Global Warming in fiction - Robinson vs Crichton

[direstraits]

[Warning Spoilers ahead]

Obviously this will be best if there are people who've read both books, but I'd like to know what you guys think on the global warming scenario, and whether fiction is a great way of being educated in these issues.

Kim Stanley Robinson has written a trilogy consisting of 40 Signs of Rain, 50 Degrees Below, and 60 Days and Counting. Robinson, whom most of you will know via his Mars trilogy, has written this as a showcase of what the world will be like if the environmentalists were right about the effects of global warming, and the effects are being felt right now. He's imagined this world being ravaged by the weather, it's effect on the economy, with a good dose of politics thrown in too.

On the other hand, we have Michael Crichton, who famously (well, as he told it in an audio interview I've listened to) did not read any opinion pieces on global warming as he researched the issue, and came up with The State of Fear. In it, Crichton has taken the opposite stance - that global warming is just hot air (ahem).

Now in reality there are those who either realize and support what Al Gore is bringing attention to, and there are also those who call him alarmist and his environmental science more than a little skewed.

Do you agree with global warming or not? And do you think reading fiction such as those written by Robinson and Crichton will help intelligent readers get a view of what's happening to make up their own minds?

 

[suupaabaka]

Personally, I'm skeptical of global warming and am inclined to put it on the list along with witch hunts, the New York slave insurrection, the Y2K bug and other incidents of mass hysteria until the science improves and we get some solid evidence.

While Robinson's work may be fiction (I haven't read it myself), Crichton's is more of an academic essay for the layman. He has obviously done extensive research on the subject, and has presented his findings in the form of a (rather poor) thriller. However, his objective has been completed; primarily, to educate those who don't have the time or the inclination to wade through a sea of literature as he did to form an opinion.

Though I admit, I checked out a couple of his references to make sure they existed

 

[Harpo]

I think I'll go with Crichton. If his version is wrong then you can all point and laugh at me while we get wet

 

[Dave]

Do you agree with global warming or not? And do you think reading fiction such as those written by Robinson and Crichton will help intelligent readers get a view of what's happening to make up their own minds?

The world does not revolve around Al Gore and the USA. Suupaabaka wants "more solid evidence". Very people disagree that we have global warming and the evidence is overwhelming. What they still disagree about is whether it is man-made or not, but the majority of scientists believe it is, and I would go with the majority.

Can fiction inform us about the real world? In the case of moral dilemmas and allegories, then yes, but I would think making a decision on global warming by reading Robinson and Crichton would be like studying Evolution by watching Raquel Welch in 'One Million Years B.C.', or even by reading 'Jurassic Park'!

And Michael Crichton studied as a Doctor. I would be more inclined to believe someone who had done research into paleo-climatology, atmospheric climatology or oceanography. In any science subject one can find papers published that promote or refute or tweak the current established theory. That is the nature of the scientific method. Peer review sees that the established view is the one that best fits the current evidence, but anyone can take an alternative view. Having an alternative view doesn't make them right, though it may make them cool and win them votes.

I really hate it when the TV news tell us that they have an interview with an "......Expert". What makes them an "expert", what qualifies them? If they are a "middle east expert", how long did they lived there and why do they know so much? If they are a scientist, what exactly is their field of research.

Unfortunately, in the US this is a political argument and all the arguments are now all political. That is not helpful, and it is not happening elsewhere. Read the UK 'Stern Report' for a balanced non-political view of the economic effects and choices to be made.

 

[suupaabaka]

The world does not revolve around Al Gore and the USA. Suupaabaka wants "more solid evidence". Very people disagree that we have global warming and the evidence is overwhelming. What they still disagree about is whether it is man-made or not, but the majority of scientists believe it is, and I would go with the majority.

Can fiction inform us about the real world? In the case of moral dilemmas and allegories, then yes, but I would think making a decision on global warming by reading Robinson and Crichton would be like studying Evolution by watching Raquel Welch in 'One Million Years B.C.', or even by reading 'Jurassic Park'!

And Michael Crichton studied as a Doctor. I would be more inclined to believe someone who had done research into paleo-climatology, atmospheric climatology or oceanography. In any science subject one can find papers published that promote or refute or tweak the current established theory. That is the nature of the scientific method. Peer review sees that the established view is the one that best fits the current evidence, but anyone can take an alternative view. Having an alternative view doesn't make them right, though it may make them cool and win them votes.

I really hate it when the TV news tell us that they have an interview with an "......Expert". What makes them an "expert", what qualifies them? If they are a "middle east expert", how long did they lived there and why do they know so much? If they are a scientist, what exactly is their field of research.

Unfortunately, in the US this is a political argument and all the arguments are now all political. That is not helpful, and it is not happening elsewhere. Read the UK 'Stern Report' for a balanced non-political view of the economic effects and choices to be made.

Have you read Crichton's book? His research is quite extensive. Sure he studied as a surgeon, but does that discount his research from being any more valid? I'd say a criticism of his book can only be valid if you have read it, and perhaps examined his references to be sure he wasn't fabricating them. State of Fear was the book that sparked the interest in the issue, for me. Since then, I've tried to read extensively and critically and have not been convinced that it is a genuine issue.

Global warming refers to the global increase in temperatures. However, there are areas of the world in which the climate hasn't changed since early 20th century, and still others where there has been recorded drops in temperature. Indeed, there is more ice forming in the antarctic (or was it the arctic? I forget).

I submit the issue of the Y2K bug as an example. It was presented as a whole as the end of civilisation as we knew it. People were stockpiling on food and fuels, news programs were consistently updating us on research and there was a race to develop software to counter its effects. The factor that separates the Y2K hysteria from global warming is that it had a definite deadline. Once that deadline past, the state of fear came to a halt (excuse the pun ).

I firmly believe that everyone has a self-serving agenda, and global warming would benefit several groups rather nicely. Crichton points out that scientific methods used in meteorology are in fact far from perfect, and from speaking to an acquaintance in the Bureau of Meteorology, I've learnt that this is true. Even she is skeptical of global warming.

So yes, until there's some more solid evidence and less fear mongering, I'll remain skeptical.

 

[kcs_hiker]

you know, Arnold Schwarzeneggar said it best... (paraphrased) "If 99 doctors say you are sick and need treatment, we most likely won't listen to the 1 doctor who says otherwise". If I might add to Arnold's statement, "why ignore the doctors who say we are sick merely because we don't like their political stance, and listen to the doctor who is paid by the people most likely to lose money if we listen to the other doctors?".

Go here for a scientific rebuttal of Crichtons book.

 

[kcs_hiker]

I think I'll go with Crichton. If his version is wrong then you can all point and laugh at me while we get wet

therein lies the problem... if you and Crichton are wrong...I doubt many people will be laughing.

 

[Anthony G Williams]

I haven't read either novel, but I have read a great many non-fiction studies of this subject.

The most authoritative source of information is the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. You can read them all yourselves here: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The IPCC was originally set up by governments to take a critical view of the claims about climate change, but has ended up concluding that not only is global warming happening, but the probability that it is man-made is better than 90%. And that if we act now, we can do a lot to mitigate the worst effects. And that we'd better do so, because the consequences if we don't could be catastrophic for our civilisation. This report was signed up to by the representatives of all of the 100+ governments which participated, including the USA.

The IPCC conclusions represent the views of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. That is hardly surprising, since the evidence demonstrates a clear link between the rising production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases and the steady upward curve in world-wide average temperatures. The sceptics have been unable to produce any evidence to back any alternative explanation for the temperature rise.

I doubt that fiction will do a lot to help get the message across. Fiction is made up, after all. And when Hollywood gets hold of it, they exaggerate and distort the truth so much that it makes a farce of the subject (e.g. The Day After Tomorrow).

 

[mogora]

Global warming refers to the global increase in temperatures. However, there are areas of the world in which the climate hasn't changed since early 20th century, and still others where there has been recorded drops in temperature. Indeed, there is more ice forming in the antarctic (or was it the arctic? I forget).

Arctic ice is melting at twice the rate models predicted. Antarctica too is melting with pack ice forming later each winter. Any report that claims that ice is growing in either region is cherry-picking data or using very small sample sizes.

It's a tragedy that this issue has become politicized. Just as with the anti-evolution folks, people are using ideology to ignore the basic underlying science.

I submit the issue of the Y2K bug as an example.

Problems weren't avoided because it was a non-issue. Problems were avoided because lots of people spent many years working to solve them.

I firmly believe that everyone has a self-serving agenda, and global warming would benefit several groups rather nicely.

Yes, but eventually the science comes out. We can measure the rates at which ice is melting. We can measure the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and compare them with historical levels. We can look at another planet with a massive atmosphere filled with greenhouse gases and draw conclusions.

But I'm not going to look to fiction to inform me.

 

[HardScienceFan]

As i've said on the global warming thread,ice dynamics are still not completely understood.And believe me,it's COMPLICATED.
Most climate models suffer from some form of simplification,as they are
computationally unwieldy.

 

[HardScienceFan]

Though I admit, I checked out a couple of his references to make sure they existed

Inform me,please.
I am not totally ignorant of climatology,and am curious

 

[chrispenycate]

I have read (and enjoyed) two of the Robinson books.
I haven't read the Crichton book, so can't judge it.
On the other hand, most weather models take the increased carbon dioxide as a causitive factor as a precept, rather than putting out any proof (the decreased solubility of CO2 in water means that, if ocean temperatures rise, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide will rise anyway) Still, most of the measures proposed would probably be good ideas anyway, and our reliance on fossil fuels will have to end one day; why not soon?
If the Crichton book says there is no evidence for global warming, that only data that support that situation are allowed to be aired, I suspect he's been deliberately choosing which evidence he wants to read to push it the other way. But that doesn't make it man-made; it is merely that, if there's any risk that it is it's probably a good idea to reduce the possibly damaging behaviour, until enough data can be collected to make an informed decision.

 

[Gav]

Have you read Crichton's book? His research is quite extensive.

Crichton writes good thrillers but he is hardly a scientist. If I can find it I will post up a link to a serious review of his position which doesn't so much shred his credibility as stick in a mincer, turn it into a burger then force feed it to an overweight american.

Crichton made one very simple mistake: He read widely and then ignored anything which didn't tally with his goal. In other words he confused politics/economics with science.


Global Warming is happening. Let's make no mistake on that. Whether it is man made or not... well that is really beside the point.

Whether it will be doom for man in the next 50 years - I sincerely doubt it. But I would expect to see a lot of deaths.

 

[suupaabaka]

Inform me,please.
I am not totally ignorant of climatology,and am curious

He has a list of references at the back of his book, I checked out a couple using my Uni student's access to online journals. He's also described how he's used those references, some of it's quite amusing. Especially the one where a young woman tested people's willingness to subscribe to mass hysteria without proper information by getting environmentalists to sign a petition to take action against dihydrogen monoxide which "is found in large quantities in oceans and lakes" and "remains on fruits and vegetables even after they are washed" and "makes us sweat. Dihydrogen monoxide = water.

Just to clarify, my main point of contention is man-made global warming. The climate fluctuates all the time, and we're going to have an ice age in several thousands of years regardless of whether the average world temperature has risen or dropped one degree in the last hundred years.

 

[Dave]

No, I haven't read State of Fear and I don't plan too. Being from a medical background does not prevent him from doing research, but he has written many books, how much time do you think he spent researching that one? How does that make him qualified to write about it? Do any of the papers he references support Global Warming or are they all against it? That's why I mentioned peer review systems as being more useful.

We already have several threads here on Global Warming, a number of threads that give fuel to the idea that the weather is behaving oddly, and a thread on State of Fear itself. I don't want to repeat myself here.

As for the Y2K bug, mogora is correct

Problems weren't avoided because it was a non-issue. Problems were avoided because lots of people spent many years working to solve them.

Certainly there were a few companies making money out of scare mongering, but the important big systems such as flight control and banking were fixed long before hand.

Just to clarify, my main point of contention is man-made global warming. The climate fluctuates all the time, and we're going to have an ice age in several thousands of years regardless of whether the average world temperature has risen or dropped one degree in the last hundred years.

I don't understand. Current models predict a 4 degree rise this century if Carbon dioxide is stablised at 1990 levels. I don't think we are going to be able to achieve that, but even 4 degrees will cause big changes anyway. Do you mean to say that because we are all going to die in an Ice Age in a few thousand years there is no point in doing anything? Or do you see it as a plan to counteract the effects of such an event - I remember that was an argument used in the 1970's.

The thing is that not enough is known about the climate. While The Day after Tomorrow was drivel, the idea that rising temperatures could make the system unstable and lead to lower temperatures is one theory. That completely negates your plan to halt the next Ice Age.

More research is required, but waiting for more research before acting on what we already know is very short sighted.

 

[Anthony G Williams]

As i've said on the global warming thread,ice dynamics are still not completely understood.And believe me,it's COMPLICATED.
Most climate models suffer from some form of simplification,as they are
computationally unwieldy.

Of course it's complicated. But you don't need to dot every I and cross every T to draw conclusions about what's happening, and why.

The kind of arguments used by the "climate change sceptics" are the same as those used by the tobacco industry to deny any link between smoking and cancer. For a long time, they were able to point to the fact that no-one had explained how smoking caused cancer. That was true - but a powerful statistical link between the two provided a different type of evidence, which was good enough for the vast majority of scientists. The industry was also able to point to the many lifelong heavy smokers who lived to a ripe old age without ever getting cancer. Also true - but it still didn't invalidate the basic connection.

To use another analogy: if your house is beginning to burn, you don't sit around debating why, or arguing the relative merits and costs of alternative ways of tackling it - you switch off the power and gas and put the damn fire out.

There is also no point in arguing about the details of the science, as if the climate scientists who do this for a living have somehow forgotten to take account of something. They haven't, they've factored everything they can into the models, and the results are very clear. In fact, the IPCC report represents the "lowest common denominator" - the least that every nation would agree on, including the sceptical nations of China, Saudi Arabia, Russia and the USA.

For people to argue that this is all a giant conspiracy and that the vast majority of the world's climate scientists, together with every major government in the world, have all got together in order to tell a consistent lie to the public, represents a pretty extreme form of paranoia.

 

[mogora]

He's also described how he's used those references, some of it's quite amusing. Especially the one where a young woman tested people's willingness to subscribe to mass hysteria without proper information by getting environmentalists to sign a petition to take action against dihydrogen monoxide which "is found in large quantities in oceans and lakes" and "remains on fruits and vegetables even after they are washed" and "makes us sweat. Dihydrogen monoxide = water.

Those sorts of gullible easily lead people are not guiding climate research nor are they publishing papers in peer reviewed journals. While hysterical fools are useful tools for politicians (on both sides) their existance means zilch in terms of what the science and data are saying.

 

[Quokka]

I think fiction can often be more harmful than helpful, just look at the hype surrounding the Da Vinci Code . If I'm reading fiction, even those based on facts I try to treat it as fiction and if Im interested, follow up on the facts afterwards, Robinson's Mars series is a good example.

Personally I feel that man-made global warming is happening and although the systems are just too complicated to provide accurate predictions its not likely to be a good thing long term if we continue to drive the effects.

One thing I will add (slightly Off-Topic) is that I think global warming is only one aspect of a much bigger problem of man-made global change. Species extinction, the impact of population growth and expansion (including deforrestation and urbanisation), effects on the upper atmosphere (of which the ozone layer was just one), use of fossil fuels, soil salinity, pollution etc are all indications that the human species continues to provide for its own existence in ways that just cant be sustained.


...and somethings never change, statistics can always be made to prove anything you like.

An unsophisticated forecaster uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts - for support rather than for illumination. Andrew Lang

 

[Coolhand]

Hmm. Interesting topic.

I’ve done a fair bit of digging about the whole climate change thing. I’m just you’re average bloke in the street so my own stupid opinion is exactly that:

My own stupid opinion:

The climate is indeed changing. The climate is never stable. It never has been stable. It has been both much hotter and much colder than it is now, all without human intervention. There were once forests under where there is now ice. It does seem a little odd for us to suddenly be screaming “things are getting hotter so something MUST be WRONG.” As has been pointed out, we are naturally coming out of a relatively cold period o history, a warming trend that seemed to start before industrialization period. Then again, the human race has adversely effected the environment before, so GW obviously needs to be seriously researched and debated to make sure we’re not about to shaft the planet beyond repair.

There’s a massive amount of support for global warming in the scientific community, but there’s also quite a few respected dissenting voices who make some interesting arguments about how we may have got it wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time in scientific history that’s happened. Then again, the minority view isn’t always the right one either.

The following wikipedia entry contains shed-loads of links to the actual pro and skeptic science (although it keeps getting changed and cut as people on both sides edit out the links they don’t like. Tsk. But it’s a good starting point.)

Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From what I’ve seen, both sides have hysterical fanatics who don’t actually care what the science says or vastly exaggerate it, both sides have people with vested interests in one view or the other prevailing, and both sides contain respected scientists and genuine activists who make valid points for and against.

I’m still open to be convinced either way, and I tend to veer back and forth as I read more about it, but I do think that it’s far from the open and shut case that Greenpeace would have us believe. Given that the cost of getting it wrong either way is so high (the carbon cutting drive is actually going to fill quite a few body bags so let's be damn sure we need to it) it’s something I think everyone should research and make up their own mind about.

Oh, and as for the actual question of the thread, I think MC's book was well researched and a useful contribution to the debate. My full review of it is in the review forum. I haven't read the other ones mentioned. I will try to as soon as I can.

Anyway, I’m off to grab a carbon neutral pizza.

 

[Anthony G Williams]

From what I’ve seen, both sides have hysterical fanatics who don’t actually care what the science says or vastly exaggerate it, both sides have people with vested interests in one view or the other prevailing, and both sides contain respected scientists and genuine activists who make valid points for and against.

True, but your summary appears to give equal weight to both viewpoints. The kind of figures I have seen are that about 98% of climate scientists believe that human activities have a dominant responsibility for climate change. Given that you will never get 100% agreement over such a complex issue, that is as close to unanimous as you are ever likely to see.

As far as the scientific community is concerned, the debate about what's happening and why is over. The only issue now, is what to do about it.