Chris Mooney is a visiting associate in the 
State of Fear is back in the top 100 books on Amazon.com, presumably thanks to the news that Bush read it. Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh, who's probably driving plenty of those sales, has this to say about Crichton's book:
If you haven't read State of Fear you ought to get it and you ought to read it, because he puts it in novel form, but documents how many of these groups actually try to create accidents and disasters on the eve of big conventions where they're going to be trying to raise money, how it is all a fund-raising operation; it all has its own political agenda.
"...puts it in novel form, but documents"?!? How exactly that works, I would love to know. I read State of Fear, and I did not see any documented evidence of any environmental group trying to cause an accident or disaster in real life. I saw fiction. Rush, I think, has really come unmoored from reality here....
Comments
I wonder which groups he means when he says they try to create accidents and disasters. Whoever they are, I'll bet they're responsible for Katrina.
Posted by: Mark Paris
| February 21, 2006 2:41 PM
I'm always getting rejected by NSF. Maybe, I should try Rush's allegation.
Posted by: TrekJunkie
| February 21, 2006 2:45 PM
I'm doubtful that Rush Limbaugh is to blame for much of that. Most of the help in pushing the book back up probably came from Bush himself and his weather service and TV-radio followers. ... my view only ...
Posted by: pat neuman | February 21, 2006 3:29 PM
It may be that I'm stretching things and my humor is no good, but I feel like the 72-year-old grandmother that "was bitten by a rat" as she tried to sleep on her couch in the living room of her public housing apartment in Baltimore.
Or, as I said in my comment this morning to an article posted by Sharon Black at baltimore indymedia called "Grandmother bitten by rat...
... I'm not a soft-spoken 72-year-old grandmother but I feel like I've been bitten by a rat and then some. You can get a sense of how I felt by reading my comment at Chris Mooney's latest piece at The Intersection called "Gaggle Me".
http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/11967/index.php
Posted by: pat neuman | February 21, 2006 3:51 PM
What is science expert Michael Crichton's position on evolution vs 'intelligent design'?
and for that matter, what's Limbaugh's?
Posted by: Anna in Calif | February 21, 2006 4:09 PM
Talk about missed opportunities: Crichton should have spent his time in the role of Ian Malcolm and talked about the inevitability of evolution.
Posted by: natural cynic | February 21, 2006 5:11 PM
Hey Chris: just a comment on post length. I think posts like this could probably do without the "Read On" cutoff. If you go on for several pages with something, that's one thing. But with shorter items like this, the blog becomes kind of choppy: instead of being able to read the latest updates, I have to click through each and every one, even if it's only a little longer than the exercpted intro.
Posted by: plunge | February 21, 2006 7:54 PM
So are you saying that at some point in time the Rushin Wingnutter was moored within reality?
As a side, the president ought to be blocking legislation to develop nanotechnology, until all those AI-powered swarms of nanobots come under control, since Mike C. already documented (sure, in a form that is labeled, "fiction", but so what?) that those swarms are loose in the desert and are killing people!
Posted by: t.f. | February 21, 2006 7:55 PM
On a serious note, Ian was portrayed as being a bit of a cynic /skeptic towards evolution in The Lost World. I remember him telling one of the kids (of course, not arguing with the scientist, haha) about the "Red Queen" [coevolution] and arguing that the concomitant brain size changes, development of vocalization, and auditory changes that were required for sonar in bats rendered evolutionary explanations impossible.
To Crichton's credit, Ian did say something to the effect of, "Creationism is not the answer, it is wrong." Damn I wish I still had that one around. Chris ought to write MC and ask for an official position, since he's becoming a powerful political advisor ;)
There again, MC did kill off Ian in JP, then "miraculously resurrected him" for LW since in the movie version of JP Ian didn't die. So maybe Crichton was giving us advice on Xianity too!
Posted by: t.f. | February 21, 2006 8:00 PM
Anna and natural cynic, actually, Crichton kind of did what you're suggesting in "The Lost World," where he sights faults in evolutionary theory, writing "There are big problems with the theory. And more and more
scientists are admitting it.": http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199505-10/1192.html
In fairness, Crichton goes onto state: "That's Creationism, and it's wrong. Just plain wrong." And if you read over the entire passage, it is more confusing than enlightening, as if Crichton simply didn't have a good grasp of the subject and failed to make his point as a result.
Posted by: Walter | February 21, 2006 8:33 PM
Wait, sharks haven't evolved? What? Bacon powder?
Posted by: plunge | February 21, 2006 10:38 PM
CBS does it right:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/02/21/publiceye/entry1335309.shtml
Posted by: coturnix | February 21, 2006 11:38 PM
I officially lost all respect for Crichton when I read TLW. First off: Malcom died, secondly the lawyer (can never remember his name) was a kickass hero and NOT some pants-pissing loser, and lastly... well it's hard to see how a cynical old megalomaniac can be resurrected for the second book as a well-intentioned grandfather when his closing scene involved venom, hungry compies, and a shattered leg.
Crichton slaughters science in every book he writes, as well as artistic integrity, all for the movie rights sale value. I mean he can't even get the difference between 'piezoelectric' and 'photovoltaic' right in his new nanotech book for god's sake... How can we expect anything less of him when he's writing about something as glacially boring (in action movie script terms anyway) as climate change?
OK I feel better... Rant's over.
Posted by: Dustin | February 22, 2006 4:44 AM
While I haven't seen the novel (but plan to read it), my guess is that footnotes are all that's required to 'document' the science (or lack thereof). After all, scientific articles are all about foot or endnote citations.
I thought early Chricton was decent, both reading and science-wise. I still like The Andromeda Strain. Even JP was ok. But everything from Lost World on has read like it was written to have "soon to be a major motion picture" on the cover. And the science just keeps getting worse.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 22, 2006 11:59 AM