To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Den tekniska lagringen eller åtkomsten är nödvändig för det legitima syftet att lagra inställningar som inte efterfrågas av abonnenten eller användaren.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
Den tekniska lagringen eller åtkomsten som används uteslutande för anonyma statistiska ändamål. Utan en stämningsansökan, frivillig efterlevnad från din Internetleverantörs sida, eller ytterligare register från en tredje part, kan information som lagras eller hämtas endast för detta ändamål vanligtvis inte användas för att identifiera dig.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Tråkiga nyheter. Jag visste inte han var sjuk – men det har inte hörts så mycket från honom sista året, efter den berömda debatten i New York http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU0BwGdeoq8
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9082151
Hittills har jag inte heller sett ett ord om State of Fear (2005) i dagens svenska media.
http://www.wunderground.com/education/stateoffear.asp
Tack vare Chrichton läste jag min första bok på engelska ”State of Fear”
Det vore bra om den även gavs ut på svenska så fler fick ta del av den skepsis Chrichton fick utlopp för i den boken.
En mycket bra författare har gått ur tiden
Frid över hans minne.
En kämpe för det fria ordet och den fria tanken har gått ur tiden. Kommer att sakna honom och önskar innerligt att hans böcker, föredrag och artiklar fortsätter att inspirera människor att ifrågasätta och tänka förnuftigt.
Vila i frid
Jag blev också bestört när jag läste det i SvD i morse.
Ännu mer konfunderad blev jag över att han presenterades som Cityakutens skapare(!?), men bara på förstasidan (i artikeln nämns inget om detta)
Och ja, hans uppmuntran att tänka klart och föreläsningar om sådant är väl värda att lyssna på. Dessbättre finns en hel del bevarat!
Lustigt hur en alarmist som Crichton hyllas här. Vare sig det var genteknik eller nanoteknik, nog kunde Crichton hitta på ett katastrofscenario. Själv fick jag definitivt nog av honom när han skrev in en kritiker som pedofil i en av sina böcker.
Thomas:
”Själv fick jag definitivt nog av honom när han skrev in en kritiker som pedofil i en av sina böcker.”
Sagt av mannen med helt rent samvete. 😉
Helt rent samvete har jag väl inte, men att anklaga folk för att vara pedofiler eller jämföra med Hitler jugend, det är en typ av riktigt grova anklagelser jag avstår från, till skillnad från somliga andra.
Arthur C. Clarke – som dog häromåret – mannen som uppfann kommunikationsatelliten och bl.a. skrev boken som filmen 2001 bygger på var bevisligen pedofil – men vad har det att göra med hans övriga intellekt och nyskapande?
Kan ni inte sluta med dessa personangrepp och för sakfrågan irrelvanta saker (tobaksrökning, DDT, genteknik, och jag vet inte vad) ? Tack – så länge det nu varar.
Peter, Crichton är död. Han har just slutat med sina personangrepp. För det var hans personangrepp du syftade på? De var dessutom inte grundade på några fakta utan han tog sig bara skönlitterär frihet att hitta på.
Jag har en rad av Michael Chrichtons tal sparade. Det är bland de bästa som finns när det gäller insikter i vetenskapens tillkortakommanden. Till skillnad från många andra var han helt klar över var som var ”fantasy” och vad som var ”facts”. Man skulle kunna jämföra honom med Jules Verne som också andvände vetenskapen som en bas för fantasier/beskrivningar om det förgångna och om det ofullständigt kända. Tack för dina insatser Michael. De har glatt (nästan) en hel värld.
Vad tråkigt, att han är död. Vet inte så mycket om honom som person men hans böcker var helt fantastiskt spännande!
”Bevisligen pedofil” källa tabloiden The Sunday Mirror. The Mirror lär t.o.m. ha publiserat en ursäkt! SirLanka polisen avskrev utredningen som grundlös. Pedofeli anklagelse verkar vara standard 1A åtgärd för att misskreditera helt vanliga bögar.
För övrigt anser jag att Clarke var en 20 ggr bättre författare än Chriton. Min subjektiva åsikt bara 🙂
Det fanns en skönlitterär författare som faktiskt använde sig av fotnoter i sina romaner. En författare som tog vetenskap på allvar. Nu finns det ingen. Världen är fattigare.
En bra intervju med Crichton om Global Warming (ca 22 min in i videon):
http://michaelcrichton.net/video-charlierose-2-17-07.html
Programvärden Charie Rose blir riktigt underhållande frustrerad när han inte kan få med Crichton på katastrofscenarierna och konsensussvamlet …
Nedanstående inlägg är lika bra som det är långt. Lär känna Michael Crichton genom citat och genom andra personers ögon.
Han försvarade stikt vetenskap och var en mästare i att avslöja
vetenskapens charlataner.
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the
rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus
science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped
cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the
first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that
the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of
scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because
you’re being had. (Michael Crichton)
CCNet Xtra 7 November 2008 — Audiatur et altera pars
IN MEMORIAM: MICHAEL CRICHTON (1942-2008)
—————————————–
Through his books, Michael Crichton served as an inspiration to students
of all ages, challenged scientists in many fields, and illuminated the
mysteries of the world in a way we could all understand. He will be
profoundly missed by those whose lives he touched, but he leaves behind
the greatest gifts of a thirst for knowledge, the desire to understand,
and the wisdom to use our minds to better our world.
The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they
broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science.
If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t
consensus. Period.
–Michael Crichton
Needless to say I’m aware of your tireless efforts and appreciate CCNet
very much. As the stakes in climate grow higher, the importance of
contrarian effort becomes ever greater.
–Michael Crichton, 18 March 2007
(1) IN MEMORIAM: MICHAEL CRICHTON (1942-2008)
(2) AMERICA LOSES ITS MORAL TECHNOLOGIST: MICHAEL CRICHTON
Jason Perlow, ZDNet, 6 November 2008
(3) MICHAEL CRICHTON’S QUESTION
John Tierney, TierneyLab, 6 November 2008
(4) CRICHTON ON CONSENSUS SCIENCE
William Mullen [william.mullen@gmail.com]
(5) MICHAEL CRICHTON AND CCNet
Michael Crichton [mcrichton@earthlink.net]
(6) MICHAEL CRICHTON
Robert Matson [ROBERT.D.MATSON@saic.com]
(7) MICHAEL CRICHTON
John A [johna.sci@googlemail.com]
================
(1) IN MEMORIAM: MICHAEL CRICHTON (1942 – 2008)
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/
Best-selling author Michael Crichton died unexpectedly in Los Angeles
Tuesday, November 4, 2008 after a courageous and private battle against
cancer.
While the world knew him as a great story teller that challenged our
preconceived notions about the world around us — and entertained us all
while doing so — his wife Sherri, daughter Taylor, family and friends
knew Michael Crichton as a devoted husband, loving father and generous
friend who inspired each of us to strive to see the wonders of our world
through new eyes. He did this with a wry sense of humor that those who
were privileged to know him personally will never forget.
Through his books, Michael Crichton served as an inspiration to students
of all ages, challenged scientists in many fields, and illuminated the
mysteries of the world in a way we could all understand.
He will be profoundly missed by those whose lives he touched, but he
leaves behind the greatest gifts of a thirst for knowledge, the desire
to understand, and the wisdom to use our minds to better our world.
Michael’s family respectfully asks for privacy during this difficult
time.
A private memorial service is expected, but no further details will be
released to the public
============
(2) AMERICA LOSES ITS MORAL TECHNOLOGIST: MICHAEL CRICHTON
ZDNet, 6 November 2008
http://blogs.zdnet.com/perlow/?p=9305
by Jason Perlow
Author, Producer and Director Michael Crichton, 1942-2008.
With election week and coverage of other events such as the Microsoft
PDC and the latest Windows 7 builds, many of ZDNet’s readers may be
unaware that one of America’s most foremost and successful writers of
speculative fiction, Michael Crichton, passed away at the age of 66 this
Tuesday, November 4th from a private battle with lung cancer.
Crichton may not be a name that is known to many of ZDNet’s younger
readers, but his works most definitely are. Educated as a medical doctor
at Harvard Medical School, Crichton was the creator of the popular
television series ER. However, many will also remember him for his books
and movies such as The Andromeda Strain, Coma, Westworld, Jurassic Park
and The Lost World, that utilize a common plot element found in many of
his works, which is what happens when technology and man’s thirst for
power and greed mix and go completely awry.
It could be said that Crichton was a very different type of Science
Fiction/Speculative Fiction author than the other kinds I tend to read.
There’s no question that out all of them, he was probably the most
financially successful and most widely read – which doesn’t cheapen the
impact or diminish the importance of his work, but I think defined his
target audience. The type of fiction which Crichton wrote was probably
more accessible or more readable to the everyman than many hard-core SF
writers of his own generation or generations past, and I think that in
and of itself is an important accomplishment. Getting 150 million copies
of your books read is certainly nothing to scoff at.
A signature Crichton novel is marked by its fast pace and engrossing
plot, which is why he was so good at what he did and why his books sold
so well. Unlike say, a Tom Clancy tome, which is the sort of best-seller
you really have to pick up and put down a few times due to their complex
storyline and lots of technical mumbo-jumbo – I found myself reading
Crichton’s books in just a sitting or two, because they were so engaging
and gripping and I just had to read the next chapter, until I was done.
This in itself is notable because his best books were well over 400
pages long.
What made Crichton a great sit-at-the beach and read a book one
afternoon on vacation type of novelist was how he interpreted current
trends in science and technology and communicate that in a gripping
yarn. While Crichton had MD street creds, and researched the technology
and science he wrote about, he wasn’t the kind of visionary that say,
Arthur C. Clarke was, who literally predicted trends and inspired
progress that followed decades after he wrote about them. Instead,
Crichton chose to write about believable, near-future and bleeding-edge
subjects that while certainly fantastic, were still within the realm of
the plausible. Biotechnology, Genetic Engineering, Nanotechnology and
Cybernetics all were fair game, and their within-our-grasp reality is
what made many of them all the more scary as speculative fiction.
If you could sum up Crichton in a nutshell, he was America’s moral
compass that kept our scientific and technological desires to play God
in check.
Copyright 2008, ZDNet
===============
(3) MICHAEL CRICHTON’S QUESTION
TierneyLab, 6 November 2008
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/michael-crichtons-questio
n/
By John Tierney
In memory of Michael Crichton, who died Tuesday, let us consider a
question that preocuppied him: How do we separate science from religion
in environmentalism? As a spinner of sci-fi horror stories himself, he
had a finely honed skepticism for the apocalyptic scenarios presented by
environmentalists. In a speech in 2003, he argued that environmentalism
was a modern remapping of Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths:
There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with
nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result
of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions
there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners,
doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called
sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the
environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free
wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.
Whatever solace these beliefs might offer the faithful, he argued, they
were unrealistic for most people – especially for people in poor
countries suffering from the ravages of nature – and didn’t do much good
for the environment, either:
Religions think they know it all, but the unhappy truth of the
environment is that we are dealing with incredibly complex, evolving
systems, and we usually are not certain how best to proceed. Those who
are certain are demonstrating their personality type, or their belief
system, not the state of their knowledge. Our record in the past, for
example managing national parks, is humiliating. Our fifty-year effort
at forest-fire suppression is a well-intentioned disaster from which our
forests will never recover. We need to be humble, deeply humble, in the
face of what we are trying to accomplish. We need to be trying various
methods of accomplishing things. We need to be open-minded about
assessing results of our efforts, and we need to be flexible about
balancing needs. Religions are good at none of these things.
How will we manage to get environmentalism out of the clutches of
religion, and back to a scientific discipline? There’s a simple answer:
we must institute far more stringent requirements for what constitutes
knowledge in the environmental realm.
I’m afraid that answer doesn’t sound so simple to me. It’s fine to
demand more stringent requirements for research and reporting on
environmental issues, but how do you enforce that? While Mr. Crichton
rightly criticized some scientists and environmental groups for hyping
the evidence of global warming, he himself underplayed some of the
evidence.
Mr. Crichton did offer one specific idea for revamping research.
Pointing to the Food and Drug Administration’s policies of financing
independent tests of the same, he suggested replacing the Environmental
Protection Agency with a less politicized agency – ”an organization that
will be ruthless about acquiring verifiable results, that will fund
identical research projects to more than one group, and that will make
everybody in this field get honest fast.” Could that work? Do you have
any better ideas?
(You can read reflections on Michael Crichton from my colleage Chip
McGrath and from Fred Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.)
Copyright 2008, NYT
================
(4) CRICHTON ON CONSENSUS SCIENCE
William Mullen [william.mullen@gmail.com]
Dear Benny,
I wouldn’t want CCNet readers to miss Michael Crichton’s trenchant
remarks on ”consensus science”, reprinted from 2003 in the Nov. 7 Wall
Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122603134258207975.html
Here is the peroration:
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the
rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus
science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped
cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the
first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that
the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of
scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because
you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with
consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the
contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which
means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the
real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is
reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great
precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t
science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . .
I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked.
Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid
enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2.
Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It
would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . .
To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming
controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back
in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add
weight to a conclusion: ”These results are derived with the help of a
computer model.” But now large-scale computer models are seen as
generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well
they reproduce data from the real world — increasingly, models provide
the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are,
when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about
the year 2100. There are only model runs.
This fascination with computer models is something I understand very
well. Richard Feynman called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because
only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you
arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands.
Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked
to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And
make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost
their minds?
Best, Bill
Prof. William Mullen
Dept. of Classics
Bard College
Annandale-on-Hudson, NY 12504
==========
(5) MICHAEL CRICHTON AND CCNet
During the 1970s and 80s, Michael Crichton was a fearful
environmentalist – an eco-worrier. In the last ten years or so, he
became, as other environmental realists, an open critic of apocalyptic
alarmism and climate hysteria. Until his untimely death on Tuesday,
Michael had been a CCNet-member for many years. Last year we spoke last:
Michael Crichton [mcrichton@earthlink.net]
Sun 18/03/2007 00:26
Dear Benny:
Thanks for the Freeman Dyson interview. I’ve always been surprised that
his straightforward criticisms of climate models has not been more
widely understood. But then again, as Dick Lindzen said the other day at
lunch, it’s likely that 75% of the population could not answer the
question, ”What is 1% of 100?”
Needless to say I’m aware of your tireless efforts and appreciate CCNet
very much. As the stakes in climate grow higher, the importance of
contrarian effort becomes ever greater.
Best regards
Michael
————-
Benny Peiser
18 March 2007 17:25
Dear Michael
Thank you for your kind note. I am a great admirer of your work and your
courage. I also identify with your personal development as I too come
from an environmental background myself.
There seem to be quite a number of people like us who have become more
critical of apocalyptic scare-mongering and environmental alarmism as we
grow older and mature. Even Julian Simon, one of the greatest optimists
of the 20th century, was initially (back in the 60s and early 70s) as
worried about environmental degradation and population growth as most
liberal observers.
One of the questions I’ve been trying to figure out for a long time is
why some people are more open to query common assumptions and are more
willing to change their views in light of new doubts and new evidence. I
wonder whether such an ability is mainly due to personal traits or
whether the accumulation of a critical mass of facts and information
helps to trigger a change in perception – or both?
Oh, and before I forget: Many congratulations on a memorable victory in
the NYC climate debate the other night – well done!
With best regards,
Benny
————-
Michael Crichton [mcrichton@earthlink.net]
19 March 2007 00:24
Dear Benny
An interesting question. It may be a matter of personality, or perhaps
merely a matter of what one is interested in. I am attracted to new
concepts. I notice that if someone tells me, ”Read this article, it’ll
prove that everything you believe is wrong, and the world is entirely
different from what you imagine,” I can’t wait! I find that prospect
exciting. Most people it seems dread it.
In my hearing, a friend of mine was asked if he had read State of Fear.
He said no, because ”he didn’t want it to be true.”
There you have it. Ostrichism.
A different answer is this: I experience most people as profoundly
uninterested in environmental issues. They don’t want details, the just
want the bottom line. If they hear I am skeptical of global warming, it
just makes them uneasy. They don’t really want to know why I think as I
do. They just want the bottom line: is it happening, or not? Crisis, or
not? But that means in the end, they will be more comfortable with
newspaper headlines. And of course everybody they know thinks the same.
Best
MC
===========
(6) MICHAEL CRICHTON
Robert Matson [ROBERT.D.MATSON@saic.com]
Hi Benny,
I’ve just received the sad news that author Michael Crichton has
succumbed to cancer at age 66. A brilliant and multi-talented man,
Crichton entertained millions with novels like The Andromeda Strain,
Westworld, Disclosure, Rising Sun, Jurassic Park, The Lost World,
Timeline, Prey and Sphere, many of which were adapted into hugely
successful films. Crichton was of course also the creator of the
long-running, award winning television drama ”ER”.
But perhaps his most important work (at least to your CCNet readers) was
the 2004 bestseller, ”State of Fear”, in which he argues against the
politicization of science in general, and anthropogenic global warming
in particular. James Hansen’s response to the book was predictably
elitist and rude, so I look forward to the coming years in which
Crichton’s views on oxymoronic ”consensus science” and the
pseudo-religious hijacking of critical thinking are ultimately
vindicated.
Best regards,
Rob Matson
============
(7) MICHAEL CRICHTON
John A [johna.sci@googlemail.com]
Dear Benny
Lost in the news because of the recent US Presidential election was the
shock news of the death of Michael Crichton from cancer. I found his
scientific insight, his analytic mind and his humour to be a wonderful
view on the world of politics, media and the scientific endeavour.
I am devastated that I never met him. I wonder if we’ll ever see someone
of his insight again.
best regards
John A
State of Fear är en både spännande roman och en intressant genomgång av de flesta argument som finns inom klimatalarmismen. Boken är fylld med fakta och diagram och har en diger källhänvisning.
Läs den och du får en intressant och givande diskission kring den globala uppvärmning, klimatförändringar, åter till naturen drömmarna och politisk koncensus kring ”vetenskap” .
Han tar också upp ett exempel på en tidigare rörelse som liksom klimatalarmismen bygger på ovetenskap men som har samma tro och stöttning från ”alla”
Rasteteorerna från -20 talet omfattades av vetenskap, kändisar och politiker i alla läger.