On Michael Crichton’s new novel, State of Fear, in which environmentalists use weather control to fake environmental disasters (hurricanes, tsunamis, a massive iceberg released from the Antarctic ice shelf) in order to convince the public that global warming is a genuine threat:
In “State of Fear,” it is money-hungry environmentalists whose illicit schemes are always being caught on tape. (As one environmentalist says to another, explaining the need for faked lightning and tidal waves, “Species extinction from global warming—nobody gives a shit.”) Meanwhile, the scientists who could reveal the truth are all co-conspirators; they suppress results that don’t support alarmist conclusions because they, too, are part of the “politico-legal-media complex,” or “P.L.M.” The P.L.M. wants to control free-thinking Americans by keeping them in a perpetual “state of fear.”
Hank Scorpio + Ralph Nader + every climate scientist in the world = PROFIT!!!1!
I sure hope that that’s bad reporting, but the “P.L.M.” thing is not; Crichton really talks like that. Like many intelligent people, Crichton seems to have a blind spot when it comes to conspiracy theories. There are fair criticisms to be made of the environmentalist movement, but international terrorism? Weather control? A shadowy conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of environmentalists, Hollywood, climatologists, the media, and trial lawyers… who’s prepared to swallow this? And have they ever tried to organize a friggin’ surprise party?
Answer here. Crichton is sticking it to the left, and that’s what’s really important in a work of art. We haven’t heard the last of this.
(Pretty good take on the novel from a weather site.)
UPDATE: Another, more detailed look at the novel via Chris Mooney. (I realize that I’m being a little one-sided, and will link to a serious-minded defense if it’s recommended in comments.)
{ 1 trackback }
{ 57 comments }
Brett Bellmore 01.06.05 at 4:45 pm
So? Anybody who expects Crichton novels to make any sense hasn’t read many of them. LOL
Sebastian Holsclaw 01.06.05 at 4:51 pm
Umm, heaven knows there aren’t any major novels written to stick it to those on the right. ;)
More seriously, Crichton is a science fiction writer, he uses things that aren’t real to say whatever it is that he is trying to say. For instance you can’t clone dinosaurs. There isn’t a super-virus from another planet.
I think the better criticism of Crichton is that he can start a fun novel, but his endings suck. I read three of his novels (Andromeda Strain, Sphere, and Jurassic Park) and enjoyed each of them, right up until the last thirty pages or so. Suddenly he tries to wrap things up, and kablam, he loses control of everything. He would be a much better writer if he would write the first 400 pages and let almost anyone else finish it. It could be like an impromtu stage play–you have to work with what he gave you, and finish it off.
Henry 01.06.05 at 4:58 pm
bq. So? Anybody who expects Crichton novels to make any sense hasn’t read many of them. LOL
Because some people “actually take Crichton seriously”:http://www.chriscmooney.com/blog.asp?Id=1499.
Indeed, Crichton himself is using this as a polemic – how many thrillers have an essay attached with extensive (and woefully misleading) scientific bibliography?
I’d agree that Crichton’s plots are ridiculous. But there’s been a nasty political undertone to his work for a long, long time. Witness for starters the barely veiled racism of “Rising Sun” (those Orientals are pretty inscrutable aren’t they; and they don’t take any prisoners), the gratuitous sexism of “Disclosure” (women in the business world are incompetents who will use sexual harassment suits as a way to cover their inability to manage). He’s made a lot of money over the last couple of decades pandering to the nastiest, most atavistic fears and desires of American middle managers – in the wrong sense of the word, he’s a _political_ writer. And a manipulative one too – I have some time for Tom Clancy (not that I like his writing much) – at least he seems to be a sincere human being, who wears his opinions on his sleeve, but there’s something sneaky about Crichton.
One of these days I’d like to teach a course on US political debate, as seen through mediocre techno-thrillers (and good ones too; there are a couple out there).
Cranky Observer 01.06.05 at 5:03 pm
> More seriously, Crichton is a
> science fiction writer,
No, he isn’t. He isn’t even a sci-fi writer (At least not since _Andromeda Strain_). He is a political thriller writer who uses some trappings of science in his plots. Comparing Crichton to, e.g. Larry Niven, is ridiculous.
Cranky
Henry 01.06.05 at 5:04 pm
Also, as “Chad Orzel”:https://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001172.html pointed out in comments on this blog last year, if Michael Crichton is a science fiction writer, he’s a science fiction writer who doesn’t actually like science very much (or take it very seriously).
Ted Barlow 01.06.05 at 5:04 pm
As Henry mentions, it’s not like another Jurassic Park- he fills the book with charts and footnotes, ends with a bibliography and a long essay on the dangers of environmentalism. While I doubt that he’d claim that the weather control aspects are more than science fiction, he wants to be taken seriously on the topic of global warming.
Ted Barlow 01.06.05 at 5:18 pm
Re: “Umm, heaven knows there aren’t any major novels written to stick it to those on the right. ;)”
Yeah, fair enough.
Gregg 01.06.05 at 5:18 pm
I find it dubious that Crichton is sticking it to the left. I’ll reserve judgement until I’ve read the book, but it would be out of keeping with his oeuvre so far (the sci-fi at least – I haven’t read ‘Rising Sun’ or ‘Disclosure’, or that one with the vikings), which is driven by the sound principle that science only (and always) becomes dangerous when people try to make money out of it.
Badaunt 01.06.05 at 5:21 pm
Over at RealClimate the real live scientists have been discussing this book. Latest post here
David Sucher 01.06.05 at 7:05 pm
The good news is that ithis new novel of Cricton’s is boring — that’s according to some apolitical types who don’t think about climate change very much. So the damage to rationality may be limited.
David Sucher 01.06.05 at 7:07 pm
The good news is that this new novel of Cricton’s is boring — that’s according to some apolitical pop novel readers I know who don’t think about climate change very much.
So the damage to rationality may be limited.
Grant 01.06.05 at 7:29 pm
The novel itself doesn’t irritate me so much as all the rah-rah surrounding it. James Imhofe used it in his ramblings on the Senate floor the other day (I’ve also noticed each time the book is mentioned the speaker takes care to note that “Dr. Crichton is a medical doctor and a scientist.”) And yes, Al Gore’s rah-rah over the Day After Tomorrow was just as irritating.
Nothing can match the rah-rah generated by The DaVinci Code, however, as I discovered in family gatherings over the holidays.
Giles 01.06.05 at 7:42 pm
judgiong from this post its seems that Critchon has got his message accross to people who haven’t even read his book. Amazing
Donald Johnson 01.06.05 at 8:53 pm
Some of us Christians are a bit ticked off at the DaVinci Code. I haven’t read it, so my right to fulminate is nonexistent, I suppose, but from what I’ve heard it does for serious Christian history what the Crichton novel does for climate research. And yet people take it seriously. The novel-reading public doesn’t necessarily know about peer review.
Ted Barlow 01.06.05 at 9:10 pm
My fiancee studied religious history. If I came home and found the police there, and one told me that my fiancee was under arrest, my first question would be, “Did she attack Dan Brown?”
catfish 01.06.05 at 9:15 pm
This is an interesting issue. The power of historical or scientific fiction to convince people is so immense. If it is done competently, it seems so real–the power of the narrative mode and emotional appeal takes a good bit of intellectual discipline to overcome. This is particularly true when people know little about the subject. In something like Crichton’s work, the problem is particularly severe because enjoying it requires a suspension of disbelief. Even people who should know better often base everything that they about a given subject from novels or film. After awhile, you forget where your knowledge and impressions came from and the visceral experience of fiction merges with and overtakes knowledged gained from more reliable sources.
james 01.06.05 at 9:19 pm
Henry’s take on racism in Rising Sun is wrong based on the book. Criton points out both good and bad aspects of the Japanese History and Business culture. The fact that Criton mentions the Japanese’s use of concentration camps during WWII does not make him racist. The book claims admiration for the effectiveness of Japanese business culture and planning.
Hedley Lamarr 01.06.05 at 9:55 pm
Just finished the book and agree
with Ted. This work is different,
with all the footnotes and notes
to the reader at the end. Like “The Jungle” where the author lectures out of context at the end of the book, Crichton’s adventure story is tainted by his preaching.
Henry 01.06.05 at 10:13 pm
james – sorry, this is a bit of a hobbyhorse of mine, but Crichton’s mealymouthed denials notwithstanding, you’re wrong. _Rising Sun_ very unambiguously argues that the US is in an economic war with the Japanese, who are cunning, ruthless, treacherous technical wizards, who take no prisoners in their desire to assert dominance. The “admiration” expressed by the guru character goes along the lines of ‘if we want to fight them properly, we need to learn from them so that we can wallop the bejasus out of them asap’ It’s a deeply, deeply, nasty piece of writing – but an interesting cultural artefact for all that.
TomR 01.07.05 at 12:04 am
Hmm. Haven’t read it. Ain’t gonna read it.
Don’t read ‘novels’ about the extermism of fanatically anti-Nazi groups in 1932 Germany either.
Sell your books in hell, Crichton.
Anna 01.07.05 at 2:48 am
Ted – you said
” And have they ever tried to organize a friggin’ surprise party?
Answer __here__.”
– which linked to Instapundit; I followed the link, but couldn’t see what aspect of the post you were referring to. Maybe the post was subsequently edited, and/or maybe I’m dense.
Suggestion: provide the relevant several-line quote as the link title, so when my mouse is over it, the text comes up; that way
a) your post stays clean-looking but
b) the significance of the link becomes clear and
c) if the linked-to post goes away or is edited, your writing still has value.
Jakob Nielsen talks about it here:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980111.html
james 01.07.05 at 4:24 am
Henry – The admiration of the guru character goes beyond a desire to “know ones enemy” to an admiration for the culture. The fact that the character in question chose to live a Japanese lifestyle gives evidence for this. In addition, the “second” Japanese group is lead by Eddy a personal friend of the guru. The only racist character in the book is the sergent. His overt racism is attributed to the treatment of his father during WWII. The book reads differently than the movie.
Henry 01.07.05 at 5:29 am
Hi James
I’m talking about the book – have never seen the movie – and found the features that you describe to be more in the way of a figleaf to provide plausible deniability than a sincere expression of admiration etc etc. As I say, the key theme is that the Japanese are the enemy. Nor am I the only one to think this – I suggested the book to a friend who was putting together a history course on Japan in popular US culture without saying anything explicit about its theme – he had exactly the same impression as me.
Duane 01.07.05 at 9:56 am
I find it incredible that someone could read Rising Sun and not find it racist. It was clearly intended to function as as a polemic as well as a novel — as seems to be the case for this new book. I remember at the time it came out it was accompanied by a lot of scary editorialising and dodgy statistics about being “taken over” by the inhumanly efficient Japanese. Of course, these days, this crap is so plainly wrong that it just comes across as silly.
Matthew 01.07.05 at 10:44 am
What the contrarians need is not to win rationally the argument for/against man-made global warming (this has been resolved scientifically) but plant doubt in the public and politicians, because inaction and the status quo is on the side of the traditional energy industry. So Crichton’s novel is very powerful in that respect.
By the way, if he can imagine scientists, working in the same narrow field, all conspiring together, he has probably never been to a university!
JC 01.07.05 at 1:37 pm
I note James and Henry’s fulminating over Rising Sun. Fair enough. But it’s no Debt of Honor by Tom Clancy. That takes the Japanese-bashing cake IMHO.
Secondly, Sebastian said, “Umm, heaven knows there aren’t any major novels written to stick it to those on the right”.
He’s absolutely right of course. But isn’t it interesting that writers of Crichton’s commercial gravitas have to resort to such ludicrous levels to take a swipe at the Left.It’s quite sad really. This is what they come up with? C’mon Mike, give us a challenge.
David Sucher 01.07.05 at 4:17 pm
The good news is that (I am told) this new novel of Cricton’s is boring — that’s according to some apolitical pop novel readers I know who don’t think about climate change very much.
So the damage to rationality may be limited.
Sebastian Holsclaw 01.07.05 at 4:54 pm
“But isn’t it interesting that writers of Crichton’s commercial gravitas have to resort to such ludicrous levels to take a swipe at the Left.It’s quite sad really.”
Sure, but you don’t interpret “Ender’s Game” as worthy of notice. Typically the more subtle swipes get ignored.
Alex Fradera 01.07.05 at 5:20 pm
See, I know that Orson Scott Card is pretty solidly right – and I knew this when I read Enders Game – but the book didn’t come across as a particularly partisan effort. The war was necessary (from when we came in to the story) but ultimately tragic, the other was sympathetic etc. In what way do you see it as a swipe at the left?
Alex Fradera 01.07.05 at 5:22 pm
See, I know that Orson Scott Card is pretty solidly right – and I knew this when I read Enders Game – but the book didn’t come across as a particularly partisan effort. The war was necessary (from when we came in to the story) but ultimately tragic, the other was sympathetic etc. In what way do you see it as a swipe at the left?
blinking deer 01.07.05 at 5:25 pm
Well, maybe George Will doesn’t take Crichton’s novel seriously, but he was at least inspired to use it as the takeoff point for an anti-global warming column:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20998-2004Dec22.html (registration required)
Ted Barlow 01.07.05 at 6:43 pm
Sebastian,
It’s been a long time since I read it, but guess I’m with Alex. How is Ender’s Game a swipe at the left?
Jeremy Osner 01.07.05 at 6:48 pm
blinking deer — I would describe Will’s column more as pro-global warming rather than anti.
Henry 01.07.05 at 7:00 pm
On _Enders’ Game_, I’m guessing that it’s the swipes at birth control etc and a secularist quasi-dictatorship. But I have to say that I find _Enders’ Game_ greatly superior to its sequels, because the preaching is rather more subdued, and the characters can speak for themselves. It’s very hard to reconcile an overt political message with a compelling plot and characters, and Scott Card isn’t quite good enough a writer to do it. Some of the later books in the series (Shadow of the Hegemon etc) read pretty badly for this reason – Scott Card just isn’t very good when he tries to explain international politics – it’s like listening to someone recounting the ups and downs of a game of Risk the following morning.
HP 01.07.05 at 7:13 pm
I’ve never understood the anti-global-warming crowd. Even if there’s not a shred of truth to claims of global warming, the kinds of steps scientists recommend to mitigate its affects are all positive goods that we ought to be doing anyway.
Suppose I told you that you shouldn’t shit in your salad bowl because evil aliens from Dimension X will sample your salad shit to create a race of superzombies. Well, my “evil alien” theory is hogwash. Does that mean that you ought to shit in the salad? That’ll sure show me, won’t it?
Could someone in the anti-global-warming camp explain to me just when cleanliness, efficiency, and sound stewardship became sinful? When did waste and filth become virtues? There is no moral, ethical, scientific, or economic justification for choosing dirty, wasteful, destructive practices over cleaner, more efficient, and more sustainable practices.
Dan 01.07.05 at 7:27 pm
!!SPOILER ALERT!! I’ve read one Clancy book- Rainbow Six. In it, a cabal of environmentalists have built a facility in South America that they will retreat to after unleashing a deadly virus at the Sidney Olympic Games, which will then travel the world, killing all humans, leaving only those nefarious, inoculated environmentalists who will enjoy the planet, knowing it is now finally safe from humans. That is, until a new anti-terrorism (anti-terrorism!) detachment gets wind of it, and picks them off like beer cans off a fence. Definitely imaginitive, if a little outrageous.
Dan 01.07.05 at 7:29 pm
!!SPOILER ALERT!! I’ve read one Clancy book- Rainbow Six. In it, a cabal of environmentalists have built a facility in South America that they will retreat to after unleashing a deadly virus at the Sidney Olympic Games, which will then travel the world, killing all humans, leaving only those nefarious, inoculated environmentalists who will enjoy the planet, knowing it is now finally safe from humans. That is, until a new anti-terrorism (anti-terrorism!) detachment gets wind of it, and picks them off like beer cans off a fence. Definitely imaginitive, if a little outrageous.
Dan 01.07.05 at 7:30 pm
!!SPOILER ALERT!! I’ve read one Clancy book- Rainbow Six. In it, a cabal of environmentalists have built a facility in South America that they will retreat to after unleashing a deadly virus at the Sidney Olympic Games, which will then travel the world, killing all humans, leaving only those nefarious, inoculated environmentalists who will enjoy the planet, knowing it is now finally safe from humans. That is, until a new anti-terrorism (anti-terrorism!) detachment gets wind of it, and picks them off like beer cans off a fence. Definitely imaginitive, if a little outrageous.
Dan 01.07.05 at 7:37 pm
!!SPOILER ALERT!! I’ve read one Clancy book- Rainbow Six. In it, a cabal of environmentalists have built a facility in South America that they will retreat to after unleashing a deadly virus at the Sidney Olympic Games, which will then travel the world, killing all humans, leaving only those nefarious, inoculated environmentalists who will enjoy the planet, knowing it is now finally safe from humans. That is, until a new international anti-terrorism (anti-terrorism!) detachment gets wind of it, and picks them off like beer cans off a fence. Definitely imaginitive, if a little outrageous.
Uncle Kvetch 01.07.05 at 8:14 pm
I’ve never understood the anti-global-warming crowd. Even if there’s not a shred of truth to claims of global warming, the kinds of steps scientists recommend to mitigate its affects are all positive goods that we ought to be doing anyway.
Well put. I’ve often wondered the exact same thing. Even if you choose to dismiss the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, there’s no getting around the fact that fossil fuels are both polluting and nonrenewable and that we’re better off seeking out economically feasible alternatives sooner, rather than later.
yabonn 01.07.05 at 10:57 pm
Need some help here. I read two books from that “american conservative” breed.
One was ender, which was very, very bad, in a funny way.
The other i can’t remember. Rather than being some power fantasy like the first, it was the patriotic, waynesque sort. The story of some chavez (gomez? sanchez?) guy, who’s such a lean mean gritty soldier, peppered with slightly creepy fetishism for war tools and technology. Rest is foggy (the thing fell off my hands early) but now i can’t pin it down and it’s annoying. Idea anyone?
zorro 01.07.05 at 11:40 pm
uncle kvethch,
Science by consensus, is not science. Science is facts proven by repeatable experimentation.
zorro 01.07.05 at 11:41 pm
uncle kvethch,
Science by consensus, is not science. Science is fact proven by repeatable experimentation.
rubble 01.08.05 at 12:00 am
yabonn —
Could it be Starship Troopers?
yabonn 01.08.05 at 1:07 am
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.
Nababov 01.08.05 at 4:57 am
“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 Gameâ€. 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.
Clark Goble 01.08.05 at 5:23 am
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.)
mark 01.08.05 at 5:35 am
yabonn — sounds a bit like clancy’s clear and present danger.
Randolph Fritz 01.08.05 at 10:13 am
“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.
yabonn 01.08.05 at 1:09 pm
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.
James C. Hess 01.08.05 at 10:22 pm
“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.
jet 01.10.05 at 2:41 pm
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.
jet 01.10.05 at 2:47 pm
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
jet 01.10.05 at 3:25 pm
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.
"Mindles H. Dreck" 01.11.05 at 3:23 pm
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.
Mark Bahner 01.11.05 at 5:43 pm
“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
"Mindles H. Dreck" 01.11.05 at 6:24 pm
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.
Comments on this entry are closed.