I have just finished it and I wanted to know what your thoughts are if you have read it. And if you have not then I would encourage you to...it's brilliant. I just have to warn you, if you are all for the threat of global warming as a legitimate accusation, then you might not like this book, but you should read it anyway......just remember to keep your mind open. Thanks.
2007-09-20 14:00:35 · 13 answers · asked by Taran Wanderer 4 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Just as "they" said the world would suffer an ice age in the 80's, and tried to get the Republican led government to mandate policy regarding this fabricated fear, the global warming establishment is using their junk science to do the exact same thing, although there are apparently more gullible people today who are believing hook line and sinker that the planet is going to burn up and all the "polar bears" are going to die if we don't stop driving our cars and using incandescent light bulbs.
It's all about increasing government control through social programs that are for "our" best interest, and Crichton was right, science as consensus is not science.
It's a crock. The year after Katrina "they" said the next year would be the same or worse...with as many as 18 to 20 hurricanes...but God had a different idea. Man can predict all they like...and science has been predicting falsely for centuries. Just look up all the scientific establishments failed predictions...it's overwhelming.
I put my faith in God. Scientists today with such political biases, whose livelihoods are at the mercy of the purse holder's whim are not to be trusted. They are those who want the knowledge, but just can't seem to get past themselves long enough to consider there may be "other" alternatives.
2007-09-20 14:29:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 5⤋
Unless he's a certified meterologist, the only thing I would use his book for is toilet paper :) The book contains many graphs and footnotes, two appendices, and a twenty page bibliography, which have given many people the FALSE impression that the book has scientific authority. A MAJORITY of climate scientists dispute Crichton's science as being error-filled and distorted.
2016-05-19 21:38:55 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
An excellent book.
I read it twice years ago, and recently picked it up and read it again.
After reading this book I don't know how anyone could possibly become a green or global warming zealot.
There is even a character or two in the book that could be equated to be Al Gore.
A very eye opening and prophetic book.
2007-09-21 17:30:12 · answer #3 · answered by gatorbait 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, I've read it.
He admits using some 'artistic license' in the book to improve the story line.
Have ALSO checked ALL the referenced articles. THAT information is, as stated, factual.
The simple fact is that exactly how much man and his society has to do with 'global warming' is still undecided.
2007-09-21 15:44:40 · answer #4 · answered by f100_supersabre 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I've read it. It's not so much a novel as it is a rant. Frankly, I was a bit insulted by it. Crichton obviously thinks that anyone who buys into global warming is an idiot who believes anything the media tells them. Crichton is intelligent, and (sometimes) writes very good books, but he's not a scientist, and most of the world's scientists say that global warming is real. I'll listen to the ones who know what they're talking about.
2007-09-20 14:13:55 · answer #5 · answered by Nature Boy 6 · 2⤊ 5⤋
I haven't read it for 2 reasons.
1) I think the premise is ridiculous and absurd, to put it nicely. Almost as bad as a theme park full of cloned dinosaurs.
2) It's dishonest, and that pisses me off.
You might recall the claim that James Hansen's 1988 climate predictions were off by 300%? That's a blaitant lie.
Hansen created 3 different scenarios back in 1988, depending on future human greenhouse gas emissions. He didn't know if we would reduce our emissions, keep them level, increase them, or increase them drastically, so he made these 3 different scenarios called A, B, and C.
As you can see in Figure 3 of the link below, Hansen's scenarios B and C ended up being extremely close to the ensuing global temperature change.
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html
But Crichton ignored those scenarios. He erased them and looked just at scenario A, which was the least likely scenario and is indeed off by 300%.
That's blaitantly dishonest, and I'm not going to read a book which claims to be based on solid research but misrepresents the facts so terribly.
2007-09-20 16:13:41 · answer #6 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 2⤊ 6⤋
I think it's a pretty decent fiction book, but not much else. Despite the glowing reviews his footnotes and sources (how many have actually bothered to read them, I wonder?) have received by others here, I really don't trust Michael Crichton to be the best source on climate science.
2007-09-20 15:06:00 · answer #7 · answered by SomeGuy 6 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Yes ive read it has so much against Global G@yness it's not even funny very good book!
2007-09-21 14:58:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Not his better works, however it was well researched with great footnotes and facts.
It really open your eyes to the political side of global warming.
Keep in mind that sites like "realclimate" are run by climatologist. They have a monetary interest to insure Dr. Crichton gets bad press for his book.
2007-09-20 14:14:22 · answer #9 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 6⤊ 6⤋
Gee, I wonder why we didn't stop sending up satellites after Crichton published "The Andromeda Strain" in 1972? Wasn't anybody paying attention?
Or maybe it's just that some people know the difference between fact and fiction.
2007-09-20 16:53:26 · answer #10 · answered by Keith P 7 · 3⤊ 6⤋