‘State of Fear’ by Michael Crichton Could Be the ‘1984’ of Climate Alarmism

Revived today the best novel on “global warming” could be explosive.

Guest essay by Walter Donway

I guess that if I discovered “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton eleven years after its publication in 2004–reading it last summer with indescribable surprise and joy–you can tolerate a year-old review.

This book could be the 1984 of “Big Climate Alarmism.” After George Orwell took on “doublespeak,” people never listened to political rhetoric in the same way. Whatever you think of the controversial “Atlas Shrugged,” by Ayn Rand, do you think arguments for the “greed” of businessmen and the moral loftiness of statism will ever be heard the same way?

Michael Critchton was perhaps the most scientifically literate and technologically brilliant best-selling novelist of our time. It turns out he was one of the most courageous, too. Fortunately, by the time he published “State of Fear,” a pounding thriller with more than 200 scientific footnotes meticulously documenting its all-assault on Big Climate Alarmism, his reputation was unassailable. Because, when he published it, the man who had written “The Andromeda Strain,” “Congo,” “Terminal Man,” “Jurraisic Park,” and “E.T.E.R.” got few reviews and those were mostly awful. Groups of scientists wrote letters scorning the science in the book.

Crichton never flinched. The book gave him a reputation as a climate change skeptic and in 2005 he testified before a Senate committee and had a private visit with President George W. Bush to discuss the issue.

Crichton died three years later, so we can never know if his popularity and reputation would have recovered from this astonishing act of integrity and devotion to science. He did it for the American people, but, I suspect, more out lifelong respect for science, which he saw squandering its reputation on “global warming.”

The problem was that in 2004 “global warming” still had tremendous momentum, all the excitement of discovery. The work of critics had only begun; there was not then the constituency for “The State of Fear”–to support it, publicize it, promote it–that there is today. Had there been, I believe it could have transformed the debate in the public mind.

What is astounding is that back in 2004, Crichton saw it all. As I write in the review:

“Melting glaciers, icebergs calving off Antarctic glaciers, worldwide weather records, rising sea levels, satellite measurements of atmospheric warming, correlation of carbon dioxide with warming, expanding or contracting deserts: State of Fear takes them on, and many others, with the ease that Agatha Christie presents clues to a murder.

“What will stop many readers, and not once, is the question: If these are the facts, what science actually says, then how in Hell do the shibboleths of global warming keep proliferating? Crichton’s answers include: dozens or hundreds of complicated issues raised when you discuss the history and future of the whole Earth, its geology, its inhabitants, its atmosphere, and its oceans; lack of almost any adequate data on any aspect of the debate; the deadly ‘precautionary principle’ that in the absence of enough data, assume that the most catastrophic prediction might be true and prepare (that is: with the least data, take the most extreme actions); the enormous self-interest of scientists funded almost overwhelmingly by a single source (government) that already has embraced the answer; the ever-shifting timeframes (most predictions with a 10-year horizon already have been falsified by events) that keep getting longer; changes in the hypothesis (from the idea that temperature will rise over a century to ‘abrupt weather changes’ today demonstrate global warming); and on and on.

“Incredibly, it all comes into the story—usually riding on a roller coaster of action or borne by a lover’s quarrel.”

Nothing could be more hopeful, today, with with Big Climate Alarmists succeeding, at least in America, in making their views government policy, than a wide revival of this powerful antidote. Candidates of the two parties for President have diametrically opposite views and “global warming,” but the mainstream media is like a crooked umpire on the take.
I urge you to get involved. Fortunately, reading “State of Fear” is not only hugely informative and heartening, it is thrilling.

The review is here:
http://www.thesavvystreet.com/state-of-fear-gets-hotter-with-global-warming/

The book is available on Amazon here:

state-of-fear

Advertisements

99 thoughts on “‘State of Fear’ by Michael Crichton Could Be the ‘1984’ of Climate Alarmism

  1. I’ve read “State of Fear”, and the major problem is the plotline limps. I agree with the endnotes, but the basic storyline sort of gets the quasi-religious mindset of the proponents of CAGW wrong. They don’t need to stage an event, just claim whatever happened is global warming.

    • I sort of agree. I felt at the time that the research overwhelmed the storyline, and the need for a “blockbuster thriller” McGuffin (so like the alarmists’ need for global disaster!) detracted from the book’s credibility.

      That said, I was impressed that the only people who seemed to get Crichton really mad on this issue were the luvvies (British for pretentious celebrity SJWs). Didn’t one of them get literally eaten alive in the book?

    • Going through some old paperbacks the other day and I’m re-reading it now.
      He had the science and sources nailed down in 2004.
      At the time, outstanding research.

    • I don’t know, she has so many disgusting moments, like dressing a general down for politely calling her Ma’m.She is a sick person and represents all the wrongs and arrogant attitude from some politicians.

      • She’s one of the 8 democrats who tried to amend the Constitution’s definition of natural born citizen in 2007; pretty odd if there were no candidates who weren’t qualified to hold office based on the existing definition.

    • I have to agree with Cat, It’s very hard to locate Boxer’s worst moment. She’s not running in the next election so our goal is to make sure she doesn’t pick her own successor. Barbara is evil. ‘Nuff said?

      • The vacuum that she leaves behind will quickly siphon in other disgusting dregs. As example, see Senator Merckley .

    • An economist friend, a independent G_O oil and gas industry expert in DC, once testified on C-span to Boxer’s Senate committee, in a witch hunt looking for Big Oil collusion and price fixing during a gas price spike. To a man, the parade of experts (government and academic) all said it boiled down to (drum roll!) supply and demand! No evidence of collusion. Babs Boxer (w/ a degree in economics) was not deterred. To my friend she declared “Well, I’m all *for* supply and demand, and everything. But you can’t convince me that there hasn’t been … ” . The yenta from Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn’s finest hour.

    • MODS! This is what I meant to put up. I’ve no clue how the other showed up.


      I hope the “Airplane” guys do one on Hillary!

  2. I well remember reading Crichton’s “State of Fear” just after it was released. It was an excellent book which systematically and throughly destroyed climate alarmist propaganda in an incredibly interesting way. With the extensive references to scientific papers and studies to back its positions it became a research tool as well to a most enjoyable novel.

  3. I read ‘State of Fear’ in 2008, not long after the 2007 IPCC report came out (after which I was doing my own looking into the issue, and realizing it was pretty much garbage). I was great seeing somebody like Crichton taking on the CAGW movement. And I have read a lot of books by him since.

  4. As an avid fan of Michael Crichton’s novels, I read SOF back in 2005, just after it first came out, and I couldn’t put it down. I credit that book with originally sparking my rabid skepticism of the AGW scam. I think it’s safe to say that the world has sorely missed the genius of Dr. Crichton since his passing.

    If you haven’t seen this video of him shortly before his death, you should definitely check it out.

    • But if someone had re-written it as a James Bond movie, I suspect the ‘plot’ (creating a Tsunami) would have sold it.

    • On the contrary, the plot of State of Fear does exactly what it is supposed to do. I have read it at least three times now, and the sequence of events not only keeps the reader guessing, it leads on from event to event and deduction to deduction with vividness of detail. Great book!

    • The plot was clearly only a potboiler, a bit of action to carry the message. It’s still a great page-turner and does the job! Enough said.

  5. Thanks for bringing “Sate of Fear” to the forefront again. I was always a big fan of Crichton reading a few of his books.
    Reading this book cemented my suspicions about Al Gore and the Global warming Mantra before I found WUWT which further gave me confidence that Climate Change/ Global Warming is extremely so exaggerated.
    Thank you Michael and Anthony.for preserving my sanity.

    • You are right! It should be ER. I hope that the moderators might do me the favor of changing it. Also, embarassingly, there are two typos in the first paragraph I do proofread, but it really is tough to proofread your own work until you let it sit “cooling off” for a few days and I don’t have the patience.

      At any rate, thanks for the catch and I those few things can be corrected.

  6. State of Fear got me interested in the subject of AGW, and then with a little research, I found WUWT. As a truth seeker, I loved the book. Without the State of Fear, I don’t know when I would have become a seeker of the truth in climate.

  7. A very good review of a pretty good book Walter. I’m very sorry Dr. Crichton died, very sorry indeed. He was one of the more enlightened scientists of our time, a person who walked away from what would have been a lucrative career in medicine to risk his reputation and fortune on educating the public. I think he deserves all the credit we can give him for that. Of course, his success as a popular writer ensured the success of his family for generations.Dr. Crichton wasn’t an idiot.

    “State of Fear” is an outstanding book, I might call it his Magnum Opus. If there are still people who haven’t read it, they should do so. I own a first edition and I’m keeping in a ziplock bag full of dry nitrogen. It’s, in my opinion, that important.

  8. Today i read about how Chelsea Clinton flew a private jet to a clean energy conference. Reminded me of this book.

      • Don M…she got out of college and walked into a 900,000$ per year job at the foundation. That and her marriage into Goldman Sachs executive money makes her have something more of a “leg up” than the sons and daughters of we more plebeian type in terms of income.

  9. Read ‘State of Fear’ a few years ago. I think the main reason why so many scientists and AGW supporters were attacking Crichton was because his research was so meticulous and wide ranging.

    Anyone who wanted to know about global warming could use Crichton’s research as a starting point and learn a lot about the BS in the global warming industry.

  10. While I am happy with the basic premise of the novel, I did not think it was one of his best, it was too melodramatic for me, and some of the action scenes were over the top.

  11. “On March 14, 2007, Intelligence Squared held a debate in New York City titled Global Warming is Not a Crisis, moderated by Brian Lehrer. Crichton was on the for the motion side along with Richard Lindzen and Philip Stott against Gavin Schmidt, Richard Somerville, and Brenda Ekwurzel. Before the debate, the audience was largely on the against the motion side (57% vs. 30%, with 13% undecided).[72] At the end of the debate, there was a notable shift in the audience vote to prefer for the motion side (46% vs. 42%, with 12% undecided), leaving the debate with the conclusion that Crichton’s group won.[72] Schmidt later described the debate in a RealClimate blog posting, …..”

    more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton

    • Crichton had them all at an intellectual disadvantage; it really wasn’t a fair fight. He had the numbers and the research, his opponents had belief, faith and conviction. There was no real contest; Crichton simply kicked butt and took names. It was a slaughter.

    • and 50 degrees below by kim stanley robinson
      I used to admire his work the red /green/ blue mars series
      the above named 50 degrees..apart from a brief mention on the devaluation of wages to the worth of what workers produce..
      was a full on idiot spiel of agw devotee-ism

    • Yes, I know that one. As a Niven/Pournelle fan, I wish I’d liked that book better. Not their best. (I agree about their take on the alarmist mindset, though!)

    • I read his first book that he wrote with his brother. It was called “Dealing or The Berkeley to Boston 40 Brick Lost Bag Blues”. After that I read all of them as they were published. Climate of Fear was great and as I was involved in hydrology from the mid sixties it resonated perfectly with what I was seeing all around me.

      This AGW thing is thin boys, thin as piss on a hot rock.

  12. The material is practically prophetic but the plot is wooden. Compared to Jurassic Park or Prey, not one of his best works. Still worth a read because of the focus of the story.

    • I read State of Fear a few years ago, just when I was becoming aware of the catastrophe that is climate science. The book’s science content was excellent. It is a great tragedy that he died so young. The world today needs people of integrity like Michael Crichton more than ever.
      Having said that, I was actually disappointed by the plot, which I thought was very weak. But it’s still well worth reading.

  13. As I recall (this is a fuzzy memory), around the time he was writing this book, he went to a conference at which he discovered pharmaceutical companies intended to patent substances extracted directly from bodily fluids obtained from unknowing medical patients, without either informing the patients of this use or compensating them for what might be very profitable products. He announced that he was going to use his influence to block that process. Shortly after that he died. Conspiracy theorists believe he was murdered. I have no direct knowledge; I am passing along a rumor.

  14. My favorite, bestest of all-time story of Michael Crichton’s chutzpah and how he did not suffer fools is retold in Wikipedia:

    In 2006, Crichton clashed with journalist Michael Crowley, a senior editor of the magazine The New Republic. In March 2006, Crowley wrote a strongly critical review of State of Fear, focusing on Crichton’s stance on global warming. In the same year, Crichton published the novel Next, which contains a minor character named “Mick Crowley”, who is a Yale graduate and a Washington, D.C.-based political columnist. The character was portrayed as a child molester with a small penis. The character does not appear elsewhere in the book. The real Crowley, also a Yale graduate, alleged that by including a similarly named character Crichton had libeled him.

    • Ouch! :-) I recall the old saying that one should never get in an argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel.

  15. A friend of mine in the film making business told me a story about Crichton, who was also a film director. He was relatively young at the time and I think the film was the First Great Train Robbery. The film crew were pretty unimpressed by such a young man directing and acted accordingly.

    When Crichton was away for the day, the producer arranged a private screening for the whole crew of Westworld which Crichton had directed.

    The next time he came on set, they practically snapped to attention.

    Pointman

    • In many ways ‘Next’ is a Sir Terry Pratchett-ish book – i,e, take a concept, and turn it up until the knob falls off! But I must add that it was his “State of Fear” that turned me away from the CAGW fear promulgated by the MSM, and his endnotes got me bouncing around the ‘skeptic’ sites on the Web – ending up here.

  16. I have long recommended State of Fear as the best introduction to the warming/climate scam, especially for non-scientists such as myself.
    It’s great to see this excellent book so well reviewed & praised on this fine site.
    John Doran.

  17. In addition to “State of Fear” and “Climate Change: the Facts” You may also wish to view “Climate” the Counter Consensus”. But for my money the best factual book on Climate Change/ Greenhouse and all the rest of the malarkey, is “Taxing Air: Facts and Fallacies about Climate Change”. It was written by the late Professor Robert Carter and others, and is published by Kelpie Press. ISBN: 9780646902180. Its only drawback is that it was written in 2013 to counter the then recently introduced Carbon Dioxide Tax. Apart from that, it is excellent, and we have now got rid of the so-called “Carbon Tax”!

    Good for scientists and non-scientists alike.

    • as of JULY 1st this yr we have the carbon tax back mate
      BOTH parties agreed to allow its implementation
      done on the sly naff all aussies are even aware

  18. I’ve been seeking actual research into his lightning attractor thingimabob and have tried to meet with several specialists in physics who were leaning in this direction, but when I arrived all I found were burnt holes into the ground.

    Another disturbing take-away from “State of Fear”: the idea that corporate non-state actors who did not possess actual spy hardware such as network intercepts or taps… could, nevertheless, engage in ‘finest quality’ surveillance of Internet populations by monitoring Internet search activity.

    That bit in State of Fear inspired me to write this short essay, “Information Land Mines” in 2006.

    What if… you had just committed an particularly evil crime that (unavoidably) had left a few clues laying in plain sight, and wished to arrange an ‘accident’ for anyone who happened to stumble on to those clues? Say, several keywords that, if they were strung together in an Internet search would clearly indicate that someone was had noticed the clues, was zeroing in on the truth and is clearly intent on unraveling them. Easy peasy in the 21st century! All you need to do is spend a few bucks to buy a few Google ad-words and create a little honeypot on the web as a tripwire that would draw them to you.

    How to prevent the laying and triggering of these ‘information land mines’?
    Strive to investigate and solve egregious crimes quickly, as a coordinated effort.
    Strive to prevent deep network surveillance by simply not building the infrastructure to do it.
    Strive to find people with the traditional ethos of the Postman, who carries mail without opening it.

    “Small, unremembered acts of privacy… are the only conceivable way to make a world that is becoming more like a dangerous city every day… more like a small town again. A better place to raise our children.”

    It’s been ten years since I wrote that essay. How do we score? Not very well.

  19. While he was president of the Salk Institute, Joe Slater created the CBHA [Council for Biology in Human Affairs] after the board approved the program of action. The CBHA was to be the nexus of a network of individuals and organizations sharing their concerns about the consequences of the rapid progress being made in biology. Formally established in 1970, the council counted international leaders from business, finance, and politics as well as distinguished scientists and humanists among its members. Bronowski, Holley, Luria, Monod, Salk, and Slater represented the Salk Institute. Operating under the belief that forming public opinion is best done by informing it, the council had as one of its major goals identifying problems and communicating its ideas and results to public leaders. The council met regularly, either in La Jolla or New York, to identify problems, attend seminars, discuss options, and plan communications to the public and its leadership regarding new biological knowledge and its implications for human affairs. Bronowski accepted the position of director of the CBHA from 1970 to 1971, despite the fact that he had just started to write the outline of The Ascent of Man, the BBC television series and book that were to be his magnum opus.

    Another unusual postdoctoral Fellow who was involved in the activities of the CBHA was Michael Crichton. In 1969 he had just earned his medical degree from Harvard and had started working in Jonas Salk’s lab. Three years earlier he had entered medical school and started writing articles and novels under pseudonyms to pay for his tuition. His first best-selling novel, The Andromeda Strain, was published the year he arrived at the Salk Institute. Published under his own name, the book made him an overnight star as an author of science-fiction medical thrillers. As both a medical doctor and a writer, Crichton successfully built a bridge between the two cultures, reflecting the fact that biologists and humanists ask similar questions about man. Well-researched science fiction engages a wide audience and inspires curiosity and excitement about the possibilities offered by scientific research and technologies. After his year at the Salk, Crichton became a full-time writer, primarily of science fiction novels, many of which have been made into movies or television shows. However, he also wrote nonfiction books. In fact, while at the Salk he gave several talks about medicine in our Speaking-on-Tuesday seminar series. Director of the CBHA and chair of the Commission on Biology in Contemporary Culture, Bronowski invited Crichton to participate in two symposia on The Entry of Biology in Contemporary Culture. At the second symposium, held in New York City, Crichton presented a lecture titled “A Contemporary Account of Human Nature.” Though Crichton’s participation in Salk Institute activities is generally unknown, Crichton is remembered fondly by some of the old-timers at the Salk Institute.

    Genesis of the Salk Institute: The Epic of Its Founders
    By Suzanne Bourgeois

    When I went to the Salk Institute they told me about Michael Crichton being there. Although he was not a scientist, his medical training and his postdoctoral stay at the Salk with some of the greatest scientists in the biological field like Salk or Luria gave him a very good scientific background. He was perfectly capable of researching scientific issues as he demonstrated in his books.

  20. Reading all the comments it is obvious that SOF was the introduction to CAGW for a lot of sceptics / WUWT followers, as it was for me.

  21. I also read this book. But I had a different takeaway message. The message I had when I read this book is that science should only seek to find the truth. As stated at the end, scientific studies favor those whom fund them. So all funding should be anonymous and given out despite the results. The researchers should have no way of ever knowing who or what is funding them. I believe Michael Crichton used global warming to as a vehicle to deliver that message.

    Did anybody bother to check the references in the book? I checked a few. Of my limited checking, I found some to be completely honest and some left out some important details. This is why I believe the book is not a commentary on global warming, but a commentary on how greedy science is today.

  22. I too was awakened by Crichton and this book. Michael Crichton had two principle concerns concerning science and society, which led to his criticism of global warming. First, he warned against governments capturing science as a tool to cow the population into funding and submitting to politicians’ policies. Second, he thought scientists in many fields were far too certain and trusting of their knowledge and tools, especially computerized systems.

    A tribute to his contribution.

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/in-praise-of-michael-crichton/

    • I have never been concerned about CAGW to the degree of my concern of “eco-Marxists” control of man’s economic systems through deceptive political means.

      And Climate Change is just a deceptive politically-driven means to an end.

      But Nature will prove or disprove catastrophic global warming in due time.

      But of something like Brexit, how does one prove or disprove the UK has selected the right path? Now I am confident they (the majority of UK voters) have taken the best course (assuming Teresa May can muster the will and find a backbone), but that is entirely a human system. Once the UK is “out” there will be no way to compare to how they’d be if they stayed. Of course that won’t stop economists from trying, but those will be mere hypothetical comparisons.

      • If the British economy manages growth, above what the major European economies (France, Germany, Italy) show, I would be satisfied that Brexit was the right move. If they manage to match, then it’s a toss up! It’s really not a high bar!

      • I think you’re both missing the point, and that voted for by the majority…immigration. It was never about economics, never, not once. And the economics actually don’t matter one little bit. The ‘right path’ was anything that gave us back control of our own destiny, of our own borders. What good would a thriving economy be, an economy better than any other nation on earth…if you couldn’t swing a cat in a field without hitting someone with it? It’s a tiny island, with 64 million people on it. To raise that to 74 million in just a few years is unthinkable. You could have all the money in the world, but what good will that do you if your kids can’t get into a school, if you have a 10-hour wait in A&E, or a 2-month wait to see your GP?

    • Kenkulak, I disagree. Look at the political momentum of Donald Trump. This presidential election is likely the biggest, by far, battle in this war against the econuts. It might even be the final battle, if Trump wins. He will make scorched earth of these ridiculous greenie policies. I am doing everything I can to ensure he wins.

      • Average joe is right, at least in the US. Canada is a little behind you and always is. We were jealous of JFK and wanted our own charismatic leader so we elected Pierre Trudeau a few years after the assassination of JFK. We were also jealous of the youthful and articulate Obama and so true to form we elected Justin Trudeau.
        Maybe our next PM will be more like Trump?

      • I’m with you Joe. Watching the stupid nonsense being thrown at Trump by the liberal/left and their obedient media makes you realise just how scared of him they are.

        The wonderful thing about democracy is that numbers matter. I am doing everything I can to get the Trump vote out. These are remarkable times indeed. To be presented with a clear choice between old and new politics such as we have is very exciting.

  23. It is a book worthy of re-reading. Crichton was a master, and I don’t recall ever reading a novel with references before. RIP Dr.

  24. I remember this book changed my attitude to the climate debate. In fact I wasn’t even aware there was a debate. I’d accepted everything I was told, that everything was changing and it was our fault. Afterwards I became a sceptic which I have remained. But, good heavens it was a bad book. Poor dialogue, awful charecterisations, unbelievable events. From a great author like Crichton a poor offering indeed.

  25. Loved Crichton’s works. Lent my copy of ‘State of Fear’ to my dentist, who loved it as well. When he tried to return the book to me, I had him pass it on to his friends.

  26. Well, Climategate pretty much confirmed every single allegation Crichton made in that novel. As I remember, he set out to write a scary novel about Global Warming, and studying the subject turned him into a skeptic – pretty much the road anyone who decides to (honestly) look into it travels. I remember trying to give it to a couple of eco-sympathizing friends and was dismissively told ‘he’s a science fiction writer’. Well, actually it’s ‘Doctor’ Crichton, but that’s neither here nor there – but then when Climategate broke, and I outlined every single point Crichton made had been validated, I was sent a series of rationalization stories about pseudo-investigations in a variety of Kangaroo courts, as well as reports back from Copenhagen – basically complete denial from the greenie crowd. But that’s what this kind of political atmosphere – as liberalism takes its natural course into Progressivism, militancy, and totalitarianism – does to otherwise intelligent people – it closes their minds.

    Of course, then there’s the crowd where the message goes completely over their head. I gave the book to a lady-friend who, halfway through, told me she ‘really hoped Peter and Sara get together’.

    Sigh.

    • When I was having this “discussion” with my daughter, I pointed her at that post. Kinda got her thinking for once. My stand-by line in talking about CAGW with true believers is a paraphrase from that: “A theory that can mean anything means nothing.”

  27. One detail of the book which I found interesting was the statistics on malaria. Based on limited research into DDT, the UN prohibited DDT use for agriculture. The theory was that mosquitoes were becoming immune to DDT due to overuse. The effect of the ban made DDT all but impossible for poorest nations to purchase. In the first year after this regulation, worldwide malaria deaths rose from 25,000 to 1 million before the UN modified the rules to allow “limited spraying”.

    This is a staggering indictment of aggressive environmental activism, but the world seems to have learned the wrong lessons. In 2005, I found these basic facts easy to confirm with data. Time Magazine or NatGeo even ran an article on the subject with a huge foldout leaf of malaria deaths with a huge spike in that year.

    Now, it is almost impossible to find the confirming data. There are many “apologetic” videos and blogs which claim that these facts are distortions. However, the actual numbers are almost impossible to find. This is supposed to be the “information age”. Who has the power to restrict that information?

    Now, we have regular cries about how malaria will get worse under warming. The reality is that malarial mosquitoes are migrating northward into the wealthier nations who had been able to all but eliminate malaria fifty years ago. It’s not Climate Change — after all, Washington DC was a malarial swamp in the middle of the Little Ice Age.

    • ‘Who has the power to restrict that information?’

      Coordination and consolidation of search engines like Yahoo and Google – both their CEOs are big greenies and determined to control the message. It’s just that simple. It’s also the way most media outlets operate – the editorial decisions are made by a handful of people – that’s why so many stories repeat – not just the message – but exactly the same verbiage.

      Controlling the message. First step to totalitarianism.

      • Yes, another indication – the day the latest scare story about CO2 hitting the supposedly significant (not) “threshold” of 400ppm, my efforts to open up WUWT via the usual use of my search engine (Bing, in this case) yielded nothing but links to websites deriding WUWT or totally unrelated sites using the word
        “watts.” Amazing. And creepy.

  28. As genuine skeptics weigh the pros and cons, here is a scientific rebuttal to State of Fear.

    [RealClimate is made up of “genuine skeptics”? what a WHOPPER! Two words: Mike Mann. ICYMI co-founder of RC. Your comment is one of the most dogmatically ridiculous I’ve ever seen. – Anthony]

    • Anthony,

      I believe Barry meant the phrase “genuine skeptics” to refer to the WUWT audience…

  29. Thank you. Now I have many months of YouTube videos to watch and other media compilations to entertain. Already, the first speech I viewed by Dr. Crichton helped me to see the reason behind spectacular prediction failures. Just think of how many times Paul Ehrlich has been quoted and cited. It’s the same time-dependent counting exercise for the Kardashians. It’s a volumetric issue, not truth or accuracy.

  30. “How in Hell do the shibboleths of global warming keep proliferating”? asks Resourceguy. They proliferate because most of us are easily duped through application of well known fallacies in making arguments. Resourceguy provides an example of this phenomenon when he concludes that there are “prediction failures” though in this context “prediction” is polysemic and changes meaning in the midst of his argument. Thus, in concluding that there are “prediction failures” Resourceguy unwittingly applies the equivocation fallacy.

Comments are closed.