Posted on 11/14/2006 12:35:41 PM PST by truthfinder9
In 2004, Jurassic Park and Congo author Michael Crichton released State of Fear, a techno-thriller centered around an extremist enviro group who is trying to create global disasters in order to gain support for their failing cause. I finally had a chance to read this book, and while it’s fiction, it’s also deeply rooted in reality. The actions and motivations of the radical enviros and their non-profit fronts in the book sound much like the real thing. But what really sets this novel apart is that the author uses real science to document the problems of radical envrionmentalism, to the point of using authentic scientific and journal references and footnotes in the book. Much of the emphasis is on the global warming debate and it will make hard core global warming supporters think twice about what they’ve been told is true.
"...it will make hard core global warming supporters think twice about what they’ve been told is true." They don't think once but feel continuously. PHAUGH!
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people should be armed where they will, with wits and guns.
I also heard the folks on the weather channel cursing the book through gritted teeth. Also, my recollection is that when the book was released, none of the networks would book Crighton to talk about it.
The truth is anathema to those who are lying.
They're no longer "global warming" supporters.
They got burned on the "ice age" hysteria of the 1970s.
They got burned because of faulty and misleading "global warming" data.
Now, they're "Climate Change" alarmists.
They've finally managed to cover all the bases.
Great Book.
State of Fear = Best book EVER!
Crichton totally debunks the man-made global warming myth with real science, all wrapped up in a (fictional) story of eco-nazi World terror that is shockingly true-to-life.
I'm giving a copy to many people this Christmas, including liberal global-warming cultists.
Nuh-uh.
It is the only book of fiction that I have read with footnotes.
Crichton is a great writer. I have read all of his books. Also, he writes for the TV show ER, which is still as good a TV show as it gets.
I have little scientific background on the subject, but his book sheds a lot of light on the subject.
Good book. Read all of Crichton's books. This was the most educational for me, but by far not his best work of fiction. Was way too preachy and long winded explanations which were great for education, but bad for the continuity of the storyline. I am a fan of his, but this one needed writing help.
I, for one, am very alarmed! Here it is November 14, and last night it snowed and the wind blew very hard up here in northern Utah!!! I'm vewy vewy ascared!!!!
"Climate Change"....hmmm...."He who controls language controls everything."(paraphrase)
FMCDH(BITS)
Know you enemy:
"-- At the end of the book, Crichton gives us an author's message.
In it, he reiterates the main points of his thesis: that there are some who go too far to drum up support (and I have some sympathy with this), and that because we don't know everything, we actually know nothing (here, I beg to differ).
He also gives us his estimate, ~0.8 C for the global warming that will occur over the next century and claims that, since models differ by 400% in their estimates, his guess is as good as theirs. This is not true.
The current batch of models have a mean climate sensitivity of about 3 C to doubled CO2 (and range between 2.5 and 4.0 degrees) (Paris meeting of IPCC, July 2004) , i.e an uncertainty of about 30%.
As discussed above, the biggest uncertainties about the future are the economics, technology and rate of development going forward. The main cause of the spread in the widely quoted 1.5 to 5.8 C range of temperature projections for 2100 in IPCC is actually the different scenarios used.
For lack of better information, if we (incorrectly) assume all the scenarios are equally probable, the error around the mean of 3.6 degrees is about 60%, not 400%.
Crichton also suggests that most of his 0.8 C warming will be due to land use changes. That is actually extremely unlikely since land use change globally is a cooling effect (as discussed above). Physically-based simulations are actually better than just guessing.
Finally, in an appendix, Crichton uses a rather curious train of logic to compare global warming to the 19th Century eugenics movement. He argues, that since eugenics was studied in prestigious universities and supported by charitable foundations, and now, so is global warming, they must somehow be related.
Presumably, the author doesn't actually believe that foundation-supported academic research ipso facto is evil and misguided, but that is an impression that is left.
In summary, I am a little disappointed, not least because while researching this book, Crichton actually visited our lab and discussed some of these issues with me and a few of my colleagues.
I guess we didn't do a very good job. Judging from his reading list, the rather dry prose of the IPCC reports did not match up to the some of the racier contrarian texts.
Had RealClimate been up and running a few years back, maybe it would've all worked out differently…
This commentary is reprinted with Gavin Schmid's permission from a blog entry on RealClimate.org.
RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.
We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.
About The Earth Institute
The Earth Institute at Columbia University is among the worlds leading academic centers for the integrated study of Earth, its environment, and society. The Earth Institute builds upon excellence in the core disciplines - earth sciences, biological sciences, engineering sciences, social sciences and health sciences - and stresses cross-disciplinary approaches to complex problems. Through its research, training and global partnerships, it mobilizes science and technology to advance sustainable development, while placing special emphasis on the needs of the worlds poor.
GREAT BOOK. Fiction but still arms you with lots of interesting tidbits of information about "global warming".
Funny thing, after I read the book I stumbled on some blog site "debunking" the book. They obviously DIDN'T actually read the book because each and every one of their "facts" (without sources) used to debunk were themselves already debunked, with sources, in the book.
One of my favorites!!!
Reporting and recording instruments are capable of demonstrating sensitivity, because they deal with data. Models deal with simulations and projections based on hypotheticals. Sensitivity doesn't dress it up any more than calibration does a work of art.
That is actually extremely unlikely since land use change globally is a cooling effect (as discussed above). Physically-based simulations are actually better than just guessing.
Better check the time of the next bus because you sure missed that one. The addition of pervasive (and invasive) concrete, asphalt and population in thickening urban areas will produce a heating effect, not a cooling effect.
He argues, that since eugenics was studied in prestigious universities and supported by charitable foundations, and now, so is global warming, they must somehow be related.
Sez which?!? If I COMPARE a cultural elitist to a racist bigot as being similar in their fundamental prejudice, I'm certainly not saying they're RELATED. (It's a common trait of liberals to hear something they want to hear instead of what was actually stated)
Presumably, the author doesn't actually believe that foundation-supported academic research ipso facto is evil and misguided, but that is an impression that is left.
Since it's YOUR presumption and YOUR impression, this says something more about YOU than the subject, no?
I guess we didn't do a very good job.
What, in persuading him, or fooling him? Three years of research probably taught him an adequate amount of discernment.
The only thing I wrote in that post was "know your enemy'.
Interesting that the author misuses the terms "model" and "simulation." I think that means his education is suspect.
I realized that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.