Crichton's "State of Fear" conclusions on global warming unjustified say scientists

Knight Ridder ^ | Thu, Jan. 27, 2005 | Seth Borenstein

[midnightson]

I agree, 'situational far-fetchedness', to coin a phrase.

[livius]

I thought it was a very fair book that brought out the fact that popular science - which is essentially what global warming is - is a sort of Chicken Little rumor factory that has people believing the rumor despite all evidence to the contrary. The Great Population Explosion was an example of this.

However, when the sky does not fall and it all turns out to be a rumor, there is never any formal retraction of the "science" that led to this, but simply a shift to the creation of another rumor.

I liked the book a lot, btw, and I found it a real page turner!

[Ditto]

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say the world is warming, mainly because of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

WRONG!

[Sam Cree]

Chrichton tends to leave loose ends untied and use the same plot repeatedly, but I enjoyed this book and think it better than most of the best sellers out there, the majority of which I can't stand. Which means most people will not be offended by its literary quality.

[Sam Cree]

"Last year was the fourth hottest ever recorded."

Chrichton makes the point that to get those kind of records, you have to measure the temperatures in major metropolises. For instance, the state of New York has been getting cooler for the last 30 or so years while NYC itself has been getting steadily warmer. The earth as a whole hasn't changed more than 1/2 a degree in the last 100 years, apparently.

I noticed myself in December, by checking the car thermometer, that just driving from the countryside into as small a ciy as Charlottesville, VA was enough to record an immediate temperature rise of 2 or 3 degrees.

[jalisco555]

I guess I hope the book sells well but I can't tell you how many times I just stopped and said to myself "Wait a minute, people just wouldn't do that" while reading it.

[aruanan]

Sixteen of 18 top U.S. climate scientists interviewed by Knight Ridder, however, said the Harvard-trained author is bending scientific data and distorting research.

Bending scientific data. Ha ha ha. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. It should have been written this way:

Sixteen of 18 top U.S. climate scientists WHOSE CAREERS AND BUCKS FROM THE GOVERNMENT DEPEND ON PROMOTING THE GLOBAL WARMING SCARE STORY interviewed by Knight Ridder, however, said the Harvard-trained author is bending scientific data and distorting research.

[F.J. Mitchell]

And the world temperatures rose to such heights, long before our time, that the high deserts in places like Arizona were under water. History has a way of repeating itself-thats why the study of history is important.

Remembering history is very important to us today, as scientists with a selfish agenda, tell us that today's aleged global warming is our fault and we can stop it by merely submitting to their demands that we surrender our souls to their will, like submissive zombies.

The only thing we have to fear is the insanity induced mass hysteria, invented by diabolical scientists with an evil and selfish agenda.

[aruanan]

See Fred Singer's review of the book:

While constructed as a novel, it is also a guide to environmental issues and its advocates, principally the problem of climate change. It carries a message about Global Warming and will certainly have an important impact on the ongoing policy debate.

The message conveyed is two-fold:

**The scientific evidence does not support Global Warming fears -- or even the occurrence of a significant warming trend.

**The environmental movement - and its well-paid leadership - has jumped on the GW bandwagon because that's where the money is. The book mirrors real-life environmental activists, says Ronald Bailey, Reason magazine's science correspondent, in his book review for the Wall Street Journal (Dec. 10, 2004).

[Sam Cree]

I thought it was a page turner too. My favorite Chrichton book was "The Great Train Robbery," I think. I liked the movie, with Sean Connery alot also.

[xp38]

Interesting article from yesterday http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1330159/posts

[AFreeBird]

That's a mighty good picture of global warming in action.

[dennisw]

bttttttttt

[dennisw]

http://gtalumni.org/news/magazine/sum94/mullis.html

[robomurph]

A great lecture by Crichton on junk science.

[edsheppa]

but State of Fear is a terrible novel.

Now wait a minute. Any novel in which a Martin Sheen stand in is eaten by cannibals isn't all bad.

[redgolum]

I need to pick this up at the library.

One thing most climate scientist have in common is the need to get grants to do the research. People don't want to give you money if you say "You know, man can't control the weather".

[jalisco555]

Now wait a minute. Any novel in which a Martin Sheen stand in is eaten by cannibals isn't all bad.

I'll admit it isn't entirely lacking in redeeming qualities.

[Publius6961]

Sixteen of 18 top U.S. climate scientists interviewed by Knight Ridder, however

Defined as "top" climate scientists according to who and using what criteria?

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say the world is warming, mainly because of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
The overwhelming majority? I can't possibly remember all the documented counterarguments to this megalomaniac, but the figure of 15,000 sticks in my mind.

And...

If these "top" scientists understand the mechanics of global warming so well, why do their models, using the world's fastest and most sophisticated computers still are unable to "predict" weather that has already happened?

[Publius6961]

Crichton is right on the science but State of Fear is a terrible novel. The characters are completely undeveloped and the situations in the novel are ridiculous. It read like a hastily written first draft. The man needs a new editor.

That pretty much describes this article, too.

Except Crichton only claims to be writing fiction...