Michael Critchon Was Right

It would seem Michael Crichton was right. No, science has not found a way to extract dinosaur DNA from prehistoric goo and begin a new age of the "terrible lizards". Not about nanobots or time travel, either. I wish. No, it would appear that his 2004 techno-thriller State of Fear has proved to be prophetic in light of the recent revelations from the Climategate scandal.

State of Fear is a novel that takes on the science and the motivations behind the theory of man-made global warming. I realize that to assert something other than anthropogenic causation for global warming makes me a "flat earther" to many, but I'll leave the dogmatism for others to hash out. The story centers around the protagonist uncovering a diabolical plan by Eco-terrorists to cause major "natural" disasters that would kill countless people and appear to be the result of man-made global warming, fomenting a state of fear and furthering their environmentalists views. Throughout the book Crichton challenges the scientific evidence sighted to prove anthropogenic climate change. Chrichton has said, "data are data", and he analyzes and critiques that data used to support global warming proponent's claims of Earth's destruction by man's hand. He also posits that there's an unhoy matrimony between science and politics, with the latter using money and influence to manipulate scientific findings to help support their political policies. Upon reading reviews by literary and scientific critics it would seem that Crichton was ripped apart on both counts. There was praise by conservatives, but it seemed miniscule compared to the negative remarks I found. There is even a website devouted to debunking Critchton's scientific claims found in the book. As far as public opinion was concerned, it seemed that the apocalypic prognosticators won the day over the effort put forth by Crichton. And now we have Climategate.

What is Climategate? One of the leading research facilities for global warming, the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (UK), had a server hacked and e-mails stolen, then they were disseminated on the web. The documents seem to point to collusion by these leading scientists to mislead the public about global warming by deleting e-mails and data that did not support human causation of global warming and suppressing desenting voices of their peers in publications they had sway over. It would seem the e-mails suggest data was manipulated and changed to help prove their claims. It appears a full scale cover up was uncovered by the hackers!

The question is why? Why would scientists want to hide or destroy data and mislead anyone about their findings? Science is about getting to the truth, isn't it? Crichton thought so. This is where he gets it right, the political infusion into science. Man-made global warming is a huge political issue, one that politicians are using to shape the political future of not only the U.S., but the world. Whereever you find politicians you will find plenty of money to line the pockets of those they want to use to further their ideology, their power. With that kind of power and financial backing, one can begin to see how corruption can creep into the scientific community.

I believe in the axiom that politicians are scumbags. I know we all have our favorite exceptions to this rule, but this rule is generally accepted by everyone. To prove this point I want to reference something mentioned by Al Gore at the Copenhagen global climate summet that is currently going on. Gore said, "Some of the models suggest to Dr. Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years." Unfortunately, he got it wrong. Dr. Maslowski reply to Gore's comment, "It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at." He further said, "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this." Hm... Did Gore purposely misrepresent the data to support is claims about global warming? Did he lie? And this is the ilk these Climategate scientists are in bed with. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusion.

Michael Crichton was right that science and politics make for bad bedfellows. In light of the Climategate scandal it would seem there is cooborative evidence to support his scientific findings about climate change as well. And he writes some completely satifying and entertaining stories! Do you think that, maybe there's a chance we'll see dinosaurs again? Maybe time travel? (But not those nanobots!) Crichton has certainly thrilled his audience with amazing books chock full of scientific wonder. Thankfully, he also endevered to be honest.

I Wonder if Gladiators Cried?

The Florida Gators and Alabama Crimson Tide college football teams squared off this past weekend for the SEC Championship Game. Going into the game they were the top two ranked teams in college football and nothing less than a shot at the national title was on the line. Gator and Crimson Tide fans have talked smack the whole week prior, hoping that their teams would back them up with a victory. Sports analysts dissected every nuance and studied every statistic of both teams, feeding the frenzy of the impending game. Indeed the biggest game of this college football season. Alabama rolled over Florida in a decisive 32-13 victory. (Dang!) Yet the most talked about aspect of the game isn't Alabama's dominance of the Gators, but that Tim Tebow cried.

If you do a Google search of Tim Tebow right now you will see an overwhelming amount of links of Tebow crying, both at the end of the game and also in a post game interview. A friend of mine called me up and asked if I'd seen the Sunday sports section; on the front page was a huge picture of a teary eyed Tebow. I even saw a political blog running a post on the Florida quarterback's flood of emotion. There seems to be as much coverage of the teared up Tebow as there was pregame coverage. Amazing.

I have to admit that my initial response to Tebow's tears was a little derisive. I think of football players as modern day gladiators. The toughest of all athletes. Warriors without compromise. The manliest of men. And men don't cry, do they?

A side note here: Historians say only about 10% of gladiators died in the arena. Unless it was a fight to the death, an opponent could signal defeat and a referee would call the match. Many bouts were called after a time and both warriors declared winners. Gladiators actually received good medical attention for injuries incurred. And get this, many fights were choreographed and dramatized much like fake "wraslin'" (WEE stuff) is today. Hm...

Actually, many studies have been done on the subject of men crying and it would seem the consensus is, in fact men do cry (What!). Men will primarily shed their tears in private, but there is a discernible increase in men willing to cry in public. What I found interesting is that it's more common to accept a man crying in public than women. The perception is that men are sincerely expressing their emotions while women are crying for attention. How about that? Socially it would seem we accept men crying more than some men would like to admit, so why the big deal over Tebow's tears?

Well, I don't know. I think it's partly social stereotypes and the fact Tebow is seen by many as a tough-as-nails kind of guy. Nothing stirs up that primal sense of masculinity for the Gator fan more than seeing Tebow run up the middle and level a linebacker on his way to a first down. As a Gator fan I have to admit that it's quite satisfying. And I should admit that at the end of the movie Gladiator I teared up as Maximus lay dying on the floor of the arena after vanquishing his foe. I don't think that infringes upon my manhood in any way. Besides, I think Tebow is passionate about what he does on the football field and if he cries about a loss as big as this one was, well I guess we can understand.

Cosidering the Life of Pat Tillman

I recently watched an interview of author Jon Krakauer on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart about his new book, Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey Of Pat Tillman, where Jon Stewart asked Krakauer if he thought Tillman was an iconoclast. Well, after reading the book myself I can answer in the affirmative. Not only an iconoclast, but after Krakauer's engrossing and comprehensive account I'd say iconic for a free thinking romantic like myself. I found Tillman complicated and sometimes conflicting, but someone guided by sound core principles and unafraid to live by them. It's refreshing to see character of this nature still extant in a society more prone to be pragmatic and equivocating.

Pat Tillman is the former NFL football star of the Arizona Cardinals who, after the terrorists attacks of September 11, 2001 decided to forgo his NFL career to become an Army Ranger and help bring to justice those who perpetrated those heinous acts of terrorism against the United States. While serving in Afghanistan, Pat lost his life in a friendly fire incident that would subsequently be covered up for what would appear to be propaganda purposes and cause some controversy for the Bush Administration. As his biography unfolds, I was compelled to see Pat not as the poster child of American Patriotism as was put forth by the Bush Administration, but as a complex man motivated by strong core values and love of his family and friends. By the time Pat enlists in the Army you have a good understanding of the man that chose to leave behind the comfortable life of an NFL player and a wife he loved dearly to fight in a war that ostensibly was and is being fought to bring to justice those responsible for 9/11.

Krakauer uses the story Of Tillman's life and tragic death to illustrate the insidious nature of politics in war and alleges that the Bush White House and Pentagon misled the public and Tillman's family about his death in order to protect Bush's reelection bid in 2004. Also, many of the criticisms of the war in Afghanistan and the move to invade Iraq are seen through Pat's perspective, giving them a different context than what we normally see from politically motivated groups like Move-on.org and the like. As one who generally supported the war on terror I couldn't help but be compelled to moderate my understanding of things as Krakauer's book unfolded. Politicians have, do, and will use in the future any means to further their political agendas, regardless of party or level of power. Politicians seem to be, by nature, scumbags. It's a harsh reality. So, I'm not particularly surprised to find out politicians lie or obfuscate the truth for their political purposes. Still, after the hubris that seems to have been prevalent throughout the administration and reading the details of how Pat's death was covered up, for what ever reason, helps to put a new face on the how and why this war is being prosecuted.

But, the really compelling story for me was the biography of Pat. I came away with a sense that this was a guy I'd like to have known. Strong willed and one who acted on conviction, passionate about what and those he loved, he seemed to be the real deal. Compared to the politicians that grace our capital he is by far the more honorable. And the more genuine. And the more honest. In a war where many find fault and failure, you can look to Pat Tillman for greatness.