Sphere Sphere discussion


934 views
Michael Crighton is such a fucking hack

Comments Showing 1-50 of 98 (98 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Marcia (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:34PM) (new)

Marcia After you read one of his books, why would you read another? I can't believe people like his shit, and they make movies out of it.


message 2: by Robert (new)

Robert Granted Chrighton has some strange, unrealistic books but he also has some very good ones. Timeline and The Great Train Robbery are very good. So is Andromeda Strain. Besides, how many people can write a book that can get published, let alone one that's actually good.


Gabe495 Micheal Crighton is a great author. His books are unbelievable because they are science FICTION. Thats what there made to be; exciting interesting but not believable!


Jeremy Crichton's not for everybody. I think you have to be careful when you're reading him and not take it too seriously, like some people did with Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code.

Robert--I'm not so sure about Timeline and Andromeda Strain, but I am with you 100% on The Great Train Robbery. Sphere, however, is my favorite Crichton book by far and one of my favorite books of all time.


Elizabeth Marcia wrote: "After you read one of his books, why would you read another? I can't believe people like his shit, and they make movies out of it."

Wow, ladylike.




logan Just another internet troll writing hateful crap. Notice how they never put what they enjoy or think is good. Marcia probably thinks Cat in the Hat was a very advanced book.


Gerd Jeremy wrote: "Robert--I'm not so sure about Timeline and Andromeda Strain, but I am with you 100% on The Great Train Robbery. Sphere, however, is my favorite Crichton book by far and one of my favorite books of all time."
I would say just the opposite, Andromeda Strain was amazing, Sphere on the other hand lacked terribly in the logic department. The premise is tempting, but by the end he had written himself in a corner there.


Marx Leo First off.. its Crichton not Crighton. If you have a scientific mind then his books are awesome! If not they're probably boring. I would suggest The Lost World, Congo, State of Fear, and Prey.. all great and exciting books.


message 9: by Ray (new) - rated it 3 stars

Ray i contest that you should probably read Jurassic Park and The Lost World then maybe just give up on his books. Its not that the rest are "bad" per se, but that i grew tired of him and the later books did venture into the "bad" for me.


message 10: by Alice (last edited Jul 02, 2011 09:19PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Alice (; Eh, everyone has their own style. I'm not one for the sciency stuff myself but I like how Michael Crichton has quit the imagination! Some people like the sci-fi, other's don't. If you're one of the ones who don't like it, don't ruin it for the ones who do ;)


message 11: by Hans (last edited Jul 03, 2011 04:04PM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Hans Well, the 'science' in his books is not science. His recipe for cloning dinosaurs is a popular meme, same goes for time travel, multiverses, nanotechnology, etc. etc. More fiction than science if you ask me.

Although I have to admit I liked Jurassic Park.


Brent Hans wrote: "Well, the 'science' in his books is not science. His recipe for cloning dinosaurs is a popular meme, same goes for time travel, multiverses, nanotechnology, etc. etc. More fiction than science if y..."

Actually, most of his books are based on real science. He takes the real science to an extreme, but he references most of the scientific papers that his books are based on.


Erin *Proud Book Hoarder* Why would you post this, under Sphere of all books? I thought Sphere was an intriguing story, loved it.


message 14: by Joel (new) - rated it 4 stars

Joel Sure, I think Crichton has a few books out there that didn't do so well. But all in all, I think his work is amazing. He puts so much thought into the fiction of his novels, that they can be truly believable stories. And why read more than one? Because they're so different! From Jurassic Park, to Eaters of the Dead, to The Great Train Robbery, Terminal Man, etc. They're nowhere near the same. Heck, even Disclosure. That was my favorite of his, and there is very little sci-fi in it. You can't just say all of his books are bad if you didn't like Sphere. But I liked Sphere too.


message 15: by Trike (new) - rated it 1 star

Trike Brent wrote: Actually, most of his books are based on real science. He takes the real science to an extreme, but he references most of the scientific papers that his books are based on.

The problem starts once you know a little bit about science. "Based on" and "remotely accurate in any sense" are two very different things, and Crichton almost never gets it right. His batting average is actually astonishingly bad in that regard. Jurassic Park was incredibly bad about both cloning *and* chaos theory. What really surprised me was how terrible he was at biology, considering he had a degree in medicine. Even worse, he gets *medical* facts wrong, which are on display in a number of his novels, but most notably in Andromeda Strain. He never practiced, which is probably a good thing.

In State of Fear he takes on global warming, essentially saying it's snake oil being pushed by hucksters. You have to wonder if he ever got anything right.

Similarly, I wonder how many people have gotten a completely backward sense of Japanese culture from his egregiously error-ridden novel Rising Sun. I suppose one could excuse the mistakes as primarily belonging to the detective, but that guy was clearly a mouthpiece for the author's opinion.

As for The Sphere, I have to say I hated it. It's just one of those books where you wonder why you bothered and the ending is a "throw book across room" kind of thing.


Raven DeLajour *Michael Chrichton.

And again, if you don't like a book or an author then why post about it? I find it amusing lol.


Megan Jeze people. Take it down a notch. I didn't like Sphere either but I loved Timeline and I've heard Jurrasic Park is superb. Maybe not to someone who really knows science and can nitpick about all the crap Crichton got wrong and focus on only that. You're not reading these books for educational purposes. I read to be transported and entertained. To relax and shut out the chaos around me for a little while. Timeline did that. So did Eaters of the Dead (made as a movie - The 13th Warrior). Sphere did not. I just couldn't get myself into it.


Raven DeLajour Megan wrote: "Jeze people. Take it down a notch. I didn't like Sphere either but I loved Timeline and I've heard Jurrasic Park is superb. Maybe not to someone who really knows science and can nitpick about all t..."

Well said!


message 19: by Trike (new) - rated it 1 star

Trike Vanessa wrote: "*Michael Chrichton.

And again, if you don't like a book or an author then why post about it? I find it amusing lol."


*Crichton

Bad reviews are just as valuable as good ones.


message 20: by Trike (new) - rated it 1 star

Trike Megan wrote: "Maybe not to someone who really knows science and can nitpick about all the crap Crichton got wrong and focus on only that."

The issue is that his books are largely ABOUT science. So it behooves you to kinda-sorta get it right.

If someone wrote a book about Gandhi and said he was born in 1952 in Paramus, New Jersey, and was of Jewish-Irish descent, you'd roll your eyes and call the author an idiot. That's what we're doing with Crichton and his science.

And when someone as popular as Crichton comes out against something that is quite real and is very likely going to make our lives incredibly unpleasant over the next few decades, he becomes more than a hack: he strays into being actively dangerous.


Alain DeWitt Marcia wrote: "After you read one of his books, why would you read another? I can't believe people like his shit, and they make movies out of it."

Marcia, no need to take OPINION into account. Your word is law, after all. I mean, the man has sold tens of millions of books and had many of them adapted into successful films, so it couldn't possibly be YOU who are out of step, right?

Who's the f**king hack?


Alain DeWitt It's C-R-I-C-H-T-O-N!


message 23: by Alain (last edited Jul 23, 2011 10:15PM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Alain DeWitt Trike wrote: "Brent wrote: Actually, most of his books are based on real science. He takes the real science to an extreme, but he references most of the scientific papers that his books are based on.

The probl..."


You ASSERT that he is wrong and yet you don't offer any examples. You just KNOW that he is wrong. Just like everyone KNOWS that man-made activity is causing global warm - er, make that climate change.

Here's a hint: the climate is always changing and measuring temperature changes from one decade to the next is useless as a sign of anything. We can't model the Earth's climate for shit, yet the jury is in, right?


Raven DeLajour Alain wrote: "It's C-R-I-C-H-T-O-N!"

Thank you for that. :) It's refreshing to have some common sense in this sad world.


message 25: by Trike (new) - rated it 1 star

Trike Alain wrote: "You ASSERT that he is wrong and yet you don't offer any examples. You just KNOW that he is wrong. Just like everyone KNOWS that man-made activity is causing global warm - er, make that climate change."

I just figured people would take that comment as an invitation to do some reading of their own. I always forget how lazy people are and how much they dislike science.

I could give a response about global warming, but it would have to be lengthy just to cover the basic points of disinformation that conservatives with corporate ties have perpetuated in order to protect their profit margins. Why anyone who *isn't* being paid off by the oil companies goes against the nearly 30,000 climatologists who agree that global warming is caused by people is beyond me. It's going to cost us a metric buttload of problems in the coming years and those of us who aren't millionaires will suffer the most.

About Jurassic Park's science, then....

Almost none of the animals were from the Jurassic period. Most were from the Cretaceous. That's rather like saying King Arthur fought alongside Washington at Valley Forge. Actually, it's more akin to saying Washington rode dinosaurs across the Delaware.

The blood-from-mosquitoes thing couldn't work. However, this one I'll let go, because we do need *something* to hang the science fiction story on.

That said, mosquitoes ingest blood, which means even if you could extract it, it would just be slush. Even if the DNA hadn't been digested and the mosquito was somehow flash-frozen when it fell into the amber and all biological processes stopped at the moment of death (they don't, not even for people), DNA is extremely fragile and certainly wouldn't have lasted +/- 100 million years.

As I said, though, without this we don't have a story, so as inaccurate as that part is, we'll let it stay in. (Just know that it's totally wrong. I'm just throwing you a dinosaur bone here.)

Crichton suggests they used frog DNA to "fill in the gaps" of the dinosaur DNA, something they used for the film, too. Problem is, frog DNA is about as unrelated to dino DNA as is banana DNA. Even if a viable offspring resulted (it wouldn't, but lets play "what if"), you wouldn't end up with a velociraptor, you'd get some weird reptile/amphibian hybrid. (Which would also die immediately, but that's beside the point.)

Of course, the reason Crichton chose frog DNA is because he wanted the deus ex machina of the cloned thunder lizards spontaneously switching their sex... just like a certain species of frog does. Hmm.

The other reason it wouldn't work is because they would have zero way of knowing which DNA sequences belonged to the dinosaur and which belonged to the mosquito. So they wouldn't know what was good or bad. Of course, there's the other issue that, as it decays, parts of the genetic material resemble other parts of the genetic material. Which means you end with an abundance of one of the four proteins and there's no way to tell if it was something else to begin with.

It's like this:

CAT DOG
CAT COG
CAT COT
CAT CAT

...where all you can see 100,000,000 years later is "CAT". How can you know if it's originally CAT or originally DOG? You can't, because you can't see the other steps.

A real whopper is the whole "T. rex can't see you if you stayed still" nonsense. Even then we knew that wasn't true. T. rex also had a tremendous sense of smell. They would've been snacks if they'd really come across a actual T. rex.

Crichton hand-waved this away as saying it was a result of the frog DNA, but the problem there is that frogs can also see things which are stationary. Except blind frogs, of course.

There's more, but whatever. Look it up. I have to feed my dogs.


message 26: by Alain (last edited Jul 24, 2011 10:00PM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Alain DeWitt Trike wrote: "Alain wrote: "You ASSERT that he is wrong and yet you don't offer any examples. You just KNOW that he is wrong. Just like everyone KNOWS that man-made activity is causing global warm - er, make tha..."

Thanks for calling me lazy and disinterested.

You don't think it's possible that Crichton (who, after all, was much smarter than you) knew about all these errors but decided to write the book anyway and took a bit of artistic license?

For the record, I knew there were things wrong with the science of JP (although admittedly not to the same extent that you pointed out). I just constantly marvel at people that lose sight of the forest for the trees. It was an entertaining STORY. You know? It's fiction. You've seen pictures.

Oh, so a bunch of people who have a vested interest (i.e. their academic careers) in saying global warming is caused by man MUST be right? There are LOADS of things those climatologists (some of whom are undoubtedly some of the same 'experts' who were warning us about the next Ice Age in the 70s) don't understand about the Earth's climate. I say keep studying the climate and keep refining your models. But you say that verdict is in and drastic changes must be made.

Interesting interpretation of the scientific method you have there.


Kimber I have read many of Crichton's books. I've enjoyed several, hated a few and could take or leave some others. I'm not a scientist by far but i do agree with the poster that compared Crichton to Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. Crichton's work can sometimes come across as extremely dry and technical. When the average joe (i.e. peeps like me) see a scientific process laid out step by step with intricate technical detail it makes it more of a believable concept no matter how erroneous the science might be. Much like The DaVinci Code,he might not be right but he sure makes us want to believe he is! Also,just like 100,000 other authors out there, some love him, some hate him and some can take him or leave him. For me it just depends what book of his I'm reading :)


Alain DeWitt Kimberlibri wrote: "I have read many of Crichton's books. I've enjoyed several, hated a few and could take or leave some others. I'm not a scientist by far but i do agree with the poster that compared Crichton to Dan ..."

Well said!!


message 29: by Mackenzi (new)

Mackenzi Trike wrote: "Megan wrote: "Maybe not to someone who really knows science and can nitpick about all the crap Crichton got wrong and focus on only that."

The issue is that his books are largely ABOUT science. So..."


I have to disagree on one point; If someone wrote about a New Jersey born Gandhi, living it up the 40's, that would be a very interesting read. Likewise, even if his science is not realistic, it's interesting, fresh, and (to many) plausible. I can see how someone with more extensive knowledge wouldn't enjoy his work as much, but it hardly makes him a hack, or a terrible writer. As mentioned, it is fiction, not a textbook.

As for the OP, starting off with Sphere was probably not the best way to get into his work. If you are at all willing to give him another chance, though I sense by the strong feelings of hatred for this novel that Crichton might just not be for you, I'd suggest Terminal Man, Congo, or the Andromeda Strain. Those aren't quite as out there, I liked them much better than Sphere. Jurassic Park and The Lost World are very good too, though I read them as suspense novels more than scientific ones. Those take a little more suspension of disbelief.


message 30: by Trike (new) - rated it 1 star

Trike Alain wrote: "Thanks for calling me lazy and disinterested."

"I have more respect for people who change their point of view to take into account new information than I do for people who have the same opinion for thirty years." -- Michael Crichton

Alain wrote: "Oh, so a bunch of people who have a vested interest (i.e. their academic careers) in saying global warming is caused by man MUST be right?"

The issue here is that global warming is clearly caused by people and is clearly already disrupting our lives. Here in New England syrup producers are already experiencing trouble tapping the trees for sap because of the climate changes. That's just one small thing that's going on. Pretty soon it will bite everyone on the ass.

I find it preposterous to categorize tens of thousands of scientists as all having the exact same motivation. As I pointed out these are people from every walk of life, from across the planet, who have done hundreds of years of man-years researching this and they've almost universally come to the same conclusion.

In America it can be career suicide to go up against the corporations in anything, and that recently includes global warming. Look at the scores of scientists silenced about global warming. Look at the numerous changes the Bush administration made to climate studies in order to show that global warming wasn't happening.

Alain wrote: "(some of whom are undoubtedly some of the same 'experts' who were warning us about the next Ice Age in the 70s)"

I'm curious if you are aware of how science works?

When a few climatologists looked at the smog in the air and the cooling trend it created in certain areas of North America, they said that a Little Ice Age was approaching.

However, by far the larger number of climatologists took into account more far-reaching data and concluded that we were, in fact, headed for global warming. It wasn't even a contest: the majority of them said "global warming." And they were proved right.

I'm also wondering if you're aware of how the media works?

We have a saying: "If it bleeds, it leads." The more sensational the story, the more prominently it gets featured. Ice Age was a (no pun intended) cooler story than global warming, so media outlets ran with it. Despite the fact that most scientists said global warming was what was actually happening.

If you go by media stories, it seems like everyone was saying the ice age was imminent and we'd all be living in igloos. But if you look at the text of those stories, they mostly emanate from just a few people. Everyone else said, "Hey, no really, we're heating up, not cooling down." But the reasonable guys were ignored in favor of the Chicken Littles.

Here are the numbers from 1970: percent of climatologists who claimed imminent ice age: 10%. Percent who claimed global warming: 62% Undecided: 28%. The incorrect view which didn't follow the data was blown out of proportion.

Some people actually listened. Watch the 1973 movie Soylent Green. All hot all the time. In that regard and the prediction of massive extinctions it's dead on.

Here's a later report from the National Academy of Sciences on global climate change and what they said about an "impending ice age":

"[T]here seems little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate, but there is no consensus as to the magnitude or rapidity of the transition. The onset of this climatic decline could be several thousand years in the future, although there is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next 100 years."

That's it, the smoking gun. Note that the word "finite" in this usage means "limited". Basically they're saying, "Yeah, it's *possible* but not *probable*."

So to sum up: only a few predicted ice, most predicted fire. Now almost all predict fire.

I'm just doing this for you. I don't have kids and I have lots of dough. I'm going to be fine. You guys are screwed. And I'll get to say, "Told ya so."


Alain DeWitt Trike wrote: "Alain wrote: "Thanks for calling me lazy and disinterested."

"I have more respect for people who change their point of view to take into account new information than I do for people who have the s..."


I am curious. If global warming is such a 'slam dunk', then why are climatologists associated with the IPCC falsifying data? And why are they so committed to stifling heretics (i.e. those who don't agree with them)?

I thought the essence of the scientific method was skepticism.

But thanks for your long-winded condescension.


message 32: by Gerd (last edited Jul 25, 2011 01:16PM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Gerd Alain wrote: "Trike wrote: "Alain wrote: "You ASSERT that he is wrong and yet you don't offer any examples. You just KNOW that he is wrong. Just like everyone KNOWS that man-made activity is causing global warm ..."

I wouldn't know if Crichton was smarter then her, I didn't know him, nor do I her. So I wonder how you would?

Just to say, no point in making baseless accusations.


Trike wrote: "Alain wrote: "You ASSERT that he is wrong and yet you don't offer any examples. You just KNOW that he is wrong. Just like everyone KNOWS that man-made activity is causing global warm - er, make tha..."

With that approach you just should avoid reading dino fiction, you will never enjoy it. :)


Alain DeWitt Gerd wrote: "Alain wrote: "Trike wrote: "Alain wrote: "You ASSERT that he is wrong and yet you don't offer any examples. You just KNOW that he is wrong. Just like everyone KNOWS that man-made activity is causin..."

The same way that Trike just KNOWS that global warming is caused by man...


Megan Trike wrote: "Megan wrote: "Maybe not to someone who really knows science and can nitpick about all the crap Crichton got wrong and focus on only that."

The issue is that his books are largely ABOUT science. So..."


OK - you lost me a little bit with the part about Crichton writing aobut something that is quite real and will impact our lives....
But I quess I look at the science bit as just accepting it as possible in THAT story. You can write a book about a fictional character and put them in a historical setting from real history and historians aren't going to argue that that person never really existed or did those things. For me, it's like that. Sure, you can't combine frog and dino DNA and clone all the different species of dinosaurs in the REAL world but you CAN in Crichton's. Got it. I think that's called imagination.


Alain DeWitt Megan wrote: "Trike wrote: "Megan wrote: "Maybe not to someone who really knows science and can nitpick about all the crap Crichton got wrong and focus on only that."

The issue is that his books are largely ABO..."


WELL SAID!!


message 36: by Joel (new) - rated it 4 stars

Joel Agreed. I think some people are looking at some of his key pieces such as Jurassic Park and saying "oh, that can never be true" and completely lose respect for him. When the people who truly love his work are saying "of course not. but what a cool story". You cant deny that JP was a great idea.
Its science-FICTION. Not science. Dont read too much into it. Just enjoy it as books are suppose to be. Crichton took my imagination to some pretty far out places, and I thank him for that.


Brent Trike wrote: "Alain wrote: "You ASSERT that he is wrong and yet you don't offer any examples. You just KNOW that he is wrong. Just like everyone KNOWS that man-made activity is causing global warm - er, make tha..."

I have a science background. I have been to graduate school for a PhD in pathology. I have experimented with many of the things that Crichton talks about in his novels. Although I agree there are problems with certain procedures he talks about, he is a science fiction writer. Many people would be bored stiff if he were to stay completely rigid with exact, properly explained scientific procedures. He takes the science and uses it to come up with, in my own opinion, brilliant stories to entertain many people. I love science and have a very extensive background with much of what he talks about. I have no problem with how he manipulates things to take the story farther than regular science can now explain. Maybe they wouldn't find viable DNA from dinosaurs in mosquitoes stuck in amber, but they have isolated living cells from dinosaur bone marrow in the past few years. Crichton explains things the best way he can to entertain and I love the way he incorporates science as much as possible into the books. It makes a completely unrealistic story more realistic for me.


Alain DeWitt http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-...

Could it be that climatologists don't understand the Earth's climate as well as they think they do?

Just saying.


message 39: by Gerd (new) - rated it 2 stars

Gerd Alain wrote: "http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-......"

Not much of an reliable source you got there, but that's besides the point. That our interferrence is affecting weather on a global scale is still a fact.


message 40: by Alain (last edited Jul 30, 2011 08:16AM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Alain DeWitt So you don't think data from a NASA satellite which was sent up expressly for the purpose of collecting data on the climate is reliable? What's the matter? Peer-reviewed journal not 'science-y' enough for you?

Someone, somewhere in this thread wrote something about changing your views as new information was brought to light. But the global warming alarmists will have none of that!

Thanks for proving my point.


message 41: by Alain (last edited Jul 30, 2011 08:42AM) (new) - rated it 2 stars


message 42: by Gerd (last edited Jul 30, 2011 11:23AM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Gerd Alain wrote: "Someone, somewhere in this thread wrote something about changing your views as new information was brought to light. But the global warming alarmists will have none of that!
..."


I'm not even quite sure what "global warming alarmists" are supposed to be?

Sounds like political charades to me that have nothing to do with serious science.
What the article says, and what that writer makes of it is like saying "Look we are writing 2011 already and AIDS is still far from wiping us out so much for your 50% by 2020 predictions, AIDS is not really a danger"
But guess what, just because people like Al Gore love to blow up facts to apocalyptic dimensons doesn't mean that these are false or do not exist at all, nor that they don't affect us.
(Well not really us, but our children or theirs)


Alain DeWitt Gerd wrote: "Alain wrote: "Someone, somewhere in this thread wrote something about changing your views as new information was brought to light. But the global warming alarmists will have none of that!
..."

I'm..."


And I say that our understanding of the Earth's climate is still far too rudimentary to say that we know what these facts mean. And I am not prepared to use the coercive power of the state to force drastic changes on people's lives on the basis of poorly designed climate models.

And on that we shall have to agree to disagree.


Megan I agree w/ Alain. We've been studying the climate for what? 100 years? And we think we know it all and can predict what's gonna happen? Stupid.

I think it's arrogance to think that man can influence the planets atmospheric temperature and be the cause of either global warming or an ice age. A single volcano puts out more Co2 in one day that all of humanity in 5 years. Can't this current "warming trend" just be part of the earths natural cycle? How about the old original greenhouse effect bell curve thing. At the bottom of the curve it's too cold for percipitation but not cold enough to maintain the glaciers. They start to melt. At the same time the lack of rain decreases plant life. W/o the plants the Co2 levels increase so much that the earth starts to warm up. Glaciers recede, moisture begins evaporating again. That gives us more percipitation. Glaciers grow again. Ice age. Warms up a little more and we get rain. And more rain = more plants. More plants = less Co2. We cool off. Enter another ice age. Cool off a little more and we're back where it started.

And I think that now they're thinking that it's not the Co2 levels that are causing it but the sun heating up and cooling off.

Scientists are discovering new information almost everyday. To pass laws and spend millions trying to avert something that we know next to nothing about is ridiculous.


Alain DeWitt Megan reminded me of another point I wanted to make. Namely that our ability to measure is getting better all the time, which calls into question measurements taken even as recently as dozens of years ago.

I have read statements about 'trends' that have occurred over the last several decades. There aren't words to quantify how small that is on a geological scale. Eye blink is too generous.

On another note, I am all in favor of alternative energy, cleaner energy, but not for the same reason that people who believe in global warming are. I think we should develop these technologies so that we can wean ourselves off of oil, the sale of which goes to enrich some of the worst regimes on Earth today. I also think their development would benefit our economy and return us to a leadership position in science, technology and as an economy.


Megan Agreed.


message 47: by Trike (new) - rated it 1 star

Trike Alain wrote: "I am curious. If global warming is such a 'slam dunk', then why are climatologists associated with the IPCC falsifying data? And why are they so committed to stifling heretics (i.e. those who don't agree with them)?"

Except they didn't. As every independent investigation proved.

One of the biggies was the so-called "glaciergate." The IPC said that Himalayan glaciers were receding faster than any others and would likely -- note that word "likely" -- disappear if warming trends continue at the present rate. Also note the word "if." That's how they couch things, these cautious scientists. They say, "here's the current rate" and then they say "here's what might happen if it continues." And then right-wing factions with a vested (read: financial) interest in the status quo disparage such comments.

The email debacle was scientists -- who happen to be human beings with real human feelings -- were frustrated and angry by the ridiculousness of petty, greedy, selfish and, yes, *stupid* people who were vexing them at every turn. And they expressed that frustration and anger AMONGST THEMSELVES.

It never reflected in the science. They vented, they got it out of their system and then they moved on and treated their job like professionals.

The IPCC isn't perfect, because people aren't perfect. But science is a self-correcting mechanism and politics falls by the wayside eventually. Anything to do with a subset of climatologists doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of them (97%+) agree that humans cause global warming.

I'm guessing you listen mostly -- or only -- to Fox News. Not too long ago, the bosses at Fox News (who are intimately connected to both the GOP and oil companies) handed down a memo (which was leaked, go look for it) that all Fox television personalities were to downplay global warming and try to discredit it.

The reason why they did that is because of those ties to the oil companies, specifically Exxon-Mobil, who stand to lose the most if we ever wake up and start doing something about global warming. They certainly want to keep those record profits coming in. I'll bet you don't care that we give those same oil companies massive subsidies from your tax dollars.

They are lying to you and using you for their own selfish gains and you're letting them do it for some reason I can't fathom.

The reason this comes back to Crichton is because US Senators are taking up his rallying cry that global warming is "snake oil science." Sarah Palin has said it a number of times and, for reasons that baffle me, people actually listen to that empty-headed ditz.


message 48: by Trike (new) - rated it 1 star

Trike Alain wrote: "So you don't think data from a NASA satellite which was sent up expressly for the purpose of collecting data on the climate is reliable? What's the matter? Peer-reviewed journal not 'science-y' eno..."

Except that it's NOT a peer-reviewed journal. It's just an online forum.

And the guy who wrote that is a Creationist who claims God wouldn't let the Earth warm up and kill us. He's anti-evolution and anti-global warming and he's funded by -- wait for it -- the oil companies.

Every climatologist who has looked at his data has noted that he actually altered the data to fit with his preconceived notions and that his idea -- that clouds cause global warming and heat is radiated out into space faster the hotter the planet gets -- is the same song he's been singing for years now, and there is ZERO other data to back him up.

Okay, so that lie was easy to disprove. But don't take my word for it, go look up the reaction of actual climatologists who don't have an axe to grind.


message 49: by Trike (new) - rated it 1 star

Trike Brent wrote: "He takes the science and uses it to come up with, in my own opinion, brilliant stories to entertain many people. I love science and have a very extensive background with much of what he talks about. I have no problem with how he manipulates things to take the story farther than regular science can now explain."

That's fine by me. Enjoy his stories all you want, but as you say, you can't go by his "science" because it's far too ridiculous.

All I said was that *I* can't enjoy his stories because they are entirely too silly/stupid to be believable. I love science fiction, but I refuse to dump the "science" part of the equation for the "fiction" aspect. If that were all I wanted, I'd just read Animal Farm over and over again. I prefer *plausible* science and Crichton fails to deliver that in most cases. Every once in a while, as with the movie Looker, he hits on something really interesting that actually foreshadowed the world we live in.

That doesn't excuse his blatant and wrong-headed attacks on REAL science, though.


message 50: by Gerd (new) - rated it 2 stars

Gerd Trike wrote: "That doesn't excuse his blatant and wrong-headed attacks on REAL science, though ..."

When and where did Crichton "attack" science?
That sounds as plausible to me as saying that Dan Brown is falsifying history for his novels- after all they are only writers.


« previous 1
back to top