<< EVERYMAN AL ~ MAIN ~ MOTOON TUESDAY ANNOUNCED >>
GEORGE W. BUSH - DISSENTER!
Not only a dissenter, but also a reader:
In his new book about Mr. Bush, “Rebel in Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush,” Fred Barnes recalls a visit to the White House last year by Michael Crichton, whose 2004 best-selling novel, “State of Fear,” suggests that global warming is an unproven theory and an overstated threat.
Mr. Barnes, who describes Mr. Bush as “a dissenter on the theory of global warming,” writes that the president “avidly read” the novel and met the author after Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, arranged it. He says Mr. Bush and his guest “talked for an hour and were in near-total agreement.”
“The visit was not made public for fear of outraging environmentalists all the more,” he adds.
Well, you’ve got to be careful these days with religious fanatics. No telling how they might react.
UPDATE. Now evil Bush is tearing relationships apart!
Bush the chimp can read!
Another lefty myth shattered.Posted by perfectsense on 2006 02 19 at 05:30 AM • permalinkOT, but anyone seen Wronwright recently? ALL the Mesopotamian Mead is gone, and everyone looks shifty when I ask where the time machine is. Then they start talking about the weather.
Worse, we just got a bill for a flourescent spandex body-suit for him. The concept is bad enough, but the amount of material in it is disturbing for many different reasons.
I’ve got a bad feeling about this….
MarkL
CanberraDo not be alarmed Lefties and Liberals! Gorge. W. Poofenhauser Rottencrotch the II has not progressed in his reading beyond the ‘My Pet Goat’ literacy level.
The idea that he could read or indeed comprehend books intended for ‘normal’ people is incomprehensible so just forget about it!!(ROFL-LMAO-LOL-PBUH-BRB-WHAT ARE YOU WEARING?).Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 02 19 at 06:12 AM • permalinkIncidentally, you shouldn’t let your Asiacentric view of the world taint a rational look at Crichton’s opinions. That wouldn’t be becoming for a published author.
Asiacentrism, or academic specialism in my case, has nothing to do with a “rational” look at Crichton’s opinions. He was just objectively totally wrong on Japan. He did nothing other than express poorly thought-through populist conservative opinion of that moment in the early 1990s and dress it up as a novel.
Really? Are you dismissive of his views because he slandered Japan’s economic impact on America? Or because his field of expertise is as a professional novelist and screenwriter and not a climatologist?
Flannery’s field is in Vertebrate Paleontology, but he is swooned over by all and sundry whenever he produces an article on the Earth’s imminent demise due to human causative factors.
Like I said, Flannery has nothing to do with this.
As for Crichton, Rising Sun is written to make a point about Japan as a serious threat to US global economic and political power, through a concerted state-controled campaign (what was called “Japan Inc.”), and as time has shown, that was simply wrong.
CB (aka Habib, I suspect, from your Alan Ramsey poem),
I’m impressed. How did you figure who mhar4 was?
Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2006 02 19 at 06:55 AM • permalinkNo worries CB . . . I just worked it out.
Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2006 02 19 at 06:56 AM • permalinkMichael Crichton wrote Jurassic Park, and the world will be forever indebted to him.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 02 19 at 07:12 AM • permalinkI bought “State of Fear” for my brother after he came back from Europe extolling the wonders of socialism (and who wouldn’t if you didn’t ever earn any money?), the evils of Amerikkka (he’d obviously just watched a Mike Moore ‘doco’) and Danish wind farms.
It’ll be PJ O’Rourke next.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 02 19 at 07:36 AM • permalinkI’ve read most of Cricton’s books, although I not ‘State of Fear’. I wouldn’t be calling him in as a climate expert as a senate committee did recently. Some of his books such as ‘Prey’ has some shonky science.
Scientific America continually criticises his ‘science’ in ‘State of Fear’ though that didn’t stop Crichton from recently receiving a journalism accolade for it.
Dr Mark Harrison is Research Fellow in Chinese Studies at the Centre for the
Study of Democracy....isn’t that an oxyMORON?
(he has) a Master Degree in Social Theory from Monash University in Melbourne
...yeah, that’s handy
He is the author of a forthcoming book, Legitimacy, Meaning and Knowledge in the Making of Taiwanese Identity
...can’t wait for that one
In 2005, he has presented on subjects as diverse as China-Taiwan relations, the epistemology and methodology of the study of Taiwan, and media representations of China in Britain.
....they were sell-outs
His current research project is entitled ‘Visions of the Future in the Chinese-speaking World’, and examines the imagining of China’s future by Chinese and also non-Chinese people.
...sounds like imagining Nobel Prize time.
And we thought we had eliminated all the telephone sanitisers!
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 02 19 at 07:54 AM • permalinkIt is not that climatology is some pure, academic field any more - it has been tainted by big money. There is quite a lot in this field - even some of the theories themselves - that would be ammenable to analysis by a novelist, as Chrichton has done.
Did Chrichton himself believe that Japan was going to take over the world, or, as a novelist, was he just using a common perception of the time to build a story?
>Oh no Mark L you don’t mean..oh please not ..
er MHar-How silly,Japan attempt to take over Amerikka or South East Asia…why that would never ever happen-oh wait…Are you saying that Chrichton was right about the Japan of the early 1990s.
>Did Chrichton himself believe that Japan was going to take over the world, or, as a novelist, was he just using a common perception of the time to build a story?
I have nothing against Chrichton writing a novel, although Rising Sun is a terrible novel, but we shouldn’t take him seriously.
Dr Mark Harrison is Research Fellow in Chinese Studies at the Centre for the
Study of Democracy ....isn’t that an oxyMORON?Do you think democracy in China doesn’t matter?
(he has) a Master Degree in Social Theory from Monash University in Melbourne ...yeah, that’s handy
Handy for me.
He is the author of a forthcoming book, Legitimacy, Meaning and Knowledge in the Making of Taiwanese Identity ...can’t wait for that one
Do you think the future of Taiwan and China-Taiwan relations aren’t important?
The rest of your comments don’t make any sense.
No, my first comment (#26) was that a novelist could, quite reasonably, have quite a lot to say about the politized science of Climatology.
You’re absolutely right, and my apologies for being needlessly dismissive.
Like all of Crichton’s work, he has a knack for writing about things on the public mind. But there is a difference between writing novels about the issues of the day, and those novels being taken as serious interventions in a scientific or foreign policy issue.
From Mr Crichton’s bio:
CRICHTON, (John) Michael. American. Born in Chicago, Illinois, October 23, 1942. Educated at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa). Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65. Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. Graduated Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969; post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, La Jolla, California 1969-1970. Visiting Writer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988.
Unlike some of the people here, I’ve read ‘state of fear’ and he makes some valid criticisms of the church of global warming.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 02 19 at 08:42 AM • permalink#21 Just playin’ with ya!
I have actually read ‘State of Fear’, and I found it interesting and different from Chrichton’s earlier novels, in that he has built his novel around *actual* scientific literature in the text, rather than the made up references he usually creates (eg Jurassic Park). Also, while I myself am not a climatologist, I work daily with those that are. My role is to develop and apply a sensible policy response.
So while he is a novelist, and I thus automatically discount him to some extent, it would be a bit too far to say he has no credibility. He is scentifically trained and thus can build his case. So, incidently can Tim Flannery mentioned earlier. Neither are trained specifically in climatology.
Based on my understanding, which is limited , I grant you, but most likely better than anyone else on this thread, he is more right than wrong, while being both right and wrong. Clear;-?
mhar4, have you read the book or anything he’s written on global warming, science generally or scientific research?
We all get the point that you didn’t like ‘Rising Sun’.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 02 19 at 09:03 AM • permalink#39
That all sounds fair enough, but Rising Sun has a bibliography, too, of some quite serious works, so Crichton seems to be wanting to make credible interventions in the issues he writes about. Now, if Rising Sun or Prey are any guides, he shouldn’t be taken seriously, but just enjoyed as a clever novellist. And yet, at the most senior levels, it seems he is.
I’ve not cared much for Crichton’s books; they seem shallow and formulaic to me. Such is my taste. Crichton himself obviously is a bright guy, and if I were to sit down and talk with him, I’m sure he’d have interesting things to say on global warming. But if you’re looking for solid data on a topic, you’re not going to find them in Crichton’s novels.
If Al Gore (say) had let it be known that he had spent an hour with Michael Crichton discussing the dangers of cloning, based on his reading of Jurassic Park, I think that most of us here, including myself, would mock him mercilessly - and with good reason. I’m sure - I hope - that Dubya’s reading on this topic has gone well beyond Climate of Fear.
Posted by Urbs in Horto on 2006 02 19 at 09:11 AM • permalinkHow do you know, mhar4, that he is taken anymore seriously ‘at most senior levels’ (by which I assume you are alluding to McChimpy Hallibrton Bushilter) than any other intellectual novelist? its not like he is some loser like Chomsky - Maybe ol’ George wanted to meet someone he would enjoy a beer with.
The point of Tm’s post was pointing out the offense caused to those belonging to the group that Art referred to rather colourfully as “the church of global warming.” That’s the fun bit.Entropy, by my standards, I was being polite rather than colourful!
In my extensive experience in dealing with environmental bureaucrats and lobbyists, most environmental problems are ones of perception rather than fact, which makes Tim’s use of the term ‘religious fanatics’ rather apt.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 02 19 at 09:26 AM • permalinkmhar4, you didn’t answer my question in #40.
Could it be that you haven’t read a thing Crichton has written on this topic yet you’ve hijacked the entire thread?
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 02 19 at 09:29 AM • permalink#46, except that while some people have trouble believing that GWB has a chimp’s brain, the proportion of the population that actually believes Al Gore has any intelligent to say on almost any issue is so small it makes me believe that if Chrichton was seen in public with Gore it would be Chrichton’s credibility on the line.
The annoying thing is, if I am permitted to be briefly serious, is that those that belong to the Church of Global Warming are usually so over the top that it is difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff, if you excuse a biblical reference.
Combined with utterly impractical ‘solutions’ which would end up doing more harm than an increase in temprature will, it makes rational solutions (eg adaptation strategies) very difficult to implement.
mhar4, you give Michael Crichton too much credit. From reading the article, it seems to me that President Bush merely met with Mr. Crichton to discuss his book and the topic of global warming, about which they have similar views. Nowhere does it say that the president is basing his policies on Mr. Crichton’s opinions or his book. I’ve no doubt that President Bush arrived at his views via other sources, long before he met Mr. Crichton. Some of those sources may even be better informed than you. Just saying.
As for Crichton’s “Rising Sun”. He wrote a novel based on what was known and speculated about at the time, not what is known now with the benefit of hindsight.
Both of your premises (Crichton’s guiding environmental policy; Crichton was wrong about Japan), alas, are typical of global warming enthusiasts’ too-quick conclusion-jumping without thinking things through.
you give Michael Crichton too much credit.
So you agree with me that he has no credibility on any serious issue?
As for Crichton’s “Rising Sun”. He wrote a novel based on what was known and speculated about at the time, not what is known now with the benefit of hindsight.
No, this is wrong. He wrote a novel driven by prejudice and paranoia and a demonstrably foolish view of his subject, in this instance, Japan. That’s my point.
Crichton’s guiding environmental policy
Where did I say this?
Both of your premises alas are typical of global warming enthusiasts’ too-quick conclusion-jumping without thinking things through.
What? That doesn’t make any sense at all.
It was Crichton who jumped too quickly to a conclusion about Japan without thinking things through.
But I don’t want to hijack this thread any further.
mhar4, Michael Crichton by and large writes fiction. He tries to root it in the real world, to make it believeable, but even he disclaims that his books are real. I’m not a huge fan of his, but I’ve read his books, and I try to keep my believer in OFF. It’s called “entertainment”; some people read books for fun, y’know. Try it sometime.
But that doesn’t mean other messages can’t be tacked onto the plot. This is a common tactic of many writers with an agenda, left or right. I recall one book of his (forget the title) that slammed an entrepeneur for attempting to monopolize history and archeology through the invention of a time machine. Clearly science fiction, with an anti-corporation subtheme.
Methinks that you simply don’t like his opinions on Japan, you being an Asian studies scholar and all. Perhaps you are an “Asianphile”, perhaps you are objective. That’s immaterial. You are arguing that one past book (singular, not plural) undermine his credibility. Fair enough. But that doesn’t make him wrong; it just means that you disagree with Crichton.
Further, you are clearly biased against Crichton, it’s coloring your perspective, and that makes your argument suspect. It doesn’t undermine your credibility, but I take your comments with a very large grain of salt indeed.
I won’t go so far as to call you obsessed, but I find it interesting that you jumped into this thread with such vehemence and vigor.
Crichton offers an opinion on a controversial subject—global warming. It’s one of the few offered that isn’t pseudo-religious in nature. It is reasoned, and not emotive, nor an attempt to gain future science grants. The last item alone makes me feel he is more objective than most subject matter experts. Largely, Crichton questions the rationale behind global warming concerns, and the poor science supporting it.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 19 at 12:52 PM • permalinkOh so what. Crichton met Chimpy. They conferred. They agreed. They laughed and had a good time. So?
Whether it’s Crichton or Iowahawk
(wiggle fingers in wriggly motion)
or Lilek or Steyn or any other famous writer, they’re only trying to horn in ahead of me in the queue to full ascension in the Evil Death Cult Known as Neoconservatism. And based on what? Words? Ha!
It won’t work. I have words too. Good words, like “plenipotenary” and “obsequious” and many more I haven’t a clue what they mean but I’m more than ready to sprinkle them in a composition.
Besides, actions speak louder that words my wordy fellow travellers. And my actions say you stay in your minion level place while your betters wait their turn for ascension into full membership in our cult.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 02 19 at 12:55 PM • permalinkSo you agree with me that he has no credibility on any serious issue?
What’s your credibility in assessing what credibility Crichton might possess on a given issue? You do seem to be oddly obsessed with Rising Sun and its alleged implication that Crichton can’t possibly have anything worthwhile to say on any other issue.
Tim Flannery has nothing to do with whether Crichton can be taken seriously on his own merits.
Funny, you don’t seem capable of judging particular works of Crichton on their own merits either without comparing them to other works of his.
I recall one book of his (forget the title) that slammed an entrepeneur for attempting to monopolize history and archeology through the invention of a time machine.
I have that one on my shelves somewhere (as I do most pre-2000 books of his…ahh, youthful fanboyism)...not one of my favorites, to be honest, and I’m not sure I ever finished it. Andromeda Strain, The Great Train Robbery (his most enjoyable work, IMNSHO), and Congo are much better. The latter also inverts the book-movie relationship of Rising Sun…in Congo’s case, the book is the much better version. (Gawd, that movie is terrible.) As for Rising Sun, I’d even agree that the book’s a bit too preachy, fortunately the movie didn’t go down that road for the most part. And it stars Sean Connery (as does The Great Train Robbery, incidentally), which automatically makes it at least decent. :)
At any rate, as you’re saying it’s entertainment, albeit entertainment often steeped in the real world. Though, I’m not surprised to see one of our academic betters in mhar fretting that Crichton’s readers will be too stupid to tell the difference between a work of fiction and a policy paper.
I’ll have to read State of Fear one of these days.
Bush met with Crichton—Crichton’s a best-selling author, screenwriter, etc. How many kids did Jurassic Park inspire to study dinosaurs? I’d say—like him or lump him—Crichton’s contribution to the world has been a net positive.
In contrast, there was Michael Moore sitting in the Presidential booth at the Democrat convention. His “documentaries” are 80% fiction, going so far as to cut phrases from speeches made months apart in order to put words into his targets’ mouths. He travels overseas and plays to the anti-American stereotypes held there. His net contribution to the world has been suspicion, anger, lies, and hatred.
Overall, I’d say Bush came out ahead.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 02 19 at 01:57 PM • permalinkThanks, PW! Timeline is the book; I read it last year, on one of my flights between Kuwait and the USA. I finished it; agreed, not one of his better books.
Though, I’m not surprised to see one of our academic betters in mhar fretting that Crichton’s readers will be too stupid to tell the difference between a work of fiction and a policy paper.
Ah, yes, I missed that. Good point. I worked from the other direction, assuming that mhar4 didn’t realize that Crichton is a fiction writer with strong opinions, not an action officer writing policy letters for President Bush.
But I think you nailed it; once again, some lofty intellectual is condescending to us mere mortals.
Feh!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 19 at 02:47 PM • permalinkBut I think you nailed it; once again, some lofty intellectual is condescending to us mere mortals.
Oh, come on. Give it a rest.
Michael Crichton by and large writes fiction….
It is reasoned, and not emotive, nor an attempt to gain future science grants. The last item alone makes me feel he is more objective than most subject matter experts.
Which is it? If it’s the first, then we are in agreement.
Speaking to our pedantic friend, the issue of credibility lies not with Chichton’s novel, something he has never tried to pass off as anthing more, but with the research that he alludes to in the copious footnotes in the book. And considering the beating the “hockey stick” graph has been taking recently, I’d say he might be on to something.
The novel is a starting point for someone considering “climate change” for the first time, not the last word.
Should the people that predicted another Ice age have ANY credibility?
I don’t even know what this means. Which people are we talking about?
Speaking to our pedantic friend, the issue of credibility lies not with Chichton’s novel…but with the research that he alludes to in the copious footnotes in the book
So it’s just a novel, but it’s also credible as a serious scientific work? That doesn’t make sense.
The novel is a starting point for someone considering “climate change” for the first time, not the last word.
Like Rising Sun for someone interested in Japan or Prey for someone interested in nanotechnology?
George W Bush met with Bono to discuss third world debt. And yet, Bono’s credentials are very much in doubt. For a start, he knows nothing about economics. More troubling, if you go back to U2’s album “Rattle and Hum”, you will find that Bono claimed, incorrectly , to have “stolen” a song back from Charles Manson. He also claims that “I have held the hand of a devil; it was warm in the night”, so he is clearly delusional and has no credibility at all. Besides, Bono isn’t an academic, he’s just a musician. The president should not be talking to him, right mhar4?
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 02 19 at 04:38 PM • permalinkWell, Bono is not really what we’re discussing here, but if GWB was developing US policy toward Africa on the basis of Bono’s views, I’d be equally skeptical. Actually, I’d be even more skeptical if it was Bob Geldof, who managed to organize a global music event, Live 8, about Africa which didn’t actually have any Africans in it.
But, of course, GWB is not “avidly” listening to Bono or Geldof, so it’s a non-issue.
Should the people that predicted another Ice age have ANY credibility?
I don’t even know what this means. Which people are we talking about?
In case you’re not just playing obtuse, Rob is referring to those climate “scientists” who are old enough to have enthusiastically participated in both the 1970s/80s “the ice age commeth!” and the current “the warming commeth” scares, especially those who never acknowledged having been so spectacularly wrong before.
And unlike Crichton, they are actually opining on the same subject in both cases, which should affect your assessment of their credibility even more than Crichton’s. Unless you’re just holding an irrational grudge against Crichton, as has been asserted above, of course.
mhar4 said:
Michael Crichton by and large writes fiction….
It is reasoned, and not emotive, nor an attempt to gain future science grants. The last item alone makes me feel he is more objective than most subject matter experts.
Which is it? If it’s the first, then we are in agreement.
I saw you palming that card. You ignored the transition from my description of Crichton’s profession to my opinion on his stand concerning global warming.
Snip, snip, snip, went you, jumping over my intermediate points! This is known as “Dowdifying”, and refers to NYT columnist Maureen Dowd and her tendency to extract quotes out of context by cherry picking words and phrases to suit her own opinions.
And, no, it’s not a positive thing. You are being very obtuse, mhar4. Such a sad thing to see in a learned academic such as yourself.
And if you aren’t being obstuse, PW was wrong, and I’m right. You can’t tell the difference between a work of fiction based on reality and a policy paper.
As for:
But I think you nailed it; once again, some lofty intellectual is condescending to us mere mortals.
Oh, come on. Give it a rest.
I’ll give it a rest when you I see less pedantic and obtuse comments from you. Prove me wrong.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 19 at 04:55 PM • permalinkAs an example, take Paul Ehrlich. He’s not specifically in the climate camp (rather in the generalized “we’re doomed, doomed!” camp, of which the climate change scaredycats are a subgroup), but his confident predictions that we were going to run out of basically every major resource by 15 years ago (utterly wrong, obviously) didn’t hurt his scientific credibility terribly much, at least not in the doom-monger community, where he’s still held up as an icon.
Bono is not really what we’re discussing here
it’s called parody.
GWB is not “avidly” listening to Bono
correction: he wasn’t ‘avidly’ listening to Crichton either, he just ‘avidly’ read the novel. As he would, if he enjoyed it.
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 02 19 at 05:03 PM • permalinkmhar4, the President of the United States regularly sees any number of people, celebrities, scientists, and so on. Note that I said “President of the United States”, and not “George W. Bush”. This has been happening President George Washington.
It’s considered an honor to receive such an invite, but that doesn’t mean the invitee gets to dictate policy. True, there’s usually an ulterior motive, but as President Bush has rational views on global warming, it only makes sense in that he wanted to meet with a prominent like minded person.
And one of those “ulterior motives” might simply be that President Bush gets to meet a favorite author of his. Can’t say as I blame him. I recall major rock bands being invited to perform at the White House…..a command performance of your favorite musicians without fighting the crowds in a concert. Cool!
As evidence, note that the “...visit was not made public for fear of outraging environmentalists all the more…”.
And Bono’s visit merely adds to the argument, since it was publicized….and I’ve heard nothing that says President Bush took that dude seriously.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 19 at 05:22 PM • permalink#28 mhar4 said:
Oh, wow, what’s with this personal and professional abuse?Maybe Stop Continental Drift! you could share your professional actiivities with us?
(yawn, stretches) ..sorry, just woke up.
Hmmm… personal & professional abuse? I’d call it being facetious but academics usually do take themselves way too seriously. Get a life, man.
Me? Would it surprise you that I’m in geoscience? I’m trying to work out how to process more uranium, faster. Nuclear power a must to combat greenhouse gasses, don’t you know.
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 02 19 at 05:50 PM • permalinkyou give Michael Crichton too much credit.
So you agree with me that he has no credibility on any serious issue?
This is a dodge, mhar4, typical of what you’ve been doing in your other posts. You know very well what I meant by my statement, that is that you gave Crichton too much credit for having influence with President Bush. The President has access to advisors from every scientific, political, economic, etc. field when he wants to make a policy decision. Why on earth would he base his environmental policies on one visit with a novelist, even one with a science background? To make this assertion makes you look foolish.
I have to agree with others here that you don’t see how foolish it makes you seem, because you believe in your own moral and social superiority, and you feel the need to lecture us in our shortcomings. And that just makes you a silly snob.
PW 56
And it stars Sean Connery (as does The Great Train Robbery, incidentally), which automatically makes it at least decent. :)
Oh if only that were true! Then League of Extraordinary Gentlemen wouldn’t have stunk up the joint so very badly.
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 02 19 at 06:34 PM • permalinkThere’s a first time for everything, isn’t there?
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 02 19 at 07:04 PM • permalink# 74: I am just engaging in an occasionally interesting debate about Michael Crichton.
...and also some facetious (love that word) retorts…
#76: Ah, yes, an intelligent comment!
See, mhar4, you fit in here quite nicely! But what would your friends say? Tsk Tsk.
Anyway, back to my beryllium blocks…
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 02 19 at 07:51 PM • permalinkRebeccaH: you gave Crichton too much credit for having influence with President Bush.
mhar4: Where did I say this?
When you said this, mha4:
Since Tim’s original post was about Crichton meeting with Bush, it’s not a long reach from your astonishment to conclude that you think Crichton is advising Bush in some fashion. Which no one here has claimed to be the case.
It’s not that I think you’re wrong about Crichton, but your debating tactics indicate that you know you are on shaky ground, given some of your other comments. The fact that you are already doging questions and conclusions tells me that you are not willing to backtrack on your logic. But, hey, go ahead with your equivocation, tangetal comments, and obtuseness. Watching another academic shoot himself in the foot is alway educational.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 19 at 09:12 PM • permalink‘Timeline’ is a classic example where Cricton, IMHO, has brushed over scientific principles just so he has a plot device to play with - he was torn between being scientific and somewhat believable and having an actual story.
I wonder if Crichton discussed his pro-choice (A Case in Need) beliefs with Bush?
This:
Yep, he’s a smart and widely-travelled medical doctor,
Plus this:
So you agree with me that he has no credibility on any serious issue?
Equals “troll” in my book. Is there any reason at all that we should take anything mhar4 has to say on this subject seriously? Being an “expert” on Communist Chinese democracy gives him credibility on climatology, how?
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 02 19 at 09:38 PM • permalinkEngelbert,
The lads at realclimate.org say that the references he used in ‘State of Fear’ were slightly dubious.
Any research that disagrees with the Holy Writ of the Church of Man-Made Global Warming is automatically dubious.
:^/
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 02 19 at 09:57 PM • permalinkre: Stopping Continental Drift.
For several years now I’ve been working on an idea involving 3 vanadium steel bolts about 25,010 miles long by 2 miles in diameter with a half-dozen appropriately sized lock washers and nuts. I figure you space them equidistantly, crank those nuts down real hard on those lock washers and, VOILA!! No more drift.
Got a couple of bugs to work out, but I think it’ll work.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2006 02 20 at 12:29 AM • permalink#83: This is true, Spiny Norman. However, realclimate.org is the mob that Scientific American always refers to on its blog. I’d tend to largely agree with what SA says, but then again they did pull some nasty moves on Bjørn Lomborg a couple of years ago after he wrote the Skeptical Environmentalist.
I found it quite absurd, and so did Lomborg, when he was denounced for excluding certain climatology studies from his analyses: the very ones he was in the act of refuting!
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 02 20 at 04:00 AM • permalinkMe: Speaking to our pedantic friend, the issue of credibility lies not with Chichton’s novel…but with the research that he alludes to in the copious footnotes in the book
mhar4: So it’s just a novel, but it’s also credible as a serious scientific work? That doesn’t make sense.
I think we can safely assume he’s being deliberately obtuse.
You see Sparky, it is a NOVEL, but it has FOOTNOTES to serious scientific work that allow your to look up that actual information he uses and decide for yourself if it is true or not.
Well, I for one liked Timeline. As with Crichton’s other books, he includes a considerable amount of facts and theories as a springboard to his plot.
Of course, after reading the book, I just hopped into the Tardis (it’s parked in my den, my wife bitches about it, but I say it goes with the blue decor) and went back to 14th century France that way. But then when I walked out of the machine, I was chased by an evil French knight and his equally evil cohorts. Funny, although they had armor helmets on, what parts of their faces I could see looked uncannily like Richard McEnroe, Stoop Davy Dave, PW, and Michael Lonie. And I heard them say in a singularly un-French accent, “run little pussywillow, run like a chicken”. I would normally say it was my imagination, but they followed that with BAWAHHHHAAAAAAAA. And then weirdly, one of them brayed.
Bastards. All.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 02 20 at 10:08 AM • permalinkErm, actually, Japan did pretty much try to take over the world in the 80’s, making huge real estate and corporate purchases in many countries.
It got to the point where senior Japanese government figures, including their economic minister, were making quotes such as “Perhaps America should stick to exporting wheat and Marines and leave the management of the world’s economy to Japan.”
But many if not most of those ventures failed, as (1) the Japanese failed to properly understand the markets they were buying into (particularly real estate, as the Japanese model for real estate financing back then was, er, idiosyncratic, to say the least, and 2) The Japanese grossly overextended they actual available capital, as opposed to imagined valuations (see 1) and dropped themselves into an economic slump they’re only now coming out of.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 02 20 at 11:39 AM • permalinkwronwright — And if you come back we will taunt you again…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 02 20 at 11:40 AM • permalinkBetter watch out, richard, you speak blasphemy…...according to the Book of mhar4, at least.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 20 at 11:48 AM • permalinkHeh! I finally clicked on the update link:
Lance Armstrong vs. Sheryl Crow: George W. Bush to Blame?
Classic. A celebrity marriage is breaking up (who woulda thunk it?), and Dubya is being blamed by some.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 20 at 11:52 AM • permalinkBetter watch out, richard, you speak blasphemy…...according to the Book of mhar4, at least.
Huh? No, richard seems right on the money to me. Add to that structural problems in the Japanese domestic economy, economic growth that was in significant part property speculation, etc etc and the Japanese slump was eminently predictable, as many did. If only Michael Crichton had understood all this, then he wouldn’t have written Rising Sun.
Hmmmmmmm! You make a good point—I misunderstood your perspective. My apologies, mhar4.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 20 at 01:19 PM • permalinkMhar4, I’ve let you go on this long because you’ve been polite, but it’s now time to drop the off-topic rantings about Rising Sun. That is another book about another, unrelated matter. The subject of this post is 1) George Bush’s meeting with Michael Crichton, 2) Mr. Crichton’s novel “State of Fear” (not “Rising Sun”), and 3) subject of the novel—global warming. As well, there is the minor subtopic of Sheryl Crow and Lance Armstrong breaking up and the amusing notion that it’s all because Armstrong is a Bush supporter and Crow is not.
Note what is not the subject of this post: 1) the Japanese, 2) the effect of the Japanese economy on the US economy, and 3) Crichton’s novel, which was fiction, on the possible effects of the then-perceived-as-rapacious Japanese economy on the US. The fact that you are obsessed with the apparent insult the novel presented to the people you are so fond of is not really our problem here. Thread hijacking is. It can get you banned.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 02 20 at 01:27 PM • permalinkIf Michael Crichton came to my house in Melbourne and told me my cracking brickwork needed repair because the recent drought around these parts had dried up the clay on which the houses had been built, I’d probably believe him.
Would I ask him about the finer points of brick repointing or foundation re-stumping? Probably not, but if he offered to help me render the brick or bag it with stucco, or even give me a list (read bibliography) of some professionals who might be able to help, I’d pass him another stubby and say “On’ya mate, thanks. When’s then next book comin’ out?”
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 02 20 at 03:56 PM • permalinkAll good old GWB needs to know is a simple rhyme:
“Heat always flows to the cooler from the hotter. If it goes the other way, well it really hadn’t ought’er”—[Swann & Flanders]
Correct me (I know you will) if I’m wrong—but global warming leads to global cooling leads to…doesn’t it?
I mean, if the Greenland glaciers all melt, they will cool the gulf stream, which won’t make it back to the gulf to be warmed up, which will initiate a sort of mini ice age (of sorts) won’t it?
I reckon we have as much chance of stopping/starting this cycle as we have of putting a cork in Mount Pinatubo. I also reckon we could drive our fossil-mobiles for a hundred years and not emit as many GG’s as Pinatubo did in a week.
Again, no scientist here, just thinking in print…
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 02 20 at 04:18 PM • permalink93 Mr McEnroe
the Japanese model for real estate financing back then was, er, idiosyncratic, to say the least,
That’s probably unfixable, as long as their model for commercial banking remains, er, hopelessly fucked up, to say the least.
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 02 20 at 05:25 PM • permalink99 Cruella
Mhar4, I’ve let you go on this long because you’ve been polite, but it’s now time to drop the off-topic rantings about Rising Sun.
But but .... but two people just now started AGREEING with him! Gosh whillikers! What’s the big problem?
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 02 20 at 05:28 PM • permalinkCorrect me (I know you will) if I’m wrong—but global warming leads to global cooling leads to…doesn’t it?
MentalFloss, the way I understand it, the polar ice caps and oceans function as a thermal storage system; not necessarily a heat sink, but thermal—heat (liquid water) and cold (frozen water).
Think of it as a humongous heat pump, where something of a balance in temperatures is maintained through the convection of heat by ocean currents to the poles for cooling. The “air conditioning unit” is “recharged” in the winter when the ice caps are replenished.
What drives the system, though, is solar energy, with three main factors. First, solar energy is relatively constant, in a geological sense, although there’s evidence that the sun goes through peaks and valleys in energy output. But that sets an upper limit in the available energy.
Then there is the insulative effects of the atmosphere, i.e., greenhouse gases. This retains the heat.
And finally, there is reflected energy, where energy goes back into space from water, ice/snow, and clouds.
Reflection and insulation oppose each other; the rest is absorbed by the earth itself. The key point is how much solar energy is retained by the earth at the end of the day.
There’s a balance in the system when the ice caps keep up with the solar heating of the earth, but don’t increase. When there isn’t enough heating, the ice caps begin to dominate, and you have an Ice Age, with a drop in ocean levels (i.e., the water changes into snow and ice). When there is too much heat, the ice caps retreat, and ocean levels rise. And so on, in an endless cycle (something that Those Who Worship Mother Gaia™ tend to ignore).
What tips the balance either way is how much solar energy is retained by the earth at the end of the day. And the factors that affect the balance are what so hotly debated today.
So, yes, you are right about the cooling effects of the ocean. But the actual mechanism just isn’t that simple.
For example, I’ve completely ignored the effects of volcanic activity (this puts ash and CO2 into the atmosphere for simultaneous cooling and heating); natural greenhouse gas production (CO2 from plant life, methane from assorted natural sources); human activity (see any pro-Gaia website); and asteriod impacts (rare but devastating in their effects). Some of these influences are random, some are steady, others are in between.
So, this is a cycle. But it seems to me that we don’t know enough about the mechanism to do more than hazard guesses right now.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 20 at 07:52 PM • permalinkVery illuminating, The_Real_JeffS. Thanks. I will reflect further.
My comments were based on my college days when I studied the Black Death and the ensuing economic boom and rise of the middle class in Europe.
I recall a period from about 1350-1450 that was a “mini” ice age (in Europe at least) that had been preceded by a very warm century or so.
Again, thanks.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 02 20 at 09:21 PM • permalinkStoop Davy: I was getting bored.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 02 20 at 09:39 PM • permalinkMentalFloss—correct, there was a Little Ice Age, not to mention a Medevial Warm Period. That’s an excellent example of heating and cooling cycles, although the causes of those events are still unclear.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 20 at 09:52 PM • permalinkAlthough it’s possible wronwright took some other unauthorized trips in the Tardis. Again.
{Looks sternly at wronwright, crosses arms, taps toe}
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 20 at 09:55 PM • permalinkHmmm…yes. I see what you mean.
Following and reading those links you provided, The_Real_JeffS, I can see how global warming could qualify as a theological doctrine: much has been written by many and all are in agreement with nothing…
Why shouldn’t Mr. Crichton have an opinion as well? And what’s more, why should Mr. Bush need to conceal his interest in that opinion? It seems as valid as any, under the circumstances. Maybe I’ll buy the book.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 02 20 at 11:32 PM • permalinkJeez Andrea - short fuse!
Hope you won’t clean ‘em ALL out so we just have
ourselveswronwright to amuse.Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 02 21 at 04:31 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Lance, it seems as though you have stared cancer down….Now you have to concern yourself with STD...since you’ve told Crowe to fly off, do have yourself checked.