Crichton's State of Fear
Geoff
game at http://www.thebooxreview.com/contestsmain.htm
Up for grabs is a signed copy of his upcoming book,
State of Fear.
Geoff
rja.ca...@excite.com
I don't think that www.stateoffeargame.com is a
Boox Review site, unless Boox Review is merely an
arm of the publisher. (Boox's About, Bio, and FAQ
pages don't say, so I've posted the question through
their contact form.)
I'd be interested in seeing a well-done rebuttal
of the book. I actually could survive without seeing
the book, but in case it comes up in conversation, I
would like to know (1) what the other side's answers
are and (2) whether they're valid. I expect to have
to decide (2) for myself.
So. Michael Moore got rebutted, heavily. He used
his own site to rebutt right back. Since November,
who was right doesn't matter any more. Dr Philip
Plait does TV and movie rebuttals at
www.badastronomy.com, usually with a followup
some time later admitting to math errors (although
usually that the effects of, e.g., lunar tidal force
on pregnant women is merely 1,000,000 less than the
midwife's personal gravitational field and not
10,000,000 - but I made these numbers up myself).
rasfw sent a pro scientist to see "The Day After
Tomorrow", but he's excused from serving again for
the next 10 years. So, presuming that environmentalists
/want/ to take Michael Crichton apart, figuratively
speaking, where do I go to see it done?
I can't remember if it was a Greenpeace spokesman
who said of a British government's environment
minister/"secretary", something like, "Mr. Gummer's
green fig-leaf has been snatched away, and now we
must shine the spotlight on his misfortunes."
I'm British, I have a dirty mind, and this kind
of thing amuses me.
preac...@hotmail.com
"Only Michael Crichton's unique ability to blend science fact and
pulse-pounding fiction could bring such disparate elements to a
heart-stopping conclusion."
Hmm, mixing science with fiction... you know, this could be the
beginning of a whole new genre! Pity only Crichton can do it.
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> Geoff wrote:
> > Fans of Michael Crichton may wish to explore the State of Fear
> > game at http://www.thebooxreview.com/contestsmain.htm
> >
> > Up for grabs is a signed copy of his upcoming book,
> > State of Fear.
> >
> > Geoff
>
> I'd be interested in seeing a well-done rebuttal
> of the book.
As I'm shortly leaving for a few weeks I won't
have time to read and discuss this work. Luckily,
however, Aaron Bergman alerted me to this site:
where, among other things, the book is discussed.
Which is very fortunate because I'm not fond of
Crichton's writing.
I actually could survive without seeing
> the book, but in case it comes up in conversation, I
> would like to know (1) what the other side's answers
> are and (2) whether they're valid. I expect to have
> to decide (2) for myself.
Arguments include:
(1) Some places are cooling, so the globe cannot
be warming.
(2) It's all the urban heat island effect (in the
middle of the Pacific, for example).
(3) Patrick Michaels' (distortions if you are *very*
generous, lies if you are not) about Hansen's work.
(4) "You have to remember, I come from an experience
where you can use a computer to make a photo-realistic
dinosaur, and I know that isn't real." This seems like
a clear accusation that the computer simulations are
being faked.
(5) "All climate scientists believed in the 1970s that
an ice age was coming."
That last point has been rebutted often enough that
I'm tempted to believe that anyone who cites it as
true is simply a liar. But I resist the temptation.
While it lacks the pure physics-free chutzpah of
"day after tomorrow" level science there do appear
to be some similarities. What's the normal delay
time for Crichton books to become movies?
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
Mike Van Pelt
<wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> (5) "All climate scientists believed in the 1970s that
> an ice age was coming."
>
> That last point has been rebutted often enough that
> I'm tempted to believe that anyone who cites it as
> true is simply a liar. But I resist the temptation.
Hm? I recall when I was in Jr. High, in the late 60s/early 70s
time frame, reading in "Weekly Reader" and "Science Digest" that
we were headed for an ice age. These aren't journals by any
means, of course, but they tended to follow conventional wisdom,
not blatant crackpottery.
There were quite a few SF novels in that era written on that
premise, including one by Robert Silverberg.
I'd certainly believe that "All" climate scientists didn't
belive this. "All" climate scientists don't belive the
anthropogenic-global-warming thing, either. But it seemed
pretty mainstream at the time.
--
Yes, I am the last man to have walked on the moon, | Mike Van Pelt
and that's a very dubious and disappointing honor. | mvp.at.calweb.com
It's been far too long. -- Gene Cernan | KE6BVH
Scott Robinson
wrote:
>In article <yv7zk6rk...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu>,
> <wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>> (5) "All climate scientists believed in the 1970s that
>> an ice age was coming."
>>
>> That last point has been rebutted often enough that
>> I'm tempted to believe that anyone who cites it as
>> true is simply a liar. But I resist the temptation.
>
>Hm? I recall when I was in Jr. High, in the late 60s/early 70s
>time frame, reading in "Weekly Reader" and "Science Digest" that
>we were headed for an ice age. These aren't journals by any
>means, of course, but they tended to follow conventional wisdom,
>not blatant crackpottery.
>
>There were quite a few SF novels in that era written on that
>premise, including one by Robert Silverberg.
>
>I'd certainly believe that "All" climate scientists didn't
>belive this. "All" climate scientists don't belive the
>anthropogenic-global-warming thing, either. But it seemed
>pretty mainstream at the time.
Did they give a timescale for the ice age? From what I understand, we
are overdue for an iceage. If we hadn't spent the last couple
centuries burning all the coal we could get out of the an ice age
should start in the next (WAG) thousand years.
Scott
Aaron Davies
Isn't that the basic theory in _Fallen Angels_?
--
Aaron Davies
Opinions expressed are solely those of a random number generator.
"I don't know if it's real or not but it is a myth."
-Jami JoAnne of alt.folklore.urban, showing her grasp on reality.
John Schilling
>In article <yv7zk6rk...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu>,
> <wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>> (5) "All climate scientists believed in the 1970s that
>> an ice age was coming."
>> That last point has been rebutted often enough that
>> I'm tempted to believe that anyone who cites it as
>> true is simply a liar. But I resist the temptation.
>Hm? I recall when I was in Jr. High, in the late 60s/early 70s
>time frame, reading in "Weekly Reader" and "Science Digest" that
>we were headed for an ice age. These aren't journals by any
>means, of course, but they tended to follow conventional wisdom,
>not blatant crackpottery.
>There were quite a few SF novels in that era written on that
>premise, including one by Robert Silverberg.
>I'd certainly believe that "All" climate scientists didn't
>belive this. "All" climate scientists don't belive the
>anthropogenic-global-warming thing, either. But it seemed
>pretty mainstream at the time.
It was pretty mainstream at the time, IIRC, to believe that an
ice age was due in about a thousand years plus or minus a thousand
years.
Predictably, some media reports on this bit of climatology, hyped
the "Ice Age could come Next Year!" aspect of things. It was,
however, never mainstream climatology to believe that a new Ice
Age was a high-probability present-day concern, whereas it is now
mainstream climatology to believe that global warming is a high
probability present concern. So the analogy doesn't quite fit.
And they could both be right, with the next five centuries dominated
by substantial temperature increases, followed by an ice age around
3000 AD.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> In article <yv7zk6rk...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu>,
> <wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> > (5) "All climate scientists believed in the 1970s that
> > an ice age was coming."
> >
> > That last point has been rebutted often enough that
> > I'm tempted to believe that anyone who cites it as
> > true is simply a liar. But I resist the temptation.
>
> Hm? I recall when I was in Jr. High, in the late 60s/early 70s
> time frame,
Interesting, I was in high school at the same time. I
recall arguing with a friend as to whether CO2 or
aerosols would win out. I cannot recall which side
I took, though. Presumably we'd read different articles.
reading in "Weekly Reader" and "Science Digest" that
> we were headed for an ice age.
I suspect that most such articles included a few qualifications,
but those are not the sort of thing the reader recalls,
particularly when they are not emphasized.
I recall Paul Erlich, surely the alarmist's alarmist,
claiming that the two effects would cancel. It is
clear that he at least knew that both effects existed.
These aren't journals by any
> means, of course, but they tended to follow conventional wisdom,
> not blatant crackpottery.
There was no such conventional wisdom. Around 1970 we came
to understand the ice ages, and in particular their timing,
far better than we had before. This led to the understanding
that we *are* going to see another ice age, in a short time
geologically speaking, but in the quite distant future as we
humans measure time.
At the same time were done the first computer simulations
of the cooling of the planet by anthropogenic aerosols,
and warming by CO2. The early studies tended to underestimate
the CO2 effect. Often cited today is a blatant distortion of an
early paper by Rasool and Schneider (significantly, they often
cite this as Schneider and Rasool - Schneider is the one they
want to discredit).
R&S did not say that a new ice age was imminent. They
said that if we put four times the aerosol in the atmosphere
as we had then, the resulting temperature drop could be
enough to set of an ice age. And they said that we might
reach that level in 50 years, but:
"However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced
fossil fuels as a means of energy production."
(The enviro-conspiracy can't keep its story straight, it seems.)
These two threads seemed to combine in the popular science
literature, resulting in "the ice age is coming" articles,
particularly with a series of cold winters we had in 76/77
- cold, at any rate for the eastern half of North America
(El Nino was not yet in the media's universe).
You will find more than you want to read on the point
(if I haven't already exceeded that) here:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
and I have a few old rasfw posts on this, as well.
> There were quite a few SF novels in that era written on that
> premise, including one by Robert Silverberg.
And Clarke wrote about this in the 1950s."The world
in a new ice age" was a natural topic for SF from
the moment we discovered that ice ages ever existed.
> I'd certainly believe that "All" climate scientists didn't
> belive this. "All" climate scientists don't belive the
> anthropogenic-global-warming thing, either. But it seemed
> pretty mainstream at the time.
We have yet to find a single article in a scientific
journal claiming that an ice age was imminent. There's
really no equivalence between the vast amount of observational
and theoretical work on global warming now, and a few
popular science articles and TV shows on global cooling then.
I'll be off-line tomorrow for a few weeks, so if you have
any comments you'd like me to see, email them. It would
be a relief to have something interesting to read while
I delete a thousand pieces of spam.
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
>
> Did they give a timescale for the ice age? From what I understand, we
> are overdue for an iceage.
That isn't the case. We are in what you might call a
window of opportunity for ending the current interglacial.
If that happened, it would still be several thousand years
before there was a serious impact.
If we hadn't spent the last couple
> centuries burning all the coal we could get out of the an ice age
> should start in the next (WAG) thousand years.
This is a somewhat unusual interglacial and we are indeed
heading for a new ice age, but nowhere near that soon.
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
>
> Predictably, some media reports on this bit of climatology, hyped
> the "Ice Age could come Next Year!" aspect of things. It was,
> however, never mainstream climatology to believe that a new Ice
> Age was a high-probability present-day concern, whereas it is now
> mainstream climatology to believe that global warming is a high
> probability present concern. So the analogy doesn't quite fit.
>
> And they could both be right, with the next five centuries dominated
> by substantial temperature increases, followed by an ice age around
> 3000 AD.
>
That scenario was pictured in "Ice Ages, Solving the Mystery"
by Imbrie and Imbrie in 1976. Imbrie #1 is the equivalent in
ice age studies of, say Dirac or Heisenberg in QM, but this
is popular science, though I do recommend it.
I think they called for the ice age to start in 6000 years,
but I wouldn't hold them to that.
In fact George Turner used this in a novel, "Drowning Towers".
That is set at a time when the greenhouse effect is waning,
but the sea level is still high as the ice sheets have not yet
begun to grow. He compacted the time scale a bit, but I can
live with that - in a novel.
Gerry Quinn
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu says...
It's been suggested that global warming due to the domestication of
cattle over the last few thousand years has been a major factor in the
creation of the relatively warm and benign climate of today.
- Gerry Quinn
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
I think that is an exaggeration of Ruddiman's hypothesis.
But his claim does seem reasonable. The greenhouse gases
in this interglacial don't seem to have behaved as they
did in others, and the changes are coincident with and
possibly explicable by our invention of agriculture. But
the changes are fairly small.
However, this interglacial is also unusual in the
sense that the earth's orbital parameters are different
from most but not all other interglacials. There's
another long interglacial ("stage 11") about 500 thousand
years ago. That's not yet understood, but I think there
are some similarities with the current one.
Steve Simmons
Given Crichton's habit of getting at least one major scientific plot
point blatently wrong and thereby undermining the entire story, let's
hope that it's not the start of a genre.
Caveat: I've not read Crichtons entire output, but pretty much all I've
read has an error of that type. As examples: the epilepsy described
in 'Terminal Man' doesn't cause violent behavior; chaos theory doesn't
predict the breakdowns described in 'Jurassic Park'; even if a biological
organism *could* feed off of nuclear energy, it's molecules wouldn't
remain intact at thermonuclear plasma temperatures (Andromeda Strain);
ya-da, ya-da. The first is the least forgivable; Crichton has his MD
and should never have made such an error. He apologises for it in the
back of the book; it'd be more forgivable if he didn't have such a
habit of them.
Scott Robinson
It isn't just science. He managed to botch Beowulf about as badly as
possible.
Scott