“Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism”.

So I chose the website http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php. The pages tag line is “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism”. I actually found the site to be very clever and pretty convincing.
It’s a site that is clearly trying to convince its audience that global warming exists. It does this by laying out over 100 common, yet simple arguments used to refute the existence of human caused climate change. They address the more intelligent points of skepticism as well as some of the more stupid ones. For example;

Skepticism #10: “Antarctica is gaining ice”

Answer: “While the interior of East Antarctica is gaining land ice, overall Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctic sea ice is growing despite a strongly warming Southern Ocean.”

Skepticism #14: "It's freaking cold!"

Answer: “Since the mid 1970s, global temperatures have been warming at around 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. However, weather imposes its own dramatic ups and downs over the long-term trend. We expect to see record cold temperatures even during global warming. Nevertheless over the last decade, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows. This tendency towards hotter days is expected to increase as global warming continues into the 21st Century.”

I found the argument to be quite “rich”. They are able to lay it out in a way that even a child would understand, yet it still makes sense to a well educated adult. They refute these arguments of global warming by displaying scientific as well as historical facts. The site also gives off a sense of authority by the sheer number of points of skepticism that they were able to dismiss. How could one dispute it if it’s so easy to argue against?

L...A...W...Y...E...R...S - - WHAT DOES IT SPELL?!?!

I feel as if I might end my whole posting with its title. What need to rant on and on? Alas, in the interest of some smidgen of clarity, I will take on global warming from a site of argumentation which has been constructed for that very purpose - argument.

I will start from a personal anecdote and try to build upon that to make my case that lawyers are such an integral part of global warming, such massive producers of CO2, producers, consumers and beneficiaries of disputation, that we must make haste to adopt my manifesto, the NONO Protocol.

I have a friend. He is a lawyer. He is an environmental lawyer. He is also a lobbyist. Lobbyists tell legislators which laws to write (and how to write them) if they want to get re-elected. Getting re-elected costs a lot of money. Lobbyists work for people/places/organizations with LOTS of money. Lobbyists are lawyers. Are you still with me?

My friend the lawyer is a very good lawyer and he works for a very important law firm. My friend plays golf (he sucks). My friends plays golf with the Governor and other really important Minnesota personalities like the Chairperson of the Big Bucks Committee and the Secretary of Blah-dee-Blah. My friend lets these important people win at golf and buys them drinks. Laws are made at the 19th Hole.

My friend the attorney is a good attorney and a good lobbyist (but he sucks at golf). He is for hire. Sometimes he works for the people with smiley faces on their lapels, but other times, he works for the great big meanies! Since he is a really good lawyer, he is good all the time - he is either on your side, or he is on the other side. Which side are you on? Are you a smiley or a meanie?

Today, you can get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. You don't have to do anything wrong besides forget to wear your seatbelt in order to get a ticket. Not wearing a seatbelt is a primary offence. That was my friend's work - yay! Guess who paid for that work? Five years worth of my friend's time is NOT cheap! Do you think that auto insurance companies would like this law or hate this law? Would Sarah Palin like this law or hate this law? What does this have to with the environment? Nothing! Yay!

I like my friend. He is nice. He lets me win at golf and tells me funny stories about lawmakers - yay! Lawmakers, for all of their importance in our lives, live in constant fear. Sometimes, lawmakers ARE lawyers, but lots of times (in state legislatures) they are not. The only thing they know about laws is that they have their staffers read them so they can know which way to vote. As long as their staffers tell them "vote yes!", they vote yes. Their staffers are often, yep, very young lawyers - yay!

Here is a really cool website where the rubber meets the road (yay!):

http://www.law.columbia.edu/centers/climatechange

Wow! Columbia University! In New York!!

This little manufactory of lawyers has a specialty line of Environmental Lawyers that they are producing (yay!). They churn them out by the dozens because, you guessed it, "The Center for Climate Change Law is committed to providing robust and up-to-date online resources related to the burgeoning area of climate law. Please see links to our various resources" (http://www.law.columbia.edu/centers/climatechange/resources).

Did you notice the word that matters most? Burgeoning!! Yay! Environmental Law is burgeoning! Now we all know that burgeoning means budding, flourishing, growing at a rapid rate; the more laws we write about the environment, the more environmental lawyers we need to help us fix the laws and get us out of the mess we are in. We need lawyers and lobbyists to tell the lawmakers which laws to write so that they can stay in office and write more laws and then new lawyers can come and challenge the laws (or they can try to save the laws). It doesn't matter which side the lawyer is on, the lawyer gets paid. Pretty neat, huh?!

Folks, the good guys, the bad guys, the lawyers, the legislators, the chemical producer, the little old lady who lives at the end of Love Canal Lane all have an ax to grind. Crichton has not stopped being a showboating public "intellectual" since the day he dropped. He's no dummy, but his approach to the science and, more specifically, his disingenuous claim of working toward a de-politicized science is a populist move. Science free of politics YAY!! FREE...THE...SCIENCE!!....FREE...THE...SCIENCE!! YAY!! Populism riles up the people (i.e. Joe the Plumber) with lots of fun promises: lower taxes!, smaller government!, drill baby drill! free science! (yay! yay! yay! yay!). I like the sound of all of these things and I say yay! to each of them.

But I also believe that an illiterate child in our country is a criminal act - NO! I think that law upon law upon law, interpreted by lawyers, for lawyers, through lawyers, is a criminal act - NO! We are no longer able to know or rely on much of anything at all, this includes our scientists, unless the non-disclosure agreement has been signed (with a witness), the waiver of liability has been signed in the presence of a parent or guardian. Crichton, corporation, President, lobbyist, lawyer, legislator, us. Do you even feel like you're a part of it any more? The NONO Protocol requires the gradual reduction in the production of any person, place or thing which derives its root from legis, law or any close relative thereof.

I want your children to have clean air and water and I believe that Crichton wants the same for his kids, but as long as the legal profession has absolute ownership of our country, we will always have a hard time knowing what is right. The black box rests.

Climate Hot Map

I chose to write this posting about the site...

http://www.climatehotmap.org/index.html

it is a a pretty generic global warming stance taking the "for" stance. On an unrelated note i always find it strange when people use the phrase "for" global warming. I know what it means but no one is really "for" global warming, just agreeing with the evidence that it is occurring. But that is completely beside the point.

The site takes a sort of simple scientific look at the evidence surrounding global warming. It gives examples across the globe of heat waves, ocean warming, and glacial melting in a very user friendly and simple way to understand. It does not however get into any intense science behind the reasons why they are (or not) occurring.

The site also goes into more detail into what the effects of global might have if it continues to occur. I did not see these as intense "scare tactics" or anything like that. The site never says anything like "we will all die if the planet warms" it instead says things like "mosquito have been waiting 9 more days to lay dormant in the winter than they did 30 years ago, which could cause an increased population growth, and possibly disease transmission." Hardly a scare tactic but more of a subtle warning in my view. They also give references to all data and results that they use on the site, which is nice on a credibility standpoint.

The overall argument for the site is in support that global warming in happening on our planet, but it does not take an extreme viewpoint that some tend to take now a days. It gives simple results found across the globe and what they could POSSIBLY mean not what they DO mean. IT does not pretend to know the future of the planet but instead gives outcomes of what may happen

An Inconvenient Truth

I chose to delve into more of the political aspects of pro-global warming believers, and who better to research than Al Gore. I decided to check out his website, knowing he's been a strong voice of global warming, and just browse around through the information he has on his site, along with looking at some of the links and other global warming related projects that are listed. The link that caught my attention the most, however, was "An Inconvenient Truth." I had heard about and seen clips from this film before, but had never checked out its website. Here's the link: http://www.climatecrisis.net/climate-change.php

As if the website title alone couldn't be more obvious as to how one-sided all of the information I would receive, just reading the links at the top of the website: "The Evidence," "An Inconvenient Truth," "Climate of Change," and "Take Action" are immediate indicators at how deadly serious Al Gore and his team are of convincing the world of our increasingly warming planet.

In a way, this information and the way that it is presented, again turns me off of the idea of global warming. I don't doubt that our climate is changing, has changed in the past (obviously) and will continue to change in the future, but sites like this that just try so hard to make it seem like the information they list are the only possible explanations for the reasons of our climate change that make me just turn on my stubborn button and shut it all out. For example, before clicking the link "The Evidence," I was expecting to get heaps of statistical information, links to case studies, graphs, etc. you know, ACTUAL evidence - but instead was just led to a place with three paragraphs, saying how we've "dramatically increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere and temperatures are rising" because of our incessant burning of fossil fuels. Also, how all of the glaciers are melting, plants and animals have damaged habitats now, and severe storms and droughts are constantly increasing. Information that Peter Evans would claim as "common knowledge." And ironically enough, there were footnotes at the bottom of that page! (Along with pretty pictures).

Clicking around more on the site, everything just links back to joining their blog, tips on how to reduce your carbon footprint, getting involved and becoming an active member, making sure your money is going to the right place, and buying the DVD! I know I shouldn't have expected anything less, from the site, really. Al Gore IS a politician, and he knows how to make a buck here and there, but I can't help but think more about John Kenner and all of his damn anti-global warming facts, and the portrayal of all of the politicians, and the government in general in Crichton's book and just feel like Al Gore & team fit the stereotype perfectly. I know I should know better, and I feel like deep down I do know about the actual effects of the Earth, and what I should believe and discard as rubbish, but when politics gets involved (as they ALWAYS do, *sigh*) I almost instinctively rebel for the feeling that I'm about to get cheated and lied to in some way or another..Damn you Michael Crichton.

Wow, what an utterly bitter post!

Aaaaaand DISCUSS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M_XbeXDNnM&feature=player_embedded

Above is a lovely clip from one Don Blankenship, a normally reclusive coal magnate with a history of massive political coffer-stuffing and occasional reporter-punching. Recently, you may have seen his jowly, mustachioed mug on the news because one of his biggest mines in West Virginia collapsed last week, killing twenty-nine workers in the worst American mining disaster in four decades. The mine that collapsed, by the way, had been hit with fifty-seven safety violation citations in the previous month alone. Mr. Blankenship has been a longtime advocate of free-market, deregulated capitalism of the Milton Friedman/Ayn Rand variety, and he was also a major booster of the recent Supreme Court ruling to completely abolish restrictions on corporate spending in the electoral sphere. Whether he keeps his job or not will be up to his investors, but he probably isn't planning on applying for a position at the EPA.
Well, at least not until Sarah Palin's President. Then I reckon he'll be kind of a shoo-in.

His argument here is so diffuse and paranoid that I'm too exhausted to try and dissect it, but feel free to discuss it in the comment section.

Also, if you're interested in making a charitable donation to a fund set up for the families of the Upper Big Branch miners killed in the explosion and ensuing collapse, the only reputable one I could find was run by the West Virginia Council of Churches (wvcc.org), and they're state-approved and everything. Otherwise I'm sure the Red Cross is doing their thing there with whatever resources aren't being taken up with their work in Haiti and Brazil (which are both still in desperate need, by the way, but I don't want to lay too big a guilt trip on anybody) and elsewhere. Okay, back to work.

Image: The Climate Deniers vs. The Consensus

David McCandless, fascinated by global warming skeptics, made this lovely little graphic. Curious how anyone could deny such a widely reported phenomenon, he deliberately researched climate change through only publicly available web sources to simulate what it’s like for people trying to learn about climate change online.

His conclusion? “What a nightmare.”

“I was generally shocked and appalled by how difficult it was to source counter arguments. The data was often tucked away on extremely ancient or byzantine websites. The key counter arguments I often found, 16 scrolls down, on comment 342 on a far flung realclimate.org post from three years ago. And even when I found an answer, the answers were excessively jargonized or technical.”

He pitted these arguments by—experts? anonymous forum posters?—against “The Larger Scientific Community,” taking most of his information from realclimate.org (a blog staffed by some of the world’s leading climatologists and unaffiliated with any environmental or political organization). The image has since then been amended in several ways due to enormous feedback.

The graph:

Like everything else posted to Information Is Beautiful, much of the message’s power is visual and relates to placement. There are a lot of small, deliberate factors to parse. For example, the arguments of global warming skeptics on the left and the scientific consensus on the right shapes how we take in the information. We read left to right, so we look over the skepticisms first and the “facts” second. What is meant to stick with us is the rebuttal, the final thing we read.

Note the colors of the headings—pink for the skeptics and green for the scientists. Pink is basically a derivative of red—at times a “warm” color; here, a loud and angry color. (It may imply Red State Republican. Hell, it may also imply an anti-Crichtonian “Global warming skeptics are totally gay.”) Green is “cool” and composed and, of course, has eco-friendly connotations.

Not only do the charts and graphs in the middle give us an example of the data in question . . . they also physically divide the two schools of thought. They demonstrate part of how convoluted the situation has become, saying that half of the fight is caught up in how to read a single set of data.

Conclusion:

Clearly, McCandless stands by his belief in human-driven global warming—right from pitting mere “Skeptics” against “The Scientific Consensus” in the header to the coloring and placement of many elements in the graphic. And I’m with him.

He points out that researching and building the image was a “mammoth undertaking, especially for someone like me, unschooled in climate science.” He shares this bit of information to thank anyone who finds errors and lets him know how to fix them, but it’s more loaded than that. Unschooled in climate science, eh? …Well, at least he admits it.

Thankfully, he lays bare all his sources (in a ZIP of all the data he collected plus a spreadsheet of all the sources) in an act of legitimation.

So, why bother with all the research, especially if it was jargonized and confusing? To repair the explanatory failures of the higher ups by polishing them and presenting them prettily. McCandless said, “This has got to be one of the reasons why scientists and leaders are struggling to convince sections of the populace that the threat of climate change is real. Because they’re doing such a terrible job explaining it.” It hearkens right back to Crichton and to Balder’s team of lawyers struggling to present information on global warming interestingly to a jury (or, in Crichton’s nonfictional case, to a reading audience).

Global warming and economic blogger arguments

So just from a little background reading, the EPA has had a bit of a controversial relationship with global warming. It wasn't until 2007 that the EPA was given the ruling that they are responsible for the regulation of green house gas emissions from automobiles - and really it wasn't until 2007 that the government began mandating anything to do with global warming. In 2007 the EPA said that global warming was impacting human welfare. In 2008 they rescinded this. And yet, their website in the year 2010 under the heading, "State of knowledge" (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html) takes a stance that these things are known:
"

• Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
• The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
• An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
• The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
• Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet. "
  

And these are the things they listed under the heading, "What is not certain?" -
"

Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:

• Improving understanding of natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, land-use changes, the warming or cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, and the impacts of changing humidity and cloud cover.
• Determining the relative contribution to climate change of human activities and natural causes.
• Projecting future greenhouse emissions and how the climate system will respond within a narrow range.
• Improving understanding of the potential for rapid or abrupt climate change.

Addressing these and other areas of scientific uncertainty is a major priority of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). The CCSP is developing twenty-one Synthesis and Assessment products to advance scientific understanding of these uncertainty areas by the end of 2008. More information.

"

So the official position of the US government is now that Global Warming is real and Crichton is wrong (under "what is known" see: many of the points Crichton's book endeavors to make us unsure of).

A government website should be a trustworthy, citable source, ideally. So if they say that these things are "known", one might expect that a few people (perhaps just liberals, who love their government?) will believe them. And really, they took a damn long time to buy into what scientists, activists, etc had already been sure of for years. My father has been concerned with the "climate change" issue since the 80s - perhaps one of the first few 'believers' as Crichton would say.

My belief is that the government is not a good legitimating agency. In fact, if anything, us government-weary folk probably are more likely to believe in Global Warming if the government refuses to acknowledge it. Kids in grade school will look up Global Warming on google and get the EPA site as one of the top hits - and maybe they'll do their class presentation or poster on these 'facts' - but adults who are hypothetically concerned about educating themselves who don't already "believe" probably aren't going to trust a government agency to provide them with their facts. So, who do people trust?

I sometimes read this blog, "Marginal Revolution", which is written by a sort of libertarian economist person (not, in my mind, what most people think of when they think of a libertarian) who takes many anti governmental positions and whose followers are those who are interested in economics, libertarianism, or just sick of bipartisanship, etc - in short he has a lot of followers and I have been recommended this blog from multiple disparate sources. In 2006, the blogger, Tyler Cowen, wrote his own opinion on the Global Warming crisis. (http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/05/my_views_on_glo.html)

I was somewhat surprised to find that his position was that it is ridiculous to deny that global warming is man made (this means that the science, the 'facts', the act of legitimating the concept of global warming, has come a long way.) His argument doesn't include so much depth, but he summarizes points that many people are hinged on - with industrialization occurring in China and India, how could global warming possibly be reversible, even if the entire first world converted to Nuclear, Wind, and Solar power? What is our "plan of action" when the great economic industrializing machine cannot (and perhaps should not) be stopped? He takes the position that Global Warming is real, a serious problem, but then poses questions to his readers for discussion - does it matter if it was manmade, as long as its happening? What can we do to mitigate the effects, what do we do for the people unfortunate enough to live somewhere that is adversely affected?

Really the most fascinating part of this blog, though, were the responses. Many 'believers' and 'non believers' provided mini analysis on why they do or don't care about the issue. I think they're interesting enough to summarize:

Arguments of bloggers who were pro GW:
1: Glad that an economist is sensible, but why does this economist believe that the world would fall apart if economic growth discontinued? (What would it take to get India and China to cease economic growth... and if we could, what would the effect be on their populations.)

2: Is it worth sacrificing a percentage or two of global growth to buy 30 years? (Maybe they meant stopping some major industry, but if this reduces funding for research, than the technophiles and the economists will howl.)

3: If oil stays super expensive, the economic incentive to research alternate energy would potentially save us. At that, scientific progress is really all that can save us.

4: GW is real - but the government is the problem, and this brings us back to Pollen and Corn! " If we could only follow Brazil's model and displace, say, 20% of current gasoline consumption we would be much better of. It's not likely to happen because our farmers, and their subsidies, are wedded to inefficient corn-based ethanol and have tariffs in place for imported ethanol."

5: GW is real, but the government and technophobes are the problem, because they aren't willing to try things that geoscientists propose like the "Geritol Solution" or "Iron fertilization" - which involves dumping iron dust into the ocean in order to stimulate phytoplankton blooming... (here is a link about some of the crazy 'solutions that have been proposed' : http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/3/16/153121.shtml ) in 2007, they did try the Geritol Solution.

6: The models show we are f*cked, there is nothing we can do about it, our beach houses are gone.

7: Global warming will lead to lower temperatures if the north pole melts.

8: The earth will never reach "venusian levels" (ie, the state of Venus) which would be unsustainable for life globally, but the least developed countries, such as bangladesh, won't be able to handle the short term warming.

9: "it is probably a much easier world political and economic problem to compensate the Bangladeshis and Pacific Islanders than solve global warming through international agreements not to burn carbon fuels." (wow...)

10: The little ice age and medieval warming period are lies propagated by political advertising agencies.

11: "Anyway, if you don't believe in making policy recommendations based on climate models and theory, how can you make policy recommendations based on economic models and theory, where the data is sparser, the models less thorough, and the subject matter responds to your recommendations? So many fans of the market, who cite their favored economists, while ignoring climate scientists. Tip: meteorology is closer to "hard science" than economics."

12: "A group of researchers recently sampled 10,000 papers on climate change published in major journals like Science and Nature. Out of 1,000 papers randomly selected, they found zero that contradicted anthropogenic GW. That's right, none, nada, zilch, zip. Yet during that same period, 52% of the papers cited in the media contradicted anthropogenic GW (the 2% was probably because of Fox News...the rest were just trying to be "balanced".). Is it any wonder people are misinformed?"

NON Believers:

1: What about the medieval warming period, the little ice age, and glaciers that used to be around and aren't anymore? These mean that GW is not caused by man! (Therefore, not our problem?) Or that this is an unstoppable act of nature, or that this is an act of nature that won't need to be stopped, etc.

2: The computer models are bunk.

3: The last ~7 years show a cooling trend, not a warming trend.

4: "It's hard to believe, but Tyler may have bought into an argument that anyone familiar with McCloskey should be very skeptical of." (When I looked up McCloskey, I found this website which supposedly analyzes the international coal market... awkward coincidence? http://cr.mccloskeycoal.com/ )

5: I am going to quote this entire thing because I think its a fascinating bit of statistical reasoning :P. as a later blogger pointed out, it is ridiculous to assign 50% bayesian probabilities. "

1. For lack of better data, let's say I place the odds of a sustained trend of global warming at 50%. Why so low? Remember that in the 1970s everyone was fussing about global cooling.
2. Similarly, let's place at 50% the odds that the Earth doesn't regulate its own temperature through endogenous means (for instance, an increase in algae to decrease CO2 when temperatures rise). Complex systems often work this way.
3. 50% odds once again that global warming is anthropogenic. After all, Mars is warming too. It could be unusual solar activity.
4. Lets say 50% odds that an increase in temperature would be a net bad. After all, what are the odds that the earth right now is at exactly the optimal temperature? One or two degrees C warmer could increase agricultural output, etc.
5. Why not place at 50% the odds that the cheapest solution is not to do nothing. Doing nothing is often a reasonable choice. I've seen it estimated that its five times cheaper to provide every human being with clean drinking water than to implement Kyoto.
6. What are the odds that if all of the above is true, that warming will affect, me, my children, or my grandchildren. I'll peg it at, oh, 50%.

If my estimates are about right, that means there is a less than 2% chance that I should be concerned about global warming. If any 4 of the 6 are about right, that still puts it at 6%. I'm perfectly content to relax and have a beer instead of fretting about climate change."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- basically, you should all read this thread in full, because its fascinating. My conclusion after reading it is that really, pro "Climate Change" wins. Even in this population - people who are more conservative than liberal, people who dislike the environmental movement, people who are skeptical of government and pro technology and pro free market capitalism and pro for-profit are convinced that it is in our best interest to make it profitable to invest in alternate energy, move away from coal, etc.

Back to the EPA site: There is a section under the heading, "What can you do" (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/index.html) which will calculate your green house gas emissions, give you tips on how to reduce your carbon footprint, reduce waste, etc - perhaps once you have been filled with fear and you are driven to check a government website for tips on how to save yourself, you will do exactly what the economists think you should do - even if it wont save us from the industrialization of China and India - you will invest in the market of "green technology" - you'll buy green energy, different lightbulbs, - and you'll do some things that only some economists think you should do, like stop investing as much in plastics, ...

Or, because you can't change the structure of the global economy enough to save us from the industrialization of India and China, because you can't force any non-climate-threatened territory to adopt a billion climate refugees, you will do nothing, but perhaps bleakly believe that future technological innovation (solar power?) might yet save us, but perhaps it'll be too late.

What I want to know is: What if coal wasn't cheap? What would the world look like then? Even super duper pro market people are crying about this (If only we could factor the "real cost" into the pricing ... )

Counterpoint

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/

Real Climate breaks apart Critchon's arguments from the book, providing counter-evidence to Michael Crichton's evidence in the book against global warming. They first comment on the slight ridiculousness of the plot and the characters, especially everyone's favorite badass, Kenner. Being a Crichton fangirl, I was blinded to the ludicrousness of Kenner, whom they describe as "a MIT academic-turned-undercover operative who clearly runs intellectual rings around other characters." This is totally and completely true. It's funny that Kenner is an academic badass. I guess Crichton is trying to make academics cool.

The article goes on about the CO2 evidence from 1940-1970, where the average temperatures in North America actually cooled during that period, thus making the argument that how do we know if CO2 is the cause for the current global warming? Their answer was other forcings such as land use, solar irradiance, etc. They next challenge Crichton's definition of global warming. RealClimate contends that global warming is "defined by the global mean surface temperature." In State of Fear Crichton talks about local cooling as support for the non-existence of global warming, but RealClimate insists that local cooling doesn't contradict global warming. RealClimate also points out some selective bias on Crichton's part. They also tear apart some of his points in his author's message, especially the one about estimates. They also mentioned how Crichton met with the person reviewing the book and a few of his colleagues.

Those Wiley Limeys

An afterthought:

I don't know if anyone else is familiar with the work of the peerless British satirist Chris Morris, but here's an excerpt from his unspeakably brilliant send-up of sensationalist news magazine shows, "Brass Eye." This episode is concerned with the question of whether "Science" has "Gone Too Far." As was his habit, Morris managed to convince several prominent British celebs and TV personalities (and one CBE!) to endorse patently ludicrous causes and read some of the most hilarious fake data ever fabricated. Subjects as diverse as "Mutant Clouds," "Heavy Electricity," and two-mile-tall "Vertical Tube Farms" are treated with utter seriousness, and none of the "experts" seem to have a clue what the hell they're talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usTT3RuWu_g

Michael Crichton is dead.

I didn't know. Obviously I hadn't Wikipedia'd him yet. I learned this sitting at a bar tonight, and made the guy next to me prove it by looking it up on his Blackberry Storm (convenient pun). It sort of blew my mind. M.C. feels so alive today-or his work does? Okay, it wasn't that long ago that he died, but still.

At any rate, I will delve into this more when I edit this post tomorrow. But I thought you might want to know.

You can't change nature, but you can change your reaction to it.

Well, you didn't say it had to be a *written* argument. I really like this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
It would be nice if more people thought this way.

This video is by a man named Greg (username wonderingmind42). He is a high school science teacher, and he can explain ideas well and is proficient in science (two aspects of legitimation). First, he creates a chart with four scenarios: global warming is false and action is taken anyway, global warming is false and no action is taken, global warming is true and action is taken, and global warming is true and no action is taken. This is his seeing device for the argument: viewing the situation from a hypothetical standpoint.

Row A: GW is false & we act / GW is false & we don't act
Row B: GW is true & we act / GW is true & we don't act

Column A: GW is false & we act / GW is true & we act
Column B: GW is false & we don't act / GW is true & we don't act

The point of this video is this: it is more productive to think in terms of the columns rather than in terms of the rows. The question isn't really whether global warming is true or not, because it's so uncertain. But what we can decide on is whether we act or not. And the risk of not acting (if global warming is true) is greater than the risk of acting (if global warming is false).

With this thinking, books like State of Fear really don't matter. Who cares if you aren't fully convinced about global warming? Even the slightest possibility should cause you to take some sort of action. In my opinion, I'm not the hugest global warming advocate, but I do my share to use fewer resources. Maybe we can all use fewer resources and be more environmentally responsible, and rest easy that we are prepared for disaster if it happens to strike.

Oil's Well that Ends Well

http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/2006/10/23/test-post-with-a-figure.htm

This page links to a .pdf file of an article from Eos, a journal published by the American Geophysical Union. This excerpt is from the "Forum" section, where letters to the editor and op-ed pieces are published, and we see here an example of a robust debate over Mr. Crichton and his geophysical and climatological bona fides. The first letter was issued by the Council of the American Quaternary Association (AMQUA), and it is made quite clear early on that the association has a bone to pick with our Main Man, and also with the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), who had recently awarded Mr. Crichton their annual award for excellence in journalism. The selection of Mr. Crichton--a novelist without any evident training in either geology or journalism--constituted--in the opinion of AMQUA--an inappropriate endorsement of the blurring of the lines between fiction and fact, and between scientific explication and political advocacy. Tactically, AMQUA goes right after Crichton, and are clearly trying to make him out to be--scientifically speaking--kind of an infantile joke. They describe the novel as a cross between "Scooby Doo" and "The Lone Ranger," and observe--quite trenchantly, I think, that Crichton seems less concerned with understanding than with winning, and the "debates" in the book are structured accordingly. The letter cites hard studies and government websites, and its list of co-signatories is certainly impressive. They thereby position themselves as experts who know of what they write, and are ready to back up their claims.
After that letter, however, is where things get interesting.
There are two letters which take aim at the AMQUA piece, and at AMQUA itself, both written by people with a serious vested interest in the denial of so-called anthropogenic (sexy, sexy word, that) climate change. The first is by an emeritus professor from the University of Virginia at Charlottesville--hard to argue with that title--who seems to have founded something called the "Science & Environmental Policy Project." Sounds legitimate enough, and their website (sepp.org) has a friendly-looking, green and blue logo, so why not trust his word? Well, a little reading around on the site reveals that SEPP is clearly an industry-funded think tank whose stated goal is to advocate free-market solutions to environmental issues (i.e., provide scientific justification for the abolition of government regulations on industrial pollution, etc.).
The next letter is along the same lines--attacking the motives of AMQUA and trying to brand them as a political advocacy group for having voiced the majority view among geologists and climatologists--and it's by a man who identifies himself with "Sequoia Production, LLC." Sequoia--that sounds pretty green, right? I mean, isn't that a really pretty kind of tree? Well, it turns out it's also some kind of petroleum prospecting/extraction/something-or-other company. A quick googling turned up Sequoia's name on a list of clients of "New Tech Engineering Companies," which describes itself as "a group of individual companies providing services in the petroleum industry." So we have AMQUA--a professional association of scientists--up against a think tank and an oil industry service provider. Whom to trust?
(For the record, I'm with AMQUA--and not just because it's got the best acronym)

the truth about what is true

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/crichton-thriller-state-of.html

Looking back at my old post is a little interesting because it was before we discussed the book in class. In the article above, the author focuses on the vast amount of knowledge that can be looked at in regards to all the things that global warming encompasses. He uses Crichton's book to back up his debate by talking about all his shortcomings in his book. He clearly states all the evidence out there, but dismisses Crichton's work due to his use of only evidence that could be useful or could be tweaked to match his viewpoint. Along with the vast amount of knowledge revolving around global warming, the author also focuses on the variety and numerous factors involved. Throughout his answering of questions, he always comes back to the fact that there are many unknowns revolving around global warming but yet supports global warming by dismissing State of Fear. Its a circulating reference revolving around the fact that science is fact. He even states that if there is a consensus in regards to the data it is true.

This reminds me of my high school IB Theory of Knowledge class. With a heated discussion we came to the conclusion that there really isn't truth per se. Truth is relative to the eyes of the beholder. We regard science as truth because of a consensus between knowledgeable scientists , when in fact, there is no truth. I think his reasoning doesn't work because it relies on the fact that science is ultimately true, when in fact everyone forgets that science is never proven as true, but is rather something that cannot be falsified. The author is constantly explaining that there is so much evidence and that it must be built upon, working with the circulating reference in terms of science being what is "true" to many.

and let the sea rise

The website http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/rising-seas.html talks about the harmful effects global warming has on the environment by discussing the rising of the coastlines across the globe. This article talks about a research that spanned 3 decades which recorded that C02 concentration in the atmosphere, and the height of the ocean's sea level. the article then goes in depth on the cost it takes to fix the mess of the rising sea levels, and says how our tax dollars are going to fix it. the article does fail to mention which oceans are rising, and if its an overall rise. the article uses extrapolation to consume the reader in fear of a world submerged in water with no escape unless we all change the way we live now. at the bottom of the page the articles has a link for readers to fund global warming campaigns and to help save the world.

crazy Jesus people

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/global-warming (there is also a link to a technical version of the article at the top of this article)

So this article is from 2006 but it was nice to read something that was less one sided. This actually makes it a little harder to analyze in this way but I'm gonna give it a shot anyway. Not choosing a side is still a stance and the author uses forms of legitimation to support this stance.

The article starts by briefly stating the common portrayal of global warming by the media and then he questions these conclusions with the statement "...we need to separate interpretations from facts."

The author then legitimizes himself by indirectly stating his credentials in the statement "Practically all atmospheric scientists (the author included) agree that global warming has occurred."

By questioning the extreme views and agreeing with the "facts" he attempts to establish himself as an objective writer. He then goes on to write about the warming that has occurred and the possible reasons for it.

"However, if all the greenhouse gases have caused an increase by 60% CO2 in equivalency units, and man has only warmed the atmosphere about 0.6°F, then these climate simulations are much too sensitive to the effects of CO2." He puts doubt on the severity of the warming effect of greenhouse gasses effects by questioning the methods (in the previous paragraph) used for prediction but he agrees that they are part of the reason for the warming.

"Unfortunately, the media and proponents of significant technology-induced global warming have demonized many qualified critics..."
The author ends his article by saying that more research is needed and that each person should test for himself both sides of the issue. Being a biblically based scientific website he ends the article with a statement that is consistent with his stance. "Although God gave us the command to have dominion over the earth, He also instructs us to care for and be good stewards of it." I was very happy that he included this because I get very annoyed when my fellow Christians use the first half of that statement to defer responsibility for taking care the earth.

Blog Posting #8 (Due Sunday 4/11, 11:59 P.M.): Michael Crichton ('global warming') on the Web--the public rhetoric and 'semantic contagion' of science

On the table in this part of our work is how 'minds' get formed and changed. How ideas get legs. How beliefs can go viral. How common sense becomes so common. Robin will argue ('Beyond...reason') that it's seldom a matter of facts alone.

In a sense, State of Fear is a massive 'intervention'--one that made Dr. Crichton a good deal of money, but more importantly: got him invited to the White House and to testify to Congress, and which probably changed more minds than any more familiarly scientific discovery could. Bruno Latour details how much work Pasteur had to go through to get us to 'believe in germs (ferments).' South Park has made us all knowing cynics.

Visit one of the global-warming websites we posted (or another you found, if you wish). Find a complex rich 'argument' about global warming--for, against, whatever. Show us how it works to construct a view of science, atmospheric science, authority, scientists, politicians, the world, the polis, industry, progress, fear, human agency--whatever. You pick the site, the argument (remember that arguments are typically more than words; when the idea comes out of Cartman's mouth, it's a different argument from if it came from Al Gore), the issue. Work it for us. Show us how the world of ideas gets formed.

please tell your artists

hi blog-mates,

as part of my intervention project, there is this website and a call for art for a show i'll be hosting this summer. if you have artists in your life who might be a good fit for this call, would you pretty please pass this along to them? and in any case take a peek at the site.

thanks!

julie

_____________________________

Hello friends and acquaintances and all those good things--

I'm organizing an exhibit at Chakra Khan this summer on the unique experience created by getting food through a CSA farm (Community Supported Agriculture)....you can read more about it when you follow the link below:

http://csalove.tumblr.com/

Please check out the Call for Art! listed on the site, and please pass this along to all the artsy people you know and love.

Then stay tuned to the site for info. on this summer's events!

Thank you!

Julie Kesti

Climatologists vs. Meteorologists

In case you missed it, last night's Colbert Report featured a "Science Catfight" segment and short debate between a meteorologist (Joe Bastardi--yes, Bastardi) who dismisses global warming and a climatologist (Brenda Ekwurzel) who believes in it. And, naturally, a lot of Stephen Colbert in character. Check it.

i am late due to Friedrich Nietzsche, he keeps bumming me out.

Sorry colleagues,

I had to make a decision about what to put at the top of the list, this posting didn't make it this week - I promise I'll do better!

Crichton and I go way back (1994) to watching "ER" with my mom. She is a nurse who worked for 35 years in every conceivable nook and/or cranny of the medical world; I am a former adrenaline junky who went from working as a volunteer firefighter for five years in to the ER at what is now Regions Hospital (i.e. a very busy trauma center). Crichton has long known how to push many of my buttons, but I was and am convinced that he should have stuck to writing for television. I do not wish to engage in an attack on writing style, it's not what we're here to do, but I will go on the record saying I don't enjoy his books.

I will jump on the lawsuit bandwagon for a moment - Crichton is an MD and he knows all about lawyers and lawsuits. We are a nation of laws, ostensibly, we like it that way. But we have made a move toward, and Crichton uses this very effectively, becoming a nation which derives some its physical structure from the weight of its codes. Crichton utilizes our nation's fearful understanding of what it CAN mean to have a good cadre of lawyers and an unlimited budget: "The NERF, an American activist group, announced that it would join forces with Vanutu in the lawsuit, which was expected to be filed ... George Morton ... would personally finance ... more than $8 million" (xi). It matters not which side of an argument you are on when you have the money and the PR machine to make noise - Crichton plays on our knowing this, and it is an effective use of the national paradigm, fueled, codified, and acted upon by members of the legal profession.

"Of course he knew that these particular charts had been chosen to prove the opposition's point" (490) states what, for me, is the most salient point of this book, or any book, or any science or any argument. If my argument is timely, if I am in a good position to provide you with my authority and credentials, if you are the right public to hear what I am peddling, if I have selected my data carefully - I am - at least for the next news cycle - correct. The issue at hand does not matter, everybody has their ax to grind on any issue. Some people hold a position that is similar to yours, some are very much opposed to your values, but you can bet your bottom dollar that there is a data set out there that can be used to support your issue. All you need is the right seeing device, the correctly selected issue, a nice paradigmatic wind at your back and you are on your way. (A good lawyer wouldn't hurt, either).

Does this mean that you can never believe in data or science or paradigmatic winds? Be suspicious of data and science and always face into the winds of paradigm so you can see what is about to hit you in the face. We have never needed a healthy dose of skepticism more than we need it now.

Star Trek's take on Genetic Engineering

This is actually pretty interesting, outlining the reasoning for Star Trek's all out ban on Genetic Engineering (even in The Next Generation)...

Excerpt:
"

During Earth's 20th century, efforts to produce "superhumans" resulted in the Eugenics Wars. Genetically engineered individuals such as Khan Noonien Singh attempted to seize power. (TOS: "Space Seed")

This would lead to the banning of genetic engineering on Earth by the 22nd century, even research which could be used to cure critical illnesses. This ban was implemented because of the general fear of creating more tyrants such as Khan. It was also felt that parents would feel compelled to have their children genetically engineered, especially if "enhanced" individuals are allowed to compete in normal society."

...hmmmmmm. Relevant to us?

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Genetic_engineering

"hybrid wimpmobile" NYT 2005 review of SoF (if you trust something like the NYT, that is)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/books/review/30BARCOTT.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&oref=slogin

part b of intervention: Cyborg painting

Part of my intervention project involved this painting. The writing is impossible to read in this photograph but its basically a list of cyborg technology that we currently use (including pen and paper) and a few ideas I find interesting - The cyborg as a means of liberation, transcendence through the use of technology. The consequences of being substrate/subject of new technology. The redefinition of human experience through technologies.

I painted the cyborg this way because I think a particular controversy surrounding the Uncanny Cyborg/Android present revolves around mechanizing sexual companionship, or around molding the female form to fit a particular sexual ideal. Engineers design sex bots and women get breast implants and liposuction. This is one thing mentioned in the paper, which is linked below.

Thanks for looking!

Respond to my intervention if'n you want :)

My intervention project was on the cyborgic future... but to really make it an intervention within the class, I hope some of you will respond, engage the concepts, inform me of your position!

Here is the link - it was a really long (6 page) post so I decided to put it on my LJ...
http://esther-mantra.livejournal.com/

Weathermen, and other climate change skeptics: newyorker.com

Weathermen, and other climate change skeptics: newyorker.com

State of No Opinion

Global warming (or climate change) is such a fascinating issue. I don’t really have any position on it, however. I simply haven’t reviewed the science and don’t feel like I could make an informed decision. Unlike Peter Evans, I don’t feel comfortable with going with conventional wisdom just because.

The seeing device used in this book is a complete inversion from life as I know it. The majority of characters reject the idea of global warming, where as the few who embrace the idea are looked down upon as naïve “sheeple.” Quite frankly, this makes me feel better about my lack of belief. Not that I actively reject global warming, but shaking up norms is always refreshing. It shows that maybe some people that are adamant about global warming aren’t as well informed as they appear, and are just parroting Al Gore instead of looking at articles published by universities for themselves.

I noticed another curious writing style of Crichton’s. I haven’t read any of his other books, but in this one I noticed (like Julie) huge discrepancies between men and women. Men had long introductions describing credentials: employers, education, and other accomplishments. Women were introduced by their looks and sexual abilities/potential. No matter how smart a woman is in this book, the readers know her hair color, eye color and body type before the character has a chance to speak. Men, on the other hand, get a fanfare praising their Ph.D.’s. I still have no idea what any of the male characters look like, yet I know what Margo (who isn’t even a major character, at least so far) looks like in a towel.

Appendix 1 is a controversial piece of writing; Crichton had a lot of guts putting it in. Comparing anything to Hitler is as far as you can go on the evil scale. Unfortunately for Crichton, people who do this lose credibility (in my mind at least) for being ridiculous and melodramatic. It’s a cliché. The only similarity I see between eugenics and global warming is the suppression of the opposition: calling them ignorant and uninformed, etc. The difference is that global warming is a matter of hard numbers and observation, whereas “inferior people” is subject to multiple opinions. Eugenics would be a difficult topic to study in a science department at a university, whereas global warming, while labor-intensive, seems more measurable. Indeed, Crichton admits that “there was no scientific basis for eugenics. In fact, nobody at that time knew what a gene really was” (727). So how does that compare to a controversy that actually has a scientific basis? Perhaps a better comparison would have been the evolution/intelligent design controversy. At least one side there has science.

my passages. I hope this makes sense. i have the flu so bare with me please

One passage from the front matter

Within any important issue, there are always aspects no one wishes to discuss. _George Orwell (4 pages after the cover)

Term/concept from the science studies

The first term that comes to mind when reading this passage is seeing devices. Each person has their own set of seeing devices and so some of those issues that no one wants to talk about are a seeing device of one person. I also think paradigm has to do with this passage as well. A paradigm in some way is you don’t know what they know. Well here is a perfect example of you doing know what they know but they also don’t know what you know and no one wants to talk about it. I thought this was a great quote to put in right at the beginning of the book because so much of the book covers the things that no one wants to talk about.

One passage from the novel

“Wait a minute” Evans said. “Global warming is going to raise the temperature, so more moisture will evaporate from the ocean, and more moisture means more clouds.” (pg 235)

Term from the literary studies

In this passage Michel Crichton has started to set a hostile tone. The beginning of this chapter he set the tone as peaceful and sleepy. But suddenly when Kenner starts to talk about the world and what a mystery it is Evans begins to get angry and aggressive because he is a firm believer in global warming. I thought this is an ingenious way of writing because the twists and turns on each page keep the reader hooked as well as making the characters come to life.

haven't read a book this fast in a while

Front/Back Stuff:

When i looked at the bibliography for this book, i seemed to forget for a second that it was a fictional novel (well kind of but you get what i mean). I just mean that the shear size of the thing, almost 40 pages long, is not something that you would expect to find in a book like this. I think it goes to show the iffy fiction idea that the novel holds. The beginning pretty much sums it up by saying, in short, "this is fiction, with respect to the people and events, Micheal made them up, but there is a pretty good chance that the events are real, but again, this is fiction" It seems as though Crichton understands that most people don't want to read a scientific article about global warming, they don't want to stare at graphs all day. But by making the issue into a complete story, it will not only spread easier, but people will understand the issue much better.

Inside Text:

I found the following passage to be interesting because it brings into light how exact wording of an issue can affect the way it is understood.

pg.102

(Evans talking)

"global warming is, uh, the heating up of the surface of the earth from the excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is produced by burning fossil fuels."

"no......global warming is a theory that increased levels of carbon dioxide and certain other gases area causing the increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere"

It is interesting that by just adding in a few different words the whole thing becomes completely different. I am definitely not one to choose my words carefully, but maybe i should think more about that .......

Term from Science Studies:

The whole layout of the book in general seems to be a giant hybrid, maybe more so the beginning than later, but still seems to be true throughout. Crichton gives a small story of one problem, then flies across the world (sometimes literally) to give another piece of the issue. Sometimes the events seem linear and connected, sometimes not. I just can't help but thinking of a giant web (cliche i know). Moving from Iceland to LA to stories about submarines, to companies based all over the world, to weird paths of money through different companies based in different countries. I don't know, the whole thing in general makes me pretty happy that i deal with simple numbers and equations for a large portion of my life. would hate to have to figure out how things like this area actually connected in the world.

Literary Studies:

Maybe it is because i have't read an actual novel in a long time, but i think he does a good job and narrating different characters very quickly and precisely. Even when they are only in the book for a short time, he does a good job at painting a good picture for what the peoples personalities would be like. Almost like from a few simple pages of conversation one could extrapolate how they would respond to a wide range of situations bases on their "two page personality assessment" But again, there is a very good chance i think that because i haven't really had many chances to read books not based on some physics equation of math proof

Peter Evans: Pwn'd by John Kenner

This is the first book by Michael Crichton that I've read, although I have heard praises of him and his work before (mostly from my dad), I'll admit - It's a pretty quick and easy read. And the fact that it doesn't take me three times going over the same page to try to figure out what the F he's saying, is a definite breath of fresh air. Especially at this point in the semester!

Right at the end of the introduction, Crichton cites an excerpt from the Internal Report of the AASBC, which the full name is labeled as "classified", to the National Security Council (NSC). The first sentence of this little note is, "In retrospect, the conspiracy was extremely well-planned". This first sentence, along with his mentioning on the fourth page of the book that although "This is a work of fiction. Characters, corporations, institutions, and organizations in this model are the product of the author's imagination OR, IF REAL, are used fictitiously...However, footnotes are real", immediately sets up what Crichton's whole message and purpose of the novel is going to be: To prove that global warming is a hoax, and he has the REAL information to prove it.

Crichton's narrative and use of characters helps him formulate his rather compelling argument of facts against global warming. Along with his footnotes, which he seamlessly uses to legitimate his "smart" characters (namely Kenner and Sanjong, who can recite case studies and scientists like they were listing off what they ate for breakfast). However, my issue so far with the book, is how Crichton makes his main-ish character, Peter Evans, look like a total dumbass just halfway through. On first learning and reading along with his character, Peter Evans is clearly meant to be taken as a serious, intelligent, and well-informed lawyer. After all, he is the lawyer and basically right-hand man to George Morton, who is a seriously rich and powerful man/client of his. Evans also has a strong foundation of beliefs of global warming, which we see sprout out of him when he's interrogated by John Balder's team on the Vanutu case. Jennifer Haynes states, "Tell us what you know about the evidence for global warming." To which Peter Evans replies, "Well, I know that temperatures around the globe have risen dramatically in the last twenty or thirty years as a result of increases in carbon dioxide that is released by industry when fossil fuels are burned." Evans also states many other reasons for his beliefs of global warming throughout that part of the chapter, informing and convincing us, the audience, that he knows what he's talking about.

So when Crichton does a 180 with Evans' character is when I started getting thrown off. As soon as Kenner makes more of a presence about halfway through the book, and starts correcting all of Evans' facts, opinions, and beliefs on global warming, I started to think that this was Crichton's way of not only getting his personal message across, but convincing the audience to adapt to Kenner's way of thinking by pulling the rug out from underneath us. All this time we were comfortable while we were being led to believe that Evans' was this smarty-pants lawyer that had it all down and was the best protagonist ever, yada yada. But then Kenner shows up, basically tells Evans that he doesn't know anything (and Crichton plays into that perfectly, with Evans' responding "What?" "I don't know what that means" or "I wasn't aware of that" several times throughout conversations with Kenner about the actual foot-noted facts of global warming) and we're left scratching our heads, questioning who is more legitimate: The basic lawyer, or the MIT professor, Harvard Law grad, civil engineering PhD. One such instance in which Kenner hands Evans his bum on a platter is when they're talking about Antarctica and whether or not it's melting:

Evans said, "Come on, guys. Antarctica is melting."

"Actually, it's not," Sanjong said. "I can give you the references, if you like."

Kenner said, "While you were asleep, Sanjong and I were talking about how to clarify things for you, since you seem to be so ill-informed."

"I'll-informed?" Evans said, stiffening.

"I don't know what else one would call it," Kenner said. "Your heart may be in the right place, Peter, but you simply don't know what you're talking about."

"Hey," he said, controlling his anger. "Antarctica is melting."

"You think repetition make something true? The data show one relatively small area called the Antarctic Peninsula is melting and calving huge icebergs. That's what gets reported year after year. But the continent as a whole is getting colder, and the ice is getting thicker." (241)

Kenner, and Sanjog to an extent, make Peter Evans look dumb and ignorant like it's their job. Which makes me wonder if Crichton's inspiration for the character of Peter Evans is the majority of society, while he identifies himself as John Kenner. Sneaky sneaky.

Initial reactions

My initial reaction to State of Fear was pretty good. Probably because I was really glad to be reading a “story” and not a textbook for a class. I haven’t gotten to do that since I was in high school. As I continued to read I became a little off put with the way environmentalists were being portrayed. I don’t consider myself an environmentalist but I still know that they are not out to harm us like Chrichton depicts. I understand that it’s a story but he is still clearly trying to base it on truth (with the real footnotes, etc.)… I have a very hard time believing that any environmentalist group would try to conjure up natural disasters in order to make the public believe in global warming. It’s just far too silly.

In the front matter Crichton says “The United States, the largest economy in the world, was also the largest emitter of carbon dioxide and therefore the largest contributor to global warming”. I really hate this passage. I think that it has something to do with the way he writes it so matter of factly. I imagine him saying it in a really cocky voice. He also drastically over simplifies things. I also hate it because it’s simply not true. China is the world’s largest contributor of CO2 emissions. But I guess that I better get used to made up facts if I’m going to get through the next 400 pages. The language he uses in this book is also very simplified. Like you said Ben, it’s seems like it’s written at a 4^th grade level. I’m not complaining because this makes for a quick read… but… come on! I expected a little more out of the infamous Michael Crichton.

“The nasty little apes that call themselves human beings can do nothing except run and hide. For these same apes to imagine they can stabilize this atmosphere is arrogant....” This is a very interesting passage to me. The romantic in me likes the idea that we have no control over our atmosphere and that it is what it is … Even though I know that this isn’t true. It actually makes me think about myself. I also just like hearing humans being referred to as “nasty little apes”. I always get a great deal of satisfaction when Robin refers to us as little pinkish brown monkeys. Sorry, off topic.

My final reaction to the book actually has nothing to do with the story. Anyway, It could easily be 300 pages shorter if he just decreased the font size to that of a normal novel. It just bugs me.

more of the same... except opposite

As someone who is probably more skeptical about global warming than the average person I appreciate reading something from someone who wasn't convinced beyond doubt that global warming is not only going to happen but already is happening. (obviously Crichton is quite the opposite.) I thought Crichton portrayed this type of thinking well with the statement "It is not speculative. It is happening". I feel like a state of emergency is being declared about to global warming (and perhaps rightfully so) that forces people to "pick a side". And when the consequence of the world doing nothing and being wrong is global destruction it would make sense that the average person would agree that something should be done. And in fact even those who don't neccesarily believe the hype of global warming usually are in support of reducing emmissions. Making a decision to elimate the worst possible scenario isn't all bad but I feel like it prevents productive conversation on the topic.

The novel dissapoints me not that it is one sided but that it seems to think it is objective. He talks about the danger of politics mixed with science and though I agree with him I realize that the seperation of the two is implausable at best. The problem that we are facing is that it seems no one (i hope im wrong in saying this) is willing to take a close look at the facts that don't support their opinions, or atleast not publicly. Isn't there anyone that doens't have so much stake (whether political or otherwise) in their own opinion that they are willing to discuss the facts and admit that science doesn't 100% support their view. I guess this is what we hope to accomplish in this class but few of us have sufficient scientific knowledge to really weigh in with anything that hasn't already been put through a political filter.

In some odd way this book is humbling, even though it is also ridiculous and dramatic. What do we really know and why and how? It also gives me insight into my dad’s strange political turns since he retired and started hanging out with a new crowd in a small town Wisconsin.

This blog post is really list-y, but it’s what I’ve got for you today:
______________
front:
I began the book noting that there was going to be a Billy Joel song somewhere within its 714 pages, and also that the “Footnotes are real.” I read through the praise from a diverse group of publications and was surprised--though was happy to learn I would soon be more fun at cocktail parties.

back:
I made it through p. 543 so far and peeked at Appendix 1---he sets up a scenario similar to this book, in which science brainwashes everyone, and it turns out to be a reference to eugenics and anti-immigration policy. So I guess if by the end of the book I don’t agree with him, I probably am also likely to be convinced to do things like kill the babies of “inferior” people.
______________
women:
Within the first 10 pages, I thought, wow, what cliche and nauseating male-female dynamics so far. As I read on I decided to list all the female characters, just to see who was there. I think I have all the women in the first 400 pages here (maybe all of them in general but I may have been distracted by ice crevasses):

-femme fatale/trickster/murderer
-gossipy secretary
-tall beautiful blondes to entertain a rich man
-dumb mistress who flaunts her body
-hard-bodied sex athlete
-secretary who fakes illness so she can go home early
-tall, blonde glamorous assistant in tennis skirt, unsentimental, with a gun (She’s beautiful when she’s angry, did you know that?) “ice blonde”
-flight attendant, “sweetie”
-30 year old rich man’s daughter, coke addict
-secretary
-lawyer in charge of focus group, also a killer, good at karate, beautiful
-a group of older women in sun hats
-land lady
-comedian’s wife
-(actresses?)
-beautiful wife who sits on boards
-flight attendant
-girl who looks like a receptionist
-woman in skirt in distance above waterfall

He also works in the dynamic of men and women fighting over the remote. (What a regular guy!) (p. 267)

______________
lawyers:
He capitalizes quite a bit on lawyer stereotypes--they are “smart” but not street-smart, not able to fix things or figure out how to handle real-life practical situations. This creates a nice blue collar/white collar divide. (Though I’m still not sure where Kenner fits in exactly, sort of a MacGyver intellectual?)

He spends a lot of time pointing out how someone supposedly “smart,” a lawyer with lots of schooling, may actually know nothing at all (pages 422-424)
“There was no question in his mind that she was dead.” “He was sure she was dead.” “She was dead, all right” On 424--She’s NOT Dead! And if he hadn’t done CPR, contrary to his belief that she was dead, she would have been dead. This reinforces the idea that a well-educated person is easily mislead, and can take something for Truth or certainty that is not at all true. Also (448) they are trained to only really worry about malpractice, getting fired, getting in trouble themselves, not what is really true or right. And they whine.

pacifists:
Pacifists or those against violence likely are naive and suburban-raised. If they knew what real life was like out there, they would want to fight. (448)

movie stars:
He capitalizes on anti-Hollywood sentiment, with the Ted Bradley character being an arrogant buffoon who quotes talking points and really just wants attention and a great-fitting t-shirt. And rides around in a SUV Limo.

intellectuals:
Universities aren’t even smart enough to prevent a fake scientist from using their money and identities to set up a fake research base/terrorist act in Antarctica. No one at these research institutions is even paying attention. (p. 250-251)

government:
The government isn’t paying attention: “Because government oversight of foundations and charities is extraordinarily lax. They don’t get audited. The books don’t get inspected. Environmental groups in the US generate half a billion dollars a year. What they do with it is unsupervised.” (229)

news media:
The news media and its weathermen don’t report news, they just read press releases. (454)
___________________

legitimation:
seeing through common knowledge--”everyone knows” (Peter Evans, first many, many pages, the movie star, etc.); legitimation through high-profile funding; Kenner legitimated by being able to poke holes in others’ arguments; Crichton legitimated by being able to provide lots of footnotes; the Vanuatu lawsuit people trying to legitimate themselves by having fancy offices with lots of researchers; legitimation through the words of confident-sounding movie stars; legitimation through reinforcement by your peer group; legitimation by book reviewers; legitimation through state of emergency; legitimation through quoting Mark Twain and George Orwell; legitimation through having tons of graphs

Seeing Devices:
graphs, graphs and more graphs; newscasts & weathermen, seeing by going somewhere and looking with your eyes; seeing by daily experience--“it’s cold here.” “it’s hot out.”;

Issue Selection:
the conference and accompanying park disaster to select the issue of global warming;

Canadians:
Whatever you do, do NOT trust Canadians.

evil:
Lastly: There are bad people in the world and they need to be stopped. (449)

Student gives Crichton more credit, less respect for being sneaky, dubious

As my title suggests, I do give the author more credit than I originally had intended - yes, intended. I had presumed that anyone who was reputedly writing to legitimate one side of a politically-charged war of theories would not be worth my time. But Crichton is anything but dull, and even while I am disappointed that he doesn't put his "only too aware" voice to better (or less 'skeptical for the smug virtue of being skeptical') use, I am glad that he takes the risk of backing himself up in the end matter. This way there is little doubt as to where he stands.

First off, even when characters aren't discussing the realities of their side of overtly polarized arguments, the voice of the author fills our apparent, momentary void of polemics with more subtle jabs at these 'truths.' How? Put simply, through the tone of narration, with little bits of exposition that are on the surface only 'advancing the story:'
"Christ, it was cold..."
"Not bad at all! Quite warm! You are lucky, it's a pleasant August night."
"...Morton was wearing a down vest, a quilted windbreaker, and heavy pants. And he was still cold."
On the one hand, it's Iceland and our philanthropist patsy Morton is supposed to be on a kick of funding research to ease his guilt over inherited wealth while being slightly oblivious to the facts; but I'm seeing, '"Get it? It's DAYTIME in Iceland [the poster place for 'skeptic' groups], and Morton deep down knows it's cold but is blinded by his hunger for altruism [just like everyone who jumps on the global warming bandwagon, and Theodore Roosevelt, and the Rockefeller Foundation]."'

A major red flag in Crichton's 'agenda-less' argument comes a few pages later, when Einarsson cites "climate patterns that are rather specific to Iceland and are unlikely to be related to any global pattern." I would suspect that it is equally unlikely that such a true-science hero would in real life suggest that the world is so disconnected. Case in point: the esteemed Prof. James Lovelock, who in a recent BBC interview said that basically the world is beyond human control of saving - and even went as far as to say that all renewable energy is truly good for at this point is good business tactics, and that scientists no longer practice their craft as a vocation but understand 'only too well' who's paying them (all morsels which I would expect Crichton to eat whole) - was himself the very founder of the widely-accepted Gaia Hypothesis, which frames the earth as a single living organism. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8594000/8594561.stm

I wish someone with this author's passion and power over rhetoric would take a fictional adventure such as this a step further, and include organizations that are working just as hard as Crichton's environmental terrorist network, but to fund 'skeptic' research (a lobby for fossil fuels or a fictional company representing Exxon Mobil).
Perhaps Bruno Latour will treat us to such a 'no-win with old world polemics' story sometime in the future...
As far as I'm concerned, that is where State of Fear is most offensive: even with it's "great respect for the corrosive influence of bias [etc]," the novel employs a decidedly hostile air, in both its choice of statistical references (a la footnotes) and it's contemptuous tone for those who would act on the premise of a moral warning against human ignorance.

In the story Crichton exposes the potential workings of a conspiratorial black box - of creating false support for a global theory - and in doing so more implicitly reveals his own: that of the Author's mixture of storytelling and pre-legitimated fact (what he wants us to trust as "real," the footnotes) to apply imagination to sensitive topics and put into the public atmosphere 'another way to see' the issues. Yet, the discrepancy between the way he skillfully summarizes his own reasoning (through the appendices and bibliography) and the significantly more one-sided views in the content of the book is troubling. Why doesn't he apply the same circulating reference to both sides of the paradigm of climatology?

The answer, it occurs to me, may be fairly simple.
Crichton suggests on pages 718 and 719 that we are in a place of stasis, scientifically-speaking, and are in need of a "new environmental movement, with new goals and new organizations." Based on this I would say that he himself is stuck in the same at old cold war paradigm he describes: find a buzz topic based on a binary and focus on one side of this and nothing else, to please the public - this is happening all the time: partisanship, ethanol vs. fossil fuels, and global warming are just a few examples where the 'science' or 'reality' of the issues has evolved, while the public eye is held adamantly on the old favorites.
As Michael Crichton doubtlessly knows well, that's where the money's at.

circulating legitimation

So I must admit, I was pleasantly surprised that this book was actually a pretty fun, interesting read. It wasn't like I had to pull teeth to read it. Thank goodness. Crichton's use of rhetoric really defines where he stands and if there were no preconceived notions about global warming before this book, he would be one-hundred percent convincing especially with his "footnotes [that] are real." It is his use of rhetoric that really opens the readers eyes to what George Orwell says in the beginning, "within any important issue, there are always aspects no one wishes to discuss." No one really wants to talk about global warming and the possible causes because it is something so important. It is not just a matter for the United States but does effect the whole world. Crichton boldly takes on the topic of global warming and really tries to hit his opinion home with his use of scientific evidence, seen within his footnotes. Crichton comes full circle with a circulating reference that "we know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history, to its present state, to how to conserve and protect it. In every debate, all sides overstate the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty." Crichton is hypocritical in a sense that he seems to do the same thing. Instead of showing a great degree of "evidence" for global warming, he turns the tables and overemphasizes the evidences legitimacy. His reference here really reflects that the thing that no one wants to discuss about important issues, is really the lack of knowledge and the questions that still need to be answered.

Blame it on the weatherman

"The atmosphere is a bigger mystery than anyone will admit. Simple example: No one can say for sure if global warming will result in more clouds, or fewer clouds." - Kenner.

"Wait a minute." Evans said. "Global warming is going to raise the temperature, so more moisture will evaporate from the ocean, and more moisture means more clouds."

"That's one idea. But higher temperature also means more water vapor in the air and therefore fewer clouds."

"So which is it?"

"Nobody knows."

"Then how do they make computer models of the climate?"

Kenner smiled. "As far as cloud cover is concerned, they guess."

"They guess?"

"Well, they don't call it a guess. They call it an estimate, or parameterization, or an approximation. But if you on't understand something, you can't approximate it. You're really just guessing."

Page 235

I'll admit, I'm a Michael Crichton fan. I really enjoyed Sphere, even though it caused me about a week's worth of nightmares because I really don't like being underwater, especially in the ocean. I think he's a wonderful writer, and I really enjoy his writing style because it is so easy to follow. A lot of writers these days go very detailed and descriptive when it isn't relevant or necessary to the storyline. I think his writing is especially useful in science fiction where people can get wrapped up in the technology/science that they forget the storyline and the characters. The storyline is compelling, even though I don't think the characters develop or change much besides in their beliefs. We do see that Peter becomes more questioning, but overall is pretty static.

But relevant to the quote that typed at the beginning of the post, weather, the atmosphere, and things relevant to those areas are pretty murky waters. The fact is we don't know exactly how this works. And Crichton reiterates it on the first page of the author's message, first bullet point (page 715). Predicting the weather is tricky business, especially over the long-term. That's why no one really pays attention to meteorologists (except the very cute Sven Sundgaard <3). It's a black box in the sense that no one but meteorologists know what they're talking about.

Michael Crichton admits that carbon dioxide levels are rising, and it's probably due to human effect (author's message). But he says that we shouldn't raise the alarm about it quite yet because it's all so circumstantial. And I have to say I tend to agree with him (probably my own bias). He's seeing this issue through the fact that most citizens think global warming is real, but no one can say the exact effects. The media has a tendency to latch onto things and take them to extremes and exaggerate. I think if we take anything from the book, it is the need to question anything we are presented a fact, especially if it will cost us a lot of money.

Fiction?

Michael Crichton's novel "State of Fear", is suppose to be a fictional book from his own imagination, but in the opening statements of the novel, before the book even begins he says " This is a work of fiction. Characters, corporations, institution, and organizations in this novel are the product of the author's imagination,or,if real, are used fictitiously without any intent to describe their actual conduct. However, references to real people, institutions, and organizations that are documented in footnotes are accurate. footnotes are real." This kinda says im writing a book to push my opinions on global warming onto you,and if you dont think how i think then your an idiot, and in the footnotes lies the proof to your own idiotic thoughts.

The book talks alot about the issues of global warming, and an organization named National Environmental Resource Fund (NERF)which is really similar to the Environmental Protection agency (EPA). NERF talks about how dangerous global warming is and if the people dont gives tons of money to them then they will all die. a little extreme, but kinda similar to how we support global warming laws and procedures now a days.

"the more speculative genres"

(via Information Is Beautiful)

All of the front matter in State of Fear is extremely loaded, but the excerpt from the Wall Street Journal review struck me. It called State of Fear, “The Da Vinci Code with real facts, violent storms, and a different kind of faith altogether. . . . Every bit as informative as it is entertaining.” Over 300 pages into State of Fear, I only remember seeing those promised footnotes (according to the disclaimer, the only parts of State of Fear that are accurate and not fiction) maybe three times. That’s, what, 1% fact? How is this “informative”? This is a work of fiction with no more reference to contemporary fact than Twilight (though, I’ll bite, it’s a little better written).

This leads me to genre conventions. In Junot Diaz’s The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, our lovingly geeky protagonist, Oscar, repeatedly refers to science fiction as “the more speculative genres”—and that is what I like about science fiction, the little I have read. The ideas it presents to me are often far-reaching, philosophical fears and beliefs. Aside from that, very generally, science fiction is defined by “WHAT IF” with its factual basis revolving mostly around allegory—around history’s tendency to repeat itself thanks to humanity’s continuing flaws.

I don’t get the same feeling from Crichton (in this specific novel) as I do from other science fiction writers. Crichton isn’t alone in having his beliefs shape his writing—H.G. Wells filled his work with socialism, Orson Scott Card’s Homecoming Saga is patterned on The Book of Mormon, etc. The thing that sets Crichton apart from these writers (well, one thing) is that his work takes place in the present and is “grounded in fact.” This book got President George W. Bush to call Crichton to the White House to discuss how they agree on every point. I somehow don’t think Bush would have read Ender’s Game and got started on training children to kill the insect aliens threatening Earth. Disclaimer aside, State of Fear sells itself as embellished truth for the general public. And it works.

Pages 305-311 reframe the climatology paradigm, essentially stating that climate-prediction is driven by grants from people who want to hear that carbon dioxide emissions are harming the planet and won’t hear otherwise. Kenner—a Crichton Gary Stu if I ever saw one (though I’ve heard Peter Evans is supposed to fill this role)—states that despite the earth warming, the margin of error in prediction is so great that we best not listen to climatologists—or indeed scientists—ever. While it does highlight the shakiness of climate-prediction, it can’t refute past climate trends nor can it refute that global temperatures are rising. The fact that Evans buys it blows my mind. Just pages before this Kenner was disproving the conviction that climatology studies funded by coal companies are going to deny global warming. And if climatology is whack, are we really supposed to believe in Kenner’s cooling trends? Who the hell do we trust? And why does an educated lawyer like Evans fail to see that the polemic’s pieces won’t fit together?

I guess that’s another failing on Crichton’s part, and one that permeates all his work—his characters are just there to add dialogue and keep the story moving. I feel no attachment to anyone mentioned thus far. I was vaguely charmed by George Morton, but mostly because I equated him with Ludo Bagman, a character from a children’s series with more depth than this slop. When it looked like Evans was done for, I didn’t care. When it turned out he was alive, I didn’t care. When both Sarah and Evans were freezing to death, I didn’t care.

Poor Michael Crichton. The literary community spurns him for his writing failures and scientists and diplomats fought to keep him away from testifying about scientific facts due to his status as a science fiction writer (disregarding his BS in anthropological biology and his MD from Harvard). It’s like the story of Romantic poet, John Keats. Except that John Keats was actually quite the lyricist and the only reason no one appreciated him was because he was working class. So, in a couple years, maybe Michael Crichton will be taken seriously by scientific and literary authorities. Maybe.