Very sad to hear of the death of one of my favourite authors. Enjoyed his books greatly, died at the far too young age of 66.:(

ouch! That bites.

Some of his books are among my favourites, indeed as a teenager I used to devour everyone of his books I could get my hands on.

Why oh why do so many great writers die so soon?

Yes, just saw this, too. :(

I enjoyed both Airframe and Prey and do plan to get more of his books after I get some other titles on my list caught up.

It was sad to hear of his passing.

BOb

This is so sad. He was the author that gave me my first taste of the scientific thriller and I've read all of his published novels. I'd been eagerly awaiting something from him since I read his most recent novel, "Next".

You'll be missed, Michael Crichton.

Crichton was rather a mixed bag for me; I found some of his novels wonderful, others a little preachy and some just never grabbed me. That being said, its always sad when a man of his obvious talent when he should easily have had 10-20 or more productive years a head of him.

--
Bill

R.I.P.

I did enjoy several of his efforts. But now he won't be around to see the first person turned into grey goo by nano technology...

“Biology, the retarded child. Even in the time of Newton and Galileo, men knew more about the moon and other heavenly bodies than they did about their own.”

Thank you, Mr. Chricton.

His nonfiction book: "Travels" is one I have remembered since reading it so many years ago.

It's so sad that he died as such a young age (66). He must have had much more to write and produce.

I enjoyed his early books, but his attempts to "politicize" science and his denial of the reality of Global Warming in his dreadful book "State of Fear" really put me off him. "Pseudo-science" at its worst.

Fan of his earlier books, not so much his later ones. It's sad to hear of his death at such a young age.

I remember reading many of his books whilst avoiding studying in college. (Some things never change.) He had a real impact on my life and career decsions, ultimately ending up being a doctor, myself, and wanting to be an author, as well. One out of two...

Started reading him as a kid. I liked the fact he took the same story about a high tech theme park going wrong and turned it into two books and movies.

I enjoyed his early books, but his attempts to "politicize" science and his denial of the reality of Global Warming in his dreadful book "State of Fear" really put me off him. "Pseudo-science" at its worst.

that remark leads me to believe you read reviews of the book, not the book itself. :) either that or you're getting your fiction and non-fiction mixed up. :)

I remember reading "Andromeda Strain" as a young teenager. I couldn't put it down. Typically, the movie(s) couldn't live up to the book.

I enjoyed his early books, but his attempts to "politicize" science and his denial of the reality of Global Warming in his dreadful book "State of Fear" really put me off him. "Pseudo-science" at its worst.

Unfortunately that's how I think about him these days. Give it a while though and I'm sure I'll go back to thinking of him as the guy who gave us one of my favourite films. Westworld.

I enjoyed his early books, but his attempts to "politicize" science and his denial of the reality of Global Warming in his dreadful book "State of Fear" really put me off him. "Pseudo-science" at its worst.

Maybe I need to reread the book. But, I don't re-call the conclusion being a denial of Global Warming. I think some facts were presented in support of the fictional narrative. Also, I think he showed that you can interpret the data in various ways. It was an interesting book. I learned some stuff, and did further research... so in that way it enriched me and I enjoyed it.

BOb

I remember reading "Andromeda Strain" as a young teenager. I couldn't put it down. Typically, the movie(s) couldn't live up to the book.

Actually, I rather liked the original movie. That being said, Michael Crichton was always a gifted story teller, but not necessarily the greatest at character development. As a result, I never felt compelled to buy his sequel to the original Jurassic Park; I enjoyed it immensely but when the story was over, I felt no need to revisit the world.

As a result, I think I tended to like the movies based on his books simply because the actors often made the characters seem a lot more alive and real than they were in the book.

--
Bill

Crichton was one of my favorite authors. No one could write "good tech gone really, really bad" novels like him. Not all of his books were gems, and some of the movie adaptations were pretty awful (cough--Looker!--cough!) (cough--Congo!--cough!). But overall, his was a great voice for exploring the potential of technology, and warning of its potential danger. He will be sorely missed.

that remark leads me to believe you read reviews of the book, not the book itself. :) either that or you're getting your fiction and non-fiction mixed up. :)

No, I have read it. He his views in that field were well-known. He was (Heaven help us) a member of a panel which advised Mr. Bush in that area, despite having no professional expertise in the field of climatology.

No, I have read it. He his views in that field were well-known. He was (Heaven help us) a member of a panel which advised Mr. Bush in that area, despite having no professional expertise in the field of climatology.

Despite my admiration for the man, there's a reason a science fiction writer should not be on a presidential science panel. Bush would've been better served by Bill Nye. In fact, MC must have served to scare the bejeezus out of Bush, to make him so technophobic during his administration.

"We cain't have cloning... it'll only lead to Dineo-saurs that swim to San Diego and eat people's dogs..."

I understand where he was coming from in State of Fear, though (Note: this is based on my impression from reviews, not from actual reading of the book)... the idea of accepting any data, just because the majority accepts it, doesn't always work. (Ask Galileo.) In fact, much of his work danced around the idea/danger of one person/group using another person/group's technology, without fully investigating the possible flaws or missing information therein.

His ideas on technology were, I think, summed up very well in his movie Runaway, in which the main character, Ramsey, tells his partner: "Let me tell you how it is. People make robots. People aren't perfect. So why should we expect robots to be perfect?"

He was (Heaven help us) a member of a panel which advised Mr. Bush in that area.

you have facts to back this up i presume?

to the best of my recollection, he met with mr. bush as have many authors and he and GWB shared similar views and discussion on the subject. i don't take that to be an "advisory panel"

the book was less about the existence or non-existence of global warming as much as it was about the lengths to which advocates and activists might go to further their agenda. it was also a novel. :)

the transcript of a speech he gave to the National Press Club in Jan 2005 on the subject is on his site at the following link in it's entirety. It is quite fascinating reading if you are capable of putting aside your preconceived notions and beliefs.
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html

Despite my admiration for the man, there's a reason a science fiction writer should not be on a presidential science panel. Bush would've been better served by Bill Nye. In fact, MC must have served to scare the bejeezus out of Bush, to make him so technophobic during his administration.


Well, I think we need to keep things in perspective. As with many science fiction writers, Michael Crichton was not just a science fiction writer. He did also have a medical degree (though I have no idea how much medicine he actually practiced). So, he did have a solid training in science.

Further, this is true of many science fiction writers; they are often scientists who have done serious work in their fields of choice. In some cases, they turned to writing SF as a way of exploring some of their scientific hypothesis that were too radical at the time for publication in mainstream science journals.

I think the other key here is that Science Fiction writers often have a better than average grasp of the possibilities of new technological and scientific developments (By no means perfect though).


"We cain't have cloning... it'll only lead to Dineo-saurs that swim to San Diego and eat people's dogs..."


Never happen; Bush doesn't believe the dinosaurs were real.


I understand where he was coming from in State of Fear, though (Note: this is based on my impression from reviews, not from actual reading of the book)... the idea of accepting any data, just because the majority accepts it, doesn't always work. (Ask Galileo.) In fact, much of his work danced around the idea/danger of one person/group using another person/group's technology, without fully investigating the possible flaws or missing information therein.

His ideas on technology were, I think, summed up very well in his movie Runaway, in which the main character, Ramsey, tells his partner: "Let me tell you how it is. People make robots. People aren't perfect. So why should we expect robots to be perfect?"

Well, there is some truth in that; one just needs to temper what makes a good story from what might exist in the real world. Robots won't be perfect, but they are unlikely to go on killing sprees either.

--
Bill

Well, there is some truth in that; one just needs to temper what makes a good story from what might exist in the real world. Robots won't be perfect, but they are unlikely to go on killing sprees either.

In Runaway, they were specifically programmed by a terrorist to go on killing sprees. I honestly don't see that as being too farfetched... which, of course, was one of Crichton's strengths.

I believe Crichton had an MD, but never practiced (he discovered his penchant for writing at about the time he got the degree). Not that that necessarily makes a difference in his writing, other than the fact that he clearly had a sound scientific basis for (most of) his writing.

But his writing is, I think, an indication of his general train of thought in relation to science... it may not have been directly expressed, but I'd bet it was at least subconsciously projected that he felt a serious need to examine science from all angles, and not to let the unexpected elements surprise and wreck you.

Or maybe people who listened to him, allowed their knowledge of his novels to color their conceptions of his comments...

you have facts to back this up i presume?



See here (http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/michael_crichton_disinformation_legacy/) for an assessment of the harm done by Mr. Crichton.

I was wrong on one detail - he met with Mr. Bush personally; he wasn't on an advisory panel.

See here (http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/michael_crichton_disinformation_legacy/) for an assessment of the harm done by Mr. Crichton.

I was wrong on one detail - he met with Mr. Bush personally; he wasn't on an advisory panel.

I don't understand reactions like this. _State of Fear_ is no more a technical journal that disproves global warming than is the Harry Potter series a manual of witchcraft to seduce children at a young age.

BOB

I don't understand reactions like this. _State of Fear_ is no more a technical journal that disproves global warming than is the Harry Potter series a manual of witchcraft to seduce children at a young age.


So why does it have a bibliography?

But your argument is strange. Are you saying that all things in fiction should be read as false things with no relation to reality? So you do not have to be realistic in how you portray scientists for example?

I haven't read the book in question nor do I have any prior knowledge about Crichton's opinions on the matter of global warming, but if you are interested in what he said on the matter in an interview with Charlie Rose, you might watch it.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/noec6Xkx73k&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/noec6Xkx73k&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

See here (http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/michael_crichton_disinformation_legacy/) for an assessment of the harm done by Mr. Crichton.

I was wrong on one detail - he met with Mr. Bush personally; he wasn't on an advisory panel.

If that much damage could be done by one person, then wouldn't that suggest that the evidence in favor of "the reality" of Anthropocentric Global Warming is pretty weak?

If that much damage could be done by one person, then wouldn't that suggest that the evidence in favor of "the reality" of Anthropocentric Global Warming is pretty weak?

Why should science win in a popularity contest? In a popularity contest the one with best advertising wins.

If that much damage could be done by one person, then wouldn't that suggest that the evidence in favor of "the reality" of Anthropocentric Global Warming is pretty weak?

No, I don't think that conclusion can be drawn, Nate. This isn't a contest where we can determine truth by examining the number or character of the people supporting or denouncing it. I think the conclusion is that, as in political, religious, and similar matters, many people have become strongly willed in their personal beliefs on this particular subject, have become less than objective about fact-based discussions about it, and have become defensive about their position. And I think we should all look in the mirror when we consider that.

So why does it have a bibliography?

But your argument is strange. Are you saying that all things in fiction should be read as false things with no relation to reality? So you do not have to be realistic in how you portray scientists for example?

If I recall... and I could be wrong here but at the beginning of the book he stated that the charts and data in the book were actual and that is what the bibliography was. I don't think he ever said that his opinions or a characters in the book is the right one. Is the author not entitled to his opinion?

What I am saying is that if this book is being taken by people to make certain conclusions about global warming how it is happening, if it is a "crisis", if reducing CO2 emissions will affect it etc. is up to the reader.

If I recall correctly there were radicals on both sides in the story.

BOb

No, I don't think that conclusion can be drawn, Nate. This isn't a contest where we can determine truth by examining the number or character of the people supporting or denouncing it. I think the conclusion is that, as in political, religious, and similar matters, many people have become strongly willed in their personal beliefs on this particular subject, have become less than objective about fact-based discussions about it, and have become defensive about their position. And I think we should all look in the mirror when we consider that.

All I was trying to do question Harry's assumption of "the reality of global warming" because, like you said, I think he accepts it as a belief without question.

As for me, I have no beliefs about the physical world; I only have working theories (that change as I learn new information). My current theory about Global Warming is that there is insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis that humans are causing it.

All I was trying to do question Harry's assumption of "the reality of global warming" because, like you said, I think he accepts it as a belief without question.


No, I don't. As a former professional scientist, however, I know how "real science" is done, and I trust the data that the professionals working in that field produce, which overwhelmingly supports the viewpoint that human activities have a significant part to play in the process. Pretending that "if we ignore it the problem will just go away", as the Bush administration has done is just criminally irresponsible.

I also think the potential enormous magnitude of the consequences of doing nothing demand erring on the side of protection, not taking a passive wait-and-see attitude.

As an aside, I've been curious about the accuracy of previous predictions that climatologists have made and found a conference report from the 1970's where several groups predicted the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about 2010. It was off and on the high side, but not by a large amount. I saw nothing like irresponsible alarmism at work.

No, I don't. As a former professional scientist, however, I know how "real science" is done, and I trust the data that the professionals working in that field produce, which overwhelmingly supports the viewpoint that human activities have a significant part to play in the process. Pretending that "if we ignore it the problem will just go away", as the Bush administration has done is just criminally irresponsible.

What data is that, Harry?

I also think the potential enormous magnitude of the consequences of doing nothing demand erring on the side of protection, not taking a passive wait-and-see attitude.

So you are suggesting that trillions be spent based on the belief that there might be a problem? Don't you think it should be reliably proven before spending vast sums?

So you are suggesting that trillions be spent based on the belief that there might be a problem? Don't you think it should be reliably proven before spending vast sums?

Every other major country in the world has been doing so, Nate, in accordance with the "Kyoto Climate Change Protocol", which the US alone out of all the industrialised nations of the world refused to ratify.

The EU as a whole, for example, now has CO2 emissions which are 4.7% lower than 1990 levels (the Kyoto target is 5%); the figure in the UK is about 7% lower than 1990. In the same period, the US's CO2 emissions have increased. Every country in the world takes this seriously - with the notable exception of the US.

So you are suggesting that trillions be spent based on the belief that there might be a problem? Don't you think it should be reliably proven before spending vast sums?

Yes, I believe that we should start now, since the consequences are possibly dire. Will it cost trillions? I don't know and frankly don't care, if the consequences are as serious as they might be. Surely, in the next ten years we'll have more and better data and will be able to make better assessments and within that period we won't have spent anywhere close to trillions. But if the officers on this boat want to close their eyes in a delusional attempt to make those icebergs and the threat they represent to disappear, some of the passengers are going to get restless and start heaving officers overboard.

What data is that, Harry?

Here, for example:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

I'm not a climatologist, but the scientists who work at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) whose page I link to above, certainly are.

Here, for example:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

I'm not a climatologist, but the scientists who work at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) whose page I link to above, certainly are.

I misspoke before. I should not have disputed the data. What I should have said was that I dispute the conclusions drawn from the data. But I am also going to point out that the data does not support the conclusions.

It is generally argued that increases in CO2 cause increases in temperature. If this is true, then why is 1934 one of the 2 hottest years on record in the US (along with 1998)? If you look, you will see that the 3rd hottest year is 2006, and the hottest years after that are 1921 and 1931. The USA is almost certainly releasing more carbon this year than in the ones I listed. Why is the temperature lower?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

It's the long-term trends that are important; there are random year-on-year fluctuations. However, as the page I linked to states, the long-term trends, as measured by numerous different types of data, are all towards an increase in global temperatures which is unprecidented over the last few thosand years, and the current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere far exceed the natural variability over the last half million years or so.

With respect, you may believe that the data don't support the conclusions, but the majority of experts in the field disagree with you.

To reiterate, every other industrialised nation in the world considers this to be a vitally important issue. It's far too important to play "political football" with.

It's the long-term trends that are important; there are random year-on-year fluctuations. However, as the page I linked to states, the long-term trends, as measured by numerous different types of data, are all towards an increase in global temperatures which is unprecedented over the last few thousand years, and the current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere far exceed the natural variability over the last half million years or so.

No, Harry, you are wrong. Assuming higher CO2 concentration causes higher temperature, if year A has higher CO2 than year B, then Year A should have a higher temperature. The year to year temperatures do not support that claim.

The yearly temperature data does not support the claim that higher CO2 causes higher temperature. There must be other causes.


With respect, you may believe that the data don't support the conclusions, but the majority of experts in the field disagree with you.

Consensus science is not science, Harry.


BTW, the NOAA source you provided is still relying on bad data. That site still says that the 10 hottest years are all recent. That data was recently realized to be wrong. I provided the correct data.

Assuming higher CO2 concentration causes higher temperature, if year A has higher CO2 than year B, then Year A should have a higher temperature.

Only if CO2 concentration were the only reason for temperature changes, or if all other causes were constant...

Anyway, what's the thread's topic again? :D

=Anyway, what's the thread's topic again? :D

Mr. Crichton's disservice to the field of climatology. He should have stuck to "E.R" :)

No, Harry, you are wrong. Assuming higher CO2 concentration causes higher temperature, if year A has higher CO2 than year B, then Year A should have a higher temperature. The year to year temperatures do not support that claim.

The yearly temperature data does not support the claim that higher CO2 causes higher temperature. There must be other causes.

From the middle of winter to the middle of summer, the trend is for higher daily temperatures but every day is not always warmer than the previous one. There is a scatter in the data from various sources on top of the underlying seasonal trend. The same is true in the mean global temperature data particularly since it is the result of a finite number of discrete measurements. The scatter is not evidence that the underlying trend doesn't exist.

I just can't let this go. I fed the US Mean Temperature into a spreadsheet, and then plotted it.

The data only goes back to 1880, but the graph does suggest that the mean temperature peaked around 1954 and then crashed. It looks like we are approaching another peak.

But, I do see 2 cycles in this graph. The peak and valley of the 50's and 60's would tend to refute the claim that temperature trends were rising consistently throughout the 20th century.

P.S. The spreadsheet is attached. The data is in reverse chronological order.

Yes, I believe that we should start now, since the consequences are possibly dire. Will it cost trillions? I don't know and frankly don't care, if the consequences are as serious as they might be.

I'm not normally one for political discussions online, for the obvious reasons (http://www.mattcutts.com/images/duty_calls.png). It is worth emphasizing, though, that public budgets, and thus to an extent public policy, are zero-sum; the trillions going to reducing emissions are therefore not being used to vaccinate children in the Third World, shelter the homeless in the USA, develop farming in Africa, and any other causes that could, with proper funding, save lives, often in the millions. Any decision about how to spend budgets involves trade-offs, but if we're going to devote more time and money to reducing global warming/climate change/ManBearPig than we are to the 5 million people (actual people, not hypothetical or potential victims) who die every year from malaria and TV, it's reasonable to ask for solid evidence.

ETA: malaria and TB. Heavens, too much TV has clearly rotted my brain.

who die every year from malaria and TV, it's reasonable to ask for solid evidence.

I know there is some bad television shows out there... but I didn't know it was killing people.

BOb

I know there is some bad television shows out there... but I didn't know it was killing people.

BOb

There are a few that damn near killed me. :2thumbsup

I know there is some bad television shows out there... but I didn't know it was killing people.

BOb
I want to kill myself every time I watch a Seinfeld rerun...

I just can't let this go. I fed the US Mean Temperature into a spreadsheet, and then plotted it.

The data only goes back to 1880, but the graph does suggest that the mean temperature peaked around 1954 and then crashed. It looks like we are approaching another peak.

But, I do see 2 cycles in this graph. The peak and valley of the 50's and 60's would tend to refute the claim that temperature trends were rising consistently throughout the 20th century.

P.S. The spreadsheet is attached. The data is in reverse chronological order.

A hint of that momentary peak in the data from one continent can also be seen in the global data, although it is much smaller there. The data that is displayed in the graphs at the link that Harry posted covers a longer period of time (and there is data from less direct measurements that go back very much further) and is of the global mean temperature. And the general trend upwards (with momentary variations) is clearly visible.

I haven't read the book in question nor do I have any prior knowledge about Crichton's opinions on the matter of global warming, but if you are interested in what he said on the matter in an interview with Charlie Rose, you might watch it.

After viewing the video, I stand by my earlier statement that it is consistent with Crichton's views on technology, and on scientists (and non-scientists) who do not do their due diligence before applying technology to a problem or issue. He does have a valid point in that it makes sense to verify the data and compare it to the conclusions, before assuming the problem is a crisis.

The issue to address at that point is exactly how much and how well the data has been vetted by independent and impartial sources? And as a side note, was there verification that Crichton either did not know about, or did not accept as valid?

Perhaps most importantly: If there is a need to independently verify (or disprove) the data and support (or deny) the conclusions, in order to clarify the issue for all parties concerned... and this has, in fact, not been done... why not? Considering the potential danger to global health, you'd think it would be important enough to do exactly that. Or... has it in fact been done, and the independent conclusions are merely being thrown into doubt by others who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo?

It's no wonder that these issues have been bandied about for the past 30 years without a solid consensus... much like many of the issues Crichton has taken up in his novels...

A hint of that momentary peak in the data from one continent can also be seen in the global data, although it is much smaller there. The data that is displayed in the graphs at the link that Harry posted covers a longer period of time (and there is data from less direct measurements that go back very much further) and is of the global mean temperature. And the general trend upwards (with momentary variations) is clearly visible.

The graph form the source Harry provided cannot be relied upon. It still incorporates invalid temperature data from the US. The temperature trend attributed to the northern hemisphere should have a peak that is much lower.

Also, before citing it as a source you should verify that the temperature from the 1800s is based on actual measurements, and not on a computer extrapolation. Furthermore, I wonder how many data points were actually recorded for each year, and where they were on the globe.

The difference with the US data is that I'm slightly more confident that the US had a sufficiency of data points each year, as well as a system to catch recording errors.

The graph form the source Harry provided cannot be relied upon. It still incorporates invalid temperature data from the US. The temperature trend attributed to the northern hemisphere should have a peak that is much lower.


Could you explain why you believe the data to be invalid, please?

Also, before citing it as a source you should verify that the temperature from the 1800s is based on actual measurements, and not on a computer extrapolation. Furthermore, I wonder how many data points were actually recorded for each year, and where they were on the globe.


I don't know where those particular data originated, but just a note that a continuous record of climatic conditions in the world's "temperate zones" doing back to around 6-7000 BC has been created largely from dendrochronology - ie the study of tree rings. From studying tree rings it's possible to obtain data on both temperature and rainfall to a high level of accuracy.

I remember reading Jurassic Park when I was in 4th grade -- it was the first big book I read on my own. But my mom would not let me see the movie haha.

Ok,
Unless someone is a professional climatologist or at least a meteorologist I think we are going to have to disagree. That being said:

1. All data regarding climate taken before the 1970s (or at least the 1960s) is going to be far less reliable than data from later years. The reasons are simple. Prior to climate observation satellites being launched, temperature records essentially were based on collecting local observations. These observations tended to be biased towards areas with large populations (i.e. cities) and thus large areas could have poor coverage and thus not have their temperatures properly recorded.

2. The United States, while large, is not the same as the entire Globe. The key to global warming is world wide trends, not local or even continental trends. Even during ice ages, there were probably parts of the equatorial belt that experienced years of extreme heat.

3. Consensus may not be science, but it is the best tool for the public to gauge the scientific data. Most hypothesis and theories go through a stage when few in the scientific community believe them. Over time, experiments and observations will start to confirm or deny the the hypothesis or theory. As the theories are confirmed, more and more scientists will jump on the band wagon. Now every conclusion in science is always tentative; always subject to change based on new observations. That being said, most scientists, ultimately recognize when they are beating a dead horse and will ultimately accept the theory that has the most evidence for it. At the same time however, there will almost always be scientists who resist the consensus for a long time; for example, Fred Hoyle, to his dieing day, resisted the Big Bang/Inflation model for the creation of the Universe it didn't make him right, just stubborn (Though he may be right.. check back in on cosmology in 50 years :)).

Just a general thought; most scientists I have had the pleasure of meeting, regardless of their politics, hate being wrong. What they hate more though is cooking the books. They would prefer show they are wrong than ever fake their data or their conclusions to agree with their politics.

--
Bill

Just a general thought; most scientists I have had the pleasure of meeting, regardless of their politics, hate being wrong. What they hate more though is cooking the books. They would prefer show they are wrong than ever fake their data or their conclusions to agree with their politics.

--
Bill

This is an excellent point, because it illustrates the problem a lot of people have with the scientists who endorse climate change orthodoxy. (There is also an ever-growing body of climatologists inter alia who criticize that orthodoxy.) I agree with you that the great majority of scientists are dedicated to truth and intellectual integrity in their field. What they're doing on the public stage, however, isn't science, it's politics, and their integrity and honesty in the pursuit of science doesn't carry over into their political lobbying. Further, since politics by its very nature is never subjected to objective verification, the way to ensure that you're not "wrong" when debating policy is to squelch all debate and railroad the opposition, usually with cries for the rest of us to think of the children, the polar bear, the declining bumblebee population, etc.

One reason why Michael Crichton offends me a lot less in this regard than actual scientists who have entered the fray is that he never pretended to be a scientific expert, or appealed to authority; he was a novelist, who was unapologetic and honest about his ideas and bias, and was completely transparent in his arguments. (He frequently imputed ill will to the other side, which is a problem in almost all political debate these days, but that's a different issue.)

I work for a big oil company (as big as they come). In the early to mid-1990's, there were a lot of my colleagues (physicists, chemists, and chemical engineers with doctorates, though not climatologists) who exhibited disbelief in the concept of global warming and of a human cause of it. Certainly, that can't be a surprise. Accepting it is against our personal financial benefit and that's on top of it being downright scary. Now, I personally neither know or know of anyone here who has looked at the problem at any depth who does not now fully accept the idea. The only questions are how bad will it be and what can we do about it. I find that pretty amazing. I realize, again, that this is not popularity contest. But the number of people who have looked at the data and the science and who have consented is overwhelming. I find it unfortunate that there are political pundits and those with strong vested financial interests who continue to be successful in confounding resolution of the issue by claiming that it is untested science or tenuous in some manner. In the meantime, the situation becomes more difficult, perhaps irreversibly.

This is an excellent point, because it illustrates the problem a lot of people have with the scientists who endorse climate change orthodoxy. (There is also an ever-growing body of climatologists inter alia who criticize that orthodoxy.) I agree with you that the great majority of scientists are dedicated to truth and intellectual integrity in their field. What they're doing on the public stage, however, isn't science, it's politics, and their integrity and honesty in the pursuit of science doesn't carry over into their political lobbying. Further, since politics by its very nature is never subjected to objective verification, the way to ensure that you're not "wrong" when debating policy is to squelch all debate and railroad the opposition, usually with cries for the rest of us to think of the children, the polar bear, the declining bumblebee population, etc.



What you say may be so, but I think it is safe to say that making science political started on the political side. A number of interests, both inside and outside the government didn't like what the science said about global warming and then they looked very hard for scientists who agreed with their viewpoint. Then they would point to a few scientists and then say "see the debate is still open", even when the vast majority of scientists had accepted the evidence that suggested global warming is real. Ultimately, the political process is what has corrupted the lobbying of scientists. No one can really go in and claim that there is a 75% probability that global warming will continue and an 82% chance that if it does continue that there will be negative effects in 150 years and expect the politicians to act.

Frankly, the basic problem is that too much of the government is run by lawyers and business men who are not educationally equipped to deal with how science works.

In any case, the science behind the politics is subject to verification and it appears to me that every year there are fewer and fewer scientists who are arguing that global warming is 1. not real and 2. that human activity has not played a significant part in that warming.

--
Bill

I find it unfortunate that there are political pundits and those with strong vested financial interests who continue to be successful in confounding resolution of the issue by claiming that it is untested science or tenuous in some manner. In the meantime, the situation becomes more difficult, perhaps irreversibly.

It saddens me, but it doesn't surprise me. Look how long it took tobacco companies to admit to the link between smoking and lung cancer, even when the evidence was overwhelming.

The fact is that yes, reducing carbon emissions does cost money, but every other major country in the world has been willing to introduce "carbon emission taxes" and spend that money for the sake of all our futures. The US's refusal to do this on the ground that "it's too expensive" or "the link between global warming and CO2 emissions isn't proven" is very worrying.

It saddens me, but it doesn't surprise me. Look how long it took tobacco companies to admit to the link between smoking and lung cancer, even when the evidence was overwhelming.

Yes, I laugh when I see those commercials the Philps-Moris does about wanting their customers to be informed and healthy. Granded they were ordered to pay for these.

MY comment is... "If you know smoking will kill people and you care about your customers... stop producing cigarettes.

BOb

MY comment is... "If you know smoking will kill people and you care about your customers... stop producing cigarettes.

Mine is: if you (a government) know smoking will kill your citizens... stop allowing companies to produce and sell cigarettes (or else, allow companies to produce and sell every other kind of drug and dangerous substance).

Mine is: if you (a government) know smoking will kill your citizens... stop allowing companies to produce and sell cigarettes (or else, allow companies to produce and sell every other kind of drug and dangerous substance).

Yea...it is kind of weird I agree. We don't allow marijuana but guns, liquor and cigs are ok? I am pretty much in the camp of less regulation. I guess as long as people will buy and use the stuff, companies will make it. At least if marijuana was legal we could regulate it and also collect taxes on it to deal with the issues and save billions of $ a year on the "war on drugs".

BOb

Yea...it is kind of weird I agree. We don't allow marijuana but guns, liquor and cigs are ok? I am pretty much in the camp of less regulation. I guess as long as people will buy and use the stuff, companies will make it. At least if marijuana was legal we could regulate it and also collect taxes on it to deal with the issues and save billions of $ a year on the "war on drugs".

BOb

In the UK it has now effectively been "decriminalised" by being classified as a "Class C" drug, which basically means that if you're caught with it by the police, all that generally happens is they'll confiscate it from you and not take any further action. It's certainly far less dangerous than tobacco, unless you happen to be succeptible to some types of psychological disorders, which apparently it can make worse.

Tobacco, though, has to be pretty much unique among manufactured goods in that people buy it knowing that, if used in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions, it will kill them.

No, I don't think that conclusion can be drawn, Nate. This isn't a contest where we can determine truth by examining the number or character of the people supporting or denouncing it. I think the conclusion is that, as in political, religious, and similar matters, many people have become strongly willed in their personal beliefs on this particular subject, have become less than objective about fact-based discussions about it, and have become defensive about their position. And I think we should all look in the mirror when we consider that.

That was one of the best descriptions of the way people have become ignorant when discussing this issue. (and MANY other topics in this increasingly polarized world)

-MJ

PS I'm so entertained by the fact that a RIP post on a book forum for an author still turns into a political pissing match...
PPS His final book was called Next, guess it should have been titled Last. (Yes, I'm going to hell)

PS I'm so entertained by the fact that a RIP post on a book forum for an author still turns into a political pissing match...


Why do you characterize this as a pissing match? From my perspective it's a saner and more respectful discussion of the issue than most that I see, IRL or in the blogosphere.

I very much enjoyed some of Michael Crichton's books - others not quite as much. Still I was a satisfied paying customer and so I have to say that I'll miss his work.

Now as to anthropogenic global warming I do have to say that I have some serious questions about the information I hear in the media. I understand that average temperatures are increasing and have been for at least the last three decades (there may have been a blip since 1998 but it's irrelevant for my argument.) I also understand that carbon dioxide levels have been rising in the same period.

What I disagree with is that this correlation means that human-generated carbon dioxide is the sole cause of the last half-century's overall temperature increase.

Too many proponents take it as an article of faith that this correlation means that the Sun has no effect on climate change and that it is completely due to human actions. I can't agree. We don't know enough about it to say that definitively.

I'm not saying that human actions have no effect, I'm sure they do and they may even be the primary cause of climate change. (I'm not 100% sold on that but I won't rule it out.) What I am saying is that we cannot discount the possibility that variations in output from the planet's primary source of heat are having an effect as well.

my sense is that the scientific community is grossly deficient in understanding the causes of most natural phenomena and probably will remain so for many decades.

the earth, the climate and the oceans are perhaps some of the least understood natural occurrences we face.

climate "models" or computer simulations are guessing machines for all intents and purposes. they do not see the future, nor are they error-free in interpreting the past. that some models conflict with others is evidence of the blunt edge of their usefulness.

the point of the fictional book is that the scientific community, often motivated by $, the media and gov'ts who seek to control the populace work in concert to establish this "state of fear" as a way to control the population. it is not important whether or not global warming is happening right now, what is important is that gov'ts and private entities have you fearing it happening and in doing so, they obtain the appropriate amount of compliance from the citizens they rule over. those who vocally question the premise, as a result of their non-compliance, are ascribed negative associations and shunned.

free thinking and questioning authority should be embraced. but too many teevee-heads who refuse to think for themselves have already joined the cult of global warming and refuse to acknowledge that not only is the science behind it experimental at best, the result of that science is control & money. it forms the foundations of political campaigns and is the justification for taxing more of your income. and nobody questions it. everyone goes along.

Maybe this thread needs to RIP too.

BOb

The thing I find amazing is that people often claim that people need to be free thinking when they disagree with the majority, but when they agree with it, they claim that those who disagree with them are just wrong.

The simple fact of the matter is that climate science is a complex science, and therefore we are generally only really beginning to understand everything that is happening. But that doesn't mean we don't understand anything about what is happening.

Further, the cynicism expressed here by a number of people tends to ignore the reality of the last political administration. A scientist does not get federal funding or prestige by bucking the political will of the President. Whether he was wrong or right, President Bush was on the side of those who believed that climate change either was not happening or was not man made. Scientists like Jim Hansen and others did not make any real friends by bucking the established power structure.

The final thought I have is that many of the most vocal opponents to the position that man made global warming is real are not people who I would trust to be adequate interpreters of the data. The very complexity of the data requires lots of compute time on HPC systems to make sense. Being am MD, biologist, chemist or even a physicist does not make you qualified. I know I certainly am not qualified to interpret all the data.

Funny, none of us are free thinkers enough to try to tell Boeing Engineers how to best build a plane but we assume that because the scientists are dealing with a subject even more complex than aerospace engineering, that suddenly we are as qualified to interpret the data as the scientists are.

--
Bill

i know i am not qualified to interpret scientific data. i never claimed i was qualified. :)

IDRGAF about the last political campaign - that's an obfuscation argument. :)

my remarks were about the intent of the fiction novel. what the book was attempting to portray as part of the storyline.

i don't see the correlation between boeing engineers and global warming.

actually. correlation is a good word here, as i think laypersons often confuse correlation and causation. more importantly, mainstream media is likely a bit sloppy in the distinction between the two. it is common for an everyday person to make a statement like "polar bears are dwindling because of global warming" - now that is certainly a sensational statement and perhaps even tragic in that polar bears may be dwindling, but the statement implies that global warming is CAUSING polar bears to dwindle. that is certainly one theory in explaining the correlation, but it is hardly a fact.

there may be a correlation between rising temps and polar bears. but that does not mean we should pull out our jump to conclusions mats and start playing.

even the term global warming is in dispute - and the layperson's definition of it is manufactured by media reports and accepted at face value without any understanding whatsoever as to it's meaning and implications. largely those definitions typically include doomsday scenarios, death and destruction, etc. presumably because that puts a picture to the idea and makes it more emotionally relate-able.

the book is a novel, with a storyline that takes a certain point of view and validates it within the structure of it's characters. i think those who immediately cry foul, who claim the author is the devil, part of a right-wing conspiracy, an enemy of science, a bush-appointee or secret confidant, etc. are a little too attached to their own dogma. but in that way, the book is very effective in touching something deep inside the reader too. taking some of the theoretical counter-arguments to popular belief and posing them as legitimate ideas in the context of the storyline can be very entertaining, even informative! :)

i stand by my earlier statements that the sciences posing the arguments supporting the theory of global warming are politically and financially motivated. that their field is based upon interpreting inaccurate data and/or relying upon subjective computer simulation models. that the media plays a large role in the spread of disinformation and that the fear-mongering is part of a larger objective to pacify and make submissive the population. :)


The simple fact of the matter is that climate science is a complex science, and therefore we are generally only really beginning to understand everything that is happening. But that doesn't mean we don't understand anything about what is happening.

i could not agree more. given that it is so complex and that we barely understand even a little bit - it seems a little premature to begin issuing doomsday press releases for the purpose of instilling fear, making money, securing support or winning elections, adoration or ego-building.

the challenge is not in understanding what is happening in the here and now - the challenge lies in understanding the WHY and how past events have affected or not affected the path to here. those issues may never be fully understood due to their complexity and our lack of ability to measure our own impact upon natural events.

We have a little over a hundred years of observational data and inferred data from core ice samples and silt studies. We really do not know anything for certain. What we do know is that there is an acceleration of atmospheric temperature and cap ice loss that is faster than most regular cycles that can be inferred from the data we have. We also know that the CO2 is 1) increasing rapidly 2) coming from mostly human sources and 3) in the past, when global warming came, it was associated with high CO2.

People who are trying to not have global warming impact on their profit lines want to see this as being uncertain. People who want to reverse the increase in CO2 content of the air see this as certain. Really good scientists see this as data to be studied and postulates to be evaluated.

When I was in college in the 70's, we were getting concerned that a large volcanic eruption might cause a rapid descent into a global cooling event (ice age).

So, do we need to panic? No. We need to do more science.

Do we need to reduce CO2 emmissions? Yes. Because it makes sense to decrease the greenhouse effect if we are headed into a natural heating upswing and especially if it turns out to be the cause of the heating cycle.

Are we going to feel the pain? Yes. Either way.

i know i am not qualified to interpret scientific data. i never claimed i was qualified. :)


Ok, so we agree that you are not qualified to interpret scientific data; then who is? Maybe climate scientists who have actually spent most of their adult lives studying this stuff?


IDRGAF about the last political campaign - that's an obfuscation argument. :)

my remarks were about the intent of the fiction novel. what the book was attempting to portray as part of the storyline.



First a correction; I was not talking about a political campaign, but rather the last (and for a few months anyway) and current political administration. I.e. the people who control NASA and NOAA where much of the information on climate change is coming from. The scientists in those organizations were in fact risking their political capital in taking their positions while the Bush Administration is in power.

Secondly, you were defending the position of the book, not as if it was a story set in a fictional universe but as if it was set in essentially our own world. Therefore, my point was not in fact an obfuscation, but in fact directly contradicted your point that scientists talked about global warming purely for their own political or financial gain.


i don't see the correlation between boeing engineers and global warming.


Its an analogy. Aerospace science and Climatology are both very complicated subjects where the layman is not likely to make significant progress. I wouldn't trust you to design a new Jet Boeing and I won't trust you to interpret climate data.


actually. correlation is a good word here, as i think laypersons often confuse correlation and causation. more importantly, mainstream media is likely a bit sloppy in the distinction between the two. it is common for an everyday person to make a statement like "polar bears are dwindling because of global warming" - now that is certainly a sensational statement and perhaps even tragic in that polar bears may be dwindling, but the statement implies that global warming is CAUSING polar bears to dwindle. that is certainly one theory in explaining the correlation, but it is hardly a fact.

there may be a correlation between rising temps and polar bears. but that does not mean we should pull out our jump to conclusions mats and start playing.



Single correlations used as evidence of causation are a logical fallacy, but when you get enough correlations, you certainly have enough data to start developing hypothesis. The simple fact of the matter is that we have thousands of pieces of data that seems suggestive that global temperatures are in fact increasing and some of that data (from the ice cores taken from ice-shelves for example) strongly suggests that there is a strong correlation between increases in CO2 levels and global mean temperatures. Further scientists actually understand to a great degree how CO2 and other gases can actually trap heat on the planet.

So lets see here:

1. Scientists know that CO2, methane and other gases can trap heat on the Earth.
2. There is enough data to suggest a strong correlation between global CO2 levels and global temperatures.
3. Currently we know global CO2 levels have increased significantly over the last century and apparently so have global temperatures.

I can throw in lots of other data but the point here is that it is not simple single case correlation here.

Oh I should point out that science relies on correlation far more than you might think. Its how the first practical vaccine, the small pox vaccine, was developed back in the 18th century and it is still a very important tool for science.


even the term global warming is in dispute - and the layperson's definition of it is manufactured by media reports and accepted at face value without any understanding whatsoever as to it's meaning and implications. largely those definitions typically include doomsday scenarios, death and destruction, etc. presumably because that puts a picture to the idea and makes it more emotionally relate-able.

the book is a novel, with a storyline that takes a certain point of view and validates it within the structure of it's characters. i think those who immediately cry foul, who claim the author is the devil, part of a right-wing conspiracy, an enemy of science, a bush-appointee or secret confidant, etc. are a little too attached to their own dogma. but in that way, the book is very effective in touching something deep inside the reader too. taking some of the theoretical counter-arguments to popular belief and posing them as legitimate ideas in the context of the storyline can be very entertaining, even informative! :)


But see Crichton was not simply writing a novel. He could have diffused the whole argument with simply stating that it was a novel not reality.

Ultimately, authors of novels, often chew their own political agendas in their novels. None more so than Science Fiction authors.

Scientific data is always tentative, subject to revision based on new information. That does not mean that a counter argument is legitimate just because the main theory might be wrong. Real information has to be produced to undermine the existing theory. Otherwise scientists would have to answer every individual who claims the Earth is flat or that it is the center of the Universe.


i stand by my earlier statements that the sciences posing the arguments supporting the theory of global warming are politically and financially motivated. that their field is based upon interpreting inaccurate data and/or relying upon subjective computer simulation models. that the media plays a large role in the spread of disinformation and that the fear-mongering is part of a larger objective to pacify and make submissive the population. :)

i could not agree more. given that it is so complex and that we barely understand even a little bit - it seems a little premature to begin issuing doomsday press releases for the purpose of instilling fear, making money, securing support or winning elections, adoration or ego-building.


First I didn't say we understood a little bit, I said we were only beginning to understand it. The two statements are very different. We actually understand a lot, and a lot more every day.

Secondly, during the Bush Administration, pushing climate change as an agenda was not the way for a NASA or NOAA scientist to make money. Quite the opposite.

Thirdly, the arguments almost seem paranoid. As if there is a crypto-kabal out there of liberals, climate scientists and the media who are all working together to push the issue of global warming for their own benefit. At the same time, you ignore the fact that even more powerful interests such as the oil companies, and most other corporations for that matter have a powerful interest in proving global warming to be false.

Finally, I would like to know why, after yourself claiming to not be qualified to interpret the scientific data, you insist that you can know whether or not the scientists are essentially cooking the books? You can't have it both ways.


the challenge is not in understanding what is happening in the here and now - the challenge lies in understanding the WHY and how past events have affected or not affected the path to here. those issues may never be fully understood due to their complexity and our lack of ability to measure our own impact upon natural events.

Sigh.. Why is a question for philosophers. Science may occasionally hit upon a why, but ultimately, they are all about developing theories that make predictions. If A. happens then B will also happen stuff. We don't really understand the why Gravity for example but it hasn't stopped us from sending a man to the moon.

--
Bill

okay. i'll take the if A happens B happens approach.
what will happen in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years and 100 years given the current situation?


i seem to remember reading some scientific articles that suggested that no amount of curbing CO2 emissions to the extent practical and possible would have any significant effect on forces already in motion. unless we are willing to go back to the dark ages without power, transportation, etc. back to a village/cave economy.

i'm not being drawn into the politicized discussion about bush and liberals and noaa and nasa.

as i said earlier. there is little need for scientists to tell us everything is okay. nothing to worry about. nobody employs those scientists. nobody listens to them. nobody trusts them. the premise is that we must assume that things are terribly wrong. self-loathing must be at full boil. we must agree that we have destroyed something and if we do not act to correct it immediately, the end of days will come. that is what sells television. that is what sells newspapers. that is what sells books. that is what gets funding. that is what attracts attention.

that is the motivation.

in this day and age we love to hate ourselves. we love to point at each other and blamestorm over what we think we did wrong.


i'm only trying to live here amidst all this anxiety and it's really beginning to cramp my chakra. :)

Actually, any scientist who tells you, that we need to go back to pre-industrial civilization to save the planet is off his rocker. It might be some of the more extreme environmentalists who are making such suggestions.

Ultimately, definite changes would have to be made in the way we live in the world; but most of it would involve our basic sources of energy, not the ultimate use of it. Nuclear , solar, wind and bio energy would all allow us to significantly curb carbon emissions.

Final thought... I think you have a seriously twisted view of the world. The vast majority of scientists work in fields that have nothing to do with raising alarm bells. Heck, climatologists could work for decades just getting better at predicting the weather 6 months down the road (though such short term analysis is tougher than long term trends). Other weather scientists can and do get plenty of work modeling hurricanes, tornadoes and other short term weather phenomena.

Ultimately, believe it or not, most scientists are not working to get on Television. And most of them, when they started their careers in climatology would not have believed that climatology was the science that would get them name recognition (biology and space science would have done far better jobs of that up until about a decade ago).

--
Bill

i realize this has fallen way way off topic at this point.

and i appreciate the discussion.

i realize nuclear is a source of energy, but there's the nasty side effects of disposal and whatnot. isn't that just a tradeoff for reduced carbon?

bio. i don't know that it is the answer the media makes it out to be. in some studies it costs more energy to produce it than it delivers. and of course, it is already deeply entrenched in politics and pork funding.

wind and solar. wind has been difficullt. i think it works in niche applications, but i cannot forsee it being viable on a large scale. likewise with solar. tech seems to have barely advanced from when i was a child (many decades ago) - i don't forsee us all driving billions of solar-powered cars living in solar-powered house. it is rather crude and inefficient for large-scale use it seems. or perhaps it is just being deliberately held back by politically-minded people.

since the vast amount of the world's energy consumption seems to me to be fossil-related - either oil or gas or NG or coal, i have a hard time seeing any super heavyweights coming into the ring to challenge any of them. nevermind the complications of cost and infrastructure that may make a switch impossible, even if there is a will to do so.

this sort of comes full circle now because in order to effect the type of mindset change that would be necessary to get the population to accept nuclear reactors in their backyard or a farm of 300 windmills along their coastline or mountain ridge view - you would have to create a sense of urgency, a fear of the consequences should they elect not to take those adjustments to their personal standard of living in the interest of the greater good.

it comes back to doomsday scenarios, melting icecaps, flooding island nations, dying crops, etc.

you cannot lead with a headline that says, "scientists predict that the average temp in new england will be approx 1 degree higher over the next 5 years so please support the giant nuclear reactor project and vote yes on the wind farm down by the beach"

you need to paint a picture that threatens the consequences of not approving those nukes and windmills. the headline needs to say "we will all die if this doesn't work"

which i think was what i was originally getting at with regard to the book State of Fear.

it is not so much a scientific journal, a fictionalized interpretation of the science data as much as it is a commentary on the social consciousness and the methods necessary to pull off a ground-breaking shift in the very underpinnings of modern society.

it is about gov't getting involved in personal freedoms and choices and the underpinnings of democracy in a very accelerated and dramatic way. how far could it go? perhaps gov't will tell the auto makers what to make and then tell you what to buy? they may mandate that you can only used gov't approved forms of fuel - you may have a woodlot and a woodstove but those have been banned. your old auto as been banned. perhaps your pets emit an unnecessary carbon footprint with no tangible benefits for society. perhaps electricity and lighting will no longer be at your discretion and option - the grid, if it still exists, may impose caps on how much energy your household can use and when. more likely each instance of energy use will be subject to some manufactured energy tax - presumably to use towards research, but we all know that type of thing never happens.

think about it. :)

i realize this has fallen way way off topic at this point.

and i appreciate the discussion.

i realize nuclear is a source of energy, but there's the nasty side effects of disposal and whatnot. isn't that just a tradeoff for reduced carbon?


Of course there is a trade off; TANSTAAFL. That being said, the specific problems of nuclear waste are often overstated in part because of how the U.S. deals with the problem. Much of the nuclear "waste" actually could be reprocessed and used over again (a large part of the waste is still U235, another part is plutonium, etc.). The main reason we do not is fear of nuclear proliferation.

Further, there are alternate types of Nuclear Energy that produce less waste. For example, Thorium can be used to generate Uranium 233 which can then be fissioned and produce waste which much shorter half lifes than U235 fission.


bio. i don't know that it is the answer the media makes it out to be. in some studies it costs more energy to produce it than it delivers. and of course, it is already deeply entrenched in politics and pork funding.


Some types of bio-fuel are not efficient. Certainly not corn based ethanol, but Brazil has used sugar cane based ethanol to make up a large portion of its energy needs for more than a decade now. Further, there are more than a few microbes that seem to naturally be able to produce bio-diesel from non-food stocks.


wind and solar. wind has been difficullt. i think it works in niche applications, but i cannot forsee it being viable on a large scale. likewise with solar. tech seems to have barely advanced from when i was a child (many decades ago) - i don't forsee us all driving billions of solar-powered cars living in solar-powered house. it is rather crude and inefficient for large-scale use it seems. or perhaps it is just being deliberately held back by politically-minded people.


direct solar powered cars probably will not be practical, but photo-voltaics are getting better all the time. Combined with batteries, I can see solar making up a significant portion of our electrical needs within a decade or two if people are willing to invest in it. Also, this could be a lot easier if we actually unplug our appliances when we don't use them (because of remote controls lots of devices draw considerable power even when they are not actually "on".


since the vast amount of the world's energy consumption seems to me to be fossil-related - either oil or gas or NG or coal, i have a hard time seeing any super heavyweights coming into the ring to challenge any of them. nevermind the complications of cost and infrastructure that may make a switch impossible, even if there is a will to do so.


Actually, in quite a few European countries, Nuclear energy makes up large percentages of the electricity produced; as of 2006, France, Lithuania, Ukraine and Sweden all get more than half of their electricity from Nuclear Power (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4713398.stm).


this sort of comes full circle now because in order to effect the type of mindset change that would be necessary to get the population to accept nuclear reactors in their backyard or a farm of 300 windmills along their coastline or mountain ridge view - you would have to create a sense of urgency, a fear of the consequences should they elect not to take those adjustments to their personal standard of living in the interest of the greater good.



Frankly, I think the energy crisis of this year, plus the thousands of people who die every year from pollution emitted would be incentive enough. Nuclear power has killed a lot fewer people than coal did (And that might be true even if you include the nuclear bombings of Japan in WWII... though I am not sure about that).


it comes back to doomsday scenarios, melting icecaps, flooding island nations, dying crops, etc.

you cannot lead with a headline that says, "scientists predict that the average temp in new england will be approx 1 degree higher over the next 5 years so please support the giant nuclear reactor project and vote yes on the wind farm down by the beach"

you need to paint a picture that threatens the consequences of not approving those nukes and windmills. the headline needs to say "we will all die if this doesn't work"

which i think was what i was originally getting at with regard to the book State of Fear.



You know, just because a doomsday prediction is made, it doesn't mean that the person making it has any ulterior motives. Isolationists used the same argument to keep the USA out of WWII for two years because they were sure that the claims about the Nazis were simply propaganda so that the "merchants of death" could make a fortune off weapons manufacturing.


it is not so much a scientific journal, a fictionalized interpretation of the science data as much as it is a commentary on the social consciousness and the methods necessary to pull off a ground-breaking shift in the very underpinnings of modern society.

it is about gov't getting involved in personal freedoms and choices and the underpinnings of democracy in a very accelerated and dramatic way. how far could it go? perhaps gov't will tell the auto makers what to make and then tell you what to buy? they may mandate that you can only used gov't approved forms of fuel - you may have a woodlot and a woodstove but those have been banned. your old auto as been banned. perhaps your pets emit an unnecessary carbon footprint with no tangible benefits for society. perhaps electricity and lighting will no longer be at your discretion and option - the grid, if it still exists, may impose caps on how much energy your household can use and when. more likely each instance of energy use will be subject to some manufactured energy tax - presumably to use towards research, but we all know that type of thing never happens.

think about it. :)

Sigh... conspiracies like this always make my head hurt. The logic behind them just requires too much co-ordination amongst the people wishing to see the changes made.

--
Bill

i sorta like conspiracy theories. it helps keep things interesting.

i sorta like conspiracy theories. it helps keep things interesting.

I like my conspiracy theories in my books not the real world thank you. Just saying.

I like my conspiracy theories in my books not the real world thank you. Just saying.

Which is apropos, because State of Fear was a cracking good read. Not high literature, and not science, but a lot of fun to read. Anyone who didn't smile at the fate of the Martin Sheen surrogate has a heart of stone.

Michael Crichton could make anything interesting. Aircraft malfunctions, sexual harrassment as career tactic, improbable genetic engineering - all very fun stories, in his hands. RIP.

i realize nuclear is a source of energy, but there's the nasty side effects of disposal and whatnot. isn't that just a tradeoff for reduced carbon?

Not just "reduced carbon", but "zero carbon". Nuclear power generation is currently the only viable "base load" power generation technology that does not produce nasty greenhouse gases. You can't use such things as wind and solar power, because it's not always sunny or windy. Wave power is more reliable, but can only be used in a relatively few locations, as can such things as hydroelectric or geothermal generation too. Nuclear plants can be built anywhere close to a source of water for cooling.

I worked in the UK's nuclear power industry for many years, and I can tell you that waste disposal is a much over-rated "problem". The UK has been successfully reprocessing nuclear fuel for 50-odd years.

since the vast amount of the world's energy consumption seems to me to be fossil-related - either oil or gas or NG or coal, i have a hard time seeing any super heavyweights coming into the ring to challenge any of them. nevermind the complications of cost and infrastructure that may make a switch impossible, even if there is a will to do so.

That's a matter of political will. France, for example, currently generates around 80% of its electricity from nuclear power stations; the UK around 30% (and we're about to start building a new generation of nuclear stations).

The role that government has to play is to educate the public that nuclear power stations are not the "bogey man" that many think they are, and that they can't "blow up" like atomic bombs.

Not just "reduced carbon", but "zero carbon". Nuclear power generation is currently the only viable "base load" power generation technology that does not produce nasty greenhouse gases. You can't use such things as wind and solar power, because it's not always sunny or windy. Wave power is more reliable, but can only be used in a relatively few locations, as can such things as hydroelectric or geothermal generation too. Nuclear plants can be built anywhere close to a source of water for cooling.


I would point out that the wind and cloud arguments are not as big a problem for wind and solar power as many might think. The basic reason is that as you scale up your power generation over thousands of locations, you can start accurately predicting what percentage will be able to generate power at any given time.

That being said, Nuclear has some great advantages, the most important being its much smaller actual foot print. I was reading yesterday about a new generation reactor that was about 5 feet across and under 10 feet high and which could power 10-20,000 homes for 10 years before it would need refueling.


I worked in the UK's nuclear power industry for many years, and I can tell you that waste disposal is a much over-rated "problem". The UK has been successfully reprocessing nuclear fuel for 50-odd years.



Yeah, nuclear waste is a much smaller problem once reprocessing fuel is routine.


That's a matter of political will. France, for example, currently generates around 80% of its electricity from nuclear power stations; the UK around 30% (and we're about to start building a new generation of nuclear stations).

The role that government has to play is to educate the public that nuclear power stations are not the "bogey man" that many think they are, and that they can't "blow up" like atomic bombs.

And actually more importantly, the newest generation of nuclear power stations can be made far more safely than the ones constructed in the 60s and 70s.

--
Bill