News-Record.com

I have to get that book.

Let me see if I understand this: because of the over-zealous actions of the green party, we should ignore simple environmental truths: our air is filthy, our water is increasingly contanminated, and this administration believes the polluters -- big business -- should police themselves. Got it.

Johann, how's it going? Thanks for checking in.

That's not really Crichton's message in this book, and I didn't mean to give that impression.

Basically, he's attacking misinformation, or disinformation, and those who try to set public policy on the basis of falsehood - or what he views as falsehood.

Just one example: Everyone knows our air quality is getting worse, right? Crichton says no, it's really getting better. Is that true? You hear conflicting information all the time. Here in the Triad, we've had a lot fewer orange and red ozone days in the last few years, but maybe other weather conditions account for that - it hasn't been as hot, for example. Ooops, we're supposed to be experiencing global warming. Well, who the heck knows?

I know. But I'm not telling.

THHHHHPPPPPPPPPPT

Rusty, it's not like you to hold back.

By the way, big game for Charlotte tonight. They draw Memphis in the C-USA tourney - in Memphis. Go Niners.

"Global warming" doesn't mean every place on Earth is going to get warmer. Global warming means global temperatures will increase enough overall to have massive implications where global weather patterns are concerned. The polar ice caps are starting to melt; if enough fresh water from that melt enters our oceans, ocean currents could change dramatically, killing off the life that powers much of our planet, not just our dinner plates. Million-year-old glaciers in South America are receding, with attendent consequences to their water supplies and regional microclimates.

These are "facts," folks, whether or not you wish to believe they are hallmarks of pending disaster. Is it really going to kill you to take a few small measures as an individual to help mitigate the risk? Is the cost of being a good steward of our home so high that it doesn't make business sense? To me, the folks that say environmental scientists are "crying wolf" are really just looking for an excuse not to clean up their behavior -- behaviors which are simply nasty regardless of their impact on the environment. Don't #&*$ (uncouth word meaning "defacate") where you eat.

Histrion,

Thanks for posting.

You might NOT want to read this book.

Crichton disputes your "facts," although not your conclusion that we need to be better stewards of the environment.

Doug, what credentials in environmental science does Crichton have? i know he is not a doctor, but does he play one on tv?

Yeah, tought game for the 49ers tonight. I'm not feeling very good about it, myself.

Diane,

Crichton is an MD - Harvard Medical School.

I think some actors played him, or characters were modeled on him, in "ER."

Diego --

All is well here; in fact, Judy and I are buying a home near uptown Charlotte next week. Let me know when you are next in town, and you can check out the new crib.

As for the environment, well, I'm willing to make a few small sacrifices to the quality of our air or water if it somehow gets Rashad McCants back up to game speed.

Go Heels!

I've heard some of Crichton's critiques of environmentalism but have not read the book. There are certain indisputable facts. One is that carbon dioxide levels are four times higher than they were a century ago. Another is that carbon dioxide does cause the atmosphere to trap more heat. Now it's true that not everyone agrees how significant the CO2 effect is, but the point is it has the potential to be very severe. Lowering emissions could help avoid this possible catastrophe, and will without a doubt help overall air quality and save fuel. Basically there is no reason not to do what we can to reduce emissions. Even the economic effects aren't as severe as some suggest. BP for example cut the company's overall emissions by nearly 50% with NO net cost increase. This is because most ways to reduce emissions involve increasing efficiency, which saves money.

Environmentalists in the past have indeed been alarmists about some problems. An example is in the 1970s some predicted overpopulation would be so bad that billions would starve. While that didn't happen on a global scale, it is true that in certain areas overpopulation is devestating. Haiti, for example, is a country that is one of the most horrible places to live on the planet and every national problem is either caused or exacerbated by overpopulation. The point is, even if global warming doesn't end civilization as we know it as some suggest, it has the possibility to be a huge, and the near certainty of causing at least some problems. Besides, for those who accuse environmentalists of crying wolf, have the terror alerts been the same? Does the absence of attacks since 9/11 mean that we were foolish to be worried about them at all? Of course not.

As for air quality, it has been going up since the 1970s. However, the increase in air quality has nearly stopped in the last few years and it appears it may start deteriorating again.

Whew, long post.

Andrew, I can't argue with you.

I remember when you used to read all of Crichton's stuff, back when you were in middle school. Maybe you've progressed beyond him.

Maybe so, and Crichton never used to take his scientific credentials so seriously when he wrote about cloning dinosaurs and time travel. This also wouldn't be the first time a Crichton book was motivated by politics.