Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy Coug
I haven't read the book, but perhaps the strength of Crichton's "argument" is the source material his "science" is based on.
|
I haven't read the source material. He was pretty diligent about citing sources. I have no information as to the credibility of those sources - I do know that most Global Warming-ites laugh the book off as irrelevant.
Personally, I thought the arguments themselves were more interesting than the science it was based on...for example, the difficulty involved in removing all the natural variables involved in the climate in order to isolate the man-made vectors. Additionally, the argument that warming, while bad for some areas of the earth, could prove beneficial for other areas...and the fact that the measures used to limit greenhouse pollution is inhibitive of third-world populations' advance towards modern production...
Still, a work of fiction will always be fiction, and shouldn't itself be used as an authoritative scientific document.