Michael Crichton on Environmentalism

[jim_scotti]

A very interesting article on the "religion" of Environmentalism:

Michael Crichton Remarks to the Commonwealth Club

Michael Crichton in Remarks to the Commonwealth Club:

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a good future for the human race. That's our past. So it's time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.

Jim.

 

[EvilYeti]

Hmmm, here is Crichton (a medical doctor and fiction writer), on global warming

I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit.

I wonder what career climatologists Thomas Karl:

Amer. Meteor. Soc., Fellow (1993) Amer. Assoc. of State Climatologists, Landsberg Award(1993) Amer. Meteor. Soc. Editors Award, J. Climate (1988) Dept. of Commerce Gold Medal (1991) NOAA Administrator's Award (1989) Dept. of Commerce Bronze Medal (1988)

Editor Journal of Climate Associate Editor Climatic Change National Research Council Climate Research Committee (1991-present) Panel on EOSDIS (1992-94) Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1990-1992) Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change Lead Author 1995 Lead Author 1992 Lead Author 1990 Public Affairs: Numerous news media interviews, testimony to U.S. Congress and briefings to cabinet level officials and Vice President of the US.

and Kevin Trenberth:

Fellow American Meteorological Society, 1985- * Fellow American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1994- * Honorary Fellow Royal Society of New Zealand, 1995 * NCAR Best Publication Award Nominee, 1988,~1989,~1992,~1993,~1994 * NCAR Outstanding Education Performance Award Nominee, 1996 * American Meteorological Society Editors Award (J. Climate), 1989 * Jule G. Charney award, American Meteorological Society, 2000

... have to say about AGW in a recent article in Science?

Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability. The main source of global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition. These perturbations primarily result from emissions associated with energy use, but on local and regional scales, urbanization and land use changes are also important.

Hmmmm... who to believe on science issues, hack novelist or real scientist?

Sorry Michael, I have to go with the real deal. Stick with the pulp ficion.

 

[Tricky]

Hmmm, here is Crichton (a medical doctor and fiction writer), on global warming



I wonder what career climatologists Thomas Karl:

Amer. Meteor. Soc., Fellow (1993) Amer. Assoc. of State Climatologists, Landsberg Award(1993) Amer. Meteor. Soc. Editors Award, J. Climate (1988) Dept. of Commerce Gold Medal (1991) NOAA Administrator's Award (1989) Dept. of Commerce Bronze Medal (1988)

Editor Journal of Climate Associate Editor Climatic Change National Research Council Climate Research Committee (1991-present) Panel on EOSDIS (1992-94) Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1990-1992) Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change Lead Author 1995 Lead Author 1992 Lead Author 1990 Public Affairs: Numerous news media interviews, testimony to U.S. Congress and briefings to cabinet level officials and Vice President of the US.

and Kevin Trenberth:

Fellow American Meteorological Society, 1985- * Fellow American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1994- * Honorary Fellow Royal Society of New Zealand, 1995 * NCAR Best Publication Award Nominee, 1988,~1989,~1992,~1993,~1994 * NCAR Outstanding Education Performance Award Nominee, 1996 * American Meteorological Society Editors Award (J. Climate), 1989 * Jule G. Charney award, American Meteorological Society, 2000

... have to say about AGW in a recent article in Science?

Well, duh, Yeti. Isn't it obvious that those guys are all just High Priests of the Church of Environmentalism.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

I'll stick with Reagan's assessment that trees are causing most of the pollution.

Charlie (one for the gipper) Monoxide

 

[Larspeart]

I love endangered species!

They go great with a red wine sauce and lots of garlic!

Mmm, Giant Panda!

Yum yum, florida panther!

Mmmmmmm, Mountain Gorilla!

And don't even mention the white rhino. My mouth is already salivating enough as it is!

 

[Luke T.]

I agree with Crichton on at least one thing. The politicization of environmentalism. It has made figuring out the truth to global warming very difficult for this layman.

 

[Luke T.]

I also agree with Crichton about dire predicitons not coming true. All my life, there have been doom and gloom predictions from environmentalists and psychics. It is hard to tell the difference between the two. They both have about the same hit rate. So any more "the sky is falling" predictions are a real hard sell to me.

 

[Cleon]

I also agree with Crichton about dire predicitons not coming true. All my life, there have been doom and gloom predictions from environmentalists and psychics. It is hard to tell the difference between the two. They both have about the same hit rate. So any more "the sky is falling" predictions are a real hard sell to me.

Playing devil's advocate (as I'm not particularly pro or con environmentalism):

The "doom and gloom" predictions of environmentalists were designed to change policy, and it could be argued that some of these predictions did not come true because polices were changed or programs enacted. (Think EPA, widespread recycling, etc.)

With psychic predictions, it buys into that "fate" crap. Something WILL happen, and if it doesn't, well, you just didn't interpret the prediction correctly. I don't know if any psychics use the "well, it COULD have happened, but the fact that I told people about my prediction stopped it" excuse.

 

[Tony]

I also agree with Crichton about dire predicitons not coming true. All my life, there have been doom and gloom predictions from environmentalists and psychics. It is hard to tell the difference between the two. They both have about the same hit rate. So any more "the sky is falling" predictions are a real hard sell to me.

Hey Luke, This was before my time, but I heard that enviromentalists were up in arms about global cooling in the 70's. Is that true?

 

[Luke T.]

Hey Luke, This was before my time, but I heard that enviromentalists were up in arms about global cooling in the 70's. Is that true?

In the 70s, it was mostly about overpopulation and dwindling natural resources. We'd all be hungry or dead by now. There were some concerns about the number of Apollo space launches having an effect on the ozone layer.

I think the first time I remember anything about global cooling was the "nuclear freeze" scare of the 80s. Global thermonuclear war would bring an early ice age.

Current global warming predictions also say that after global warming reaches a critical point, we will be plunged into an ice age.

 

[Luke T.]

The "doom and gloom" predictions of environmentalists were designed to change policy, and it could be argued that some of these predictions did not come true because polices were changed or programs enacted. (Think EPA, widespread recycling, etc.)

There is no way environmentalists could take credit for us not running out of natural resources or the overpopulation problems they predicted. Those were their biggest doom and gloom predictions.

 

[EvilYeti]

I agree with Crichton on at least one thing. The politicization of environmentalism. It has made figuring out the truth to global warming very difficult for this layman.

But the junk science deniers from the petroleum industry are worse.

It's not hard if you understand if you listen to the experts, for example the ones I quoted above.

 

[HarryKeogh]

tell crichton to stick to writing books about dinosaurs who sue for sexual harassment or something like that.

 

[corplinx]

When I was growing up in the 80s, the doomsday prophecies of the environmentalists said there would be no trees or breathable air now.

Somehow these folks get less scorn than the marks in the rapture community.

 

[EvilYeti]

tell crichton to stick to writing books about dinosaurs who sue for sexual harassment or something like that.

No doubt. His books are so riddled with science errors that I have a very hard time taking him seriously in the non-fiction world.

Edit: Here's a nice article on junk-science in Crichton's latest novel, Prey.

http://www.nanotech-now.com/Chris-Phoenix/prey-critique-old.htm

It's delightfully ironic as the author complains about Crichtons gloom-n-doom predictions for nanotechnology. He even references a collegue that said Jurassic Park set public perception of genetic research back ten years.

I guess doomsday scenarios are only wrong when Chrichton isn't making money from them.

 

[hgc]

When I was growing up in the 80s, the doomsday prophecies of the environmentalists said there would be no trees or breathable air now.

Somehow these folks get less scorn than the marks in the rapture community.

No trees by now? By 2003? Please cite. In the meantime, the rain forests, which provide a vast majority of the Earth's oxygen, are being whittled away at a fast clip.

Classic strawman. You should know better.

 

[Larspeart]

A wise man once said that ''the Earth is not in trouble. The Earth has been here for several billions years. it has been through meteors, floods, earthquakes, plagues, droughts, ice ages, continental drift, tectonic plate shifting, the magnetic reversal of the poles, and both it, and the life on it have all made it out just fine.

The Earth is fine. The PEOPLE are f---ed!''

-George Carlin

I honestly believe this. I hold no grandiose belief that humans are the end of the road in evolution. I don't believe ours is to be a permanent species, or that we can in any way 'destroy all life on Earth'. Maybe we could, but I doubt we will. I give us, at present expansion and development, TOPS 5,000 more years as a species. I'm not going to site anyone or anything, because this is simply a personal belief of mine.

Lets say we cut down the trees, burn the fields, and torch the air. Give the Earth 10,000 years, and it'll be living again. Give it 100,000 years, and most of the major ststems will be up and running. Give it 1-5 million years, and the Earth will once again be flourishing with life.

We just won't be here.

 

[Luke T.]

In his 1969 article "Eco-Catastrophe!" Ehrlich predicted the following: the oceans dead from DDT poisoning by 1979 and devoid of fish; 200,000 deaths from "smog disasters" in New York and Los Angeles in 1973; U.S. life expectancy dropping to 42 years by 1980 because of pesticide-induced cancers, with U.S. population declining to 22.6 million by 1999 (!), and so on.

Link1.

 

[Luke T.]

Earth Day 1970 provoked a torrent of apocalyptic predictions. "We have about five more years at the outside to do something," ecologist Kenneth Watt declared to a Swarthmore College audience on April 19, 1970. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that "civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."

Link2.

 

[Larspeart]

Great posts and links!