XPost: uk.politics.misc, alt.politics.british, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.america, us.politics   
   From: davidolsen@aol.com   
      
   David Olsen  wrote:   
      
   >  <"Scott" > wrote:   
   >   
   > > Only by those that are trying to get funding, keep funding, or otherwise   
   > > make a living from the myth of global warming.   
   > >   
   > > It uses unbiased data, no reason not to believe it.   
   > >   
   > That's total crap.   
   >   
   > Chricton's book is listed as Fiction for fuck sakes.   
   >   
   > Get a grip.   
      
   This is the guy you're talking about?   
      
   "Aliens Cause Global Warming"   
      
   In 2003 he gave a controversial lecture at Caltech entitled "Aliens Cause   
   Global Warming" [3] in which he expressed his views of the dangers of consensus   
   science and junk science?especially with regard to what he regards as popular   
   but disputed theories such as nuclear winter, the dangers of second-hand smoke   
   and the global warming controversy. Crichton has been critical of widespread   
   belief of ETs and UFOs, citing the fact that there is no conclusive proof of   
   their existence. Crichton has commented that belief without a factual basis is   
   more akin to faith.   
   [edit]   
      
   Environmentalism as a religion   
      
   In a related speech given to the Commonwealth Club, called "Environmentalism as   
   a religion" [4], Crichton describes what he sees as similarities between the   
   structure of various religious views (particularly Judeo-Christian dogma) and   
   the beliefs of many modern urban atheists who he asserts have romantic ideas   
   about Nature and our past, who he thinks believe in the initial "paradise", the   
   human "sins", and the "judgement day". He also articulates his belief that it   
   is the tendency of modern environmentalists to cling stubbornly to elements of   
   their faith in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary. Crichton cites   
   what he contends are misconceptions about DDT, second-hand smoke and global   
   warming as examples (however these examples are heavily disputed in the   
   scientific community).   
   [edit]   
      
   Widespread speculation in the media   
      
   In a speech entitled "Why Speculate?" [5], delivered in 2002 to the   
   International Leadership Forum, Crichton took the media to task for engaging in   
   what he saw as pointless speculation rather than the delivery of facts. As an   
   example, he pointed to a front-page article of the March 6 New York Times that   
   speculated about the possible effects of U.S. President George W. Bush's   
   decision to impose tariffs on imported steel. Crichton also singled out Susan   
   Faludi's book Backlash for criticism, saying that it "presented hundreds of   
   pages of quasi-statistical assertions based on a premise that was never   
   demonstrated and that was almost certainly false". He referred to what he calls   
   the "Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect" to describe the public's tendency to   
   discount one story in a newspaper they may know to be false because of their   
   knowledge of the subject, but believe the same paper on subjects with which   
   they are unfamiliar. Crichton used the Latin expression "falsus in uno, falsus   
   in omnibus", which he translated as "untruthful in one part, untruthful in   
   all", to describe what he thought a more appropriate reaction should be. The   
   speech also made several references to Crichton's by-now-familiar skepticism of   
   environmentalists' assertions about the possible future ramifications of human   
   activity on Earth's environment.   
   [edit]   
      
   The Role of Science in Environmental Policy-Making   
      
   In September 2005 Crichton testified at a Congressional hearing on climate   
   change[6], having been called by Senator James Inhofe.   
   [edit]   
      
   Criticism   
      
   Many of Crichton's publicly expressed views, particularly on subjects like the   
   global warming controversy, have caused heated debate. As pointed out in Dr.   
   Jeffrey M. Masters' review of State of Fear,   
      
   [F]lawed or misleading presentations of Global Warming science exist in the   
   book, including those on Arctic sea ice thinning, correction of land-based   
   temperature measurements for the urban heat island effect, and satellite vs.   
   ground-based measurements of Earth's warming. I will spare the reader   
   additional details. On the positive side, Crichton does emphasize the little-   
   appreciated fact that while most of the world has been warming the past few   
   decades, most of Antarctica has seen a cooling trend. The Antarctic ice sheet   
   is actually expected in increase in mass over the next 100 years due to   
   increased precipitation, according to the IPCC (although recent findings by   
   NASA call this result into question). Additionally, Crichton correctly points   
   out that there has been no rise in hurricane activity in the Atlantic over the   
   past few decades (a point unchanged by the record four hurricanes that struck   
   Florida in 2004).   
      
   Another example is this criticism of Jurassic Park:   
   The scientific scheme is not completely outrageous; unless one looks too   
   closely, ... Although they are dinosaurs ..., they could have been any death-   
   dealing automata ... substitute hostile extraterrestrials, lunatic Nazis, or   
   predatory androids and it would have been the same film with a different title   
   -- Aliens, Raiders of the Lost Ark or Terminator 2: Judgment Day. (Henry Gee,   
   "Jaws with Claws," Nature 363:681, 1993.)   
      
   Another criticism of Crichton's novels is that they are generally based on the   
   conceit of a "false revolution": while the novels describe potentially world-   
   changing concepts such as alien plagues, cloned dinosaurs, and time travel, the   
   books seem to always end with the threat destroyed or the scientific   
   breakthrough lost. In other words, the events described in the novels might as   
   well never have happened in the context of their fictional universes. Critics   
   feel that this allows Crichton to avoid having to describe how, for example,   
   time travel or cloning of extinct animals would change society.   
      
      
   Critical essays of Crichton's work and/or ideas:   
   Review of Michael Crichton's State of Fear ? Dr. Jeffrey M. Masters, Chief   
   Meteorologist at The Weather Underground   
   Michael Crichton and Global Warming ? David B. Sandalow, Environment Scholar   
   for the Brookings Institute   
   Science Fiction: Michael Crichton takes a novel approach to global-warming   
   alarmism. ? Iain Murray, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute   
      
   Specific criticisms of State of Fear:   
   Michael Crichton's State of Confusion ? Dr. Gavin A Schmidt, climatologist at   
   the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies   
   "Crichton's Thriller State of Fear: Separating Fact from Fiction" ? Union of   
   Concerned Scientists   
   Answers to Key Questions Raised by M. Crichton in State of Fear ? Pew Center on   
   Global Climate Change   
   Novel on global warming gets some scientists burned up ? Seth Borenstein,   
   Seattle Times   
   Bad Science, Bad Fiction: In Michael Crichton's work, the two are intimately   
   connected. ? Chris Mooney, Washington correspondent for Seed Magazine   
   [edit]   
      
   References   
   Elizabeth A. Trembley, 1996, Michael Crichton: A Critical Companion, Greenwood   
   Press, ISBN 031329414.   
   [edit]   
      
   Notes   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)