Global Warming, Reality, and Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"

[mugaliens]

I'll begin this thread with a quote from the book, and follow it up with my comments:

"'Good,' Kenner said. 'Now you know how legitimate scientists feel when their integrity is impugned by slimy characterizations such as the one you just made. Sanjon and I gave you a careful, peer-reviewed interpretation of data. Made by several groups of scientists from several different countries. And your response was first to ignore it, and then to make an ad hominem attack. You didn't answer the data. You didn't provide counter evidence. You just smeared with innuendo.'" - Page 232.

I just finished Michael Crichton's "State of Fear," in which he posts more than 140 references to peer-reviewed journals written by leading climatologists which call into serious question nearly all of the Global Warning mantras and myths, such as it being hotter now than it's ever been (1934 beats any of the last 50 years in terms of mean temperatures).

He also has some interesting insights as to what motivates us, as humans. Having worked in industry for two decades, I know for a fact that businesses of all kinds often overstate their case if it means more income, research dollars, etc. Consider the home alarm boom of the 1980s and 1990s, wheren alarm companies kept clammoring about increasing crime, when in fact crime has been declining for the last 20 years. While I think most of those involved in Global Warming research have enough integrity to refrain from overstating the case, I believe there are enough who do not, and that the media, which sells copy not by reporting facts but by increasing readership, often focuses on the more alarming stories. This action, unfortunately, actually encourages overstating the case. And because the vast majority of individuals supporting the concept of Global Warming get their info from the media and special interest groups, rather than from random perusals into the scientific literature itself, I strongly suspect that most people's opinions about Global Warming follow the media and special interest group hype/spin, rather than the facts themselves.

[mugaliens]

Hey, I'm not trying to incite anything - I'm just interested in some informed reviews of the book's claims!

Post away, if you have an informed opinion on Global Warming that differs from the mainstream.

[Moose]

I'll begin this thread with a quote from the book, and follow it up with my comments:
"'Good,' Kenner said. 'Now you know how legitimate scientists feel when their integrity is impugned by slimy characterizations such as the one you just made. Sanjon and I gave you a careful, peer-reviewed interpretation of data. Made by several groups of scientists from several different countries. And your response was first to ignore it, and then to make an ad hominem attack. You didn't answer the data. You didn't provide counter evidence. You just smeared with innuendo.'" - Page 232.

Yeah, this is the quote that pretty much sums up Crichton's book.

Crichton characterizes every mainstream scientist as one of: a) genocidal eco-terrorist, b) shrill and deliberately dishonest, or c) converted, and thus reasonable.

Instead of rebutting the mainstream evidence, he builds up a wildly implausible strawman to knock down. At least half of his "evidence" was innuendo.

Chrigton's paragraph quoted above precisely describes what Crichton does to the vast majority of scientists working on the global warming problem.

Meh, meh, and meh again.

[farmerjumperdon]

It isn't clear from the quote which stance is being supported or minimized (maybe because I don't recognize any of the names).

I have no reason to trust Mr. Crichton any more than anyone else. His incentive is to sell books, which makes him about as trustworthy as those selling the news.

[Fram]

I just finished Michael Crichton's "State of Fear," in which he posts more than 140 references to peer-reviewed journals written by leading climatologists which call into serious question nearly all of the Global Warning mantras and myths, such as it being hotter now than it's ever been (1934 beats any of the last 50 years in terms of mean temperatures).

First, even if this was true: you are (or he is) comparing temperature (anecdote) with climate (data). One year says nothing about global warming or cooling. It's about trends.
But even so, this is wrong. The book is from 2004.
This graph (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif) from NASA shows that there has been, after the warmer period around 1930-1945, a slightly cooler period until 1975. Since then, it is, both on average and during many individual years, warmer (much warmer) than ever before in the 20th century. Similar data can be seen in this graph (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/graphics/nhshgl.jpg) from the University of East Anglia. As that site says, since 1856
The ten warmest years, in descending order, are 1998, 2005, 2003 and 2002 (tie), 2004, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1999, and 1990.
No 1934 in the top ten...

I think I have found what you mean: The US average temperature (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/1998/ann/ann98.html) for 1934 was the highest, tied with 1998. You (or Crichton) takes the US temperature from one year to make a statement about global warming of the climate. Very bad science.

[Moose]

It isn't clear from the quote which stance is being supported or minimized (maybe because I don't recognize any of the names).

Oh, the protagonist had asked a perfectly reasonable question about who funded the study Crichton's Kenner MiB-type character had mentionned, got slapped down with that quote in reply. Turns out, IIRC, that the study was indeed funded by some component of the energy industry and apparently showed global warming didn't exist, but apparently that's not only not a problem in Kenner/Crichton's mind, but quite offensive to point out as a potential conflict-of-interest.

After which, of course, the protagonist then joined the MiB-guy Kenner to chase down and stop a huge conspiracy of genocidal eco-terrorists who were executing a plan to inundate the west coast of the US by deliberately engineering a massive tsunami on the last day of the big "global warming conference".

Somehow, this isn't at all offensive to the vast number of scientists who agree global warming is happening and that at the very least, some component of that warming is related to human activity.

[farmerjumperdon]

So it's a novel?!?!

The way I've heard people using it as a reference for their rants, one way or another, I thought it was a seriously scientific work.

It's a novel. He's a novelist. Why does anybody care what he has to say about global warming?

Keep it moving folks, nothing more to see here.

[Fram]

Because he uses the Dan Brown approach of claiming that it is based on facts.

We all know how trustworthy Dan Brown is of course :D

[The skeptic]

I thoroughly enjoyed State of Fear; it was a good yarn...

[Gillianren]

I mentioned to my best friend that Michael Crichton has written a book on global warming, and she said, essentially, "A well-researched one, or a lecture about global warming that he thinks we should trust because he's a well-known novelist?"

Okay, I haven't read it, but is there any reason not to believe it's category B?

[Moose]

I mentioned to my best friend that Michael Crichton has written a book on global warming, and she said, essentially, "A well-researched one, or a lecture about global warming that he thinks we should trust because he's a well-known novelist?"

Okay, I haven't read it, but is there any reason not to believe it's category B?

Actually, it's a little from column A, and a little from column B, with some strawmen and adhoms stirred in for flavor.

[Makgraf]

Is there a shrewish ex-wife in there somewhere? Cause given Critchon's oeuvre it wouldn't surprise me.

[TheBlackCat]

The only books of his I have read is "Jurassic Park", but from what I understand he seems to be extremely against science. He has made a career out of selling books about the disasters science will bring to us, none of which ultimately panned out. So why exactly should we trust someone who has made a career out of attacking science on a scientific issue?

[FireEyes]

Crichton is trying to sell books. Chricton and his cronies are probably looking for the unique spin or another angle to bring in more of the almighty dollar. Also please explain the phenomeona of how the Artic Circle, and those who depend on their ice island homes are now melting into the ocean, or how the polar bear population has less time to feed. It was recently reported, "In the past 30 years, over one million square miles of sea ice—an area the size of Norway, Denmark and Sweden combined—has vanished. Presently, ice at the southern Arctic region of the polar bear’s range is melting about three weeks sooner than has previously been the case. This affords the bears less time to hunt, eat and store fat. Due to this early melting, the Hudson Bay polar bear population has declined by 14% during the past ten years." How is this another theory to be debunked.

[yuzuha]

Everything I've ever read of his was simply a variant of the Andromeda Strain theme.

[jrkeller]

Crichton is trying to sell books. Chricton and his cronies are probably looking for the unique spin or another angle to bring in more of the almighty dollar. Also please explain the phenomeona of how the Artic Circle, and those who depend on their ice island homes are now melting into the ocean, or how the polar bear population has less time to feed. It was recently reported, "In the past 30 years, over one million square miles of sea ice—an area the size of Norway, Denmark and Sweden combined—has vanished. Presently, ice at the southern Arctic region of the polar bear’s range is melting about three weeks sooner than has previously been the case. This affords the bears less time to hunt, eat and store fat. Due to this early melting, the Hudson Bay polar bear population has declined by 14% during the past ten years." How is this another theory to be debunked.

It is very easy to debunk this. Thirty years ago was a time of global cooling, so comparing this decade's warm period to the 1970's cool period is deceptive. For example from an article (http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm) published in 1975, "In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually." The answer to the global warming question is that we really don't have enough good data to definately say how much of global warming we have observed is due to humans and how much is due to natural effects.

The original article (http://www.realtruth.org/articles/0404-gwrfa.html) which was quoted contains several highly decpetive errors. For example,

The earth’s climate and weather is driven by energy from the sun. This energy heats the planet, which in turn radiates that heat back into space. However, much of this heat is retained by various greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide—and this is a good thing. Without such gases contributing to this natural greenhouse effect, life as we know it would not exist. Temperatures would be similar to our airless moon, ranging wildly from 225°F during the day to negative 243°F at night. Obviously, this would not be an environment conducive for life.

First of all there is no mention of water vapor, which depending on how one wants to measure its effect, which accounts for 60 to 90% of the greenhouse effect. Second temperatures would not be similar to the moon. The only way that this could occur is if there was no atmosphere, and the Earth rotational period was slowed to 28 days, and the radiative absorption and emission chacteristics of the Earth surface were identical to those of the moon. The real answer is that if we could magically remove all greenhouse gases, the average surface temperature would be on the order of -20C.

Articles like those found on realtruth.org which contain blantantly deceptive half truths do nothing to help the global warming debate. They do help polarize people into various the camps which IMO is a very bad thing.

[FireEyes]

Then the next question is if global warming is much like El Nino and El Nina. Has there been a history of the earth tracked where there have been alternate periods of "warming" and "cooling" and how long have they lasted. Is "global warming" bad or good? What explains the severity of hurricaines in one season? Was it "just time for it to happen"? Is there a correlation of the warming of the earth, and the water for this too happen? Granted we have only been recording hurricaines this past century. I appreciate everyone's candor and expertise, as I am less than a novice.

[Ronald Brak]

Then the next question is if global warming is much like El Nino and El Nina. Has there been a history of the earth tracked where there have been alternate periods of "warming" and "cooling" and how long have they lasted. Is "global warming" bad or good? What explains the severity of hurricaines in one season? Was it "just time for it to happen"? Is there a correlation of the warming of the earth, and the water for this too happen? Granted we have only been recording hurricaines this past century. I appreciate everyone's candor and expertise, as I am less than a novice.

Yes, there have been many periods of natural warming and cooling. Some of the mechanisms that cause this are understood, while others are not. One thing that is as certain as things can get is that increased levels of greenhouse gases such as CO2 will result in warmer temperatures. So while the earth naturally goes through periods of warmer and cooler climate such as the medieval warm period and the little ice age, one thing that we can be sure of is that current temperatures are warmer than they would be if the burning of fossil fuels hadn't dumped extra CO2 in the atmosphere.

[Ronald Brak]

Some points about Global Warming that are confusing or are intentionally used to confuse people:

1. Human activity causes only a tiny amount of the carbon released in the atmosphere each year.

This is true, but carbon released from natural sources is balanced by carbon absorbed by natural sources. All carbon breathed out by animals must have originally come from plants. Carbon released by volcanoes is roughly matched by carbon subducted under the earth's crust. Human burning of fossil fuels adds extra carbon to the air and only some of it is absorbed by plants, rocks and the ocean.

2. The temperature of the earth varies because of natural reasons.

Yes it does, but greenhouse gases released by human activity mean the earth will be warmer than what it would be otherwise, regardless of natural causes.

3. Volcanoes release more CO2 than human activity.

Human activity adds at the very least four times as much CO2 to the air as volcanic activity.

4. It is too expensive to stop global warming.

Effective measures to slow global warming might slow growth by less than 6% over two decades. (That is, if growth were to average 3% then steps to slow global warming might reduce it to 2.82%.) If we are lucky, technological advances will make the cost even lower. The total cost is likely to be less than that of adapting to climate change.

[mugaliens]

Some points about Global Warming that are confusing or are intentionally used to confuse people:

That's what I'm afraid of.

1. Human activity causes only a tiny amount of the carbon released in the atmosphere each year.

This is true, but carbon released from natural sources is balanced by carbon absorbed by natural sources. All carbon breathed out by animals must have originally come from plants. Carbon released by volcanoes is roughly matched by carbon subducted under the earth's crust. Human burning of fossil fuels adds extra carbon to the air and only some of it is absorbed by plants, rocks and the ocean.

The good news is that it takes very few years, all things considered, for the remainder of the environment to establish a carbon-absorbsion profile which then seeks to limit the carbon supply. This stands to reason given evolution's principles of self-preservation. Over many such rise and falls in the cycle, they would be significantly prone and reactive to maintain the status quo, as that would be the most efficient cycle for all current organisms on the planet, much like a human biking up a hill consumes more O2 because that's what he needs to get there, even though the volume is perhaps 5 times that which he normally needs on a daily basis.

2. The temperature of the earth varies because of natural reasons.

Yes it does, but greenhouse gases released by human activity mean the earth will be warmer than what it would be otherwise, regardless of natural causes.

3. Volcanoes release more CO2 than human activity.

Human activity adds at the very least four times as much CO2 to the air as volcanic activity. [/quote]

And what about all other activity, including naturally burning forests, microbes in the soil, insects and other animals which outweigh humans by factors bordering on an order of magnitude or more?

4. It is too expensive to stop global warming.

Effective measures to slow global warming might slow growth by less than 6% over two decades. (That is, if growth were to average 3% then steps to slow global warming might reduce it to 2.82%.) If we are lucky, technological advances will make the cost even lower. The total cost is likely to be less than that of adapting to climate change.

Personally, I think we just ought to let it runs it's course, with the following provisions:

1. Impose strict building codes to ensure that no homes or businesses use more than what's barely required. This need not double building prices. In fact, it needn't increase it by more than 15%, max, as evidenced by several builders who're touting such homes in colder climates that are more than 80% more efficent than their neighbor's homes.

2. Go nuclear. No other source of energy on the planet has, by even the slightest shadow, provided so much for so little problem or consequence, outside of the lawyer's and the greenies crippling the entire industry in the 1970s because of their wistful thinking and the permissive US legal system. Some current analysts estimate that between 60% and 80% of the cost of nuclear was legal-related. What a criminal shame!!! Consider how many of the estuaries, rivers, fishbeds, birdroutes, and other environmental concerns that could have been spared in the nuke lawyers hadn't dug in their clutches!!!

3. See above.

I'm serious - see above. I've seen this question raised so many times over the course of the last 10 years that I'm sick of it, yet the answer remains the same - nuclear, done right, combined with much stricter building codes, does the job, from now until about 2200. All other options fall on their hindquarters, including gas, oil, and other natural sources, which either never measure up, or run out long before then.

Wake up, world, and get real, or you'll find that those of us who have moved on towards reality will have left you behind in the death throws of energy fantasies and the reality of poverty.

Poverty is not a given on this planet. The only thing that is a given is mismanagement, wishful thinking, and decisions which reduce subcultures to poverty while those who're truly forward-looking realize the stars.

I wish this weren't so. But the reality behind human nature has made it so. The more people who're aware of this reality merely translates into the more people who're able to participate in this reality.

But if you bury your head in the sand, you'll be done for in a decade.

[Ronald Brak]

The good news is that it takes very few years, all things considered, for the remainder of the environment to establish a carbon-absorbsion profile which then seeks to limit the carbon supply. This stands to reason given evolution's principles of self-preservation. Over many such rise and falls in the cycle, they would be significantly prone and reactive to maintain the status quo, as that would be the most efficient cycle for all current organisms on the planet, much like a human biking up a hill consumes more O2 because that's what he needs to get there, even though the volume is perhaps 5 times that which he normally needs on a daily basis.

Some carbon can be absorbed by increased plant growth, but as temperatures increase the natural world may become less effective at absorbing greenhouse gases. Increased temperatures can cause extra CO2 and methane to be released form sources such as thawing tundra and methane clathrate hydrate deposits in oceans.

While I would much rather see a nuclear plant built than a coal burning plant, in my country expanision of wind power will be cheaper than nuclear in the short term, being roughly 10% cheaper currently. It is also sunny enough here that point of use solar may be becoming economical. But nuclear could be an important source of base power generation. This is especially true if reactors being built now demonstrate low costs.

[sarongsong]

...call into serious question nearly all of the Global Warning mantras and myths, such as it being hotter now than it's ever been (1934 beats any of the last 50 years in terms of mean temperatures)...What???July 14, 2006
...The government reported Friday that the average temperature for the 48 contiguous United States from January through June [2006] was 51.8 degrees Fahrenheit, or 3.4 degrees above average for the 20th century...the warmest such period since recordkeeping began... AP (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/14/D8IRSULOB.html)

[firstcontact]

http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,64236,00.html

I think we all agree that it's in our best interest not to reach saturation yes? Well then why don't we find out just how close we are especially in light of china india, and other growing nations.

[Rivertree]

What???

New Data is always welcome. Good post!;)

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/14/D8IRSULOB.html

[LurchGS]

Staying away from the global warming issue (data are completely insufficient to make a good call).. I'll just chime in with my own opinion of Chriton: The man tells the frankenstein story over and over again, with different names and places. I've reada half doze or so of his books, and by the last one, I knew who was going to do what to whom.

In Short, as a source of information on any subject, he's about as reliable as Al Gore

[Rivertree]

:shhh:


In Short, as a source of information on any subject, he's about as reliable as Al Gore

Credibility hints follow.

Chrichton on spoonbending in his (non-fiction).

"I had bent a spoon, and I knew it wasn't a trick."
p. 320 travels

". . . it becomes so mundane that it can no longer hold your interest."
p. 321 travels


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[mugaliens]

Ahem...

People are knocking Chrichton left and right, but haven't said a thing about the more than 140 references to leading climatologists he references in his book.

As for profit motives, world governments are spending billions to fund research into global warming, which they wouldn't be doing if the scientists said, "What global warming?"

I believe most scientists are honest. But if just 1% were dishonest (which is actually about three times less than studies indicate), there would be more than enough scientists ringing the global warming bell to attract the government's attention.

And money.

As for anecdotes, here's one: "Don't bite the hand that feeds you."

By the way, the following graph clearly indicates both global temps and CO2 levels were higher than they are today several times over the last 750,000 years, well before man would have had any noticeable impact on the planet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.png

But correlation does not imply causality, even when known mechanisms exist that could (but may or may not) account for it.

And consider this quote, from Wiki's entry on global warming (which actually supports the theory that the recent trend is caused by man): "In 1997, Citizens for a Sound Economy surveyed America's 48 official state climatologists on questions related to climate change [16]; of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely manmade."

Admittedly, that was in 1997. These days I strongly suspect most would agree that it's caused by man. Then again, how many of them are front-line researchers of global warming? Or are they reading the reports of the few that are, those few who're living high on the gravy train of federal money, who have a strong incentive to ensure that gravy train doesn't stop?

[Moose]

People are knocking Chrichton left and right, but haven't said a thing about the more than 140 references to leading climatologists he references in his book.

He has 140 selected references to climatologists, but this layperson's question is this: if Crighton has such a solid case, why is it necessary for him to portray the debate as between a rare few rational people, the ignorant but well-meaning (and thus all converted by the rare few rational people), and howling lying eco-terrorists.

Why exactly, Mugs, are all of the other leading climatologists (when he bothers to mention them) portrayed as one or more of: clueless, dishonest, and/or genocidal?

[mugaliens]

He has 140 selected references to climatologists, but this layperson's question is this: if Crighton has such a solid case, why is it necessary for him to portray the debate as between a rare few rational people, the ignorant but well-meaning (and thus all converted by the rare few rational people), and howling lying eco-terrorists.

Why exactly, Mugs, are all of the other leading climatologists (when he bothers to mention them) portrayed as one or more of: clueless, dishonest, and/or genocidal?

I think the point is that, yes, he has a case. However, he does write entertainment novels, so he can package it pretty much any way he wants. Personally, I think he did a great job of portraying others who simply echo the mantra. Please note there were several characters who, although they believed global warming, were portrayed quite intelligently, and one that I recall had some reservations, but still believed.

[Rivertree]

"Aliens Cause Global Warming"
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

quotes:
"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks."

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. "

"Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough."

((Note to self: pellagra and
puerperal fever examples require further investigation.))

"Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees." Hmmm, Al Gore uses the same ecample.:surprised:

". . .we arrive at last at global warming. It is not my purpose here to rehash the details of this most magnificent of the demons haunting the world. "

tbc

[ToSeek]

By the way, the following graph clearly indicates both global temps and CO2 levels were higher than they are today several times over the last 750,000 years, well before man would have had any noticeable impact on the planet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.png


No. Look at the note at the bottom: "Current CO2 concentrations (380 ppmv) would be 5.48 (3 s.f.) on this scale."

In other words, if current observations were added in, the line wouldn't even fit on the graph as currently drawn, since it only goes up to 3.

[Moose]

Personally, I think he did a great job of portraying others who simply echo the mantra.

These would be the "clueless" majority, such as the Eco-Actor archtype.

Please note there were several characters who, although they believed global warming, were portrayed quite intelligently, and one that I recall had some reservations, but still believed.

And all of these characters (most notably the Sympathetic-Lawyer, the Love-Interest, and the Believer-With-Doubts) were converted (or nearly converted) by the two "rationals" (aka, Kenner and Sinjay) before the climax.

All the others mentionned were either deliberately lying or outright genocidal.

As for the "can package it any way he likes" bit, that's a cop out. If I were to do the same, here, I'd be sactionned within the hour for partisan politics and/or ad-homoneim attacks, and rightly so.

But hey, you're right, he can present it any way he likes. But by the same token, I can criticize his work for its numerous flaws in the presentation of his case, and of the selectiveness of his references.

[94z07]

It’s easy to become skeptical of media reports on science and technology.

DDT: A naturalist and her husband make a baseless claim that DDT caused cancer in humans and reduced bird populations. Both claims have proven to be false and the resultant ban on DDT allows the continued spread of mosquito born contagions to kill humans by the hundreds of thousands.

Alar: A CBS story claims Alar on apples is giving children cancer. This was again proven to be false. But not before Alar was banned and armed guards carry bushels of apples out of schools to be destroyed.

Ford Pinto: CBS takes the gas cap off of a gas tank and shows how it easily bursts into flames when struck from behind.

AMC Jeep CJ: ABC removes key suspension components and shows how easy it is then to cause a short wheel-base vehicle (by the way the vehicle had already been discontinued) to tip over under extreme maneuvers.

GMC pickup: NBC shows how easy it is to cause a vehicle with saddle bag fuel tanks to burst into flame when hit in the side. Of course, they used rocket motors and igniters to help this along.

Jane Fonda: JF does a movie, “China Syndrome”, and media outlets interview her as a credible source on the safety of nuclear power.

Radon gas: Media hype said that radon gas caused lung cancer. Thousands rush to give money to snake oil salesmen who will cure them of this radon menace. A scientific study proved that there was no link to lung cancer and radon gas. (Actually there was an inverse relationship to lung cancer and radon gas.)

Global cooling: Oh yeah after the first earth day there were media reports that the particulents caused by industry blocked so much of the sunlight that the Earth was cooling off.

Ted Danson: In 1988 TD claimed that the oceans had already reached a level of decline that even if we stopped polluting them that there were only 10 years of life left in them. The fear mongers in the media were all too happy to jump on this.

Was it good science for Mann to use a single tree to infer temperatures for an entire century?

Was it good science for Mann to use tree ring growth to infer temperatures 1400-1902 and then to switch to actual recorded temperatures in cities?

Was it good science for Mann to drop data-points for both the medieval warm period and the little ice age?

Is it true that when the Monte Carlo test is given to Mann’s computer models that the random numbers also produce his hockey stick?

The media are the boy crying wolf.

Personally I believe that the globe is warming. I believe that humankind is playing a role in this warming. I do not know how big this role is. I am for conservation measures. I am for alternative energies. I am pro-nuclear. I am, however, aware of the $2.1 billion that is up for grabs for climate research in the US and I am aware of the difficulties of ATM research.

[Rivertree]

Bjorn Lomborg wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist.

Crichton's treatment of topic appears to focus on perceived unfair treatment of Lomborg by Scientific American and scientific community.

"'Bjorn Lomborg is an outstanding representative of the 'new breed' of political scientists -"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521010683/sr=8-1/qid=1154277324/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-6879679-5332750?ie=UTF8

political scientists - Hmm. Sounds like politics to me which is taboo here.

Crichton's argument is political moreso than Gores IMHO.

I'm moving on. TTFN.

[Rivertree]

re: Crichton's footnotes

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/
:mad:
Long quotes
The Kyoto Protocol. Toward the end of the novel, Kenner lectures another character on the futility of the Kyoto Protocol, which requires participating nations to adopt binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions. ''The effect of Kyoto would be to reduce warming by .04 degrees Celsius in the year 2100,'' he says. ''Four hundredths of a degree.'' When another character disputes this claim, Kenner promises, ''I can give you the references.''

"Tom Wigley, author of a 1998 article Crichton cites to back up this point, has complained previously that others have misused his research to undermine Kyoto. While that paper did indeed find that the treaty would have a relatively small long-term effect, Wigley has subsequently warned that his analysis ''assumed that Kyoto was followed to 2010, and that there were no subsequent climate mitigation policies.'' The point of the paper was not to bash Kyoto (which goes into effect internationally on February 16) but rather to demonstrate that it represents only a first step toward climate stabilization. ''Once we've done Kyoto we're obviously going to do other things,'' says Wigley."

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

The Glaciers of Kilimanjaro. Similarly, Kenner highlights the case of this famed African peak--a favorite of climate-change skeptics--in the process of debunking concerns that global warming is causing glaciers to retreat. Kilimanjaro has melted ''because of deforestation,'' Kenner says, not global warming: ''The rain forest at the base of the mountain has been cut down, so the air blowing upward is no longer moist. Experts think that if the forest is replanted the glacier will grow again.'

Again, Crichton supplies references. But UMass-Amherst climatologist Douglas Hardy, a coauthor of the 2004 paper on Kilimanjaro cited, says Crichton is distorting his work. Crichton is doing ''what I perceive the denialists always to do,'' says Hardy. ''And that is to take things out of context, or take elements of reality and twist them a little bit, or combine them with other elements of reality to support their desired outcome.''

For example, while the case of Kilimanjaro does seem more complicated (with factors like drier conditions and less cloud cover also implicated in its glacial retreat), Hardy notes that for other glaciers, especially in tropical latitudes, ''the link is very clear between changes in tropospheric temperature and [glacial retreats].'' And even in the case of Kilimanjaro, Hardy adds, climate change may be playing a role.

As for the notion that replanting the forest at Kilimanjaro's base will help the glacier to grow again, Hardy says: ''The forests need replanting for many reasons, but I think that [Crichton's] idea is preposterous, without some larger-scale changes.'':mad:

Naomi Oreskes, a science studies scholar at the University of California, San Diego, recently analyzed more than 900 scientific articles listed with the keywords ''global climate change,'' and failed to find a single study that explicitly disagreed with the consensus view that humans are contributing to global warming.:(

Crichton frets about ''Why Politicized Science is Dangerous.'' But he may himself have provided a case study.:razz:

All quotes from
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/

[Rivertree]

I motion to lock/archive this specific :silenced: topic as political, heated, etc.

"Please do not start another SOF thread in the BOOKS forum, either. SOF is off-limits for the near future. I'll let you know when the topic is re-opened. Also, please do not post oblique references to SOF, global warming, etc., in other forums either (like science, for example). They'll get deleted. Let's just give it a rest for a while and see how it goes.

All other MC subjects are open for business!" :silenced:

http://www.crichton-official.com/messageboard.html