a global scale one hundred years from now when we can't even predict the weather ten DAYS from now.
Because weather and climate are not the same thing. If I asked you to let a handful of sand drop through your fingers, I wouldn't be able to model the trajectory of each grain with any degree of accuracy.
On the other hand, I can almost perfectly predict the diameter of the smallest circle I could draw around 98% of the sand on the floor when you're done. The weather ten days from now is a lot less predictable than the global climate 100 years from now.
Seriously if this is any indication of the level of reasoning Crichton employs - the implication that, since we don't know everything, we know nothing - then I stand by my description of his science as "junk."
At the end of the book Crichton entreats his readers to go out and actually look at the data for themselves before believing ANYONE's conclusion, including his own.
Ok, well, look at this data then:
Now look at that, and tell me that the near-universal consensus of climatologists is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by custard, posted 02-23-2005 7:10 PM custard has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 11 of 11 (187965)
02-23-2005 11:15 PM


Closing topic, at least for a while
I note that Custard and Crashfrog are also carrying on the global warming debate at the Global Warming/Strange Weather Patterns topic. That is a better place for it.
Going to close this topic down, at least for a while.
If someone wants it reopened, make the request at the appropriate topic of the "signature" list, below.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024