Non-global warming?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Film and Television Discussion
slitherydee3 — 19 years ago(December 23, 2006 07:20 AM)
I read something that said MC was a champion of non-global warming, meaning he doesn't think it's real. Has he always thought this? If anyone knows anything about this, please let me know. I really hope it isn't true.
-
MJOTC — 19 years ago(December 24, 2006 12:49 AM)
His opinion on global warming is a bit more complicated then just Yes or No, when it comes to believing it.
This is a great speech he gave which explains his stance in great detail:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." -
Jimmyk10 — 19 years ago(December 31, 2006 05:33 PM)
Ah yes, his "Aliens Cause Global Warming" speech. You know, the way I see it: He himself is promoting an agenda through a political move. Yes, I agree we should defend hard science and separate out science from politics and his proposal at the end of his lecture and stuff. But what I have a problem with is that he wrote out his lecture (His arguement), he wrote it out like a showman. He just pulls a bunch of random facts out from history by random scientists and random events in time and sorta bungles them together for his arguement. That lecture is nothing more than a public showcase of his own abilities as a showman. It says very little about scientific fact or presents much on technical knowledge and numbers.
On global warming, yes, everyo16d0ne knows it is a very broad subject to cover what with the whole world and everything like a disinformation war and stuff. But I think the underlying message (Like from Al Gore and stuff) is that we need to take care of the environment. Mr. Michael Crichton vehemently defends procedural hard science to such a point that he appears to inadvertently (Or advertently, I don't know) to side himself with Big Industry and Big Tobacco as outlined in his lecture. That I have found to be a little bit uncomfortable with So anyway, I just think he too is using the spot light to push his main agenda on squashing what and who he believes to be false scientists and science and I don't think he himself have done enough research into the matter to determine who is right and wrong. But merely throwing facts out and attacking proponents of global warming in a totally bias view and not retaining a balanced multi-perspective view on the subject.
Further more, I have read
State of Fear
a year ago and it was more of his lectures than an actual novel. Not that I have anything against Mr. Crichton for raising awarness about false science, but his insistence on attacking false science from a one sided perspective kind of bothers me. -
MJOTC — 19 years ago(January 01, 2007 01:28 PM)
Well, he started his life to be a doctor, then a psychiatrist, before becoming a writer/director. Nowadays he seems to only write. That's what he does, and he writes about subjects the way any good writer would, he tries to use good Voice and make the writing flow and seem interesting to keep the reader involved. He's not writing like a scientist, because he's not a scientist. He comes off as a "showman", because that's closer to what he really is.
And I think it's evident by
State Of Fear
that he did do some research into the matter of global warming. You said yourself that it sounded more like a lecture then a novel.
As far as him coming off as Pro-Big-Business, etc, it seems as if his novels all have the same basic "bad guys" and they're usually a part of a massive corporation or business. So it would seem odd that he would use them in that way if he really did "work" for them.
What I took from his "Aliens Cause Global Warming" speech is that everyone is biased, even scientists, and we should take certain things into consideration when looking into scientific subjects and not let petty nonsense like political garbage and Consensus Science sway the scientific subjects and the quest for objectivity.
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." -
Jimmyk10 — 19 years ago(January 01, 2007 05:00 PM)
I see your point.
Update: Still, what motive is there for scientists to be biased? If any. And I still think Michael is using his position as a popular SF writer to gain more credibility than he should have. -
AdventureClub — 17 years ago(June 12, 2008 09:50 AM)
Still, what motive is there for scientists to be biased? If any. And I still think Michael is using his position as a popular SF writer to gain more credibility than he should have.
If scientists go with the mainstream, popular view they can secure funding. If they appose what is currently accepted by the majority and wish to do research against it it is unlikely they will receive any funding at all. -
Demarates — 19 years ago(February 02, 2007 12:51 AM)
What I took from his "Aliens Cause Global Warming" speech is that everyone is biased, even scientists, and we should take certain things into consideration when loo5b4king into scientific subjects and not let petty nonsense like political garbage and Consensus Science sway the scientific subjects and the quest for objectivity.
Absolutely correct, but because he specifically targets enviromentalist organisations (run by fact-manipulating lawyers) in this book, it does seem like he is pretty much denying the whole global warming concept, doesn't it ?
Especially when he compares this "craze" to the (eugenetic ?)experiments performed by the nazi's at the end.
I am not a complete idiot. Some parts are missing. -
FunkyDragon — 17 years ago(June 30, 2008 07:13 PM)
"he appears to inadvertently (Or advertently, I don't know) to side himself with Big Industry and Big Tobacco"
As someone else said, he isn't really big-industry, as his villains are often large corporations or affiliated with such. As for Big Tobacco, Al Gore is much more aligned with them than Crichton. It's as simple as former tobacco farmer vs. med student. -
mr_skandl — 19 years ago(March 29, 2007 01:37 PM)
Here's an inconvenient truth for you: Al Gore is an idiot. Read "State of Fear". It will rescue you from having to squandering money on a fiction-based DVD, thus preventing the former VP from obtaining the sufficient capital required to power his ginormous enviornmentally-unfriendly homestead.
"He was trying to fool, Lloyd Braun!" -
mr_skandl — 18 years ago(November 02, 2007 06:38 PM)
The White House is only playing up to it because it's the current popular thing. But your right, it is real. In fact it's been going since the birth of our planet, long before we made an appearance.
&1354quot;He was trying to fool, Lloyd Braun!" -
puirt-a-beul — 18 years ago(November 29, 2007 05:54 PM)
Oh c'mon mr_skandl, that's disingenuous.
Yes
, there's evidence that the planet has cycles its own kind of seasons, if you like, that occur over (what seems to us) a very long period of time.
But many researchers are increasingly of the opinion that there's
also
evidence that what we've been doing to the planet has disrupted those natural cycles, perhaps accelerated them and kicked them into a different pattern one which could have disastrous consequences
and
one that we can't just assume the planet as an ecosystem has the resources on its own to recover from.
The researchers could be in error, of course, and that's why intelligent debate is necessary.
But to try to negate the latter concerns by simply pointing out the existence of the underlying natural cycles is just fatuous misdirection, and does nobody any service.
You
might
very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment. -
shanep-2 — 17 years ago(June 19, 2008 01:17 PM)
"But many researchers are increasingly of the opinion"
And many are not. So?
That's the wonderful thing about science. It doesn't(or if it's not been poisoned by politics, shouldn't)hold authority sacred.
The lone scientist can crumble previously held hypothesis or ideas.
That's what I hate so much about the current debate: It smacks of elitist majoritarianism of the worst kind.
The enemy of scientific debate and thought. -
puirt-a-beul — 17 years ago(June 19, 2008 06:53 PM)
"But many researchers are increasingly of the opinion"
And many are not. So?
So, it's not the clear-cut "this is truth, that is fanaticism" fad that people on the "baahh humbug" side like to try to make it out to be. So far, I don't think anyone can definitively say "this is so" about this matter.
Closing the question off with endpoint claims like "there have always been trends of warming and cooling; this is just another one" may seem comforting, but it may or may not be accurate. It's as much an assumption or subjectively emotive response as those expressed by those who are over-concerned, and ignores any inconvenient evidence that there
may well
be more than that happening.
That's what I hate so much about the current debate: It smacks of elitist majoritarianism of the worst kind.
The enemy of scientific debate and thought.
You're surely not suggesting that the "you're all sheep and aren't listening to the
real
scientists" point of view put forward by the anti-human-influenced-global-warming tribe *
isn't- elitist? And "majoritarian" in its own way? (Just a little more grumpy, because it isn't, actually, in the majority. For the moment, anyway.)
They're two highly emotive and subjective terms to use. It's only when one's own opinion isn't in the apparent ascendancy that phrases like "elitist" come out, but I can't really see how it applies here. And nobody minds being part of a majority, if they feel the majority happens to be right on an issue (ie share one's own opinion). Here, I'm personally not sure that they are, but I also feel it's an insufficient response to dismiss ideas that one has subjectively, emotively chosen not to share, with such a sweeping response.
It's just as politicising, surely, to accuse others of having a certain belief simply for political motives? And especially about something for which let's face it there at least appears to be some evidence to support concern?
If you're going to accuse the people you don't agree with of "elitist majoritarianism" as the reason for why they see things the way they do, then that's an "enemy of scientific debate and thought" right there.
You
might
very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
- elitist? And "majoritarian" in its own way? (Just a little more grumpy, because it isn't, actually, in the majority. For the moment, anyway.)