Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6683464" data-attributes="member: 177">Reading the link you provide - many of his premises were disputed *at the time*, much less now: &quot;Sixteen of 18 U.S. climate scientists interviewed by Knight Ridder said the author was bending scientific data and distorting research.&quot;&quot;James E. Hansen, former head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies at the time, wrote &quot;He (Michael Crichton) doesn’t seem to have the foggiest notion about the science that he writes about.&quot; Jeffrey Masters, Chief meteorologist for Weather Underground, writes: &quot;Crichton presents an 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.&quot;&quot;The Union of Concerned Scientists put up a section of their website to address Chricton's distortions.&nbsp; It is still there:&nbsp; <a href="http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=1670" target="_blank">http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=1670</a>So, while it is always okay to seek the truth, it seems you can probably set aside doubts that reading this book may have generated, because the book does not reflect reality on the matter.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6683464, member: 177"] Reading the link you provide - many of his premises were disputed *at the time*, much less now: "Sixteen of 18 U.S. climate scientists interviewed by Knight Ridder said the author was bending scientific data and distorting research." "James E. Hansen, former head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies at the time, wrote "He (Michael Crichton) doesn’t seem to have the foggiest notion about the science that he writes about." Jeffrey Masters, Chief meteorologist for Weather Underground, writes: "Crichton presents an 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."" The Union of Concerned Scientists put up a section of their website to address Chricton's distortions. It is still there: [url]http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=1670[/url] So, while it is always okay to seek the truth, it seems you can probably set aside doubts that reading this book may have generated, because the book does not reflect reality on the matter. [/QUOTE]

Verification