With all of the people writing about new media and the incredible changes surrouding us, you decide to quote Michael CHRICTON on this issue??

Not that he was wrong about this issue, or at least he saw it dimly it sounds like. To act however as if his prediction is or was some notable event is just so beside the point, or rather he is, that it's comical.

I predict, by the way, that Chricton's other prediction, that global warming is a myth, will be proven woefully, absurdly, massively wrong. It already has been, in fact.

It's kind of a shame about Chricton, I actually thought that The Andromeda Strain was a good book and movie. I tried to read his more recent one about nanotech and found it the most appallingly bad thing I'd tried to read in years. I guess that's what right wing politics does to you, we could name it the Lieberman Syndrome. Sounds like a good name for a book actually.

I'm confused. Are you frustrated with Chricton (sic) because you don't like his book about nanotechnology, or because he dared to be completely on target with regard to the demise of modern journalism?

As for me, I appreciate Crichton's boldness with regard to his futuristic thinking. I rather doubt he's become mentally retarded due to any "right wing politics." I will admit though, that part of your critique was in itself comical. Go ahead, why don't you write a book called the "Lieberman Syndrome." You likely won't get farther than the title. Lieberman's not that conservative. Anyway, just remember, the article was about journalism, not Crichton's books...

FBH:

I'm confused. Are you frustrated with Chricton (sic) because you don't like his book about nanotechnology, or because he dared to be completely on target with regard to the demise of modern journalism?

If he was "completely on target", the NY Times would now be not only non-existent, but not even remembered.

So his prediction was was off by 5 years, and still isn't really correct since the mainstream media he predicted being gone are mainly still around (albeit in some trouble). Yeah, he's a real Nostrodomus.

The guy is an okay writer, but he thinks his intelligence means his opinion is fact. Not quite, buddy.

"The guy is an okay writer, but he thinks his intelligence means his opinion is fact. Not quite, buddy."

This sounds like an apt description of most working in the MSM - and a point Crichton aludes to in the article when he talks about fact versus opinion. You might agree with him more than you realize.

Sorry for your confusion. Your objection seems to center around the fact that I spelled his name with the "C" in the wrong place. Touche. Got me there.

I know the article was about Chrichton's predictions. This leads to the question of why anyone cares what he thinks, and since writing books is the only reason that anyone knows the first thing about him, don't you think this makes them just a tad relevant? His climate change denier stance alone would impeach any notion of him being taken seriously as a "futurist" as you claim, at least by any serious scientist.

In any case to help with your confusion, my point was that there are plenty of futurists writing great oceans of words about this precise subject, and that citing anything that Chrichton said is like asking a celebrity about politics. Which we spend a lot of time doing also, so I really shouldn't be surprised.

There's a serious and interesting debate about this subject, was my point, and the writer here seems to think that somehow this hack writer is representative or important in this field. He's not.

The "Lieberman Syndrome" was a satire on a former liberal ending up with the most extreme right views imaginable on foreign policy, after a slow drift to the right in that area. If you think he's "not that conservative" then you haven't been paying attention. You did notice that this former progressive is giving the address at the Republican convention and is the most avid supporter of McCain's "100 years of war" policies?

Not that conservative, my god. I'd hate to hear what your idea of "that conservative" is, in that case.

To get to facts -not opinion- the earth has been cooling for the last 7 years ,not warming and many serious scientists' research now points against global warming. What Chrichton does is read the scientific literature -not the popular literature- to learn what current research supports. And, the New York Times no longer exists as a multi-opinion, fact-based newspaper; it exists as the mouthpiece for liberal ideology. So, he is right in that the NYT is not the NYT of the past and had to become a limited ideology organ using its old newspaper name or it would have gone broke. Really though, what Chrichton advocates is for people to be better informed thru primary sources and not take opinion as data.

the earth has been cooling for the last 7 years ,not warming

No, it most certainly has not:

<link>

"Figure 1 shows 2007 temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 base period mean. The global mean temperature anomaly, 0.57°C (about 1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 mean, continues the strong warming trend of the past thirty years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Hansen et al. 2007). The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990."

and many serious scientists' research now points against global warming.

So Exxon would like you to believe.

I love the way those advocating for denial of climate change evidence always say things like this:

"To get to facts -not opinion- the earth has been cooling for the last 7 years"

and then follow it immediately with what amounts to opinion, along with vague references to "many serious scientists" but no references or links, of course.

Yes, since your sentence contains the words "many scientists" then you, like Chrichton, must be citing serious facts while anyone else, like the poster below you who actually POSTED a link to facts, must be just swept up by popular opinion.

Welcome to backwards land, the country of crazy right wing spin. You fit right in.

What makes me sick is the sheer dishonesty of it. As can be seen, 1998 was an outlier year, due to one of the strongest El Nino's on record:

<link>

So the right-wing propagandists (and the useful idiots who actually believe them) naturally cherry-pick that year to base comparisons on, whereas it's perfectly clear looking at the whole data set that warming has continued unabated.

Again ,to look at the most recent data, NASA data shows that last year the earth cooled around 0.7C which was a continuation of a trend of the last 7 years. For verification, see the original data by Googleing "global temperature chart". The reference cited in the post above was overturned by an amateur weather researcher from Canada several months ago who pointed out that the cited paper made errors of calculation. All the hottest years actually occurred in the 1920-30 era. Really, global warming is not a religion- it should not bring out fervor but cool reading of current data from primary sources . If the thoery does not hold, then it does not hold-if it does ,it does-no more or less and not tied at all to ideology but to research.

NASA data shows that last year the earth cooled around 0.7C which was a continuation of a trend of the last 7 years.

As the chart shows, there are annual variations. It also shows that THERE HAS NOT been a cooling trend the past seven years. As I said, 1998 is a cherry-picked year used by people with axes to grind, and useful idiot who believe them.

The reference cited in the post above was overturned by an amateur weather researcher from Canada several months ago who pointed out that the cited paper made errors of calculation.

No, it most certainly was not. The "errors in calculation" are actually discussed in the referenced article.

"Finally, we note that a minor data processing error found in the GISS temperature analysis in early 2007 does not affect the present analysis. The data processing flaw was failure to apply NOAA adjustments to United States Historical Climatology Network stations in 2000-2006, as the records for those years were taken from a different data base (Global Historical Climatology Network). This flaw affected only 1.6% of the Earth's surface (contiguous 48 states) and only the several years in the 21st century. As shown in Figure 4 and discussed elsewhere, the effect of this flaw was immeasurable globally (~0.003°C) and small even in its limited area. Contrary to reports in certain portions of the media, the data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record"

Really, global warming is not a religion

Exactly correct. It is a scientifically observed fact. What is a religion is your right-wing ideology.

Bottom line is, there has never been a serious debate about whether global warming is happening. The few debates that have occurred only included members that were already convinced, and were looking for facts to back their conclusions. Of course you could accuse the naysayers of doing the same thing. And how am I to know who to believe? I am a relatively intelligent woman, but I don't have a scientific background, especially not one in climatology. I could look at charts all day and it wouldn't mean anything to me. I have to go by my gut instinct, which says something is probably happening, especially when you factor in the world's population is bigger than it's ever been before. But I don't know what exactly IS happening, and I don't know if cutting CO2 emmissions here and there would do enough to stop it. I DO know that some politicians have proposed a "carbon tax," which I believe is only a cheap reason to raise taxes and likely won't affect CO2 emissions in the least. And THAT makes me skeptical of the whole global warming outcry - is it real? Hell if I know, but some people are set to take advantage of it!

timezoned:

I'd hate to hear what your idea of "that conservative" is

Why do you think spending a trillions of dollars on a failed war is a conservative idea? PLEASE don't make the mistake of thinking the current republican party is in any way conservative! Spending trillions of dollars on war and taking away personal liberties is not conservative - it's fascist. Take a look at Ron Paul if you want to see what a true conservative thinks.

1. Can you really take anyone seriously who reads an article, the comments on the article, within ~minutes, and manages to spell the name of the subject two different ways, and is wrong both times.

2. Sorry, I lost faith in the NASA Goddard Institute when instead of correcting an error, chose to hide their data, and cover it up. Isn't this the same outfit who positioned their temperature sensors near heat exhausts, asphalt pads, and on concrete runways? And when volunteers, using NASA's own database, began taking pictures of these "quality" data gathering devices, "Hansen. et al" chose to hide the locations to prevent further embarassment.

They didn't fix the problem, they just hid it from those who would like accurate data.