• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another Look at Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"

Re: Another Look at Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"

Surface Detail said:
You seem confused. It is trend in temperature that we are discussing. And that trend has been upwards for the past few decades, even though solar activity has fallen. That fact that variations in solar output may be responsible for a few ripples on that trend is irrelevant to a discussion on the cause of the trend.
Click to expand...

Not relevant to the chart under discussion.

Sea level data and the model fit. The blue dots are the linearly detrended global sea level measured with satellite altimetry. The purple line is the model fit to the data which includes both a harmonic solar component and an ENSO contribution. The shaded regions denote the one sigma and 1% to 99% confidence regions. The fit explains 71% of the observed variance in the filtered detrended data.
 
Re: Another Look at Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"

Jack Hays said:
Not relevant to the chart under discussion.

Sea level data and the model fit. The blue dots are the linearly detrended global sea level measured with satellite altimetry. The purple line is the model fit to the data which includes both a harmonic solar component and an ENSO contribution. The shaded regions denote the one sigma and 1% to 99% confidence regions. The fit explains 71% of the observed variance in the filtered detrended data.
Click to expand...

Now you're just obfuscating. It is the chart that is irrelevant to the discussion, the discussion being whether or not solar influences are responsible for the upwards trend in temperatures over the past few decades.
 
Re: Another Look at Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"

Surface Detail said:
Now you're just obfuscating. It is the chart that is irrelevant to the discussion, the discussion being whether or not solar influences are responsible for the upwards trend in temperatures over the past few decades.
Click to expand...

You need to learn the difference between "unpalatable" (to you) and "irrelevant." The chart is about solar influence, and relates to Shaviv's work describing the ocean as a calorimeter.
 
Re: Another Look at Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"

Jack Hays said:
You need to learn the difference between "unpalatable" (to you) and "irrelevant." The chart is about solar influence, and relates to Shaviv's work describing the ocean as a calorimeter.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can see what the chart is about. It is you who seemingly has the comprehension problem.

The point is that the graph you have posted shows a fit to the detrended temperature data. It shows how solar effects can cause fluctuations in the trend. It cannot possibly show any effect that solar influences may have had on the recent upward trend because the trend is removed. That's what detrended means. And since it is the trend in temperature that we are discussing, the graph cannot be relevant.

TLDR: You can't demonstrate a trend with detrended data!
 
Re: Another Look at Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"

Surface Detail said:
Over recent decades, I said. Your graphs stop about 40 years ago. Since then, solar output has fallen to an unusually low level, while global temperature has continued to rise rapidly.
Click to expand...

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
 
Re: Another Look at Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"

Surface Detail said:
Now you're just obfuscating. It is the chart that is irrelevant to the discussion, the discussion being whether or not solar influences are responsible for the upwards trend in temperatures over the past few decades.
Click to expand...

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
 
Re: Another Look at Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"

Surface Detail said:
Yes, I can see what the chart is about. It is you who seemingly has the comprehension problem.

The point is that the graph you have posted shows a fit to the detrended temperature data. It shows how solar effects can cause fluctuations in the trend. It cannot possibly show any effect that solar influences may have had on the recent upward trend because the trend is removed. That's what detrended means. And since it is the trend in temperature that we are discussing, the graph cannot be relevant.

TLDR: You can't demonstrate a trend with detrended data!
Click to expand...

What data? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
 
Re: Another Look at Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"

Surface Detail said:
Yes, I can see what the chart is about. It is you who seemingly has the comprehension problem.

The point is that the graph you have posted shows a fit to the detrended temperature data. It shows how solar effects can cause fluctuations in the trend. It cannot possibly show any effect that solar influences may have had on the recent upward trend because the trend is removed. That's what detrended means. And since it is the trend in temperature that we are discussing, the graph cannot be relevant.

TLDR: You can't demonstrate a trend with detrended data!
Click to expand...

It is not meant to show influence on the temperature trend. Perhaps misunderstanding that nuance is what led you astray.
 
Jack Hays said:
It is worthwhile every now and then to revisit a classic. Such is Michael Crichton's State of Fear. Along with Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist, it pointed the way toward today's climate skepticism and resistance to AGW propaganda.

[FONT=&][/FONT]
Another Look at Michael Crichton’s ‘State of Fear’ – Part 1

[FONT=&]SUBTITLE: Nobody Knows How Much of the Global Surface Warming from 1861 to 2005 Is Human-induced or Naturally Occurring. Climate Scientists Are Only Guessing. And Their Guesses Are Based on How They Program Their Computer Models to Meet the Expectations and Political Agendas of the Politicians Providing the Funding for the Computer-Modeling Efforts
Continue reading →​

[/FONT]
[FONT="][B]INTRODUCTION[/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]It had been more than a decade since I first read Michael Crichton’s 2004 novel State of Fear. I purchased an e-book edition recently, and I’ve just finished reading it. I enjoyed State of Fear thoroughly the second time around. Now, though, with my much more-detailed understanding of the subject and the global politics behind it, it was interesting to see Michael Crichton arguing points in 2004 that heretics of the religion of human-induced global warming/climate change are still arguing today, 14 years later. I took a few notes, too, this time, when I found something interesting.[/FONT]
[FONT="][I]State of Fear[/I] is described at the [URL="https://www.harpercollins.com/9780061752728/state-of-fear/"]HarperCollins Publisher webpage[/URL] as (my boldface):[/FONT]
New York Times bestselling author Michael Crichton delivers another action-packed techo-thriller in State of Fear.
When a group of eco-terrorists engage in a global conspiracy to generate weather-related natural disasters, its up to environmental lawyer Peter Evans and his team to uncover the subterfuge.
From Tokyo to Los Angeles, from Antarctica to the Solomon Islands, Michael Crichton mixes cutting edge science and action-packed adventure, leading readers on an edge-of-your-seat ride while offering up a thought-provoking commentary on the issue of global warming. A deftly-crafted novel, in true Crichton style, State of Fear is an exciting, stunning tale that not only entertains and educates, but will make you think.
​
[FONT="]Apparently eco-fearmongers didn’t want to be entertained, or educated, or made to think…or want anyone else to be entertained, or educated, or made to think. Examples:[/FONT][/COLOR]

[LIST]
[*]Union of Concerned Scientists [URL="https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/crichton-thriller-state-of.html#.W9XFII2WydI"]here[/URL]
[*]Weather Underground here
[*]The New York Times here
[*]The Guardian here
[*]RealClimate here (Yes, Gavin Schmidt added his 2 cents. Oy vey. Didn’t you have something better to do with your time, Gav?)
[/LIST]
[FONT="]Now for the meat of this post:[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]CLIMATE MODEL HINDCASTS HAVE A WIDE RANGE OF GLOBAL SURFACE WARMING RATES FROM 1861 TO 2005, INDICATING THE CLIMATE SCIENCE COMMUNITY STILL HAS NO IDEA WHAT CAUSED GLOBAL SURFACES TO WARM DURING THAT PERIOD . . . .[/FONT]

[FONT=&]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...


I have a Hardback copy on my book shelf.
 
Jack Hays said:
It is worthwhile every now and then to revisit a classic. Such is Michael Crichton's State of Fear. Along with Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist, it pointed the way toward today's climate skepticism and resistance to AGW propaganda.

[FONT=&][/FONT]
Another Look at Michael Crichton’s ‘State of Fear’ – Part 1
Click to expand...

Then I went to that link, then went to comment made by the Union of Concerned Scientists, (I gravitated to the #3, What is the urban heat island effect and is it contributing to warming?

Funny thing is, they acknowledge the effect, but seem dot to connect that as the city grows larger, these old time thermometers nearby increasingly see warmer readings.

State of Fear characters suggest that the "urban heat island effect" may be responsible not only for heating in cities but also for global warming. They note that many long-term temperature stations are now surrounded by larger cities and could contribute to the warming seen in urban stations. While amplified warming does occur in cities and is an important local phenomenon, cities occupy only a small fraction of the planet compared to the vast area of oceans, ice caps, uninhabited mountains, and rural landscapes. Scientists are well aware and take measures to adjust for this effect so that the overall temperature trend is not biased. Temperature monitoring stations exist around the globe, on both land and sea, and we see a clear warming trend from many locations. Compared to the number of temperature stations for the U.S., it is clear that urban stations are a minor component of the U.S. temperature station network (Figure 2). The IPCC (2001) stated that urban heat island effects could contribute no more than six percent of the rising average temperature trends in 1990, and a National Academy study of the surface temperature record concluded that the global surface temperature trend accurately reflects warming.
​
 
Re: Another Look at Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"

Surface Detail said:
People can and have measured the output of the sun. It appears to bear very little correlation to the temperature of the Earth, especially over recent decades, which means that variations in solar output cannot be the prime cause of recent temperature variations.
Click to expand...

That's because you are listening to the wrong frequency.

Solar equalizations are centuries. Not decades.
 
Re: Another Look at Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"

Jack Hays said:
In MC's own words.

[h=3]State of Fear - MichaelCrichton.com[/h]
[url]www.michaelcrichton.com/state-of-fear/
[/URL]



Jul 25, 2018 - We spotlight the book and movie versions of State of Fear by Michael Crichton including newly revealed content from The Official Michael ...
Click to expand...

You really like the thoughts of fiction writers on this topic.

It shows in almost all your posts.

Myself? I’m more partial to non-fiction.
 
Re: Another Look at Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"

Threegoofs said:
You really like the thoughts of fiction writers on this topic.

It shows in almost all your posts.

Myself? I’m more partial to non-fiction.
Click to expand...

[h=2]In His Own Words[/h]


mc-in-his-own-words.jpg
I thought, “I’m an outsider; I’m not sided; I’m a political agnostic and I think what’s valuable is that I have come to my own conclusion here.” But it was clear in the brief conversations I had with the people who were doing the modeling that where we party company is—I think what they’re doing is terrific; the climate research is, in many ways dazzling; an extraordinarily ambitious undertaking; this is a multi-generational computer modeling activity that’s being done, and it’s fabulous—it’s simply not good enough to set policy on. Whereas they, of course, think it is. That was the essential difference. But to the extent that there’s controversy about my views, I must say it’s really amazing to me because I never thought the idea that you can’t predict the future would be controversial. When I talk to audiences, I get up and say, “Can we agree that you can’t predict the future, unless you guys think you’re all psychic? But if you’re not psychic, then we really have to face some cold realities about how unpredictable the future is.” I talk to them about, for example, what a person in the year 1900 would predict for the year 2000. The big problem that a person in the year 1900 would see was: Where will they get all the horses for the year 2000 and what will we do with all the horse****? There’s a very interesting picture floating around on the internet which is said to be from an 1954 issue of Popular Mechanics showing the Rand Corporation’s mockup of a home computer. It’s really silly and very amusing, and unfortunately it’s a fake; it’s great, but it’s a fake. I was sufficiently intrigued by this that I went back to Popular Mechanics to look at what they did actually say about the home computer. Do you know what they said? Nothing at all. Do you know why? No one thought it was possible.
 
Re: Another Look at Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"

Aliens Cause Global Warming

January 31st, 2019

Aliens Cause Global Warming
By Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003
My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming. Charting this progression of belief will be my task today.
Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do. Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science — namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy. . . .

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. . . .

As the twentieth century drew to a close, the connection between hard scientific fact and public policy became increasingly elastic. In part this was possible because of the complacency of the scientific profession; in part because of the lack of good science education among the public; in part, because of the rise of specialized advocacy groups which have been enormously effective in getting publicity and shaping policy; and in great part because of the decline of the media as an independent assessor of fact. The deterioration of the American media is dire loss for our country. When distinguished institutions like the New York Times can no longer differentiate between factual content and editorial opinion, but rather mix both freely on their front page, then who will hold anyone to a higher standard?
And so, in this elastic anything-goes world where science — or non-science — is the hand maiden of questionable public policy, we arrive at last at global warming. It is not my purpose here to rehash the details of this most magnificent of the demons haunting the world. I would just remind you of the now-familiar pattern by which these things are established. Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron. Next, the isolation of those scientists who won’t get with the program, and the characterization of those scientists as outsiders and “skeptics” in quotation marks — suspect individuals with suspect motives, industry flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental nut-cases. In short order, debate ends, even though prominent scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done. . . .

Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was “rife with careless mistakes.” It was a poor display, featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocaust denier. The issue was captioned: “Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist.” Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?
When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn’t enough, he put the critics’ essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.
Further attacks since, have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That’s why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That’s why the facts don’t matter. That’s why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He’s a heretic. . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom