State of Fear?

Question

This is a book by Michael Critchton that has alot of good facts about the environment and global warming. I suggest that everyone should read it and learn what the data really shows for global warming. It has both sides of the story so don't complain about it. It has its sources listed too so check them out.

Answer 1

Actually, I didn’t think State of Fear was that good really, compared to his others.

Several people on this question have commented that it’s a work of fiction and, as such, should be ignored. Well, yes, the story itself is a work of fiction and he does “massage the truth” to make a good story, but then he never pretends that the book is anything but a work of fiction (unlike Al Gore and his An Inconvenient Truth).

However, the appendices at the end of the book are *not* fiction.

As for JoeyleeC. who claims that Crichton “in fact believes in global warming.” Really? The following speeches by the man himself suggest otherwise…

Complexity Theory and Environmental Management.
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-complexity.html

Aliens Cause Global Warming.
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html

They’re all a very good read and I highly recommend them. (I’m looking forward to the opportunity to ridicule the berk who comments that “it’s absurd to suggest that aliens cause Global Warming.” Hasn’t happened yet though. LOL)

And it’s probably worth pointing out to those that don’t know: while it’s true that Crichton is not a climate scientist, he *is* a medical scientist, so he has a good understanding of the way science should work – and in an area of science that requires a *lot* more certainty of its “facts” than climate science seems to.

Lastly, I’d like to comment on those who have tried to claim that Crichton was incorrect to state that Hansen got it wrong when he made his predictions of temperature rise in 1988. Especially dana (sorry to pick on you, but you supported Hansen the most and posted the unfortunate link)

So, in the hot summer of 1988 James Hansen made his now famous prediction of what global temperature would do by the year 2000. (Keep that year of 2000 in your mind, because it’s important.) As dana says, Hansen hedged his bets and made 3 guesses: high = 0.45°C, medium = 0.3°C and low = 0.25°C. (An average of 0.33°C)

Dana and co. would like us to believe that Hansen got it right, but did he? Well, dana offers proof by linking to this page (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/13/21360/608 ) so let’s have a look at it shall we?

Look at the graph and you’ll notice there are 4 lines on it. The 3 black ones are Hansen’s guesses and the red line is the observed temperature rise. Now, look at that red line and ask yourself this question: “In what year does the red line stop?” It *should* stop in 2000 to coincide with the date of Hansen’s estimates, but does it? I think we’d all have to agree that it doesn’t, in fact, go all the way to 2000. So why not? It’s because they stop the observed temperature line in the very hot year of 1998 – the hottest year in about the last 70. Why do they stop the line there? Because after 1998 temperature suddenly dropped like a rock, to a level that is close to, or perhaps even lower, than the 1988 temperature.

Obviously, if they had shown that part of the line it wouldn’t have looked as good, would it? So they stopped it early, in 1998, to hide the later dramatic temperature fall.

So, what are the true figures? Well, I tend to trust the satellite data better than the surface temperature record, because there are lots of problems with the surface record due to issues such as coverage and placement. You can have a look at the satellite data here… http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/temperatures/msu.jsp

Put in 1988 as the Beginning year and 2000 as the Ending year and click the Calculate trend button. The resulting graph shows very clearly why they sopped their red line in 1998, doesn’t it? If we take out 1998, there’s been no warming at all! And even with 1998, the rise works out as only about 0.14°C.

Thus, Hansen’s high guess (which, of course, *everybody* was quoting, before it was proved to be completely wrong) is 314% of the actual rise (so Crichton was correct). His medium guess (which the Global Warming Alarmists are now claiming was “extremely accurate” to quote dana) was actually 209% of the actual rise and even his lowest guess was 174% of the actual rise.

We could even use the same sort of “lies, damn lies and statistics” tactics of the Global Warming Alarmists and compare the absolute temperatures of hot 1988 (+0.12°C) with cold 2000 (+0.02°C) and claim that the temperature actually *fell* by 0.1°C. But I won’t lower myself to their standards.

So, the claim that “Hansen was right on the money” is simply not true. It is, therefore, dana’s webpage that is telling a “plain lie” not Crichton and the other sceptics.

As ever with global warming - don't believe the hype.

Answer 2

Most people prefer to read another good science fiction book, it is called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC Draft number 4.

Quote from the link below:

"The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. Its role, organization, participation and general procedures are laid down in the "Principles Governing IPCC Work"
"
In other words::::

They just compile the version of the truth they like, and send out invoices.

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm

Answer 3

I've read the same book at afterward was conviced global warming wasn't factual. But then i read statements of the Author Himself saying that he twisted the data and the he in fact believes in global warming. And that the book he created was a work of fiction, and he didn't know why people took as scientific evidence. It is an amazing book though, i would definatly recomend it myself.

Answer 4

You need to remember that this is a science fiction book, written by a guy who also wrote a book about dinosaurs being cloned and put in a big theme park.

If you want to understand global warming, you need to read what scientists are saying about it, not what science fiction novelists say about it. Yes Crichton lists references, but have you read those papers? How do you know he presented them accurately? As a matter of fact, he grossly misrepresented at least one of those sources.

James Hansen (one of the foremost climate scientists on the planet) made 3 climate change predictions in 1988, each based on a different CO2 scenario (like if CO2 emissions stayed the same, increased, or decreased). The most likely one ended up being extremely accurate, but Crichton ignored 2 of the predictions and as you might recall, claimed that Hansen was off by 300%. The only scenario Crichton talked about was the least likely one, and he ignored the most likely one which was dead-on (graph in the first link below).

I don't know how you can possibly trust a non-expert who distorts the evidence like that. A list of the scientific distortions in 'State of Fear' is provided in the second link.

Answer 5

You might want to keep in mind two things about Chrichton.

One, his book is specifically repudiated as rubbish by every authoritative source out there.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Two, his mentor and Climate advisor is Lowell Ponte, a gentleman of let's say "limited credibility" in any context. He does like to boast of his relationship to Chrichton.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={17E83FB7-5695-4F36-AC08-D87BCB5C51CE}

Answer 6

It's a decent work of fiction, but not much else. I like Mr Crichton's stuff, that doesn't mean I think he's a credible source of information on climate science.

Answer 7

Why it is only a book. Why do you believe in what is in a book. Is it a dinosaurus book? No! Don't read this nonsense. Put it strate in garbage. It is devil's book. It teaches wrong things. Don't even look at it. Learn to read good books. You will feel better.

Answer 8

you can't believe everything you read, especially in a NOVEL.

Answer 9

Isn't it sad to get all your information from fiction books and movies? What is wrong with people today?

Answer 10

good. thank you for the suggestion, i will be sure to look at it next time i visit my local library, as i try very hard to keep accurate with the news as important as our world increasingly gets more dangerous. :) thanks again!