Talk:State of Fear

Rv: why

RC is fine, per innumerable discussions elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

NERF is "modeled after the Sierra Club"? Nah!

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)

"A Majority of Climate Scientists Dispute..."

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)

Please check here!

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)

The book did indeed give many readers an incorrect view of the science.

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, and it is the effects of these that are of the most importance. Read the reference by Myles Allen published in Nature "Book Reviewed: State of Fear" "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. The reference is here

References

Political bickering

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)

Some climate scientists...

Tbh, I don't have a massive opinion on which is correct, but seeing as the proposed changes have been reverted - they need to be discussed rather than flip-flopped back and forth.

I had a look at a couple of sources, and while they individually disagree with Crichton's science - they don't state that all scientists refute his claims, which is what the changes would then imply. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, in fact one of the cited sources quotes an MIT meteorology professor saying "the science was handled intelligently and responsibly". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

With regard to this edit, and the related summaries of whetehr the particular editor was reverted - ok the editor wasn't, but it is clear the the subject of reversion - "some" had already been broached, and that not only was it a contentious issue, but discussion had been started regarding it. Rather than simply reverting, the discussion here should be joined. As I said - I have no real issue either way, but I dislike editors promoting and (sometimes) discussing change, yet at the same time insisting that the changed text stays in place. That's not how it works.

Please discuss. It's civil enough to do, rather than relying on edit summaries to put across an opinion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

So. That's almost an apology for having reverted me for the wrong reason, and having done so purely in an edit summary, rather than via discussion; but not quite. Never mind William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

As to the substance: no, absence of "some" does not imply "all", just "vast majority" or somesuch. That's what it means in everyday life, and it's what in means on wiki. At least, that's what it means everywhere *except* where people want to insert weasel words like "some" before statements. See scientific opinion on climate change for example William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, now let's be clear - the above is no way intended to be an apology. I don't want you to misunderstand that at all. You are going against the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, and edit warring quite obviously. It's been made absolutely clear to you (via both edit summaries and talk page discussion,) what process is trying to be followed here, and have blatantly decided to ignore that.

1. Initial (SamJanowiak) edit to remove "some"
2. reversion by editor (Peter Gulutzan) to reinstate "some"
3. reversion by editor (William M. Connolley) to again remove "some"
4. reversion by editor (Chaheel Riens) back to reinstate "some"
5. talk page discussion initiated. (Chaheel Riens)
6. reversion by editor (William M. Connolley) to again remove "some" - no talk page discussion
7. reversion by editor (Chaheel Riens) to reinstate "some" and reminder of the need to discuss changes prior to insertion
8. additional comment on WP:BRD Bold, Revert, Discuss
9. reversion by editor (William M. Connolley)
10. Discussion by editor(William M. Connolley)

Now, you may be correct. And indeed if you can find sources to back up your claim, I'll be happy to promote and include your proposed changes, but the fact remains that the change has been questioned, and reverted. Discussion - such as this - needs to take place, and I'm not a difficult person to persuade, but while we do so - you need to revert back to the initial version.

If you are so positive that your changes are correct you shouldn't have any qualms about reverting back while the discussion carries on - what have you got to lose? Heck - you might even look like a decent person while you do so?

You know, I wouldn't even be against the term "Many" rather than "some", but despite your claim above, removing the qualifier "some" does default to meaning "all":

• "Some apples on the tree are green"
• "Apples on the tree are green"

compromise:

• "Most of the apples on the tree are green"

Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Now you're just being dishonest. Look at your chronicle above. Notice how you provide careful links to all the reverts. Except to one of yours. This one: . I wonder why you forgot that one? Oh, because it's the one you got wrong. Because the reason for your revert was "if you've been reverted, please start a discussion before reverting again". But I hadn't been.

It's been made absolutely clear to you - what's with this patronising speaking of yourself in the third person nonsense?

As for removing the qualifier "some" does default to meaning "all" - no, this is nonsense. Repeating it does not make it true William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I see no evidence for the accusation that Chaheel Riens has been "dishonest" or has emitted "nonsense". Unless new arguments or new people come along, WP:NOCONSENSUS as I interpret it means normally we will return to the version of the article as it was prior to the removal of "some". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No. You don't get to write in your preferred version by using policy as your sledgehammer; that just doesn't work. You should know that William M. Connolley (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

No. You don't get to write in your preferred version by using policy as your sledgehammer; that just doesn't work. You should know that. Do you get the irony that I can use your exact same post to defend my own position? This is exactly what WP:BRD states. And yes, I did forget to include the link to my reversion - just as I forgot to include the link to your reversion as well here. Funny how you didn't pick up on that one, eh?

If William M. Connolley reverted more than once without going to the talk page, he violated the rule according to a fellow named William M. Connolley: "After the first revert, you really must start discussing on the talk page, not via edit comments". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You're accepting me as an authority? Excellent. Also, I congratulate you on your diligence - trawling though my edits back to 2009. You must be very very bored William M. Connolley (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you genuinely believe that the statement "Apples on the tree are green" also means that some apples on the tree are not green? Is that your understanding of the English language? I think it important that you clarify your belief there. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Denialism Versus Skepticism

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)

External links modified (January 2018)

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Author's afterword/appendices / Global warming

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)

Re: Josefino Comiso

In a lecture he gave at Goddard Space Flight Center in 2013, climate scientist Josefino Comiso took a few minutes out of his talk to explain that Crichton had misrepresented his research about polar sea ice in the book. You could tell that it upset Comiso, although his emotions were somewhat hidden. This should be added to the article. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I still think this needs to be added. Crichton misused Comiso's research for the book. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2026 (UTC)