Talk:Michael Crichton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)


Contents

[edit] Unattributed POV

However, Crichton's expertise to discuss these points is not particularly obvious, and many of his examples are poor. (emphasis added for talk page)

I haven't read the entire critique of Crichton's "idea" about global warming, but if the start is any indicator then I think it should just be reverted. Wikipedia itself should not be saying that "his examples are poor". That's SOMEBODY's point of view, and we should:

  1. identify the person holding that POV; and,
  2. attribute that POV to the person, as opposed to declaring it outright

I'm guessing that it's Dr. C's point of view, but I'm going to revert first and "ask questions" afterward. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 15:33, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 18:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)) So have I. The statement that his examples are poor is justified by the subsequent discussion of them. MC is a novelist. Its not clear why anyone takes seriously his opinions on science, and why wiki should report them. Since it has, they need to be commented. You chose to chop before talk, so lets try a concrete example to discuss:
Within the nuclear winter section, Crichton examines an equation for the observations" as he claims. Within the nuclear winter section, Crichton examines an equation for the effects and asserts that "none of the variables can be determined. None at all". Which is odd, because the quantities involved as things such as warhead size, warhead yield and detonation height. All of

these can be given reasonable guesses to explore different scenarios.

That seems fair to me. C has grossly overstated his case for the invalidity of nuclear winter.

I think the section on "aliens caused global warming", should be a seperate artical, as are all his other works. Furthermore I think is important to avoid using biased terms, such as "obviously wrong", while at the same time not treating two uneaqual sides of an arguement as being equally credible.

(William M. Connolley 21:53, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)) It was a separate article but got put up on VFD (not by me, BTW) and got merged here instead of deleted. I would have preferred delete.


I edited (heavily) the critique of "Aliens Cause Global Warming". Portions of it were absurd, the idea that Crichton's expertise to discuss "junk science" "isn't immediately obvious" is laughable. Particularly since many of the examples he uses to make his point are related to medicine. Did the original author of that "hatchet job" forget that Crichton is a respected MD?

(William M. Connolley 17:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Yes you did edit it heavily - odd that you then marked the edit as minor. I've reverted it. Trying to assert that he has an extensive educational background in various scientific disciplines doesn't make sense. You cut out:
The section in question in a minor portion of the overall article - that's why I marked it as minor. As far as MC's background as a scientist goes, what exactly do you think anthropologists and doctors are? I'm reverting it back to the modified version as the original is rubbish. You want in fix it, then do so, but the first draft is worthless. It is a petulant tantrum, not an objective analysis.--JonGwynne 21:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 00:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Its minor is it? That would explain why you don't really mind if the text is one way or another, yes? Come on, be honest. Anything you care enough about to keep reverting isn't minor.
It was a minor revision because it was a minor portion of the overall article. Understand now?
(William M. Connolley 10:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)) You were wrong to mark a large controversial edit as minor.
Within the nuclear winter section, Crichton examines an equation for the effects and asserts that, "none of the variables can be determined. None at all." Which is odd, because the quantities involved as things such as warhead size, warhead yield and detonation height. All of these can be given reasonable guesses to explore different scenarios.
Kindly explain why, other than embarrassement for C.
I cut it because it is nonsense. Various warhead yields (who cares how physically big a warhead is?) are data controlled exclusively by the military - the only information publically available is that which the military decides to release to the public - and none of it is independently verifiable. There is no reason to assume that the information about the number of warheads in existance, or their yield is accurate - the military has every reason to be coy and even deceptive about those data. Even they are accurate, there is no way to know how many would be successfully launched in the event of a nuclear exchange. Even if there was, there would be no way to know what their targets would be. Even if there was, there is no way to know how many would reach those targets. Even if there was, there would be no way to know where they would be detonated. As Crichton says, rather pointedly in his essay: "The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice"--JonGwynne 21:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 00:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)) You're deliberately underplaying the amount of info available, now and then. C's "none at all" is clearly unreasonable: pure rhetoric: no science.
Feel free to add references to the info that is available and we'll see. In the meantime, Crichton's point (that none of the information required to fill in the equation is available) remains valid. It isn't "clearly unreasonable".

Also, is it possible that there is more than one version of this lecture extant? I ask because several of the things the original author wrote about the piece didn't seem to have any connection with it. The points Crichton made were radically different from those the critic attributed to him. Several things the critic claims Crichton mentioned (e.g. that there is proof the theory of Nuclear Winter has been disproven, that Chrichton praised Fred Singer or that Crichton is attempting to disprove the theory of Global Warming) either don't show up in the piece or are flatly contradicted by Crichton's statements.--JonGwynne 17:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 17:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)) The criticisms I put in are based on the lecture that is linked to the page.
Then explain where C. refers to Fred Singer - his name is mentioned nowhere in the text.
(William M. Connolley 00:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Check the edit history. I never mentioned Singer. That was noted lefto Ed Poor - why not go complain to him about his inaccuracy, if you feel so inclined.


He also never claims the theory of Nuclear Winter has been (your quotes) 'refuted by "definitive, reproducible observations"'. You also completely missed the point of his lecture - that science has been gradually assigned a secondary role to validate people's prejudices rather than discover facts. Thus, his references to Drake's Equation, Nuclear Winter and the alleged dangers of second-hand smoke are exactly on point. This is all "junk-science". BTW, I notice that you indulge is exactly the sort of "concensus science" that Crichton warns about when you say (without supporting evidence) "although tobacco companies vigourously denied the effects of second hand smoke, the dangers are now well recognised".--JonGwynne 21:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 00:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)) You're bitching about the text that Ed Poor wrote.
Apparently you agree with his assessment since you restored his version rather than restoring your own or editing my modifications. Still, it is academic at this point since someone else has come along and deleted the reference to the lecture competely. I restored a basic version that I hope will be acceptable to everyone.

Even if something is blatantly wrong, Wikipedia should only note controversy over it, not criticize the thing itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it does not and should not take sides in debates. Only where there is no serious debate (e.g., evolution, where no serious scientist says it didn't happen; quite a few serious scientists argue about global warming and second-hand smoke, whether or not they're in the minority) should something be stated as fact. Even then, if there's substantial but non-serious disagreement (e.g., evolution), that should be noted in a non-condescending if secondary manner.

By the way, the "minor edit" flag is only to be used for things like correcting typos, grammar, diction, formatting, etc. No substantive change to the content of an article, no matter how small, should be flagged as "minor". See Wikipedia:Minor edit. —Simetrical (talk) 03:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religious views?

Watching re-runs of the early seasons of ER, it struck me that the series is very secular for a major US TV show. It seems like any sort of religious feeling is restricted to the black characters (and one ambiguous and rather jarring scene involving Lewis wandering into a church). We have Mark Greene as an "out" atheist, Ross is lapsed, Carter and Weaver are at the very least agnostic, and quite likely atheist, Romano is probably atheist, and of course Corday is. Is this reflective of Crichton's own views? Can we add him to the "list of famous atheists"? Bonalaw 09:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That does deserve attention. I'll see if I can't find information online. --DUc0N 21:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Some of the text in this article debating Dr Crichton's views on global warming (among other things) are worded in a poor way. While these points deserve addressing, it needs to be done in a way that respects NPOV.

(William M. Connolley 23:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I can live with your rewording. But NPOV doesn't mean being weaselly. If someone says something flatly untrue (as C did, about the models) its entirely in order to point that out.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/society.html and http://quinnell.us/religion/famous/cd.html says he is and http://www.adherents.com/people/pc/Michael_Crichton.html says he is not.

[edit] Ad Hominem

"However, Crichton's expertise to discuss these points is not particularly obvious"

What would qualify as sufficient expertise? He has an M.D. from Harvard Medical School.

(William M. Connolley 19:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Which would appear to be quite irrelevant to most of his stuff. It might be of use on the P fever bit, I suppose.
That wasn't the only health-related issue Crichton mentioned. Are you SURE you read the same version of his lecture that is displayed in the link in the article? Oh, BTW, Paul Erlich is an etmologist - yet that doesn't stop him talking out of his ass about issues of population. Carl Sagan is an astronomer and yet you apparently have no problems with him claiming to speak with authority on the subject of climatology. Couldn't it be said about both these men that their "expertise to discuss these points is not particularly obvious"?--JonGwynne 21:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Paul Erlich is an etmologist - yet that doesn't stop him talking out of his ass about issues of population." And all of what he says is bullshit. The Club of Rome models don't take account of technological change. Trekphiler 10:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 00:07, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I don't recall defending or in any way mentioning PE. Why are you bringing him into this?
Only because you restored the version which holds both men out as experts in fields completely unrelated to that which they formally studied. Are you saying you agree with me that Erlich has no credibility on matters of overpopulation?

He is clearly (at least to me) both intelligent and educated.

(William M. Connolley 19:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Eductaed in general, yes. About the subjects he discusses, no. He is wilfully ignorant.

He has an interest in the subject such that he has made the effort to both research and think about it.

(William M. Connolley 19:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I can't understand how you can say that. About GW, C says No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world.. This is nonsense. Either he hasn't bothered looking (quite likely IMHO) or... errr... dunno. See http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/309.htm for a widely available summary of research on the subject. Its from the 2001 IPCC report. Its impossible that C can have failed to have heard of it.
What is more likely is that he's heard of it and read it completely. It openly admits some of the shortcomings in the models they're using and glosses over more serious ones. As Crichton points out in his lecture, no one has managed to yet come up with a model that can predict the weather 12 hours in advance with absolute certainty - yet they're asking us to take it on faith that predictions can be made with absolute accurance a century into the future? Nonsense. You're obviously a Global Warming partisan and that's fine but don't go trying to impose your faith on those of us who still waiting for proof.
Isn't that like saying insurance companies should not use statistical data because individual fate remains quite unpredictable?

I can see arguing with his article, but the question of his qualialifications seems to me to be ad hominem. --Stevenschulman 18:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)) As far as I can see, C's opinions on these subjects is of no interest and shouldn't be in wiki. When they were on their own page they were vfd'd and (slightly oddly IMHO) although they got a majority for delete, they were merged here instead. So we're stuck with them. As such, it seems fair to label them for what they are - just his personal opinion. Otherwise people might, for example, make the mistake of thinking he was in some way qualified professionally.
He is qualified professionally, he was educated and qualified as a scientists. As such, he is certainly equipped to discuss the abuse of science by politicians and marketing executives.

"As far as I can see, C's opinions on these subjects is of no interest and shouldn't be in wiki." They absolutely should be in wiki, on a page that deals with the life and opinions of Michael Crichton.

"So we're stuck with them. As such, it seems fair to label them for what they are - just his personal opinion." They're absolutely his personal opinion, and should clearly be labeled as such. A wording that says something like "Crichton spoke about the junk science of global warming" should be edited, because it's implying that global warming is in fact junk science, but "he expressed his views of the dangers of consensus science and junk science . . . with regard to popular but disputed theories" makes it perfectly clear that those are his views alone. What we absolutely should not do is label the views as false when they are, in fact, held by some qualified scientists. It's not only idiots and ignoramuses who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, or global warming altogether. —Simetrical (talk) 03:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how this fits into C's views but some of you seem to be missing the point. Very few scientists are saying they're certain global warming is going to destroy the earth and ever fewer believe they're certain. What they're saying is we have evidence it is occuring and if we're right, we're probably in deep shit. We also believe taking certain actions we may be able to prevent or at least slow it. Given the evidence and the risks, we believe we should take these actions to prevent it occuring. They're also saying we believe the problems that these actions bring are minor in comparison to the risks if we don't take them. Nil Einne 18:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ACGW removed entirely

(William M. Connolley 10:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I've removed ACGW entirely (and hence the "ideas" section). The stripped-down version is worthless. I'm not sure removing it is right, though - opinions?

Reference to ACGW should not be removed - so I replaced it. It is a valid part of any discussion of Crichton's body of work. Why do you believe "the stripped-down version is worthless"? It is simply a non-judgemental mention of the ACGW lecture and a link to it for anyone who wants to learn more about it. I agree that this entry isn't the best place to debate the relative merits of the talk in question, but it absolutely the right place to point out its existence and provide a link to it. Personally, I think you're just angry because it challenges (and rightfully so) the validity of an unproven theory in which you evidently have a great deal of faith. Based on your writings here, you're clearly an advocate for one of the many possible interpretations of research into possible climate change. Does it really bother you that someone would have the nerve to question the science underlying the conclusions to which some people have some in this field? Isn't the whole point of science to challenge assumptions and force people to prove them by testing their claims?--JonGwynne 23:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 00:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Crichton makes no attempt to engage with the science at all. Try http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I am replacing the deceptive version with a neutral one.--JonGwynne 01:23, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Editing/Reversion War

So are we going to discuss this and arrive at a compromise that suits everyone, or is this just going to continue until the wikipedia server fills up with revisions? Personally, I think there should just be a short, objective description of the lecture along with the link and then whoever wants to read for themselves can draw their own conclusions. William Connolley and Lumidek should both consider chilling out a bit - but that's just my opinion.--JonGwynne 02:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, you've made a great job, Job - which I appreciate especially because you are a native speaker who can write well. Thank you! Do I understand correctly that you as a neutral party view this new version of yours as legitimate? I surrender with the word "controversial", that was reinserted, and with some missing witty sections about the lecture - like the predictions of horses and horseshits in 1900 when they did not know computers, DNA, HTML, ... (a list of 100 things follows). I am curious whether William is gonna reinsert his bizarre belief that the "scientific consensus" that criticized continental drift for 50 years was correct! Did you lose your mind entirely, William? It seems to me that Crichton is talking kind of exactly about you - you seem to believe that if you agree about something with 100 of your left-wing friends, it's more than if Lumidek, Lomborg, Lindzen, or Crichton gives a single factual argument? --Lumidek 02:15, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. To answer your question, I'm still not completely happy with this new version - mostly because I think it is too long. This lecture isn't a major part of Crichton's career and many of his fans probably haven't even heard of it. Though, I haven't read his latest book - he might mention in there. I ditched the references to the horse pollution and the long list of modern inventions that a person of 1900 wouldn't recognize simply because they were minor points in his overall argument. I agree with you that William is probably one of what Crichton would consider The Enemy or Science - a proponent of "concensus science" and popular assumptions who responds emotionally instead of rationally when his beliefs are challenged. If you read his entries, you can see that he is a strong believer in the theory of global warming and simply won't accept that what he sees as solid is, in fact, a "house of cards". I don't know about you guys but I'm old enough to remember when "global cooling" was the big boogeyman that pseudo-scientists like Erlich were warning us about. The thing would probably drive William the most crazy is that I am what most people apparently consider a "leftist".  ;-> BTW, William, in case you look in, I believe that we should encourage the use of bio-diesel and other non-fossil fuels to replace the widespread use of petroleum and coal not because I believe their use has been proven to be causing climate-change (because it hasn't) but because doing so would be of enormous economic, social and political benefit to the world (I'll elaborate if you need me to) and because the global-warming alarmists might be right. Just because they haven't proven their theory doesn't mean that I believe they're wrong, just that they've not yet proven that they're right. Understand the difference?--JonGwynne 03:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi Jon, very interesting remarks. Yes, I agree that the lecture is not the punch line of his career, certainly not if counted in dollars. :-) Yes, we've had some exchanges about the global warming with William. He has many more about this issue because it is his issue, I have many more about physics which is my subject - William also partly participates in physics polemics. Although he's a physics outsider, I would say that typically he's on the correct side. ;-) Finally: yes, there can be differences on the left wing. (Alan Sokal who is also left-wing made his hoax exactly because he was upset about the other, postmodernist leftists who undermined the strength of the Left in his opinion.) There are also differences on the right wing where John McCain often puts himself, despite his William-like support for all statements of the global warming theory. This climate is mostly a left-right debate, but not exactly. At any rate, it is mostly a political debate. Because of Crichton's comments on continental drift and William's answer, last night I studied all these things and precontinents for many hours; amazing stuf.. Happy New Year! --Lumidek 13:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 22:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Well, L and JG seem to be getting on fine, which is real nice. Now lets try to address the blatant POV they put into the article...

It's a description of his speech. --Lumidek 23:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
MC isn't a well-credentialled scientist. He is a writer of sci-fi potboilers. But we can see this from what he has written, we don't need to know his background. Because...
I've already tried to explain you that the price of these insults is equal the price of human excrements. You're obviously unable to understand it - probably because your thinking has the same value, William. ;-) It's not important whether he's paid as a scientist: what is more important is that he has a much more honest scientific and balanced approach than you, he knows more about the subject than you, and his opinions and findings about the climate are more influential than yours by several orders of magnitude, William. --Lumidek 23:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And let's stop to remark about how well William is making Dr. Crichton's point for him: that those who question the questionable science underlying certain popular but scientifically unsupported theories are subject to personal attacks. Someone who questioned a legitimate scientific proof would simply be told "You're wrong and here's where you can find proof that you're wrong - if you care". Only those who question things that haven't been proven are told "You're stupid, you're worthless, you're evil, you don't know enough to question us, etc"... "science fiction 'potboilers'" indeed. Could William be any more condescending or sactimonious?--JonGwynne 16:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why exactly has MC's dismissal of nuclear winter modelling Within the nuclear winter section, Crichton examines an equation for the effects and asserts that, "none of the variables can be determined. None at all." Which is odd, because the quantities involved as things such as warhead size, warhead yield and detonation height. All of these can be given reasonable guesses to explore different scenarios. been deemed to be not worth inclusion? Because, presumably, it shows your hero (*why* would anyone want to make MC their hero?) in a poor light.
Be sure that you have absolutely no idea what's the size of my warhead that I prepared for you. :-) So try to estimate, estimate, and keep on inventing insults against Crichton only between your idiotic friends at climatereal.org. ;-) Wikipedia is meant to have a slightly higher quality than what you seem to be able to offer. --Lumidek 23:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Crichton's claim isn't "odd" at all. He's right. None of the variables can be determined. They can only be guessed at - which was Crichton's original point.--JonGwynne 11:43, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
On continental drift, I had: But again, Crichton's views are rather one sided. Continental drift was vigourously debated. One of the main problems with Wegener's theory was that he believed that the continents "plowed" through the rocks of the ocean basins. Most geologists did not believe that this could be possible. They were right.
They were NOT right. Alfred Wegener was a true hero of geology. He was the same gift for geology like what Hubble was for the Universe or Darwin for the species. All three guys showed that the "object" studied by the scientific field was evolving, despite a huge incorrect prejudice held by virtually everyone else, and if you don't understand it even in 2004, I can only express my deep compassion. He was right that the plates - well, he was saying "continents" - move relatively to one another. When they collide, they must "plow" the stuff on the rift, and he just did not know what were the forces that did it. We don't know exactly what these forces (well, the currents blablabla) are even today! Nothing drastic have really changed. It's just that the position of the morons who criticized Wegener became so undefendable that the critics have disappeared - except for you, of course. ;-) --Lumidek 23:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Only the accumulation of new evidence and theory made Wegener's hypothesis tenable..
It's absolutely irrelevant in science whether some weak scientists find Wegener's theory "tenable" or not. I don't care much what they believed. They were wrong, they were irrelevant, and they did much less for Earth science than Wegener. The important thing is that the theory is true. Its all major points - and many minor points - are true and they were true already in the early 20th century. The geologists that were worst than Wegener 10 times needed 50 more years to understand the depth and the truth of Wegener's ideas, and Earth scientists (?) at your level obviously need at least 100 years. ;-) --Lumidek 23:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What I have written here is correct - despite L's incredulity.
What you wrote shows that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, what science is, what geology is, how it works, what is important, what is a revolution and what does it mean for a scientist to be unreasonably sure about something and why it is wrong. --Lumidek 23:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, it does not say that W's opponents were right to oppose CD - but that his mechanism was wrong (it was).
He did not know exactly what the mechanism is - seafloor spreading is little bit better, but we STILL do not know what the mechanism really is and how to calculate the forces and speeds properly. This is a completely secondary question. The primary question is whether continental drift and Wegener were right, or whether the critics were right. The answer is definitely that Wegener was right. In fact, he was right even about many detailed maps of the supercontinents in the past. Only a person who does not know geology or an insane person could disagree with me (and with Crichton). Incidentally, it is so extremely easy to imagine that once the warming silliness is ruled out by observations or anything like that, you will also produce all these stupid and completely dishonest pseudojustifications they you were "right" after all. It won't matter. Other people will insist that people like you should be arrested because you wanted to cripple the whole world's economy - an economic crime worth trillions of dollars. It's like thousands of Saddam Hussains. --Lumidek 23:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And his characterisation of model validation is somply wrong. Why will neither of you bother look at the vast literature on validation, as given by IPCC chapter ?8? I think it was, which clearly shows how little research C has actually done on the subject.
"Simply", not "somply". Obviously that the people who bevieve wrong things about the validity and validations of computer models also write wrong papers about it, is not it obvious? Your problem is that you're unable to think yourself and independently. The only thing you can do is to trust someone else - or literature. But that's not enough for a scientist. These computer models are a disease. Those people randomly write down hundreds of oversimplified models, and those who randomly happen to approximately agree with something in the past are the "winners" and these oversimplified models are used to extrapolate to the future. This is what is done and it is very stupid. It's like betting that if you won in the lottery once, you will be winning all the time. --Lumidek 23:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As for JG, if you really believe in global cooling, you need to look at my site http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ and actually read some of the papers. Actually reading the facts instead of someone elses summary might just change your mind. And as tou you being left or right wing... who cares?
I think that global cooling was as much of junk science as global warming is today. I know that people like Stephen Schneider were proposing this crap in the 1970s. He was also one of the authors of the nuclear winter models. The junk science tends to be concentrated to a few hands. ;-) The only reason why I find the topic of global warming more important is that the advocates of this new hoax became much more powerful politically, and it must be stopped unless we want to destroy the principles of science and the progress of the whole civilization. --Lumidek 23:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 21:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Your're hopeless. Just take the time to *read* some of the stuff before talking about it. Global cooling wasn't poor science - it was science that *didn't occur*. You're read too many septic websites and too few climate papers. Go read the 1975 NAS report, or my listing (not a summary - a listing) of its conclusions. Ohhh... you never will. I'll paste them in here:
# Establish National climatic research program
  1. Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man
  2. Develope Climatic index monitoring program
  3. Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs
  4. Adoption and development of International climatic research program
  5. Development of International Palaeoclimatic data network
  6. Learn how to spell "programme"
there, does that help? No calls for action. No panic. No worry about cooling (hint: one of them is a joke: can you tell which?)

[edit] New Year's Eve

The description of Crichton's speech without personal attacks and with more detailed list of the points he covered, and less frequent speculative critiques about every Crichton's point is more satisfactory, more balanced, and it fits the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia - and the rules of Wikipedia - better than William's version.

A special justification for William: there is consensus that your version is not good enough for Wikipedia. ;-) --Lumidek 23:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think we should go back to the shorter version. A detailed description of the speech doesn't really seem to be necessary since there is a link to it so anyone who is curious about it can read it for themselves. What do you think?--JonGwynne 11:43, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I can accept a shorter version, but I will never tolerate a version with ten independent lies and stupidities - like the version proposed by William. Some of the reasons are described below. --Lumidek 22:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 21:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Well that blows L's consensus, ho ho.

[edit] On Lumideks words

Let's start with the minor points: I assure you that "program" is a correct spelling in most of the world. You might try to live with the fact that the British already don't dictate the universal rules of English grammar and spelling.

Second. The predictions of global cooling were bad science, and if the current theories about global warming are better in any sense, this improvement may be explained by the fact that they were proposed 20 years later. I don't intend to waste more of my time with stupidities like global cooling.

(William M. Connolley 23:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)) You mean, you've lost the argument, but are too graceless to admit it. The scientific establishment *was not predicting global cooling*. The entire argument is a strawman. I've put a whole series of pages demonstrating this by direct quotes from actual papers. You've managed a bit of pointless invective.

Third. Your version of the comments about his speech is an unacceptable POV because of many reasons, for example the following:

  • Crichton certainly does not "castigate" the scientific establishment - maybe the ecoterrorist establishment. Crichton defends the principles how science must be done in order to be science, and everyone who is a true scientist agrees with most of his points. I am pro-establishment, but I certainly support Crichton's points. In your blinded arrogance, you just think that the biased junk scientists like you are much more important than in reality - well, Osama bin Laden and many others have a similar mode of thinking.
(William M. Connolley 23:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Silly. Comparing your opponents to OBL is just a modern version of losing by Godwins law, which I hereby christen Connolleys law...
  • Once again: the junk scientists and the scientists with a political agenda certainly do not represent scientific establishment. Maybe the scientific branch of the ecoterrorist political movements.
(William M. Connolley 23:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)) "the junk scientists and the scientists with a political agenda certainly do not represent scientific establishment" ... so what? Why are you putting up strawmen?
  • Your opinion that Crichton's expertise and arguments are poor and so forth is just a personal point of view of one person who thinks that he is a scientist, but other scientists among the Wikipedians believe that he is an a*s*ole. The comment would have to be either removed, or marked as a private opinion of William Connolley. But I don't think that Wikipedia should become an arena for random insults made by you and similar people.
(William M. Connolley 23:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)) You are hereby warned about no personal attacks. And the title of this sectin was another such, so I've changed it.
  • Your criticism of Wegener's theories shows, once again, that you have zero knowledge about geology and its important concepts, and it would be very unreasonable if people with no knowledge about something were forming judgements of scientific concepts at Wikipedia.
(William M. Connolley 23:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)) You just can't read whats written, can you? Continental drift is correct: that much is now the consensus, and well supported. But when first proposed, it wasn't well supported, and indeed didn't work in the original version.
  • It is not true that the negative effects of second hand smoke have been scientifically proved as an existing, measurable effect that goes beyond noise.
(William M. Connolley 23:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Silly.
  • The comments about "scientific consensus" are human excrements meant to convert science into a totalitarian system, and they have absolutely no room in a serious scientific discussion, and certainly no room in a description of a speech. --Lumidek 22:15, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Environmentalism as a religion

The format of the replies of a colleague here called WC, [personal attack by L removed - WMC] reminds me of another talk by MC, namely "Environmentalism as a religion". [1] Well, it's not just about reminding; his approach to the questions is described there quite accurately. Should not this be also mentioned in the "Ideas" section? --Lumidek 00:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The reference to this speech was inappropriately removed. I have returned it with slight modifications intended to make it more neutral. I suspect that William will try to remove or revert it again as it seems he doesn't seem to tolerate viewpoints or facts that challenge his world view. But, with vigilance, we can keep this article accurate and unbiased.--JonGwynne 22:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shorter text is not bad after all

Hi Jon, OK, hereby I surrender and endorse your supershort version of the description of MC's speeches. You are deleting your own work - I've recycled my text to my blog, at least, and it's fine with me to keep this short description.

William, are you satisfied if we now declare a consensus? :-) --Lumidek 00:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 18:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)) The shorter version may be tolerable, though its dull and rather pointless. I wish all this had just disappeared when VFD'd. But in the (disappointing) absence of anyone else weighing in, I can't see any obvious other way to resolve this. I've added a neutrally-described link to the realclimate criticism. I've also qualified the religion bit and added his nice second-hand-smoke quote.
You say it is "dull and rather pointless"? Do please elaborate. Seriously, I took the quote out. If someone wants to read the speech, the link is there and they can read the whole thing, not just a selected quote.
(William M. Connolley 22:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Oho! You don't like the quote? Why not? Its not at all out of context. Do you perhaps dislike it because it makes him look silly?
I don't think it makes him look silly, but it is out of place in the article. As I said, if someone wants to read the piece, they can follow the link. There is no reason to quote it.--JonGwynne 22:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 22:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Seems in place to me. Its a nice quote, as it shows you a rough guide to his type of position. I've restored it.
And I've removed it again. There is no need to provide quotes since the entire position is available for anyone who wants to see it... via the link to the entire document. The purpose of quoting a piece is to give samples of it when the whole is unavailable. That is neither necessary nor appropriate in this case. Do you understand now?--JonGwynne 11:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 11:58, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)) I understand perfectly. You find the quote embarassing. But why? Crichton is quite open in his pushing this strange postiion - why do you have a problem with it?
I moved the link to the "external links" section since it is more appropriate for it to be there. Oh yeah, and I mentioned the fact that this is a open forum on a site with a definite advocacy position since I think this is relevant. I'd hate for someone to go to that link and think they were getting neutral commentary. Incidentally, several of the points made on that site are wrong but I don't see any way to address that here unless you have any thoughts on the subject.
(William M. Connolley 22:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)) You want to address them, start by spelling them out. "censoring" the link to the end is unacceptable. Advocating proper science is a problem for you?
Perhaps I'll visit the site and do just that.
(William M. Connolley 22:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)) I won't be holding my breath. Feel free to present them here.
That would be a silly thing to so since the other users of that site wouldn't have a chance to see them.--JonGwynne 11:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 11:58, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)) I see. You see lots of points that are wrong but when challenged to put up, you can't.
Not "can't" but rather "choose not to here because this is an inappropriate forum". --JonGwynne 20:20, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In the meantime, your description of relocating the link to its proper place at the end of the article as "censorship" is... curious. Surely if I wanted to "censor" it, I would have deleted it. I didn't delete it, I simply moved it to a more appropriate location.--JonGwynne 22:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 22:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Nope, shuffling stuff to a less prominent place is the same, if lesser.
What on earth are you talking about? It isn't a "less prominent place" putting it with the other external links. In fact, it is a more prominent place.--JonGwynne 11:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 11:58, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)) What an odd thing to say. The comment on the piece belongs next to the piece.
No, it doesn't. It belongs with the rest of the links to external sites that refer to what other people have to say about Crichton. How odd that you would insist otherwise. Sounds to me like you just can't handle Critchton disagreeing with your fervid views on the subject of climate-change or second-hand smoke.
(William M. Connolley 20:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)) C is welcome to his views on second hand smoke, silly as they are. And your comment is incomprehensible: I simply included the quote from his speech on SH smoke, and made no attempt to attack it (of course we all know there is no need to attack it, its just silly as it stands, which is why you are so keen on removing it).
I don't grant your premise at all. I don't think the statement is silly - though you apparently do. It might be correct, it might be incorrect... but to call it "silly" is to betray your own feelings of indignation. You're getting emotional about facts, the sure sign of someone who knows, deep down, that the facts are not with him. People ridiculed Christopher Hitchens when he took on Mother Teresa and pointed out that the image many of the public had of her was nothing but a carefully crafted PR job designed to aid her fundraising activities. When he pointed out that she was using (and even exacerbating) the suffering of the poor to further her own personal adgenda, they didn't respond by saying: "you're wrong and here's why: ...", they responded by calling him names and saying that his arguments were silly because "everyone knows" that Mother Teresa isn't this corrupt, religious zealot selling indulgences to the wealthy dregs of humanity and to suggest otherwise was unthinkable. What they were really saying is that it simply wasn't appropriate to objectively examine this issue because even to question it would be wrong. How is that different from what the "true belivers" in global warming are saying? They're saying that because they have all agreed amongst themselves, that the time for debate is over. That's not the way science works.--JonGwynne 01:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Let me try to explain it a different way. This isn't a site to debate the relative merits of Crichton's views but to provide objective descriptions of his body of work - which includes his speeches.--JonGwynne 01:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 20:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Descriptions. Yes. So why is removing a perfectly neutral quote (you do accept that the quote is neutral don't you?) helpful in describing his speech?
It isn't helpful because the whole of the speech is readily available. If there were no links available to the speech then that might be a different story, but there is a link available so anyone who wants to read the entire speech can do so. There is no need for a quote. Furthermore, it seems like your only motivation in offering the quote is to try to ridicule Crichton's position by playing into exacty the sort of populist mythmaking that Crichton is warning about in these speeches. You post a quote which would seem, to someone who doesn't understand the context of the quote, to be preposterous. Here's Crichton saying that there is no evidence that second-hand smoke poses a health-threat and yet we can easily imagine the voices of concensus-science indignantly insisting that "everybody knows" that second-hand smoke is dangerous. Don't they? The EPA doesn't agree. They evidently assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19 and their threshold for concern is 3.0. I can't find a list of risk factors so I don't really have any way of knowing what 1.19 is comparable to (for all I know, rap music scores a 2.3), but it is significantly lower than the cutoff, woudn't you agree? They might be wrong, but if they are, it should be easy to prove that.--JonGwynne 01:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 09:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Spiffy. hen you have no reason for objecting to that quote.
If you'd read and understood my previous statements on the subject, then you wouldn't make such an obviously incorrect statement. BTW, since you evidently know all about the alleged dangers of second-hand smoke, perhaps you would consider writing a wikipedia article on the subject.--JonGwynne 14:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 16:13, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Oooooooooooh pardon me for not agreeing with your every word. You misrepresent me: whilst I personally avoid second hand smoke, I know little (scientifically) about its effects. But thats OK, because the article is about C, not me. And for the obvious reason you want to suppress his own words.
And knowing "little" about the science, you denounce Crichton's statement as "silly" even though it is supported by the facts and insist on spotlighting it out of context in an apparent effort to encourage other people to share the scorn and ridicule you apparently hold for Crichton. As far as your allegations that I want to "suppress" Crichton's words, I'm a bit puzzled since I'm drawing direct attention to them by providing a link to them - all of them, incidentally, not just the the few that you want to take out of context. Hmmm, this must be some new use of the word "suppress" on your part that means the exact opposite of the original. No wonder I'm puzzled.--JonGwynne 16:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
He's always had controversial views and has often used his fiction to articulate them. His book "The Great Train Robbery" raised some hackles because he used that story to express his views that crime and criminals were not an inevitable social 'ill' which comes from some people having more money than others but the inevitable result of some people being lazy and selfish; which he summed up as 'most crime is committed through greed, not need'.--JonGwynne 20:20, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Connolley "crosses the line" or... The Section Header that Connelly Wasn't Allowed to Censor

How do you explain your entire removal of what I wrote about one of Crichton's speeches? It sure looks like censorship to me and appears dangerously close to the wiki definition of vandalism. What's your beef with the section in question?

(William M. Connolley 15:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Its grossly POV pro-MC. The bit about false-in-one I felt to be particularly grotesque given his numerous errors.
Your opinions are you own. In the meantime, he made the statement and it is up to the individual reader to decide whether or not they think he's full of crap. It isn't your place to tell them that he is. As far as it being POV pro-MC, this isn't a place for people who disagree with Crichton's views to beat on him like a piñata. The is a place to describe the man's history, body of work and any public statements he has made. Any references to valid, objective, substantive criticism of his works or views can be placed in the "External Links" section or a separate section labelled "Criticism" or something like that. In fact, that's a good idea, maybe it will stop you peevishly reverting the article several times a day. I'll start you off...--JonGwynne 18:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 15:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Oh, and bleating about censorship, when you have repeatedly censored his daft ideas about second hand smoke (even though its a direct quote, not interpreted, and not taken out of context) is most amusing.
Excuse me? I haven't "censored" anything, the link to his statements remains prominent and intact. And it IS taken out of context because you didn't quote the entire portion of the speech referring to the issues of second-hand smoke - just the part you felt to be "silly" and hoped, by spotlighting it that others would cause other people to react as you did. As it stands, his statement is factually accurrate. But, in any case, the quote is unnecessary since the whole of the speech is readily accessible to anyone who wants to read it. You, on the other hand, have engaged in censorship. You deliberately removed information that was not available anywhere else for the sole reason that you personally found it objectionable. That's a textbook definition of censorship.--JonGwynne 18:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have a hypothesis; I suspect that you did it because I complained about your previous revision screwing up the reference numbering system so rather than move your link to a blatantly biased advocacy site down to the "External Links" section (where it belongs, by the way), you simply removed the paragraph I had written in order to keep your link where it does not belong. Am I close?--JonGwynne 18:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 15:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)) I did it because I didn't want to get into yet another pointless war on yet another section.
In other words, you wiped out someone else's work because you found it personally distasteful? How is that not censorship?--JonGwynne 18:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've gone out of my way to accomodate your apparently fragile sensibilities --JonGwynne 18:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 15:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Perhaps this is the problem, you may feel that you have. And yet from my POV you haven't at all.
Believe me, I have. I have compromised and moderated my language considerably. But because I don't toe your exact party-line, you claim that I haven't moved at all... the mark of a zealot.--JonGwynne 18:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

not only in this section but in the others as well and yet this still doesn't seem to be good enough for you. Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why any reasonable person would see this as anything but you being petulant and rude.--JonGwynne 18:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let's be clear, unless you can come up with a good reason why your external link should be anywhere but in the "External Link" section, I submit that it should remain there.--JonGwynne 13:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 15:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Read what I wrote before
I did and nothing you said gives any reason why an external link shouldn't be placed in the "External Link" section. Only now there is some question that you have personal or professional ties to the site in question so I've removed it until we clarify this issue. I'm told that it is inappropriate for people to use wikipedia to promote their own interests. What's your take on this?--JonGwynne 18:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 22:05, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)) "Some question"? Oh dear, I assumed it was fairly obvious - I'm listed as a contributor on the site, after all. I didn't write that post, though. AFAIK there is no wiki policy against linking to sites you are involved with. There *is* a policy against liunk spam, but it isn't relevant here. I can give you a few pointers to other pages of mine that are linked if you like. Try global cooling for example.
OK, that seems fair. Since you were listed as a "contributor", it wasn't completely clear what it was you were contributing and whether or not you had any financial interest in the site. I'll replace the link since you seem to be saying that you have no personal or professional ties to the site other than that you contribute writing to it. Can you just confirm that is what you're saying?--JonGwynne 01:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 09:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)) As it says on the site, I get paid nothing for contributing there (and, to close any other loopholes, I have no shares in it or any financial tie whatsoever).

By the way, the whole point of the criticism section was for you to expand on it (within reason) and, if you wish, create summaries of a similar size to the ones related to Crichton's speeches. Perhaps we can agree to keep the number of paragraphs on par so as to maintain the appearance of balance. In other words, if there are three paragraphs referring to his speeches, there could be three paragraphs referring to criticism. Please try to be objective and polite (i.e. refrain from calling his views "silly", referring to his books as "potboilers" or saying that he has no training as a scientist) and you'll get no complaints from me.--JonGwynne 01:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 09:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)) You appear to be under a misapprehension. I have never called him or his work silly, or his books potbiolers, on the article page. You appear to be trying to use the "Ed Poor" school of balance: toss in roughly equal piles of POV and hope it balances out somehow. This doen't work. I seriously think that simply linking to his speeches is best. Your own arguments support doing this.
Go back and read your own statements. In your entry of 22:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) you say that his quote regarding second-hand smoke "makes him look silly". In an undated remark, you said of MC "He is a writer of sci-fi potboilers". Whether or not it was on the article page is irrelevant.
(William M. Connolley 13:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Oh come now, of course it makes a huge difference. Here I can speak my mind. On the article page I have to be NPOV.
You "have to be NPOV"? Where were you planning to start this new policy? You haven't shown any signs of it so far.
Seriously, given the overt contempt you show for Crichton and his work, doesn't that suggest to you that you're not the best person to be contributing to this page? I wouldn't contribute to George W. Bush's page because I recognize that I harbor strong negative feelings towards him. Perhaps you should recuse yourself from further contributions to this page for the same reason... you know, in the interests of fairness and balance - to say nothing of accuracy.--JonGwynne 17:31, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 18:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Errr... thats a not really very subtle way of trying to get someone you personally disagree with to stop editing. The answer is, no. You are clearly pro-MC, but you just won't admit it.
Actually, I'm not pro-MC at all. I think some of his books are pretty bad - "Sphere" for one and "Prey" for another - and have no problems saying so. However, you're so anti-MC that you see neutrality as POV. And, no, you don't get to rename my section header. --JonGwynne 19:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
These statements clearly demonstrate your bias and tendency to bilious hyperbole.
(William M. Connolley 13:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Woooo... but "bilious hyperbole" just shows how sensible you are?
I think that's fair comment. It is certainly an accurate discription of the statements you made referring to his books as "potboilers". To which part of "bilious hyperbole" do you object?--JonGwynne 17:31, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 18:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)) This is personal insult, which is against wiki policy. This is your first warning.
Oh, this is a "warning", is it? [sarcasm] (tugs at forelock and casts eyes downwards) Oh, please your honor, don't punish me. Time for you to head to the dispensary and request some ego-deflation pills.[/sarcasm] Let's examime the facts: "bilious, adj. ... Having a peevish disposition; ill-humored" - "hyperbole, n. an exaggerated statement". Please explain how my observation that you made a peevish exaggeration constitutes a personal insult. It wasn't as if (please note that the following is a hypothetical example and not an actual claim or statement intended to be taken literally) I said you were stupid or ugly (please note that the previous statements were not intended to be taken literally but were made solely for the purposes of illustrating a separate point. I want to make it clear that I have expressed no opinion whatsoever on the relative intelligent or aesthetic qualities of any individual who posts on this board - least of all WMC in case he is looking for a way to take offense at these statements) - which I would never do, regardless of any official policy on the matter, because those would be personal insults and, as such, as inappropriate in this context. While we're on the subject, one could easily argue that the term "potboiler" (A literary or artistic work of poor quality, produced quickly for profit) is a personal insult. Perhaps you'll explain how your complaint isn't hypocritical.--JonGwynne 13:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 15:41, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)) You appear to be doing your best to try to be unworkable with, which is silly of you. The above amounts to yet another personal attack, which (no personal attacks) is banned (you do realise that wiki expects civilised standards of dicourse on the talk pages). This is your second warning. On the third, I report you, and wiki well-known-to-be-fast-and-efficient processes swing into action.
Good luck convincing them that my statements amount to a personal attack but your negative personal comments don't. My statements are merely observations, yours are personal insults. They might also take a dim view of your censorship and vandalism so you might want to be careful about pestering the powers-that-be and, in so doing, draw their attention to your conduct.--JonGwynne 18:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As for your allegations that my use of the term "vandalism" is careless. I assure you, it is not. I have posted many articles here and been involved in many disagreements over content. This is, however, the first time I have accused anyone of vandalism and I did so specifically because you are removing original content from this article for no other apparent reason than that you find it personally objectionable.
(William M. Connolley 15:41, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Extremely dubious of itself (I deny it). But accusing me of vandalism for changing the section heading *on the talk page* to something NPOV is inexcusable.
That isn't so much vandalism as censorship.
(William M. Connolley 22:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)) So, you admit that your charge of vandalism was unjustified, but won't apologise for it.
Once again you misinterpreted what I said. I don't know if your misinterpretations are malicious or simply the result of ignorance. Which do you think it is WMC? To put the record straight, I have accused you of both censorship and vandalism at separate times - when you change another person's section heading for no other reason than you object to its content, that is censorship. When you destroy other people's work by removing it from the main page without any vaild reason to do so, that is vandalism. Do you understand now? For someone who claims to have an advanced degree, you seem to have serious trouble grasping basic concepts. --JonGwynne 00:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The interesting thing is that you just got done arguing that NPOV statements are acceptable on the talk page and now you're reverting ones that you don't like. That sure sounds like a clear-cut case of hypocrisy to me. It seems to me that the purpose of the talk page is to serve as the equivalent of a discussion forum so the act of modifying anyone else's commentary is completely inappropriate. And you HAVE crossed the line. You might not like being told that, but that's your problem.--JonGwynne 18:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 22:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)) NPOV is allowed on the talk page. Personal attacks *against wikipedians* aren't.
There are no personal attacks anywhere on wikipedia from me directed at anyone. Too bad you can't say the same thing. And what's with the preposterous qualification that only personal attacks "*against wikipedians*" are forbidden? A personal attack is a personal attack. Your indefensible personal attacks against Crichton are no more acceptable than any others. First of all, what proof do you have that he isn't a "wikipedian"?--JonGwynne 00:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Also, you should go and read the section on personal attacks you referenced earlier. Since you either didn't read it or didn't understand it, I'll quote a couple of sections you have violated: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia" (no mention of this restriction being limited in any way), "Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is" (unlike your repeated statements ridiculing Crichton's views because they are his), "Specific examples of personal attack include: Negative personal comments" (like describing someone's widely-respected body of work "potboilers", calling their views "silly", "daft" or "willfully ignorant" - especially without any supporting explaination as to why you feel that it is fair to comment thusly on Critchton's statements. --JonGwynne 00:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I find it odd that your claims of personal attacks remain empty even through you continue to make them. You have yet to explain exactly what it is I said that, in your mind, constitutes a "personal attack".--JonGwynne 00:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd be willing to bet that this isn't the first time you've been accused of vandalism, is it? Is that perhaps why you're so sensitive about it? If so, you might want to think about why this is the case. You insist on applying your own POV to this article despite having it modified and even reverted by several others here. You have repeatedly attempted to turn this article into one which editorializes and even denigrates the subject. Put simply, this isn't your soapbox dude. You may (or may not) feel that MC is a misguided fool but this isn't the place for you to tell other people what to think about him. This is the place where his body of work is to be catalogued and then the readers can decide all by themselves what they think of him. Why is it that you seem to have such a problem with other people being allowed to make up their minds?--JonGwynne 13:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm still trying to figure out why you keep changing the header. You have crossed the line.--JonGwynne 13:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


And what's this fresh BS about my argument supporting simple links to his speeches? They do nothing of the sort. It is appropriate and even useful to summarize each speech briefly (i.e. in a paragraph) to provide a description of it so the reader can decide if they'd like to read the speech for themselves. Quoting the speech, on the other hand, is both unnecessary and inappropriate. So stop censoring this article! I gave you a criticism section where you could air your views. Use it or don't but keep your hands off other people's work. You're starting to piss me off.

(William M. Connolley 23:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Renaming this section to something non-POV can't be considered vandalism by any stretch of the imagination. Be sensible.

Like I said elsewhere, you just finished arguing that NPOV statements - even personally insulting, baseless and/or offensive ones like referring to MC's books as "potboilers" or calling him "daft"/"willfully ignorant"/"silly" is acceptable on the talk page. How do you justify censoring other people's views solely on the grounds that you don't like them? I'll make you a deal: you go back and remove all your POV remarks in this talk page and I'll rename the section header you find objectionable.--JonGwynne 18:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(no comment from WMC)
I guess you can't justify your censorship. Too bad you continue to practice it.--JonGwynne 00:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


No comments at all this time? Just a blanket deletion of the header? Explain how that isn't censorship, vandalism or both?--JonGwynne 14:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(no comment from WMC)
Note that I've had to restore not only the header but the last comment since WMC censored that as well.--JonGwynne 18:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] And so on...

(William M. Connolley 22:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Now JG is hiding substantive changes behind "grammatical corrections". Tut.

Your first lie. If you ask nicely, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't bother to use the wikitool to compare versions which would have clearly shown the spelling and grammar fixes - through to be fair, it wouldn't have shown the spacing fixes since the comparison tool doesn't show spacing changes. BTW, I'm not making "substantive changes", I'm reverting unwarranted censorship on your part - your destruction of other people's work begs to be reverted, expecially when that work adds value to this article.--JonGwynne 23:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JonGwynne breaks the 3 reverts rule

(William M. Connolley 22:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)) You have broken the 3 reverts rule. Don't do this. Perhaps it was an honest mistake, in which case you should change it back and apologise.

According to the wikihistory, you are a liar. No wiggle room for you on this one I'm afraid. You are a liar. I made three reverts no 11, January. The first at 14:33, the second at 18:34 and the third at 22:30. That's three reverts. Exactly the same number as you have today. I trust you won't make another before midnight. BTW, as many of the wiki guidelines (e.g. personal attacks) as you break on a regular basis, you're the last person to lecture others on proper behavior here. So spare me your sancimonious chiding. To quote Jack Vance "He is that individual for whom the word 'mendacity' was coined". So, you can retract your statement or not, it really doesn't matter, your dishonesty remains.--JonGwynne 23:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 23:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Its 3 reverts in 24 hours, not per calendar day. If it was an honest mistake, you can apologise, retract the edit, and your comments above.
Yes, you are right, it isn't in a calendar day, it is in any 24-hour period. I didn't know that, I thought it was in a given day. So, I will retract one of my charges of you being a liar. The other one still stands of course. Oh yeah, and here's a question for you. Do really want to blow the whistle on my missing the mark by 81 minutes? I mean, if we go back and examine your revision record, will we find any examples of you breaking this rule? I've already seen at least one talk page on which you were accused of this - though, to be fair, I didn't verify the claim. If it is true, be prepared to have another charge of hypocrisy added to your tab. Perhaps this is why you're so prickly on the issue, have you ever been busted on it yourself? While we're discussing the subject of revision policy, I feel I could mount a very effective defense for my reversions based on the fact that they are undoing damage to the article which your changes caused. Despite your baseless claims to the contrary, the version you keep reverting to has mistakes in it which I have corrected. So, I could argue that my reversions were required by necessity. Hmmm... what's a word for willful and deliberate damage to the property of others which is often motivited purely by spite? How about "vandalism"?--JonGwynne 23:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
On an unrelated subject, I notice that you have yet to make use of the "criticism" section which was created especially for you in the (apparently vain) hope that it would persuade you to be less strident with regards to the content of the overall article. Why not vent your spleen (within reason) in that section and point out all the mistakes you think Crichton has made with regards to his claims, views and public utterances? Quote all the statements he's made that cause you to grate your teeth with frustration and their absurdity and show the world exactly why you think they're absurd. How about that one about second-hand smoke that you were so keen to clutter up that other section with? Here, I'll start you off:--JonGwynne 23:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 09:44, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Well, that was graceless. Trying to NPOV this page isn't worth the hassle of talking with someone as unpleasant as you: goodbye.

[edit] Dispute Resolution RFC, William M. Connolley

I started an RFC regarding user William M. Connolley, located here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley. If you are interested, please comment or sign as appropriate. — Cortonin | Talk 12:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Literary technique

How do we call the literary technique that you write a story based on the plot or structure of another one's? Crichton uses that trick all the time.

I think you guys are doing a poor job with this article because you failed to introduce readers his books. You have spent many many many words on his controversial speeches, but you did not tell readers what are his books. -- Toytoy 15:34, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Saying that "we" have done a poor job is not very constructive. I have edited this article, but never improved that aspect of it; does that mean I've done a "poor job"? You make it sound like this article has some designated group of editors, and that they have failed to meet some obligation. Just stating what's wrong with the article without putting someone to blame for it will give better results. I don't disagree with you though. Fredrik | talk 15:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


[edit] VSmith's insistence on editorializing

I am having to remove POV additions by VSmith that are inappropriate to this article and unsupported by his "references".--JonGwynne 14:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't add the criticism section or the reference for it. I just re-instated it for balance as it makes the article more in line with NPOV to have a bit from a credible source as criticism. It is appropriate and is supported by the source given.[2] -Vsmith 15:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, it isn't supported. The statements made in the editorial comments do not appear in the article and are unsupported by any statements that *are* made in it. I'm replacing them with an actual quote from the review that is balanced.--JonGwynne 20:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jurassic Park

"Before Jurassic Park, Robert T. Bakker's theory of warm-blooded and athlete-type dinosaurs was unimaginable to ordinary people, who were accustomed to seeing stop motion clay dinosaurs crawling sluggishly over the volcanic prehistorical terrains."

Do we really think that MC deserves credit for popularizing this idea? The warm-blooded dinosaur theory began 20 years before Jurassic Park the book and 25 years before the movie. I was definitely aware of the warm-blooded dinosaur theory before seeing the movie, and that was when I was 13. Dinosaurs were (are?) a popular enough subject with little boys and their dads that I'm pretty sure most people had the whole dinosaurs are chickens thing down. Other perspectives? --Chinasaur 11:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental beliefs

"Additionally, Crichton correctly points out that there has been no rise in hurricane activity in the Atlantic over the past few decades"

Presumably this is now erroneous?!

Quite. 2005 = most hurricanes of any year since records have been kept.


DragonJ1080: I agree. Something should be changed about that part of the article.

I disagree. Just because one year was abnormally high does not indicate a trend. The 2004 Atlantic hurricane season was expensive but not particularly noteworthy in terms of numbers; 2003 Atlantic hurricane season was fairly active; 2002 Atlantic hurricane season was quieter than usual; 2001 Atlantic hurricane season and 2000 Atlantic hurricane season had no US landfalling hurricanes. This is hardly a "rise in hurricane activity" over a long period. Batmanand 15:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


You people realize that Crichton is a writer of fiction, don't you? Dubc0724 20:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Crichton

I've never been a fan of his books. But a few people I know who are have commented that they feel his books post the Jurassic Park movie have drasticly dropped in quality without the same level of research and with a change in style to a more populist 'Hollywood' trend or a made for the movie style. Is this a popular view among Crichton fans? Worth including? Based on his recent history, I guess many would feel his style is changing again to a more anti-science, pro-US conservative, even less research and spinning the evidence style. Any comments on this? Nil Einne 19:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] nonstandard pronunciation information

removed tag added by anon. --Mikereichold 23:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it should go without saying that IPA is standard on Wikipedia, and "cry-ton" is not IPA... If your beef is with the obtrusiveness of the template, then either fix the pronunciation or the template. --129.21.223.82 23:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree. --maru (talk) Contribs 01:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Mike, since you haven't seen fit to correct the pronunciation, I'm adding the tag back in. --maru (talk) contribs 06:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Added a list of his fiction novels.

[edit] His scientific views

Where do we put Crichton's well-known views on science and the environment? In the Criticism section?

He said:

"Environmental organizations are fomenting false fears in order to promote agendas and raise money." [3]

John Stossel wrote:

Crichton himself used to worry about global warming. But then he spent three years researching it. He concluded it's just another foolish media-hyped scare. Many climate scientists agree with him, saying the effect of man and greenhouse gases is minor. [ibid]
Huh? What views on science and the environment? You quote a view on environmental organizations. Views on environmental organizations are not the same thing as views on the environment. Don't make the error of conflating a special case into a generalization. Furthermore, you don't mention any particular views on science that I've seen. Kasreyn 00:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms?

Is it just me or does the criticism section read like the work of a 12 yr old with an etch-a-sketch?

The criticisms regarding DDT feel a bit weak, and disjointed. They might do better with a combined approach, if one is possible. If not, presentation should be cleaned up to feel like a relatively compelling criticism.

Second is the criticism of Jurassic Park. It appears to be a criticism of the film, not the novel, and doesn't really feel like a criticism of anything. It was a top-selling movie, and as such was compared with other top-selling films. If anything the criticism of Crichton would then be one of originality, and I would submit to the readers that genetically cloned dinosaurs running amok is nothing if not original, particularly for the time period it was written.

The final paragraph seems to be nothing short of ridiculous. I don't know what philosophical realm this came from but the notion that fictional authors have a responsibility to their readers to tell their tale in any other way than that which they deem fit is absurd. I don't see this criticism on Jules Verne's entry, but he would fall victim to this broad claim as well. I didn't catch the social impact of submarines at the end of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Even worse, this general critique would fight anything that has followed the common rules of drama (intro, climax, denouement, etc).

The Afterward to State of Fear is clearly intended to present a non-fiction account of global climate change. Crichton wouldn't be subjected to the criticisms of scientists and journalists if he hadn't made a concerted effort to present himself as more than a fiction writer. As far as I know, Jules Verne never testified before a Congressional Committee on science policy.

If anyone has any objection to editing these speak now or forever hold your peace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.178.137.79 (talk • contribs).

No objection. Remember to use --~~~~ for signing your name. --Liface 03:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
No objections. Those criticisms were originally interspersed throughout the article by someone who was making a strong effort to discredit Dr. Chrichton. I didn't want to get into an edit war with that individual, who has developed quite a reputation for engaging in them with others, so, I just moved all the criticisms to a "criticism" section without editing them at all which appears to have been effective in keeping an edit war from breaking out. However, if that individual has moved-on to other things, perhaps now is the time to clean-up that part of the article as you suggest. Cla68 20:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd best notify the American Association of Petroleum Geologists of Crichton's fiction-author status, after all they solemnly intoned "It is fiction, but it has the absolute ring of truth". Who are we to argue with such an august body? Why would you wish to discredit Dr. Crichton after his veracity has been so recognized?Gzuckier 21:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commonwealth Club

It is not clear which Commonwealth Club Crichton made his speach at (see link). I presume it was the Commonwealth Club of California. If someone knows for sure, could they modify the link so it goes directly to that page? --Michael Johnson 00:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV that Crichton is wrong

Cut:

(however these examples are heavily disputed in the scientific community)

DDT is not "heavily disputed" - it recently changed to supporting Crichton. Second-hand smoke is disputed, but not heavily, it's pretty much a dead issue. Global warming is not "heavily disputed", either, as the consensus is pretty much that it's occurring.

Sounds like a contributor was editorializing here. --Uncle Ed 15:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Crichton is a global warming skeptic. I hadn't heard about the DDT thing, any sources for that? --Liface 15:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Scientific American. --Uncle Ed 19:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Third world countries with malaria epidemics need dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), say the editors of Scientific American Magazine. [4]
  • It might be better for credibility's sake to find a URL that links directly to the Scientific American Magazine instead of through that lobbying group's website. Here's a link directly to the article: [5]. If there's an article about DDT on Wikipedia, this article should probably be added to the references section. Cla68 20:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
This is fine, what about the global warming points that he brings up in his essay?
"I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong."
Aren't these heavily debated in the scientific community? --Liface 21:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the scientific community doesn't usually engage in debate per se. Researchers simply submit journal articles.

The debate usually surfaces in the popular press, with heavy emphasis on political maneuvering, name-calling, "sucker punches", etc.

I'm surprised to hear you think there is "heavy debate" over global warming when the latest pronouncement in Science is that there is a "scientific consensus" on the matter. This so-called consensus is used to support the Kyoto Protocol, while the work of "contrarians" and "skeptics" is either ignored or dismissed:

Wikipedia:NPOV is supposed to give the opposite POV at least a minimal airing, but an overwhelming majority of contributors can subvert this policy by "ganging up" to revert any changes which don't satisfy their "consensus". It's a weakness of online collaboration, and probably requires the creation of another encyclopedia with better editorial controls. --Uncle Ed 14:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Although you can see in my user page that I'm a dedicated Wikipedian, I definitely agree with you that one of Wikipedia's great weaknesses is how ideas can be "ganged-up" on and effectively shut-out, as appears to be the case with several of the global warming articles. The website WikiTruth.info hits this and other Wikipedia problems dead-on in their site. I heard that one of the original creators of Wikipedia (I can't remember his name) is planning on starting an on-line encyclopedia that will have more regulations regarding participation, contribution, and editing. Cla68 17:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Larry Sanger. I don't expect much to come of his Digital Universe thingie. First-mover advantage, more people and articles to start with, etc. Code rewrites rarely go well... --maru (talk) contribs 17:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Crichton IS a global warming skeptic. --Liface 15:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Wikipedia does not have an article on "Scientific debate". I just checked, and the link is red! --Uncle Ed 14:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here, and I think you're misunderstanding me, but I'll leave the article alone as it looks fine to me. --Liface 15:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Book

Crichton wrote a book about a drug deal gone humorously wrong in about 1971; I remember reading it, and later discovering that it had been made into a movie (staring John Lithgow, maybe). I don't see it reflected here.Uucp 16:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

right; IIRC that was dealing the berkeley to boston forty brick lost bag blues. I'd forgotten about it. Made into a reasonably OK movie, too. I'll try and dig something up. Boy, has he changed since then. Gzuckier 16:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

(I'm aware of wikipedia policies. "Cry-ten" just happens to be wrong.)
How is it pronounced then? --Liface 01:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dr. Michael Crichton, M.D.

It seems prudent to include the academic title of Crichton in his name at the beginning of this article as Dr. Michael Crichton, M.D. seeing as he has an advanced degree. He does not use this title as part of his public persona, but that is not unusual. Bill Cosby has a Ed.D. in education but does not use this title as part of his public persona. I think that this title should be included unless there is some academic reason as to why it should not be.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.65.131.202 (talk • contribs).

If C has a Ph D, its not obvious from the biog in the article. In what? Where from? William M. Connolley 21:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
He actually does use it in his public persona allthough not on the covers of his books or in the credits, but always when he makes a speech or like when testifieng before the senate. Ben 22:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Book

I added info on his new book under biography since it is not known whether it will be fiction or non-fiction and didn't know where else to put it. Ben 22:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Government Secret Agent

His views on global climate side with US oil and other industries interests. Looks like americans will only open their eyes when the sky turn black. 201.19.156.9 02:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"americans" (sic) can refer to people from either North or South America. Which of those people did you mean? Cla68 06:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
In some places they teach of 'North America' as being Mexico, US, Canada. Thus, you would have to specify further still. In my view, the word should describe anyone from the mainland/caribean. Yet, most people in the world use the word to refer to the US citizens. For example, on Sept 12 2001 the front page of Le Monde read 'aujourd'hui tous sommes Americaines" Brusegadi 15:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You'll be startled to learn that there are more viewpoints possible than the ultra-environmentalist and the ultra-industrialist. Crichton's book, he explains, serves the purpose of attacking the politicization of science - specifically the politicization of climatology, which he accuses both sides of. Yet apparently to some, if he is not with them, he must be against them... His take on the issue is not a partisan take; it is a scientist's take. Kasreyn 05:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
How can you say that after his testimony in congress? Besides, the moment that you accuse scince of being politicized you are taking a political stand. It is also strange that his line of reasoning is parallel to that of the main opponents to the implementation of policy to begin to slow down the rate of Carbon Dioxide emissions. Brusegadi 15:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
No, claiming that science in general has been politicized is a pro-scientific stance. A political stance necessarily would require some sort of preference for a particular partisan policy. (That Crichton may indeed hold political beliefs about CO2 emissions, I don't know and don't dispute - just that it is possible to apolitically note the politicization of science.) And I was unaware he had given testimony before congress; I thought the editor's comment was in regards to his novel State of Fear. What was his testimony? I don't see it in the article, just a mention that he testified. (We should probably increase that section's writeup to explain what Crichton's testimony was.) Cheers, Kasreyn 04:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I will disagree with you. It is not a pro-scientific stand becuase both sides can blame the other side of politicizing science. Skeptics blame Algore, mainstream blames the Bush administrtation. Thus, the moment that you say that science is politicized one of the two sides can interpret the way they want. Its like saying that Jehova's witness is an apolitical organization because they are not allowed to vote or protest. If suddenly they became a substantial part of the population, most people would not participate in government and its abolition would come in. It is virtually impossible to be outside the political arena when you interpret the metapolitical statements. Brusegadi 18:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
A quick google should turn up a copy of a NY Times article "Michael Crichton, Novelist, Becomes Senate Witness" from 29 September 2005. -- Gwern (contribs) 05:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've read the article, and I see nothing in it that contradicts his stance as explained in the author's note in my copy of State of Fear. He does not appear to be taking a partisan side or specifically supporting the industrialists who unlike Crichton flatly deny all possibility of human responsibility for global warming. Crichton merely claims, as NYT notes, that the methodology of climate science simply isn't up to the challenge of determining how much influence we have on the environment; it is a technical, and indeed scientific, approach to the issue. That he is opposed in his views by various scientific organizations is nothing to be surprised at; the entire point of science is to encourage debate and study rather than to quash it. That he wrapped his idea up in a novel with a dramatized plot is nothing new for Crichton; look at Eaters of the Dead, where he dressed up his theory on the origin of the Beowulf mythos as a fanciful first-person narrative. There's nothing in the slightest wrong with combining his knowledge of science with his writing ability to make a living. I don't know enough about climatology myself to judge the fairness of his assessment of it, but I do know that I admire his willingness to stick to his guns despite political outcry. I'd love to read a scientific critique of his ideas. I have no interest whatsoever in politicians with no scientific training who have the chutzpah to chastise Crichton merely in order to pander to the public's teevee-derived grasp of "science" - nor in those politicians who, foolishly thinking he's now some sort of anti-environmentalist ally, wish to champion Crichton for the wrong reasons. All they're doing is proving him right. Kasreyn 06:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't trying to say anything either way on Crichton's politics, simply provide a reliable reference for you to show that yes, he did indeed testify something. -- Gwern (contribs) 14:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Lots of weird stuff here. Why is claiming that science in general has been politicized is a pro-scientific stance true? The assertion that (climate) science has been politicised isn't obviously true; indeed, I would argue that its untrue. Simply making it as a claim is far from a scientific stance. Ditto Crichton merely claims, as NYT notes, that the methodology of climate science simply isn't up to the challenge of determining how much influence we have on the environment; it is a technical, and indeed scientific. I think you are correct: C merely *claims* this - he offers no evidence. This too is not a scientific stance. As demonstrated by the available evidence, summarised on global warming and related pages (attribution of recent climate change) there is good work on, and evidence for, how much influence we have. Denying the existence of that work is far from scientific. C's stance is an essentially s(k)eptic one William M. Connolley 15:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say skepticism is a key component of a scientific perspective and way of thinking. By comparison, in his novel he rails against people who choose to dogmatically believe in some things supported by science (such as certain widely-accepted theories re: global warming), who refuse to give skeptics a fair hearing. It seems that Crichton feels there is an oppressive atmosphere (sorry, couldn't resist ;) or chilling effect in the scientific community against anyone who is openly skeptical of global warming or the direction climate science is going in. Why I say his stance is non-partisan is that he doesn't seem to specifically favor either side in a political sense; he claims to favor merely disentangling science from politics. This is pro-scientific because, as he demonstrated in his examples, such as eugenics, scientific progress, and the scientific community, have suffered real harm in the past when science became politicized. Ie., it is pro-scientific in that he seems to wish success to overall scientific endeavor and that it be unharmed by the negative effects of politicization. I would like to think that were the situation reversed, and the anti-global-warming side winning the public debate, he would be decrying politicized science just as loudly. This is the sort of thing that an optimist would assume good faith on. The line between good-faith skeptic and irrational crank is a fine one, and sometimes only an expert in the field can tell the difference.
P.S. And of course he didn't offer evidence in a Congressional hearing. It's not like they have any training or qualification to judge it. They're former lawyers, fachrissakes. As to whether he has evidence elsewhere, read State of Fear. I withhold judgment on the points he raises within, because unlike a Congresscritter, I know I'm not qualified to tell whether the points he raises within are effective or not. Kasreyn 04:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed some stuff about Andromeda Strain being influenced by War of the Worlds. Frankly the influence could be reduced to 'there are microbes involved at some point'. Rampant speculation. DJ Clayworth 20:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Considered one of the best writers of the 20th century?

By whom? Isn't that a little bit POV? --217.65.158.120 15:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Needs a source. I like Crichton but any statement like that needs a credible source or it can't be included in Wikipedia. Cla68 15:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pixilized Image

Do you think perhaps we could get a higher resolution image of Crichton? This one's a bit low res.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/c/Talk%7EMichael_Crichton_aa3f.html"