http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

It is true that Crichton cites real data. The story is far from over by stating that, however.

Here is a link to scientific criticism of Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear”:
72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:semSCzzqSgcJ:www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-…

This also comes as a PDF (as you’ll see mentioned in the html, or can find here: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf).

This is a response from James Hansen of the Columbia University Earth Institute and Goddard Institute for Space Studies, someone whose congressional testimony was personally criticized by Crichton in “State of Fear”.

I have seen similar refutation of nearly every point in State of Fear. I found the book to be convincing when reading it, but not after looking into the details. For example, his whole story about DDT is wrong. It was banned in the US, but was not banned by most developing countries, or not for very long. The bans that did take place were for the use of DDT in agriculture, not for “vector control”, which in this case means mosquito control.

Some of the resurgence of malaria is due to resistance developing, which was predicted by Rachel Carson rather than due to elimination of DDT use. Some resurgence of malaria is due to US aid being withheld unless DDT was not used.

Rachel Carson wrote about the role of agricultural DDT in polluting ground water and killing wildlife. This is true (that she wrote it and that it happens). Birds, fish, etc. are often very sensitive to pesticides. For example, the Bush administration is currently being sued to obey Federal law and the Endangered Species Act by protecting Northwest salmon from pesticides that are fatal in extremely tiny amounts, but which are not being regulated, in violation of the law.

Rachel Carson was correct about these things, as documented by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and shown in Federal court. However, she was not talking about the use of DDT as a protective agent against mosquitoes, where it is largely sprayed on the walls of rooms and homes. This method needs to be coupled with draining of swamps to fight mosquitoes effectively. In any event, the very problem that Carson wrote about, the unlimited agricultural use of DDT, undoubtedly sped up evolution of resistance to DDT. She is not some kind of monster, she was a journalist of high repute whose conclusions were proved correct in many cases. There are many sites devoted to describing how Rachel Carson has always been the target of smear campaigns by big chemical and agricultural businesses and right-wing organizations. Crichton just apes these old arguments in State of Fear, as it turns out.

Regarding global warming, see:
http://greenchemistry.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/ever-wonder-who-is-behind-dissenting-opinions-on-global-warming/

I’m not saying that anyone has to believe one “side” or the other, just that it is good to know who is behind the arguments. I happen to think that global warming is a serious issue, but I can’t prove it the way we might be able to 200-500 years from now, when it could be proved or disproved with more data. So, I don’t “know” I am right, I just think that the risk is too great to ignore.

Anyway, as was said above by others, we do need to decide for ourselves, and we need to do this based on our best judgment, not blind political or religious affiliation, based on our best abilities to judge the information and the trustworthiness of those presenting it.

Al Gore’s anonymous scientific “co-winners” of the Nobel prize don’t have a financial stake in this story the way oil companies do, They deserve to be listened to, at the very least.

Thanks for a great post
Jim
greenchemistry.wordpress.com/

Interesting rant; as much for what it isn’t as for what it is.
If you want to refute an argument, it is generally more effective to:

1)Stick to the subject at hand,
2)Take the necessary space to explain your opposing argument completely,
3)provide ample references to support your points.

I haven’t made up my mind on the subject, and I am looking for good discussion on climate change. Your little attack of logorrhea adds nothing, and detracts in the same way that heckling interferes with debates.

Get some facts and join the discussion in a reasonable way, or SHUT UP.

In the case of carbon dating of fossils, there are numerous different radioactive tests that provide a consistent overall picture of the age of the earth, and only Christian young-earth “scientists” ideologically committed to their a priori assumptions are unable to admit the obvious.

Similarly, computer models aren’t the only method of tracking carbon’s influence on climate, and only Big Oil’s paid “scientists” and committed anti-environmentalists like Chricton (See http://cdfe.org/religion.htm for examples of his ‘damn hippies’ world-view) can pretend that they’re not denying a clear and present danger to human survival.