Carolyn and I were married 15 years ago, in May 1992. Wow. I’m more in love with her today than ever. I truly married and still enjoy the companionship of my best friend. Our home is one of playfulness, laughter and endless surprise. We’re deeply imperfect, blessed people.
The first few months of our marriage [...]
“State of Fear” a double-edged treatise (rated 4 stars)
Posted By Jeff on March 21st, 2007
by Michael Crichton
I’ve always enjoyed Crichton’s work. I mean, the guy who brought us “Jurassic Park” is simply a great storyteller. However, in this work, he pulls back the covers to reveal just how deeply many environmentalist groups have bedded down with political causes.
Not only does he create a page-turning story, but he sheds light with endless documentation on the question of global warming. Turns out, it’s become more politico-science than pure science, and there’s not compelling evidence available to suggest that global warming is caused by the human-industrial factor like the media and lobbyists would leave us to believe.
I appreciated being able to learn while being entertained. Few writers today can pull that one off.
In addition, there’s a controversy stewing around the National Association of Evangelicals and one of its leaders stating the global warming is an issue that evangelicals should count as important to address.
On this day...
- A 5M day - 2009
- Eighty-two - 2008
- Helping high school grads transition to college - 2007
- For all you self-employed folks... - 2007
Similar Posts
Share
- Review: A Model for Making Disciples
- Review: Courageous Leadership
- Review: The Best American Short Stories 2005 (Hint: not worth the paper)
Posted in Parchment Reviews
Comments 6
Feeling sweet?
Copy this number: 6038201464013622, and then reload my Starbucks card here! Click on the "Manage your card" tab.
Bookstore melancholy
Google search missing after Firefox update
Star Wars geek clone
Sting, stang, stung
The Squirrel
March 21st, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Can I just say, Duh??? Not really to you, Jeff…thanks for the great synopsis of the book. It’s just that this has been something I’ve been arguing for quite some time, and still it seems that Al Gore and the Enivro-Calvinsits have most of the population snowed…or drowned in melted ice-caps, to keep the metaphor appropriate.
For a well-balanced view of the environmental issue I STRONGLY recommend reading the following column by Orson Scott Card. Truly enlightening.
Link:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-03-06-1.html
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:39 am
I dont know,that article didnt really balance the issue out-it just agreed with the book..LOL,definitely wasnt what I was expecting…
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:27 am
K.T.,
Sorry, I might not have been clear in my use of the word “balance.” I didn’t mean that the article tries to balance both of the typical “sides” in some kind of two-step jive…I meant that the article is more aligned (balanced) with scientific observations than with the kind of fear-mongering we typically see in the news media these days. You’re right, Mr. Card comes down very close to Dr. Crichton’s views on the issue. They’re both very bright thinkers and writers, and we should give their message serious consideration before jumping on the current, radical environmental bandwagon.
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:54 am
Mark, I take it that you didn’t furiously scribble notes during Al Gore’s testimony this week and run out to buy a hybrid?
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:14 pm
That is okay.
I am proud to admit that I am an enviromentalist ,surprise,lol,but not for political reasons,but because I think it makes good sense to.In the same way that I want to upkeep,protect and clean my home ,is the very same way I feel about the earth.
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:50 pm
K.T.,
There are many oversimplifications in your last comment, and it’s difficult to choose where to begin, but here goes:
You seem to imply that being an “environmentalist” (you seem to be relying on the notion that there is only the one kind) equates with being someone who is a follower of Al Gore’s political ideas. That is an unfair definition. I consider Mr. Card (whose article I linked earlier) to be an “environmentalist” in the sense that he cares very much about the environment. He has different ideas about the “methods” by which we should take care of our environment.
It is unfair and simply wrong to characterize those who hold to different methods than the status quo as being poor “housekeepers!” This is a false dichotomy. I very much believe that we should tend to the environment. I have a key philosophical difference, however. Allow me to illustrate how I see this difference by extending your housekeeping metaphor…
My (and Card’s) method for keeping the house clean is to look and see what needs tended to and to make a plan with all those who live in the house to decide how to best keep the place clean whilst still living in the house. The popular “environmentalist” idea (notice quotations) promoted by Gore and others in the media has been to kick some people out of the house so they won’t mess it up as much anymore. I can’t imagine you using that strategy in your own home, so why should we be so drastic in the case of the planet?
All of this goes back to the initial term “balance.” I believe that I AM a well-balanced environmentalist because I believe in balancing my stewardship of the planet with my stewardship of human life in particular. In my view, the popular notion of “environmentalism” degrades human life to the point of sacrificing it to the god of “naturalism.” I refuse to do that.