Bush's Chat With Novelist Alarms Environmentalist

[Sequoia]

WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 — One of the perquisites of being president is the ability to have the author of a book you enjoyed pop into the White House for a chat.
Over the years, a number of writers have visited President Bush, including Natan Sharansky, Bernard Lewis and John Lewis Gaddis. And while the meetings are usually private, they rarely ruffle feathers.

Now, one has.

In his new book about Mr. Bush, "Rebel in Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush," Fred Barnes recalls a visit to the White House last year by Michael Crichton, whose 2004 best-selling novel, "State of Fear," suggests that global warming is an unproven theory and an overstated threat.

Mr. Barnes, who describes Mr. Bush as "a dissenter on the theory of global warming," writes that the president "avidly read" the novel and met the author after Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, arranged it. He says Mr. Bush and his guest "talked for an hour and were in near-total agreement."

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/national/19warming.html

[Poppyseedman]

1. I read "State of Fear" and Crichton does make a convincing

challenge to global warming as not fully understood or even caused by humans.

Before you pass judgment on him, I'd read the book first. The book is footnoted.

If anything, Crichton is not a lightweight.

[eppur_se_muova]

4. Crichton is a lightweight.

He is rich and famous. There are his qualifications. He went to medical school but has never practiced medicine. I don't think that qualifies him as a climate expert, and he certainly shouldn't have been asked to testify before Congress, when there are so many qualified, better informed, practicing scientists who were NOT asked to testify.

[phantom power]

6. That's the problem. It's "convincing," but completely wrong.

And I'll second the other main point: even supposing that he did good-faith "research" for his book, Crichton is a fucking novelist. He's not a climate scientist. Why are Congress and our President spending all this time talking to a novelist about climate change, when there are literally thousands of highly qualified climate scientists to speak with, each of whom has forgotten more about the subject of climate change than Crichton will ever know?

I just finished reading an 800 page novel that also came with tons of footnotes. It was called "Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrel," and it is a fantasy novel about 19th century English magicians. But those footnotes... It's like it really happened!

[Poppyseedman]

8. One question

Did you read the book?

[phantom power]

9. Nope.

[Poppyseedman]

10. Take the time to read it as he does present information

that at least is thought provoking.

For the record, all most climate scientist agree the earth is getting warmer. As does Crichton.

Not all agree on why? Which is the premise for his book.

Basically he says in a nutshell. Before we go and spend trillions of dollars on fighting greenhouse gases, lets get the science right or at least get a lot better understanding of it.

http://www.crichton-official.com/

Check his website out. The speeches are very good. I don't necessarily agree with all he says, but they will, at the least, make you think outside the box.

[phantom power]

26. The thing is, he is behind the curve on this issue.

20 years ago, there was a debate about whether or not anthropogenic CO2 affected the climate significantly. Maybe even 10 years ago. A lot of data has been collected since then, and that debate is basically over. Human GHG emissions are affecting the climate significantly. We've turned all the knobs up to 11, with almost perfectly bad timing.

He picked an unfortunate contrarian theme, at an unfortunate time, for this book. I'm sure it wasn't his goal, but by publishing that book, he's probably done more to enable further denial of what's really going on than the wildest dreams of Exxon's PR department.

[Viking12]

11. I've read the book. It's a steaming pile of cherry picked shit.

Anyone that defends Crichton is a SUCKER!

edited to add:

Here is some fact checking of Crichton's "footnotes":

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/

[Poppyseedman]

12. and your credentials are?

Look, I'm not defending the guy. I do enjoy his books. I have read his research. He has some convincing arguments.

What he has to say about the environment outside of his books has merit. Is he right? I'm not sure.

I do know one thing. He's a hell of a lot smarter than I am and probably you.

[Viking12]

13. PhD.

You're not sure if he's right but you can still claim his arguments have merit??? :wtf:

His speeches are built on strawmen glittering generalities. Like I said, anyone that defends Crichton or the supposed "merit" of his arguments is a SUCKER.

[Poppyseedman]

15. In what?

Not to be rude, but a PhD doesn't qualify you in a different field. I may have a PhD in engineering, but I doubt you want me to operate on your brain

If your PhD is in Climate Sciences or related fields. I'm all ears.

[Viking12]

17. My doctoral dissertation was on climate change science in the policy arena

I am well schooled in climate science, but my credentials are not relevant. That's an argument by authority, an argument I HAVEN'T made. I'd be happy to discuss the "merits" you claim in Crichton's work. I don't need a title to refute them, I can show empirically where he full of crap. BTW, what are Crichton's credentials?

[Poppyseedman]

20. You are a doctored policy wonk?

I see. A true believer. I understand your passion now. Crichtons work refutes many of your passions.

I am neither qualified, prepared nor want to defend Crichtons research.

I do think his work outside his books is interesting and at least to me, makes it worth exploring. Besides that, I enjoy reading his books. If that me a sucker. So be it.

[jpak]

21. It's fiction

and not even Science Fiction.

true believers indeed...

[Viking12]

22. Yep.

Crichtons work refutes none of my passions. I would call him a propagandist, but he's really just a dimwit self-promoter. Seriously, what specifically is worth exploring? For fun I went to his website and read the speech linked -- between the factual inaccuracies and the logical fallacies I wouldn't know where to start dissecting that piece of crap.

[eppur_se_muova]

27. So by being an expert in this area, he's automatically SUSPECT?

...and an underinformed pulp author is worth listening to, precisely because he's NOT an expert?

Now where have I heard that before? Oh yeah...that's the starting point for Republican "discussions" of ANYTHING. Villianize the no-good "insiders"! Ignorance is good! We'll do the thinking so you don't have to!

[Poppyseedman]

16. If I have to explain to you that an argument or position

may have merit, but not sure if it's correct.

You may need to brush up on whatever PhD you have.

[Viking12]

18. Do you know what "merit" means?

I think not.

mer·it ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrt)
n.
Superior quality or worth; excellence:

If it's not correct, it has no merit.

[Poppyseedman]

23. If it makes you happy

I'll admit you think you are smarter than I am, but I'm a lot happier than you.

[Viking12]

24. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

But I'm very happy without being ignorant, thanks ;)

edit:spelling

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. You could also do with knowing what "refutes" means

because I can't see how you think that Crichton refutes someone's else 'passions' (when you don't actually know that person, moreover), yet you claim you're not defending his research.

[jpak]

19. And Chrichton has a PhD in climate science?????

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[jpak]

14. LOL Read the IPCC reports and recent issues of Nature and Science

and all the peer reviewed climate science and tell me that Chrichton knows what he's talking about.

He's a fucking hack and a charlatan - and anyone that buys into his bullshit....well....

:rofl:

[oneighty]

2. Crichton

My only thoughts of him concern his character in that.

In his story of his more or less life he tells of playing football with a body donor's liver in anatomy class.

Now I guess it is ok to play around with dead peoples body parts-not much different than learning heart surgery on once live pet cats-but.

But you know what pisses me off? I am a body donor and I am assured my body parts will be treated with respect and dignity.

This asshole (Crichton) has neither dignity or respect or pride in self.

IMHO

180

[Mend]

3. I don't believe dipshit reads books without pictures and I don't

believe he talked about global warming. They talked baseball.

[eppur_se_muova]

5. crosslink to LBN -- Bush meets with Potboiler Crichton

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2118551&mesg_id=2118551

[Sequoia]

7. Thanks, didn't see it.