Before all the superannuated socialists who largely populate this list get your knickers in a twist, you should perhaps read Mr. Crichton's book. I have read all of Michael Crichton's books including this one. It's really not up to his normal standard in terms of being a novel. It's kind of second rate fiction, but the appendix and the overall theme are worth the read.
Its point, however, is not the validity of the hypothesis of human induced global climate change, but that the many arguments against that idea are largely ignored. The most important issue dealt with in the book is the politicization of science, ie., consensus science. In my opinion, this sickness has mostly taken over science as a whole, and especially in government-run scientific agencies. These people have completely forgotten that science is supposed to be a search for the truth, not that the truth should be twisted for political reasons. The CDC, for example, was caught red-handed lying about the spread of AIDS/HIV in the general (non-homosexual, non-drug addict) population. In a public non-apology from the head of that agency, he said they "did it in a good cause." The far less publicized data-fudging and "curve fitting" done by NOAA is so pervasive that you simply don't know what to believe from them any more. Changes in solar irradiance should be "normalized" because, and I quote, "...the public might be led to believe that global warming is not caused by human activity." This kind of behavior is inexcusable among scientists. I mean, why are we paying these guys? They are not scientists; they are politicians. Jed wrote: > The experts who say the change in CO2 may have a > drastic effect on the atmosphere have good reasons to > think so. Exhibit 1 is the fact that CO2 has risen during > ice ages. Even if these experts are wrong, the fact that > the amounts are relatively small compared to the other > components of the atmosphere is completely irrelevant. > Crichton should be ashamed of himself are making a > mockery of science, and for poisoning the well of public > opinion with this kind of mischievous garbage. He is as > bad as the anti-cold-fusion fanatics. Among actual climates scientists, there is no agreement at all about either CO2 or human activity causing global warming. The "experts" you are talking about have no hard data to back up their argument whatever. Correlation does not equal causation. In other words, you could just as easily argue that global warming has caused an increase in CO2 and not the reverse. In fact, that argument makes a lot more sense. It is not Michael Crichton who makes a mockery of science. It is these herd-mentality consensus "scientists". Now calm down and read this part very carefully, Jed and Ed. It is the very "scientists" who wish to establish scientific principles based on consensus who have suppressed cold fusion. If not actually the same individuals, it is those with the same herd instinct. They attack those who dare question the idea that human activity causes global warming with the same vehemence as they attack anyone who dares suggest that cold fusion is real. I know this is a bitter pill to swallow, but if you think about it, the anti-cold-fusion-fanatics and the CO2-causes-global-warming-fanatics are really the same people. What do you want to bet that Robert Park and his pals at the APS are big global warming fans? Yes, I know I won't have convinced anyone here, but then again, I'm not finished. M. _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
