Global Warming... fact, fiction, or a little of both?

I recently read the book as well. What I found most interesting about it was Crichton's rant at the end against the way the peer review system works and how it influences the entire discussion of GW. It in effect maintains the status quo since your peers have an interest in maintaining that status quo. People like myself in molecular biology have been making the same complaints for years.The point with GW that did not come up is that those who study historical climate change i.e. end Pleistocene and earlier show even more dramatic swings in temperature than what we see today..and there was no industry. GW is worthy of intense investigation...but not if the entire field assumes its conclusion....that is what creationists do.I would have preferred that Kyoto had focused more on toxins released by industry or the effects of runoff from agriculture on the environment. Those are much easier to establish cause and effect and also easier to remedy in the short term.

quote:

---

In a way I am trying to advance Crichton's challenge to GW in this thread, and perhaps take on the character (or spirit) of his antiGW guys. I think it is a way of challenging scientific method itself, or rather sloppy methodology, using a specific context.

---

I don't know that he challenges scientific methodology. His characters (and his comments in the end of the book) implore people to use the scientific method i.e. he claims that the science has become politics, not that the scientific method is inadequate.

quote:

---

I'm assuming you have more up to date paleo and modern climate info than I do since you are still in the field. Were C's refs pretty accurate, or did you spot some errors?

---

Actually, I do pure genetics work. My colleagues do some work on these issues as they pertain to the end Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions. But I mostly just grunt and nod when they go into detail...sort of what they do when I try to explain nucleotide diversity estimates in extinct muskox populations to them.I have to agree with crashfrog on Crichtons writing. While I enjoyed the book, I was heavily biased by the end where he slams the state of the peer review system. But the story itself and the character development was really really lame. Kenner's monologues were entertaining but the rest of the cast had as much substance as extras on the A-Team...though his books are great for learning foreign languages....I read part of Jurassic Park in German..(only part because I knew what happens and got bored half way through).