Crichton is a novelist. Not trying to be elitist here but none of his work underwent peer review, and I've heard some pretty strong rebuttals to the so-called "science" of his novel.
I'm not trying to claim this was a fantastic book, or one of his best. Nor was I trying to champion that he was anything other than a novelist. I am well aware that he is into speculative fiction, which is fiction.
His book Timeline was extremely speculative to the point of absurdity, and Prey was not a whole lot better.
I happen to like his writing in any case, but then again there is no accounting for taste.
The interesting part, and this is what makes State of Fear different than his other novels, is that he actually has real data within the book. He quotes actual science literature (and I do mean he gives complete citations), and the last 41 pages are nonfiction. Some of it is an explanation of what his personal views are, followed by 28 pages of reference material (an actual bibliography).
I was not at all refering to the fictional portions, I was talking about the nonfiction data and analyses. I might also note that he cites some of the research which is for GW, and mentions some of those with contrarian data are supportive of GW theory.
Crichton stacks the deck - his protagonist never seems to argue with anybody with any real data:
And so here I sit waiting for some real data from somebody. I was in the field at one time and saw nothing. Since then I have seen nothing (but admittedly have not been watching closely). Then I saw a novel filled with purely nonfictional real life science data which supported what I had been seeing in the past, and so I am raising the question.
The fact is he DID support his position with real data, it is inconclusive (as the last person who cited NOAA's own info proved) to potentially contrary.
Crichton never has his mouthpiece argue against another scientist who reads the evidence on climate change differently and can cite literature to back his or her view as well. In our world--the real world--you can find a small army of these. I have interviewed many of them, heard others lecture, and met still more at conferences. In Crichton's universe, however, they seem not to exist.
That's an interesting stance for a critic to take, as it appears the person failed to read the last 41 pages which dealt with data. It is true that in this book Kenner does not confront any scientist with an opposing view. The gist of the book was that science was allowing public political movements to shape science and message coming out of science... thus he was dealing with environmental activists who were supposed to be like most people, well meaning but not actually scientists.
And what the critic also failed to mention is that while he did not run into these small armies that the critic talks to, the character was using actual assessments from real scientists... it appears the small army of scientists the critic does not speak to.
I'm not saying that the wiki is gospel. If you see inaccuracies perhaps you'd be kind enough to edit the article, or suggest edits.
I will take a look, but I was actually hoping for responses from people within the science community to produce real evidence. I don't hold it against you that you are not in that field, and must rely on what the primary message appears to be. What I am hoping to generate is some skepticism or real evidence.
internal debates about the extent of the climate change, or the degree to which human industrialization is responsible.
Unfortunately this is critical when we move to discuss GW as an environmental concern, as well as ways to affect it. This is quite unlike evolution in that we are trying to manufacture change in response to a theoretical process. Without understanding the above, environmentalist efforts are almost directly analogous to those who hear about evolution and suggest eugenics is the only hope for mankind.
But the idea that there is no trend of global warming beyond the usual annual temperature variation, or that its coincidence with human industrial activity is simply chance, gathers almost as little support among the scientific community as creationism does.
This is simply false. You have already seen at least two others here, one involved with paleoclimatologists who said there is no sense of any trend beyond the usual temp variation. If anything we seem to have been within a period of uncommon stability.
Unless I see a mechanism I am loathe to suggest that greenhouse gases are to blame for anything. That is not like creationism nor treated like creationism among scientists in that field. That is asking for evidence for a mechanism's existence.
You just saw in cplmini's post that NOAA (a rather definitive agency on climate data for the US) does not support the above stance. It clearly discusses the dearth of info we have on climate, much less the connection between manmade gases and climate change.
I will read the wiki entry.
If you ever held the idea that global warming simply meant that it was going to get hotter everywhere, then I believe you held that position in error.
I will ask that you please not talk down to me on this one. I could be in error, but it is quite unlikely. GW is a specific theory. It is (simply enough put) that greenhouse gases, will create an envelope or seal which traps energy within the environment. Its described mechanism was very simple and analogous to what we see on Venus.
The problem was that it was so simple, gases will stay and trap. Hence "greenhouse". Now it is recognized that it won't or can't be so simple, and as Jar has already noted perhaps the terms GW and I will now add "greenhouse" are not so accurate.
It is true that the theory started simple but the attempt to find mechanisms has produced complications so the model becomes more complex. My slam is on retaining the simple idea then. Why keep it? Why discuss it at all as a real thing?
Anthropogenic climate change doesn't mean that the warming trend persist forever. The warming trend itself has consequences, which may include stimulating a period of global cooling.
I agree, that is why GW is not the correct term or model is it? Note that my thread title includes "a little of both". What we are discussing then is simply the possibility of manmade sources of climate change. And rising temps or lowering temps are all part of this mix, and neither actually a sign of anything in specific until we have a model which takes into account the past and can make some valid predictions.
But I see nothing inconsistent about the idea that global warming could trigger some kind of massive cool period, any more than I find it inconsistent that my refrigerator makes my kitchen hotter, or that Harrison Ford can build an icemaker powered by heat in "The Mosquito Coast".
There are changes which we should and should not expect to see. While temporary localized changes could produce some cooling, the trap effect would mean there is a limit to this and so negate full "ice ages" as we commonly refer to them.
Ford's fridge is a great analogy. The ice produced had to be very localized. Now imagine that same fridge within an oven of ever increasing temp. Less and less ice or at least within shrinking borders could be produced/maintained.
Well, I really can't stand his writing style. Drives me up the wall. The guy writes about as poorly as Clive Cussler, in my opinion
By all means then, do not read it. I really like his writing, even when its not his best. Taste is completely subjective and I don't think less of anyone for not liking him.
Just because he pads the end with a bunch of footnotes doesn't mean that he's presented the whole story, or even a balanced look. It doesn't mean that he's done his research and presented all the relevant info instead of just cherry-picking from the avaliable data.
This is a valid point and part of why I started this thread. From my own look at the real data years ago, it was the GW theorists that were cherry picking. And I have yet to see anything beyond cherry picking. Thus it roused my interest in challenging my own ideas, which had already been shaken earlier.
I've gone from Ice Age believer, to GW believer, to (after finally looking at evidence) a GW doubter, then stayed in stasis. This book reminded me of that journey, and held what I thought was a valid assessment of the sloppiness of modern science, the fadism which has crept back into it, and I really want to expose some of that while trying to get back up to speed.
but I think you're going to regret making his novel the centerpiece, rather than his data. It's fine, of course, to use it as a springboard, but I think it's a mistake to wield his novel like any sort of authority, especially since it's been roundly criticised by the scientific community.
I only mean it as a springboard. I do not hold it as an authority. I mean I didn't mean to. If it came off that way then I have made an error in writing about it.
I was trying to generate some factual responses on the state of knowledge regarding climate. I figured some of his points (which I don't think I've even mentioned) could fall flat, while others would be supported.
In any case it would benefit all by looking at some real data and questioning how we come to conclusions in science, especially those that deal with hot button items which many assume to be true regardless of the state of data.
I was not aware that the data in Crichton's book had been roundly criticized by the scientific community. I'd be interested in knowing where to find some of that. It seems a little strange since he supplied info to writings that are both for and against it. Anyone who states he only supplied within the nonfiction section, refs for antiGW is simply making things up.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2