I had a speed reading course, and would normally read faster. But I wanted to read all the footnotes on the science.

It's great for library books, but when you are paying for the books, too high a reading speed is like premature ejaculation.

This is why I don't read that much anymore... I can buy a book, and spend 2-4 nights on it and I'm done, especially something that reads as quickly as MC's works.

Why is that a reason not to read? Visit a library or a used bookstore of something!

People reading this need to know it is fiction and not science, so it may be enjoyable, but it is not informative.

Gregory Benford and Martin Hoffert, who co-authored research that Crichton cites, wrote a letter explaining how he misrepresented their research and attributes statements to them that they never made - in addition to relying on 'bad' science.

Benford and Hoffert letter

Although the book is fiction, it's unreasonable to leap to the assumption that it is "not informative." Having read the book, I can say that the argumentation Crichton puts forth is sound and would hardly take an expert to prove. (Most of what he writes is common sense and doesn't rely on specialized knowledge.)

Basically, the point he's making is that the common perceptions about so-called global warming, as advanced by the popular media, are based on an "environmentalist" political agenda, not on scientific evidence or experimentation. By watching television or reading newspapers, we don’t really learn what scientists think; we learn what the media thinks.

Crichton’s premise (and thus the title of the book) is that there are powerful forces in society (government, business, media) that prey on the public's fear and ignorance in order to advance their own agendas. The fear over global warming is just one example of this.

That letter reads like an effort at ass covering and politicking. It's hardly convincing; and furthermore, I find it ironic that scientists would go to such pains to refute a novel. (This just in! Esteemed paleontologist says, "Jurassic Park couldn't really happen!") It sounds to me like he must be on to something to arouse such debate.

Benford and Hoffert emphasize their point that:
“In a recent speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco he [Crichton] even cited our paper from the peer-reviewed journal Science. Such attention can be heartwarming to scientists, but not this time – because Crichton gets the science wrong.”

What exactly did he get wrong?

“He writes that our paper ‘concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century.’ But we didn't say that. Instead, we outlined plenty of technologies that must be further developed to stop a probable several-degree rise in global temperatures. We called for a Manhattan Project-style effort to explore technologies we already have.”

Hmmm…let’s review that. Crichton is wrong because he paraphrased them as saying that there is no known technology to halt the rise in CO2. In reality, they said there are technologies, but they must be developed to accomplish this.

In other words, there are no current technologies that can do this, but there might be. Might be. If we have a massive project to explore them. So Crichton’s right: they don’t currently exist. How did he get it wrong? You can argue all day that something might do this or it might do that, but that’s hardly evidence that it can or will.

I would think that scientists would be a bit more rigorous in their reasoning than this. They’re quibbling like politicians, which is what it sounds like they really are. (And which just goes to prove the point Crichton is making.)

The book is an entertaining read, but that doesn't mean you can't learn something from it as well. If it gets people thinking, all the better.

As they point out in their letter there are those who ignore the science of global warming because it fits their politics.

" Incredibly, in a Jan. 4 speech, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, invoked "State of Fear" as an argument against the bipartisan McCain-Lieberman energy bill – which for all its failings acknowledges the reality of global warming. "Dr. Crichton," said Inhofe, "a medical doctor and scientist, very cleverly weaves a compelling presentation of the scientific facts of climate change – with ample footnotes and documentation throughout – into a gripping plot."

In other words, it's written by a scientist, has footnotes, and corresponds to my view of the world, so we must accept it as true. You also say that
"Having read the book, I can say that the argumentation Crichton puts forth is sound and would hardly take an expert to prove. (Most of what he writes is common sense and doesn't rely on specialized knowledge)"

I can find lots of scientific evidence to counter what he says. We both have our opinions on the issue which is fine, It just really bothers me when politicans start basing policy on a piece of fiction.

Maybe I have reworded by original statement when I said it was not informative. It would have been better to have said research the science on both sides of the issue and make a decison for yourself; but do not accept a fictional book as support for one side of the debate.

It's not really a question of does global warming exist or not. As I wrote, the point Crichton is making is that the common perception of the topic (as with so many others) has nothing to do with the relative merit of the scientific arguments for or against it. And that's a piss poor way to decide about anything, especially something that activists are urging we spend billions of dollars on.

It's actually a thought-provoking book, especially the author notes and epilogue. This kind of debate is precisely what Crichton hoped to provoke, so it's all for the best.

Agreed. I especially liked the Author's Note. The book was pretty good as well once it got started.

Also, I think Crichton's point wasn't that global warming wasn't happenning, but rather that we don't know it it's happenning, that the way the research is being done/funded casts doubts on it's accuracy (on both sides of the debate), that we don't know what the effects will be, and that we don't have sufficiently accurate means to forecast those potential effects. Yet. He also suggest ways in which we might be better able to achieve some of those goals.

And there were a few other things in that letter that mischaracterized the books...for example, Crichton didn't say that the island heating effect was ignored, but rather that it was possibly being improperly accounted for.

Ultimately, he seemed to feel that the certainty claimed by both sides in the debate was unjustified. I think he argued that point fairly well myself.

If you want non-fiction on flim-flam global warming, try Patrick Michaels' books The Satanic Gases or Meltdown recently discussed in a global warming thread in the Other Forum.

The problem with a novel like this is that the general public doesn't not understand the scientific process at all, primarily because the public schools do such a piss poor job of teaching the scientific method as it really exists and is practiced. So a laymen reads some that says "there is currently no good evidence FOR something" and takes it as evidence AGAINST something. That's what seems to be happening here.

If there is no good evidence for something, then why would you believe it? Obviously it would be misguided in such a circumstance to declare categorically that "such and such does not exist," but it would be just as foolish to act as if it did without evidence to back it up.

Regarding the topic of global warming, Crichton's point (if I can paraphrase) is that it's foolish to spend billions of dollars preparing for a calamity that might not happen and might not be a calamity even if it does.

Above all, he argues that it's essential to get the politics out of science as much as possible (and that includes the politics of the environmentalist movement), and stop relying on the mass media for our scientific information.

Sounds eminently reasonable to me.

There's a difference between there being no evidence for something and there being evidence AGAINST something. Most people don't seem to distinguish between the two. So if there is truly no evidence IN FAVOR of human-caused global warming, that doesn't necessarily mean that the global warming is a natural phenomenon. It, quite likely, means "we don't know."

Actually, there is data for SOMETHING. There is data that shows some global warmists have FAKED their claims by using only part of a data series, when they either did know or should have known about the whole data series. He showed the missing data that turned "global warming trend" into "flat"

Now that doesn't show they all lie, just some. It is unclear that there is a warming trend that will endanger mankind, or net melting ice that will raise sea levels and flood us out. It is clear some people will fake the data to "prove" there is. The only scientifically verifiable fact about global warming is that mankind has caused much of an increase in CO2 from 280 to 380 ppm, directionally that should cause some warming but our models aren't good enough to say how much. Since doubling would "cause a calamity" and we've had one third that, shouldn't we be experiencing one third of a calamity, not still arguing whether it is warmer or colder, wetter or dryer? Where is it?

Gonna bump this one because I just finished "State of Fear". I liked it alot. Here's my order, best to worst, of the Crichton books I've read if you're interested.

Jurassic Park
Sphere
Lost World
State of Fear
Rising Sun
Andromeda Strain
Disclosure
Airframe
Timeline
Prey

As you can see, I thought his last few books before SoF were showing a decline in quality. Anyway, SoF has reinvigorated my appreciation of his style.

However, I have to say...

I just picked this book up yesterday. Not sure when I will start it though.