State of Fear - Michael Crichton

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. 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? 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

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.

Probably. On the other hand: 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." Ok, well, look at this data then:Now look at that, and tell me that the near-universal consensus of climatologists is wrong.