Why do GW deniers keep citing Crichton's 'State of Fear'?

Question

This really boggles my mind. The man is a science FICTION writer. He wrote 'Jurassic Park' - a story about dinosaurs being cloned and put in an amusement park.

GW deniers say 'but look at all the references in his book'. Have any of you even bothered to read those references? How do you know he interpreted them correctly? I know of one example he distorted terribly - James Hansen's 1988 climate predictions.

In 1988 Hansen predicted future global warming based on 3 different scenarios, depending on how our greenhouse gas emissions changed during that period. Crichton ignored two of those scenarios (one of which - the one Hansen predicted to be the most likely - turned out to be extremely accurate) and focused only on the most inaccurate scenario, concluding:

"Dr. Hansen overestimated [global warming] by 300 percent" (p247).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

This science fiction novel which distorts the evidence so badly is one of the best GW denier sources??

Answer 1

Because he's a doctor and, well, doctors know stuff. Besides, everyone knows fiction authors would =never= present false information. It's why you can use The Da Vinci Code as a history text.

Answer 2

Crichton's an MD, with a decent ability to explain material. He's also has access to the popular media through his books, which makes him unusual for someone who doesn't agree with the popular media. Among scientists, the opponents of popular global warming theory are by and large very senior, old, and well placed climate scientists and oceanographers; essentially, people who don't do sound bites. This is why among scientists, the most visible and vocal proponents of global warming theory aren't necessarily very good scientists so much as spokespeople. This is also why people are so happy to shoot holes in the existing theories- the people who publish the results don't often understand it, misstate the facts (statistics are NOT facts, but numbers that can be arranged to prove a point) and therefore are easy to confuse and confound. Blame exists on both sides as far as publishing bad science goes.

Hope that helps.

Answer 3

The reason for all the confusion about this is because bad modeling is in use. The real climate is way more complex and all the models discard vital data that effects the real deal. So, as you can see they all say what models predict and not what will really happen and since the models are simplistic What they predict the climate will or will not do in the future is not valid because vital data is totally missing.

Answer 4

It's a side effect of modern American culture. People today are too lazy to look up credible facts, even with knowledge literally at their fingertips. People today get swept away by pop culture icons and ignore the scientists. We have become a culture of celebrity and immediacy.

Answer 5

Hansen is paid to endorse political candidates and to work on movies. He makes bogus claims that he was muzzled before every campaign, then this charge disappears right after the election. He selects data to fit his premise.

Algore is a politician. Not a scientist. He used animated polar bears in his movie because there was no distressed animals or melting ice caps. He also made the image of Katrina 20% larger then it actually was.

Global warming needs fraud in order to be believable.

Crichton, while writing a fiction story provides footnotes that 'believer' won't touch because they can't. They just dance around other works like JP.

Answer 6

Wait a sec, have you looked in the back of the book? He cites real sources.

Answer 7

idk