I don't particularly enjoy wild goose chases, but I did go this extra step, which is as far as I'm going...
From this gem (from Gavin Schmidt): Is this clown serious?
"Like the recent movie "The Day After Tomorrow", the novel addresses real scientific issues and controversies, but is similarly selective (and occasionally mistaken) about the basic science."
That's all I need to know about this guy's judgement, never mind his bureaucratic "science". Computer modelling is "science"? Give me a break.
Anyone who would compare The Day After Tomorrow (I missed the bibliography on that one!) with State of Fear has got to have a screw loose. If nothing else, I would question his judgement.
The creators of "The Day After..." admitted that they made stuff up with no regard for science, but just for the drama a la Godzilla movies...
That absurd comparison speaks volumes about this guy's exaggerated opinion of himself.
Hardly the source for unbiased scientific validation about anything.
That's all I need to know about this guy's judgement, never mind his bureaucratic "science". Computer modelling is "science"? Give me a break.
Modelling, computer or not, is a basic function of science. I used this example previously. Say you are titrating 100 ml of 1 molar HCL with a solution of unknown NaOH concentration. You use 200 ml of the solution to neutralize the 100 ml of HCL (phenophthalein indicator, of course). You calculate the concentration of the NaOH to be 0.5 molar.
How did you do the calculation? You constructed a model of the system. It was a pretty basic (ha) and very simple model, but it was a model nonetheless. A scientific model is a mathematical expression of relationships within a system. Computer models just tend to have more relationships.
Hardly the source for unbiased scientific validation about anything.
I never said he was unbiased (and that wasn't the claim I was addressing I was addressing whether or not the contributions to RealClimate were anonymous). I have a very strong bias against people that use misleading arguments and twisted data interpretations to influence public opinion, especially the opinions of people that trust people with a veneer of expertise -- like Crichton. I kinda hope you do, too.
Attacks on Crichton
have sometimes gotten quite weird
since his "State of Fear."
Cock and Bull, by Michael Crowley
That movie is based on Art Bell-Whitley Streiber's book, "The Coming Global Superstorm".
I picked it up used at B&N. It starts out okay, but quickly goes down hill. I do remember forcing myself to finish it, one chapter a night.
Art Bell promoted the movie at the time, but his promotional spiel contradicted the cover notes and preface.
And, I remember him flip-flopping again on the movie promotion.
So, anyone that uses bad fiction, and bad science, to make a point, other than absurdity, is either seriously deranged, or a common grifter. Maybe both.