Comments on: Tech Central Station: The Novel

By: Crooked Timber » » Skeptical Inquiry

Crooked Timber » » Skeptical Inquiry — Tue, 19 Apr 2005 16:58:01 +0000

[...] nfusion. But so do purportedly serious think tanks, such as the AEI (which recently hosted famous climate scientist, Michael Crichton) and the Competitive Enterprise In [...]

By: "Mindles H. Dreck"

"Mindles H. Dreck" — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:24:46 +0000

Perhaps so, but it is worth noting that the IPCC reports are filtered and summarized by non-scientists. My understanding is that the research is much more qualified in its conclusions than the summaries.

By: Mark Bahner

Mark Bahner — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:43:26 +0000

“mindles h. dreck” writes, “Earlier a poster posits a ‘conspiracy of scientists’ as part of Crichton’s plot. I’ve read it – the scientists are the heroes,…” Well, in real life, that’s not the situation. The IPCC Third Assessment Report projections for atmospheric methane concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant temperature increases (i.e. 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius from 1990 to 2100) constitute the greatest fraud in the history of environmental science: http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2005/01/resolved_the_ip.html http://markbahner.50g.com/what_will_happen_to_us.htm

By: "Mindles H. Dreck"

"Mindles H. Dreck" — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:23:29 +0000

Earlier a poster posits a ‘conspiracy of scientists’ as part of Crichton’s plot. I’ve read it – the scientists are the heroes, it’s the lawyers, lobbyists and ELF/PETA activists that are the villains. As a fiction writer, Crichton is sort of like Robert Ludlum – page turning, but silly in a titillating sort of way. If you read his essay at the end, you’ll find he isn’t that far off realclimate’s ‘consensus’. And his suggestion that research be performed blind from its funding is one that both sides should get behind. The most serious logical error in the book is his avalanche of local temperatures to refute a theory that posits a global mean. They also pose the most annoying obstacle to continuing with the fictional plot. It would be a mistake for those who think that drastic CO2 emmissions cutting is necessary to ‘Lomborgize’ Crichton. But, suit yourself.

By: jet

jet — Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:25:39 +0000

I just can’t stop posting :P Funny how RealClimate.com does just what Crichton accuses the CO2 environmentalists of doing. They post a graph of the mean global temperatures. But what date do they start at? Why 1960. How convenient.

By: jet

jet — Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:47:53 +0000

Here’s more pissing in the CO2 enviromentalist’s cheerios. Given that cosmic radiation and sun spots are known to greatly effect the Earth’s climate by a much larger degree than CO2, but these effects are not understood well enough to include in climate models, why the hell do these climate models get approval for being the defacto word of the Green God? Funny how you don’t have to fudge the sun spot data for the last 100 years to make it match up the Earth’s temperature data. Also funny that the last 30 years of high sun spot activity also seems to be warming up Mars too, according to NASA. Perhaps all those Martians drive SUV’s too :P

By: jet

jet — Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:41:34 +0000

By 2050 most third world countries will have GDP’s comparable to today’s industrialized nations and will be fully capable of fending off the consequences of rising temperatures. A temperature increase of 2.5C to 4C over 100 years is, with out a doubt, a major net benefit to the world. Coal power has little chance of remaining economically viable by 2050 and will probably be out of favor by 2030, as solar power will cost the same at that date. CO2 environmentalism (I said SEE-OH-TWO environmentalism) is fear mongering and ludite-ism. If the computer models that tell us to waste a large percentage of our wealth in reducing CO2 output can’t accurately predict 1900 to 2000, why should we waste that money in blind faith that they are accurate for 2000 to 2100? I’d like to hear someone attack Crichton’s use of the benzene cancer scare as an example of fear mongering by environmentalist in the past. But there is a huge list of examples of environmentalists drumming up huge amounts of fear based on the Precautionary Principle that turned out to not be very scary and big wastes of cash (and it isn’t a valid refuatation to say the military wastes money too). No one should be surprised that a thesis that includes “a gazillion dollars” and “world catastrophe” gets laughed at by the right. And I was a believer in global warming until I started reading the papers myself. Total assclownery.

By: James C. Hess

James C. Hess — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 22:22:11 +0000

“State of Fear” makes for an interesting read. Especially the earthquake in the ocean and the subsequent tsunami. But as to the conspiracy theories, well, I have to go with Crichton on this one, for now. Until such theorists can start to build their stuff on solid fact and truth they are best dealt with by way of a gun, whip, and camera phone.

By: yabonn

yabonn — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 13:09:29 +0000

Thank you mark. The synopsis sounds familiar, i think it may well be that. I think i’ll buy another copy, along with one of the rapture thingies. Soundtrack for a reelection.

By: Randolph Fritz

Randolph Fritz — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 10:13:18 +0000

“Science by consensus, is not science. Science is facts proven by repeatable experimentation.” And when the experiments are repeated and enough scientists are persuaded, consensus emerges. We only know facts in this way—by observation and skeptical study. To repeat myself, many people want certainties to persuade them, and those science does not to have to offer; science is a human project, not the word of god. But when it comes to the physical world, the uncertainties of scientific consensus have proven consistently more accurate than any source perceived as certain. For a discussion of the scientific consensus on global climate change, which is to say, the facts and theories reputable climate scientists agree on as a result of repeated experiment and study, see realclimate.org.

By: mark

mark — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:35:17 +0000

yabonn—sounds a bit like clancy’s clear and present danger.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:23:34 +0000

Card doesn’t easily fit into the right/left division. He’s a staunch Democrat, hates capitalism, and most other things one associates with Republicans except for defense, where he is a hawk, and moral issues. (i.e. Gay marriage, etc.)

By: Nababov

Nababov — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 04:57:15 +0000

“State of Fear” is put together very much in Crichton’s standard MO. Find a hot button issue, do enough research to contrast an apparently plausible worst scenario around it, and hang the thing on a screen-option friendly plot. (eg: Three distinct acts, surprise twist at the end and four or five easily cast main characters .) Not a bad thing in itself, if yer a commercial writer. Just that so many hot button issues tend be right wing beatups and lately it looks like Mike has been falling a bit too hard for the premises suggested by his research. Yeah, and “Enders Game”. Finally read it after hearing raves about it and what a crock o’ shit I found it. The “surprise” ending was clearly visible almost from the start, Card writes dialogue like a plumber laying pipe and the idea you could pen up a lot of adolescents and train them bring out their aggressive instincts without sex ever raising its head (and in somewhere with access to zero gravity too!) really reduces the story to cardboard cut-outs moved around to illustrate a polemic. And for a book that’s supposed to illustrate some rightwing tenets, it’s odd how the main character ends up harbouring an illegal enemy alien. “The Forever War” was much better at making the kinda point I think Card wanted to make.

By: yabonn

yabonn — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 01:07:33 +0000

Nope but thanks for helping. It was more a war on drug kind of thing, though i wouldn’t swear it. A scene i half recall : some military trains by night, tries not to be jumped on, is finally jumped on by sanchez. Gomez. Chavez. Ramirez? I’m afraid it’s my clearest and last memory of the thing. At this point i was already well past the point of annoyment at these repeated commandments of Awe to the Badassery, and well into the dangerous zone where i had the impression the author was here in my room, wagging merrily his genitals and asking me if i liked gun reviews, perchance. At that point i decided i was not yet ready to explore that part of my personnality (crestfallen author exit, to general relief), and dumped the book, scratching my head about the good nyt critic (displayed on the back cover) that made me read it. Hope this helps. Cough.

By: rubble

rubble — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 00:00:44 +0000

yabonn—Could it be Starship Troopers?