Talk:State of Fear

message: Independance from industry:
"AAPG does not 'speak' for the oil industry, but for its individual members—explorationists who seek and find hydrocarbon resources." -- AAPG Annual (2007) Report (Introduction): http://www.aapg.org/business/annual/intro.cfm
Orginal Stand/Policy on GW:
http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/papers/climate_change.cfm (might have some server problems depending on where you attempting to access from but used as a ref on the same topic on WP's article on AAPG)
 
Revised statement:
http://www.aapg.org/business/annual/intro.cfm which clearly states they do not dispute that CO_2 and other GHG's cause GW just the amount and results of GW
Direct evidence that MC does link Eugenics to the Holocaust:
: The Rockefeller Foundation continued to finance German researchers at a very high level. (The foundation was very quite about it, but they were still funding research in 1939, only months before the onset of World War II) [p. 634 1st paragraph]
: Eventually, this program was expanded into a vast network of concentration camps located near railroad lines, enabling efficient transport and killing of ten million undesirables. (p. 634, 3rd paragraph)
--Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AAPG Issues and Eugentics 

message: What does "The author claims via a the plot line that political, legal and media elites have found fomenting an unreasonable states of fear in the population is a mutually beneficial and self-reinforcing form of social control." mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An attempt at compromise language on the fact that SoF is also about the State of Fear described by Hoffman in the quotes above. 
Also except for publishing and sales figures what does the preamble contain not in the Overview? --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incoherent 

message: It seems that A has now abandoned his central claim that the novel has 5 keys points as its thesis . I don't understand how this can be; this assertion was backed up by numerous references, which only I could never find. But now the central points are down to 3! This is most mysterious. An explanation is awaited... William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not abandoned it just don't have time to fight it until this weekend (they are the centeral points.... eventhough I am not 100% of the pairing down to 3 I am fine with it for now).  Oh, and making a distinction between skeptics and deniers is important since I do nto agree with Sen. Inhoe or the ex-CEO of ExxonMobil for example --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since when has this article been here to reflect *your* opinions? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nor should it but there are clear shades of grew in the skeptic community (just as there are in the proponent side) and attempting to lump us all together is as wrong as say my attempt to link you to Ralph Nadar or something --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 points edit war now over? 

message: Last year discussion regarding the lack of NPOV made clear that the article needed balance, with favorable opinions/reviews from RS. When Aryeh M. Friedman recently joint in, it is my interpretation he was trying to fill this gap. However, this started an edit war particularly with William M. Connolley. The edit I made today is an attempt to provide that balance with lengthly quotations, from RS and includes at least a couple of reviews from outside the US. I kindly ask all regulars to make suggestions and to propose changes here before begining another edit war. I myself proposed the following:
* The order of the reviews might be changed, I just tried to follow closely the order in the Metacritic.com piece, from "outstanding" to "terrible." We might alternate positive and negative reviews, or list them in order of publication.
* Since Metacritic includes 18 reviews, a more direct proportion of the reviews would imply to include 9 instead of the 6 I included. I just think that six reviews already looks too long. Also, I have other 3 or 4 reviews not listed, and a more comprehensive review made as a Chapter of the book "The Science of Michael Crichton", which covers 11 of his novels.
* The current lenght of most of the quotations is too long, but I tried not to summarize more to avoid "cherry picking" claims. I think a neutral editor (other than those involve in the edit wars, and I exclude myself right now) might give it a shot in shortening the quotations but keeping the central ideas and criticism.
* These quotations include most of the points AMF and WMC have been struggling about, so I suggest we roll back the article to the pre-war content, leaving only new and undisputed content. The Overview section is one of the prime candidates for such roll back, but I'll be nice if these changes are discussed here first.
* I think there is merit for having a short section with Crichton's opinion/defense regarding the controversy. There is not only the materials in the books's Author Message, but also all the speeches he gave before and right after publication of the novel (all transcripts available in his website). In the case of "Next", the novel that followed SoF, he used the same style and as a follow up, Crichton is actully advocating and leading a movement to make some changes in the US laws regarding genetic engineering. In the case of SoF, because the issue is global warming controversy, such type of edit has less likelihood to survive. Therefore, I refrain to do so because of the recurrent edit wars and the sensibility of the issue, but I would like to hear comments on this idea of having this section. 
* Finally, we need to remember this is a novel, not a scientific paper, so I think it should be treated as such, and clearly, without OR form either side of the issue, nor with hastened reversions as of lately. 
--Mariordo (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't exactly like sticking them in the literary review section only because each of the quotes does substantiate one of the 5 original points that we have been fighting about all along but if this is the only way to get a balanced NPOV I have no issue, but we should defently make the rest of the article agree with the quotes instead them being totally out of context.   If we get this settled then the only thing that is left is to have a balanced NPOV science criticism section (which will make the current edit war look like fire crackers I suspect). --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Sure, its a fantasy novel, not a scientific paper. But if its going to contain lines like " is a fictional work that uses actual science and technical non-fictional material to support the storyline." then alas we're bound to end up discussing the science content. If you want to revert to a prior version, say which: AMF had a go and that wasn't happy. I'm not convinced a roll back is a good idea. The reviews are, as you say, too long William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree the science needs a ground up rewrite and either one from me or someone else is in progress... as to the reviews I think M said specifically it should not be one of the combatants that should shorten them --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book reviews quotations and a proposal to end the edit war

message: It doesn't matter if a user is banned or not if an edit they made is apporiate and does not violate any other WP policy.... therefor it is completely inappropriate to rv it --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken.  Reverting edits of banned users is so widely accepted that doing so doesn't even count toward the three-revert rule: at Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Exceptions you will see Reverting actions performed by banned users. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, he reverted me, an active user, this content was re-included by two non-banned editors because it is legit and already the same source was used in the article, and I added the proper ref to this quote just to avoid any doubts. So a banned user does not make a source ilegitimate and there is no justification for keep deleting that info. Only the first rv was valid, thereafter, WC is just fooling around and sanitizing content as usual.--Mariordo (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Certainly. The fact that an editor was acting in bad faith - by sockpuppeting - while inserting text may provide guidance on whether the text is worthy of inclusion, but when balancing the summary of a well, unscientific survey, it seems relevant. John Nevard (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

text: No I am not taking them back... why is it that your goal in life seems to be to make it so every GW article on WP has only your take on the issue in it (which is 100% non-NPOV) --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete Inapporiate RV 

message: Quoting from WP:SELFPUB:
This article is not about James Hansen so please explain how the reference I removed satisfies the above policy.
Quoting from WP:RS:
Given that this content guideline is urging caution, please provide a justification for why James Hansen's self-published source warrants an exception in this context, especially when multiple other WP:RS are already cited.  --GoRight (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: James Hansen is not a questionable source. He is a prominent and notable climate scientist. Also  'Keep in mind that if the information is worth reporting, an independent source is likely to have done so.'  doesn't apply here. I think there is no doubt here about the fact that Hansen opposes Chichton. So, whether he does that on his own website or in a newspaper article is irrelevant in this case. So, these are not reasons to drop the Hansen ref, however it is true that there are already three other refs for this particular statement. Splette :) How's my driving? 08:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hansen's self-published source 

message: Regarding the following:
This is not about the book.  This is not about the author of the book.  The book is a work of fiction.  There is no reason to include this in this article.  Move it to Lindzen's BLP, assuming it is not already there.  --GoRight (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Lindzen 

message: It's me or this article has the biggest criticism section ever for a book on wikipedia?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.72.146 (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I added a neutrality tag. 72.237.55.2 (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception section 

message: This section reeks of OR. The subjective hypothesis "To allow the reader to clearly follow the various positions portrayed in the book, Crichton uses the major characters as proxies for differing viewpoints on the topic of global warming" is pinned up by six opinion articles, at least one of which is not even available for reference without a subscription to an online journal site, and none of which were written or substantiated by Crichton himself. 
While I like the idea of suggesting to the reader that the characters might have been used metaphorically, or referencing op-ed writers' conclusions of same, the way this section is presented is authoritative, which it should not be. Even if it seems glaringly obvious (which I agree this does), opinion (even several people's opinion; even the opinion of reputable sources) should never be presented as fact on Wiki. If Crichton didn't explicitly state these characters' metaphorical nature, the Wiki page should not imply it. 
I have slightly altered the wording of the opening sentence and the presentation of the bullet points (and have also entirely removed the point about Morton, which is completely unsubstantiated), but I strongly feel that more attention is needed. However, due to the volume of unrest already present in this page's editing history, I will leave it at that for now. --Tarminagaia (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fair enough William M. Connolley (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metaphorical Use of Characters section 

message: "which have given many people the impression that the book has scientific authority."  This does not say false impression, or accurate impression, and perhaps it should say false impression. 
The most notable thing about this book is the large number of people, so many of whom are notable for their political position, who do believe that the book contains good science. The book is unusual for a science fiction novel in having the graphs, footnotes, and two appendices, but it is the effects of these that are of the most importance.  Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 23:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sagredo, I think that the sentence following this actually explains this better in more precise and footnoted language.  The clause is way too vague and is not sourced.  That's why I'm in favor of removing it.  Madman (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The second sentence says nothing about the numbers of people who have been deceived.  So I added the reference which already appears elsewhere in the article.  It states:"Many readers will find this thesis entirely plausible,..." and "Surveys of public opinion conducted before and after the film was released found that it made people think climate change is less likely."  This book is not all that unusual in having bad science, it is unusual in that many people have believed the bad science.  Having re-read the reference, I feel more strongly that it should say false impression.  Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 01:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impression of scientific authority 

message: Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article probation

message: I've performed three edits to clean up the article a bit.
#  Tweaked some clumsy wording , removing the superfluous phrase "that supports or does not support the theory"
#  Separated out a paragraph that confused the opinions of working scientists and that of the UCS which (despite the name) is basically an advocacy group.  Gave precedence to the former.
#  Removed external links that only seem to be there because they didn't get used in the article.  In appropriate context and subject to neutral point of view, some of these links might be useful as references in the body of the article, so I list them below:
#* "The Case For Skepticism on Global Warming" by Michael Crichton (speech to the National Press Club, Washington DC, 25 January 2005)	 
#* Slate review of book	 
#* Answers to Key Questions Raised by M. Crichton in State of Fear – Pew Center on Global Climate Change	 
#* "Global Warming, the Politicization of Science, and Michael Crichton's State of Fear" by David Deming, Journal of Scientific Exploration Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 247-256, 2005
--TS 20:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that so extraordinarily much of this "Wiki-bloody-pedia" page on State of Fear is taken up by excerpts from hostile reviews attacking Dr. Crichton's premises, intentions, methods, and approach to the subject of anthropogenic global warming, it is puzzling that not a single excerpt from any truly positive review is permitted, and even an external link to the author's own words on the central subject - uttered in a speech given shortly after the book's publication, during the height of the controversy over this novel - is instantly removed.  That not even the dead man himself can be permitted to refute his critics seems eloquently to support the contention that there is blatant bigotry operating here.  Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi, indeed. 71.251.140.124 (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I say above, you or somebody else may want to re-use the external link you mention and write it into the article, explaining the context that relates the speech to the novel. --TS 20:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Three edits by [[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]]

message: He took the initials and nothing else from the Earth Liberation Front.  They don't kill people or start disasters.  76.180.61.194 (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ELF 

message: RC is fine, per innumerable discussions elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need for an external link to RC in this article. You also reverted back in a dead link to a site which is in no way reliable mark nutley (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, you're shifting your ground. "There is no need" is rather different to "remove link to blog". I disagree. OTOH, we could move the link+text from the EL into the sci-crit section, perhaps. As to the dead link: I've re-found the link (which you could easily have done) and who says it isn't reliable? Just you? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well lets see about the source you think a blog post on the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry is reliable? I think not and i suspect if i has used such a source you`d be screaming for my head. And remove link to blog is kinda obvious that there is no need for it, just some guy posting on his blog, why is it there? mark nutley (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you think it is a blog? (it isn't) It is a published article from the Skeptical Inquirer by Chris Mooney (a reasonably reputed author on this particular subject). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rv: why 

message: There is an unsupported assertion in the article to the effect that the warmist "bad guy" organization (the National Environmental Resource Fund or NERF) is author Crichton's swipe at the Sierra Club.  There is reason to doubt this, particularly when one considers another 'viro aggregation commonly known by its four-letter acronym, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
Warmist reviews snarking at State of Fear shortly after its publication repeatedly conflated the real-world NRDC with Dr. Crichton's NERF, and while the author included the Sierra Club in his lambasting of global warming fellahin throughout the remaining years of his life ("Let’s have the NRDC, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their members, cannot fly on private jets. They must get their houses off the grid. They must live in the way that they’re telling everyone else to live. And if they won’t do that, why should we? And why should we take them seriously?"), it seems far more likely that in State of Fear he modeled NERF upon the NRDC, not the Sierra Club.  -- Tucci78 (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NERF is "modeled after the Sierra Club"? Nah! 

message: I love how of the six sources that supposedly constitute "scientific dispute," three are from newspapers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.118.40 (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A Majority of Climate Scientists Dispute..." 

message: Can someone please check the validity of the page numbers of the special paperback edition?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.254.54 (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please check here! 

message: I have removed the political bickering between the Senators on the Senate_Committee_on_Environment_and_Public_Works. The New York times is cited correct, but misrepresented the quote itself. Senator Clinton was addressing the chairman Inhofe and his way of organizing the hearing when she said that, not Crichtons testimony, as this youtube video shows (from 0:25 to 0:35). As such, the entire second paragraph of that section was about political bickering between the Senators, and the CBS article was the very same. --Amazeroth (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political bickering 

message: I just corrected the misuse of skeptic in the article.  A skeptic refuses to accept claims without evidence, but when one has sufficient evidence accepts it.  Deniers refuse to accept claims no matter how well supported they are.
Skepticism has many tools but the best known are the Razors of Sagan and Hitchen:
Sagan's Razor:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Hitchen's Razor:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence (Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur)."
Deniers got a bad name for refusing to accept the well-supported claim that Nazis murdered a dozen million people (atheists, jews, disabled, gypsies, et al) in the Holocaust, which they claim never happened.  They started calling themselves by the well-respected term skeptics.  As a skeptic, I say no.  One cannot be a skeptic unless one does not accept claims without supporting evidence, but if one has supporting evidence, accepts the claim.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:C002:C120:11E5:77E2:3248:A81D (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denialism Versus Skepticism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on State of Fear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041211081457/http://www.uic.edu/classes/geol/eaes102/Doran.pdf to http://www.uic.edu/classes/geol/eaes102/Doran.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The two sections appear to have been conceived by different authors and different periods. The repeat certain aspects and have a feel of redundancy. As the sections can be viewed as contentious I'm reluctant to make any modifications here.Theking2 (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author's afterword/appendices / Global warming