Another Angle on Global Warning

[nutball]

For the record Michael Chrichton is a fully qualified doctor, so I think he probably is classed as a scientific mind.

I don't want to sound like a snob or anything here, but training for medical practice and training for a career in scientific research really are very different animals.

Even trained scientific researchers have their own political and moral opinions, and in the real world there can be *ahem* conflict between these views and their research (if the research have broad socio-political ramifications, eg. climate research). How that conflict is resolved depends on the integrity of the individual.

 

[Captain Chickenpants]

Chricton didn't make that comparison, I picked that from an environmental web-site, cherry picking facts to support the alternative viewpoint. For the record Michael Chrichton is a fully qualified doctor, so I think he probably is classed as a scientific mind.

Certainly doesn't show in his work. In fact he specializes in throwing common sense out the window in his work, and pandering to the lowest common denominator of anti-science by always casting technology and scientists as evil.

Even the technique in his medical fiction is terriby outdated (according to a medical friend of mine), as it's been such a long time since he's actually been an active medical professional.

What next, are you going to hold Harry Hill up as a "scientific mind" and therefore holding a factually valid opinion outside his field, just because he used to be a (very poor, by his own admission) doctor?

I wasn't suggesting that him being a doctor gives him some kind of magic qualification in everything. Merely that he has gone through the long learning process required to reach that level so clearly has a good enough mind to read reasearch papers and literature on a subject in which he is not an expertt. Clearly as he has not practiced medicine for many years his knowledge of the subject will be not as good as someone still in the field, and will probably be one of his weak spots as he would consider it as something that he does know.

Given that in writing the book he must have done quite a bit of research (at least based upon the real references to research papers he puts in the book). I suggest that he is probably more qualified to hold an opinion on the subject than those of us who have most of our understanding of the subject from third parties such as the media (or even Mr Chrichtons book) .
The main point of the book is that most peoples understanding of the environment comes from sources which have their own agenda. Either that of the coorpoporations or of the enivornmentalists, BOTH have their own view to put across and pick and choose their data/reaseatch to support their viewpoint.

The only reason I mentioned 'State of Fear' was that I had just read it and it talked about environmental issues. It should not be in anyway taken as a source of information.


On a side note i wouldn't hold up Harry Hill as anything more than an annoying twunt

I don't want to sound like a snob or anything here, but training for medical practice and training for a career in scientific research really are very different animals.

Even trained scientific researchers have their own political and moral opinions, and in the real world there can be *ahem* conflict between these views and their research (if the research have broad socio-political ramifications, eg. climate research). How that conflict is resolved depends on the integrity of the individual.

I aggree entirely! I was simply suggesting that given he has at least had a few years of scientific university education, as well as recently researching the topic. He is at least as well informed as most of us on this board.
I haven't event suggested what his viewpoint in the book was!

CC

 

[MuFu]

Given that in writing the book he must have done quite a bit of research (at least based upon the real references to research papers he puts in the book). I suggest that he is probably more qualified to hold an opinion on the subject than those of us who have most of our understanding of the subject from third parties such as the media (or even Mr Chrichtons book) .

His "story" is unlikely to be truly representative of his viewpoint, moreover a mechanism that uses sensationalism to bring the issue to the masses in an entertaining way. He is obviously a very well-educated fella, but you only have to look at Prey, Jurassic Park etc to realise that he writes his books to sell by the thousand. They are intrinsically paranoid. I understand that State Of Fear is something slightly different, but....

The main point of the book is that most peoples understanding of the environment comes from sources which have their own agenda.

...slightly ironic, no? I haven't read it, so might be way off the mark. :-/

Is there a preface in the book that details his personal opinion on the subject, BTW? IIRC there is something along those lines in Prey (which is crap by his standards - JMHO).

 

[Guden Oden]

Dude, you seem to have taken my post a little more seriously than it was supposed to be.

NO, I saw you were playing the devil's advocate, I just love going on a rant when these topics come up... Sorry, but it's just too hard to resist!

All of your points are spot on, except the last one, the information I got was from a environmentalist site

Ok, so replace "Chrichton" with "environmentalist site" then. As you didn't state otherwise, I assumed everything in your post was collected from his book.

 

[London Geezer]

NO, I saw you were playing the devil's advocate, I just love going on a rant

.Period.

 

[Captain Chickenpants]

NO, I saw you were playing the devil's advocate, I just love going on a rant when these topics come up... Sorry, but it's just too hard to resist!

Fair enough the rant sounded a bit like a knee jerk response to a suggested alternate viewpoint.

Ok, so replace "Chrichton" with "environmentalist site" then. Smile As you didn't state otherwise, I assumed everything in your post was collected from his book.

Yeah, sorry I should have included links to the references. All the references were pro pollition control (as it is actually quite difficult to find web-sites expressing the opposing view) I just picked the bits that sounded anti-pollution control.

His "story" is unlikely to be truly representative of his viewpoint, moreover a mechanism that uses sensationalism to bring the issue to the masses in an entertaining way. He is obviously a very well-educated fella, but you only have to look at Prey, Jurassic Park etc to realise that he writes his books to sell by the thousand. They are intrinsically paranoid. I understand that State Of Fear is something slightly different, but....



...slightly ironic, no? I haven't read it, so might be way off the mark. :-/

Is there a preface in the book that details his personal opinion on the subject, BTW? IIRC there is something along those lines in Prey (which is crap by his standards - JMHO).

His story is simply one that tries to be entertaining, to do that, yes he has to put some element of fear into them, I wouldn't really say that State of fear is any different than his other books in that respect. I find he writes his books in a way that allows you to suspend your disbelief quite easily, as they tend to be written as though they are true accounts.

The only preface I recall is simply to say that it is a work of fiction, but that the highlighted references are genuine, they are then listed at the end of the book.

CC

 

[Mintmaster]

Chricton didn't make that comparison, I picked that from an environmental web-site, cherry picking facts to support the alternative viewpoint. For the record Michael Chrichton is a fully qualified doctor, so I think he probably is classed as a scientific mind.


Cheers,
CC

Would you mind letting me know what that site/source was? Surprising that it was from an environmental web site, as you used the info to give credence to the other side.

As for Chrichton, his work is grossly unscientific. He panders to widespread misconceptions in his books to make money, then spreads even more misconceptions.