Such a thing is extraordinarily interesting. Vilified by either amassing front with for and against. What exactly is going on, it’s as though a war of misinformation is gathering pace with no clarity either way. Shrouded in the bubble of hyper reality that says this and that until most people overload and just want to watch gunfire and explosions or romcoms and cartoons. The main strange thing for me is that everyone knows that in comparison to the Earth, Human beings have been around for about ten seconds in the 24 hour period of existence. No data can reveal the full journey of time except that cooling and heating are also natural… but are we as a species contributing to something other than the norm? But I get the argument here in that infotainment that misleads is a dangerous thing, especially when Jo public might be more inclined to read a fiction dressed in fact instead of a science journal; some language is just easier to absorb, while the range of access to a well known novelist is also worrying if they eb towards being irresponsible. Religion? I can see a certain ambiguous point arising here. But jumping ahead over the spilled can of worms. I would prefer the world to believe in environmental worship above any other faith. But no, I would not be happy to see another extremist group killing in the name of rain forests…do we ever learn anything?
Michael Crichton is a controversial figure. Despite contributing Jurassic *life finds a way* Park to people’s lives, he’s still managed to piss off a large proportion of the scientific community, and not just by suggesting that dinosaurs could be reborn from DNA preserved in amber or whatever. Crichton’s 2004 novel ‘State of Fear’ was widely criticised by environmental scientists for “presenting an error filled and distorted version of the global warming science”. Although meant as a work of fiction, Crichton’s use of real life data, presented in graphs and tables throughout the novel, as well as extensive footnotes suggest that he wished the book to be viewed as a legitimate scientific source.
The problem with the book is that for the average reader, not clued up on all the latest scientific research in global warming, is that what Crichton talks about seems perfectly plausible. Some critics suggest that Peter Evans is representative of the…
View original post 377 more words