Modest Genius
October 10th, 2005, 05:17 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1580560,00.htmlMichael Crichton's latest novel, State of Fear, is an action-packed thriller in which the hero is a scientist who discovers that climate change is all a fraud. The novel has sold well, but it was still something of a shock yesterday to find its author as an expert witness testifying on global warming in front of the United States Senate.
Crichton had been summoned to give evidence by Senator James Inhofe, a Republican senator from Oklahoma, who recently called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people".
Some scientists speculated that Crichton might be the best witness Senator Inhofe could find. A 2004 survey of 900 peer-reviewed and published scientific papers on climate change failed to find a single one who went against the belief that man-made change is happening and is dangerous.
...
He continued: "My recent novel, State of Fear, concerns the politicisation of scientific research ... What I would like to emphasise to the committee today is the importance of the independent verification to science."
What followed was a detailed critique of one of the major studies into climate change, carried out by the American climate researcher Michael Mann in the late 1990s, effectively accusing the scientists of failing to adhere to proper scientific standards.
Drawing on what he said was experience from his medical background, he told the assembled senators that any study where a single team plans the research, carries it out, supervises the analysis, and writes their own final report carries a "very high risk " of undetected bias.
But despite his critique of what is commonly regarded to be one of the first - and most important - studies on the history of global warming, he said it was not his intention to debunk the theory of global warming.
"In closing, I want to state emphatically that nothing in my remarks should be taken to imply that we can ignore our environment, or that we should not take climate change seriously. On the contrary, we must dramatically improve our record on environmental management. That's why a focused effort on climate science, aimed at securing sound, independently verified answers to policy questions, is so important now."
Not all senators were uniformly impressed. Hillary Clinton was the first to try to cut him down to size. "His views on climate change are at odds with the vast majority of climate scientists; it also appears in a work of fiction," the senator for New York said dismissively. "I think that the topic of this hearing is very important but organised in a way to muddy sound science rather than clarify it," she added, before thanking the other four witnesses who attended, but not Crichton.
Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer joined in. "We are here to talk about sound science - a worthy and important subject. We are not here to talk about plays, novels, art or music - although as a member for California I do appreciate the focus on the arts."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4319574.stm
Do you ever read that line on an early page of a novel: "Any connection between the characters and events herein portrayed, and real people, is purely coincidental."
In Michael Crichton's State of Fear, I'd say the connection was purely intentional. It's about the kind of hurricanes, floods, tsunamis and tornadoes we've been experiencing. Crichton's trade is to bring pleasurable terror to millions by spinning tales of science gone amok - as in Jurassic Park and the Andromeda Strain.
In this new bestseller those hurricanes etc aren't natural disasters at all. They are the creations of global warming activists - eco-maniacs desperate to publicise the case for controlling emissions of carbon dioxide. To make sure you get his point, Crichton adds a 32-page footnote documenting his own conviction that global warming is an unscientific scare.
What about the contrary worldwide consensus of scientists that global warming is a man-made disaster in the making? Crichton's answer: "If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus." As I suppose in the old consensus that the earth is flat.
...
The well-endowed think tank, the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy, honoured Crichton with an invitation to Washington to address its members - not on the novel, but on science policy in the 21st Century. The point of that was to embrace Crichton's attack on what he calls the pseudo-science of global warming.
...
It is quite significant that while President Bush has been active on hurricane relief, he has not reiterated his well-aired doubts about whether global warming is a real threat or a scare. Nor have we heard much from the Republican chairman of the Senate Environment Committee.
Senator James Inhofe's previous best effort was this: "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phoney science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it."
The senator did not explain quite how 2,000 top scientists in 100 countries could have been persuaded in 2004 to produce a rare consensus that gas emissions left unchecked will produce a series of catastrophes. Nor is he likely to try and explain in the post-Katrina atmosphere.
...
All the delaying tactics, denials and obfuscations bring to mind what happened in 1974 to two American scientists, Professor Sherwood Roland and Dr Mario Molina. They coolly set out the evidence that the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in refrigeration, aerosols and air conditioning were eating at the ozone layer which protects mankind and plants from dangerous ultraviolet radiation.
They were at once smeared as scaremongers. The manufacturers ran an all too successful campaign to fog the issue. A lazy media bought into it. The public got bored and bamboozled. And as they did so, millions more tons of the pollutant were added to the atmosphere.
Thirteen years later when the world finally woke up to an ozone hole bigger than anyone had predicted, there was a swift international agreement - led by the US - to find alternatives to the CFCs. In the meantime, great damage had been done.
Winston Churchill back in the 1930s had this to say about another government that didn't believe a threat was real. As the Chamberlain Cabinet dithered about Hitler, Churchill warned: "They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent."
And he concluded: "The era of procrastination, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences."
We are entering that period now with global warming. And if quoting Churchill in this context puts me in Michael Crichton's class of conspirators, I will bear it with fortitude.
kinda interesting, that the current favorite anti-kyoto campaigner is a fiction writer, who has previously shown a lack of understanding of science
Crichton had been summoned to give evidence by Senator James Inhofe, a Republican senator from Oklahoma, who recently called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people".
Some scientists speculated that Crichton might be the best witness Senator Inhofe could find. A 2004 survey of 900 peer-reviewed and published scientific papers on climate change failed to find a single one who went against the belief that man-made change is happening and is dangerous.
...
He continued: "My recent novel, State of Fear, concerns the politicisation of scientific research ... What I would like to emphasise to the committee today is the importance of the independent verification to science."
What followed was a detailed critique of one of the major studies into climate change, carried out by the American climate researcher Michael Mann in the late 1990s, effectively accusing the scientists of failing to adhere to proper scientific standards.
Drawing on what he said was experience from his medical background, he told the assembled senators that any study where a single team plans the research, carries it out, supervises the analysis, and writes their own final report carries a "very high risk " of undetected bias.
But despite his critique of what is commonly regarded to be one of the first - and most important - studies on the history of global warming, he said it was not his intention to debunk the theory of global warming.
"In closing, I want to state emphatically that nothing in my remarks should be taken to imply that we can ignore our environment, or that we should not take climate change seriously. On the contrary, we must dramatically improve our record on environmental management. That's why a focused effort on climate science, aimed at securing sound, independently verified answers to policy questions, is so important now."
Not all senators were uniformly impressed. Hillary Clinton was the first to try to cut him down to size. "His views on climate change are at odds with the vast majority of climate scientists; it also appears in a work of fiction," the senator for New York said dismissively. "I think that the topic of this hearing is very important but organised in a way to muddy sound science rather than clarify it," she added, before thanking the other four witnesses who attended, but not Crichton.
Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer joined in. "We are here to talk about sound science - a worthy and important subject. We are not here to talk about plays, novels, art or music - although as a member for California I do appreciate the focus on the arts."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4319574.stm
Do you ever read that line on an early page of a novel: "Any connection between the characters and events herein portrayed, and real people, is purely coincidental."
In Michael Crichton's State of Fear, I'd say the connection was purely intentional. It's about the kind of hurricanes, floods, tsunamis and tornadoes we've been experiencing. Crichton's trade is to bring pleasurable terror to millions by spinning tales of science gone amok - as in Jurassic Park and the Andromeda Strain.
In this new bestseller those hurricanes etc aren't natural disasters at all. They are the creations of global warming activists - eco-maniacs desperate to publicise the case for controlling emissions of carbon dioxide. To make sure you get his point, Crichton adds a 32-page footnote documenting his own conviction that global warming is an unscientific scare.
What about the contrary worldwide consensus of scientists that global warming is a man-made disaster in the making? Crichton's answer: "If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus." As I suppose in the old consensus that the earth is flat.
...
The well-endowed think tank, the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy, honoured Crichton with an invitation to Washington to address its members - not on the novel, but on science policy in the 21st Century. The point of that was to embrace Crichton's attack on what he calls the pseudo-science of global warming.
...
It is quite significant that while President Bush has been active on hurricane relief, he has not reiterated his well-aired doubts about whether global warming is a real threat or a scare. Nor have we heard much from the Republican chairman of the Senate Environment Committee.
Senator James Inhofe's previous best effort was this: "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phoney science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it."
The senator did not explain quite how 2,000 top scientists in 100 countries could have been persuaded in 2004 to produce a rare consensus that gas emissions left unchecked will produce a series of catastrophes. Nor is he likely to try and explain in the post-Katrina atmosphere.
...
All the delaying tactics, denials and obfuscations bring to mind what happened in 1974 to two American scientists, Professor Sherwood Roland and Dr Mario Molina. They coolly set out the evidence that the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in refrigeration, aerosols and air conditioning were eating at the ozone layer which protects mankind and plants from dangerous ultraviolet radiation.
They were at once smeared as scaremongers. The manufacturers ran an all too successful campaign to fog the issue. A lazy media bought into it. The public got bored and bamboozled. And as they did so, millions more tons of the pollutant were added to the atmosphere.
Thirteen years later when the world finally woke up to an ozone hole bigger than anyone had predicted, there was a swift international agreement - led by the US - to find alternatives to the CFCs. In the meantime, great damage had been done.
Winston Churchill back in the 1930s had this to say about another government that didn't believe a threat was real. As the Chamberlain Cabinet dithered about Hitler, Churchill warned: "They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent."
And he concluded: "The era of procrastination, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences."
We are entering that period now with global warming. And if quoting Churchill in this context puts me in Michael Crichton's class of conspirators, I will bear it with fortitude.
kinda interesting, that the current favorite anti-kyoto campaigner is a fiction writer, who has previously shown a lack of understanding of science