OnlineBookClub.org

Michael Crichton’s fiction novel, “State of Fear”, is in opposition to Al Gore’s nonfiction book, “An Inconvenient Truth”, when it comes to global warming. Both authors use facts, graphs and tables to prove their sides of this argument. Al Gore being the politician that he is uses scientists, who feel man is responsible for global warming, to warn us that we are doomed unless we make changes in how we treat our environment. Michael Crichton uses scientists, who feel that global warming is a series of natural cycles, to show that we have always had both global warming and ice ages. Crichton is out to prove that the politicians, environmentalists, and the media are using scare tactics to persuade us to change our ways. While, Al Gore tries to convince us that he truly wants to save this planet by convincing us to alter the way we live. For those familiar with these men’s books (or Al Gore’s documentary) which one presents the most convincing argument?

State of Fear, although a novel, is far more fact based than An Inconvenient Truth. I have used some of Chrichton's sources cited in State of Fear in arguments about global warming.

Hm, this is very interesting, ecoman, thanks for posting it. I have read neither book, so I can't answer your question.

I did recently read "The Sign," a novel by Raymond Khoury which is about global warming (he's a believer), naturalistic materialistic Darwinism (he's fer it), and religion (he's agin it). However, I would not say there are "arguments" per se in the novel. He tries, but all his arguments seem to be based on "religious leaders are con men and religious people are stupid sheep." Global warming is assumed to be a fact, not proved.

H0LD0Nthere wrote:.....He (Raymond Khoury) tries, but all his arguments seem to be based on "religious leaders are con men and religious people are stupid sheep." Global warming is assumed to be a fact, not proved.

You've touched on an interesting point here, HOLDONthere, because I also have noticed that trend. Darwinists and Creationists can't meet eye-to-eye and agree on anything, let alone global warming!

I'm not a fan of the tactics used by Crichton or Gore but I have a lot of time for Alain de Botton, writer and philospher. I liked his thought-provoking comments in BBC News Magazine:

Excerpts: "On global warming, we have been asked to reconceive of ourselves as 'unthinking killers' for doing things such as wasting water or travelling by plane - an indictment that affects us individually but can only be absolved collectively" and "The ecological situation has forever changed our relationship to nature. An unusually warm Spring day cannot now be what it was for Chaucer and Wordsworth - a manifestation of the mystery and power of the non-human realm".

Thanks for this observation, Maud Fitch. I have not read Alain de Botton, but it sounds like he is worth a read. Whatever position he ends up with, he has at least thought about how it affects us psychologically. I resonate with the first sentence you quoted. It really bugs me to be considered "guilty" of something I cannot possibly stop doing ... like using energy, or living in my native land. Wendell Berry says, "The fact that, in most cases, we have no alternative does not diminish our guilt." I beg to differ.

H0LD0Nthere wrote:.....It really bugs me to be considered "guilty" of something I cannot possibly stop doing ... like using energy, or living in my native land. Wendell Berry says, "The fact that, in most cases, we have no alternative does not diminish our guilt." I beg to differ.

Eco-guilt plays a big factor in global warming issues and, surprise surprise, the ways to ease our guilt and reduce carbon emissions costs money. Offsets, fossil fuel tax, recycling, go green, carbon neutral, hydroponics, off grid, greenhouse gas reduction, rainwater tanks, solar panels, wind farming, most alternatives put money into the pockets of enterprising companies. As the debate rages on, nobody has managed to convince me one way or the other.

To separate our household rubbish, we can pay a quarterly rate to have three wheelie bins collected weekly but the three council trucks which collect this waste must negate any benefits a thousand-fold. I'm a consumer, I drive a car and let the water tap run too long, but I try to be more frugal and less wasteful where possible. Does it matter?

I'm familiar with Al Gore, but "State of Fear" is something I'll have to read. In any case I think it's much too late...I'm thinking of "The Lorax" here. I think every nation has basically "biggered their factories and biggered their roads" to the point that we have already destroyed the environment as we know it. Key phrase in Gore's argument is "cataclysmic weather conditions"...then does Fukushima ring a bell or BP and their bogus apologies? Really it's much too late...

The problem with presenting it as a debate is that it suggests there are two equally legitimate opinions. There aren't. Not a single serious scientific authority disputes the existence of anthropogenic climate change.

You should read the book! Especially the footnotes.

Job419 wrote:You should read the book! Especially the footnotes.

This is almost certainly not the place for a debate about this (I appreciate it was me who made the original comment), but a few minutes on Google is enough to find that the science he uses has been pretty heavily debunked by experts, including by people whose work he cited.