User:Sagredo/Sandbox2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This novel received strong criticism from climate scientists,^[1][2][3] science journalists^[4][5] and environmental groups^[6][7] for inaccuracies and misleading information. Sixteen of 18 top U.S. climate scientists interviewed by Knight Ridder, said the Harvard-trained author is bending scientific data and distorting research.^[8]

Peter Doran, the leading author of the Doran et al 2002[1], published a statement in the New York Times stating that

"... our results have been misused as “evidence” against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel “State of Fear”^[9]

Myles Allen, Climate Dynamics Group, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, wrote in NATURE| VOL 433 | 20 JANUARY 2005:

""Michael Crichton’s latest blockbuster, State of Fear, is also on the theme of global warming and is likely to mislead the unwary. . . Although this is a work of fiction, Crichton’s use of footnotes and appendices is clearly intended to give an impression of scientific authority."^[10]

The Union of Concerned Scientists devote a section of their website to refuting many (but not all) of Crichton’s errors in the book:

"Michael Crichton's latest book State of Fear has characters debating data (complete with graphs and footnotes) and concepts that cast doubt on the validity of global warming evidence. This doubt is echoed in the author's message at the end of the novel and in public interviews. Readers may understandably take away some misconceptions from his book. To clear up these misconceptions, we have selected some representative cases to discuss; the list below, however, is not intended to be an exhaustive list of the errors in Crichton's book."..."[2]

1. How was Michael Crichton able to take the same data that climate scientists use and come to the conclusion that global warming isn’t a real threat?
2. State of Fear uses graphs that don’t show a warming trend. How can specific locations show cooling if global warming is happening?
3. What is the “urban heat island effect” and is it contributing to warming?
4. Crichton argues that C02 in the atmosphere is not closely correlated with warming trends. So why is C02 blamed as a greenhouse gas?
5. Several times Crichton notes that glaciers are expanding not retreating. Is this accurate or only part of the story?
6. Michael Crichton says we can’t predict the future. Does this preclude our taking steps to reduce heat trapping gas emissions?
7. Why do we have to act now to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels?

[3]

Gavin Schmidt a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of Scientific American's "Top 50 Research Leaders." wrote an article titled, "Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion,"

"we have some rather misleading and selective recollection regarding Jim Hansen's testimony to congress in 1988 . . . it is claimed that "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" However, this is not an accurate statement."^[11]

University of Massachusetts-Amherst climatologist Douglas R. Hardy, a coauthor of the 2004 paper on Kilimanjaro cited, says Crichton is distorting his work:

"Crichton is doing what I perceive the denialists always to do, And that is to take things out of context, or take elements of reality and twist them a little bit, or combine them with other elements of reality to support their desired outcome.''^[12]

Dr. Jeffrey M. Masters, Chief Meteorologist, The Weather Underground, Inc. writes:

"Crichton presents a error-filled and distorted version of the Global Warming science, favoring views of the handful of contrarians that attack the consensus science of the IPCC."^[13]

Dr. James E. Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies,elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1966, listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in the Time 100 (2006) list wrote:

He (Michael Crichton) doesn’t seem to have the foggiest notion about the science that he writes about.^[14]

The novel received the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) 2006 Journalism Award. AAPG Communications director Larry Nation told the New York Times, "It is fiction, but it has the absolute ring of truth." The presentation of this award has been criticized as a promotion of the politics of the oil industry and for blurring the lines between fiction and journalism.^[15] After some controversy within the organization, AAPG has since renamed the award the "Geosciences in the Media" Award.^[16]

Dr. Daniel P. Schrag, a geochemist, Director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment, called the award "a total embarrassment" that he said "reflects the politics of the oil industry and a lack of professionalism" on the association's part. As for the book, he added, "I think it is unfortunate when somebody who has the audience that Crichton has shows such profound ignorance."^[17]