Michael Crichton picks a fight with environmentalists

[Kuciwalker]

We hope Michael Crichton fans enjoy his new science-fiction thriller, while keeping in mind there is a very strong consensus among the vast majority of climate scientists that global warming is under way and human activity is a primary cause. Every time we drive a car, use electricity from coal-fired power plants, or heat our homes with oil or natural gas, we release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the air.

Every time we breath, we release carbond dioxide into the air. Stop breathing

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Sprayber
If he isn't careful they will burn his house down.

Using that analogy, I guess that means the pro-choice neighbor of mine had better fear for his own home, living as s/he does in an anti-abortion neighborhood.

Generalizations. Stereotypes. Assumptions. Gotta love 'em all for the chaos they cause. I jest, of course.

Gatekeeper

[chequita guevara]

What a lousy article.

It's central thesis seems to be: scientists were wrong abut the Drake equation and nuclear winter, so they are wrong about global warming, becuas scientifici consensus is always wrong.

Great reasoning there, Mike.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Every time we breath, we release carbond dioxide into the air. Stop breathing

That's cyclical carbon. Burning fossil feuls puts carbon back into the cycle that had been removed from the system billions and hundreds of millions of years ago, when the climate was much warmer. In effect, it's adding new carbon to the system.

[Agathon]

If Crichton is so bright, why does he write such terrible, knee-jerk novels?

Jurassic Park was thinly veiled religious silliness. Rising Sun was a racist manifesto, and Disclosure starred Michael Douglas, the representative of persecuted wealthy white men everywhere.

[DanS]

I love this part, because it is relevant every single day.

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

[Gatekeeper]

Perhaps a majority of scientists have actually reached a consensus based on multiple, verifiable results that a number of individual scientists have reached on their own accord.

Gatekeeper

[Agathon]

I guess Crichton is smart enough to know how dumb the rest of us are.

How many films have you seen where the "experts" are proved wrong, despite having the best evidence, all because of some schmuck's "hunch".

Is there a more pervasive trope in late capitalist culture? Or one that is as silly?

[DanS]

Gatekeeper: Perhaps so, but from what I've seen, "concensus science" rests on "evidence" gleaned from mathematical models. As Crichton points out, many of the components of these models are unknowable and therefore the models have no real scientific value.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Though I agree with you in principle that the opinion of the majority has no effect on whats right its rather over simplified.


Science is the search for the "Best Theory" not Truth as many would erroniosly claim. Now something that most people dont realize is the fact that for any possible question their is ALWAYS a current "champion" theory no matter what. Even if we know the Theory is uterly impossible, rediculus, internaly contradictory and in poor agreement with observation. So long as its the best we can do it remains. A new theory needs to decicivly defeat the old theory and become "king of the hill" so to speak. Human beings need to judge this process, we cant simply put it into a computer and get a Yes/No response on it. Anything dealing with Humans is imperfect, their will ALWAYS be some hold outs who don't accept a theory. When people speak of a scientific consensus arn't talking 60/40 splits their talking 99.9%. Depending on who you include in the count you could probably find someone who diagrees with practicaly any theory, should we doupt something because their is a tiny hold out that dosen't accept it?

[Agathon]

Depending on who you include in the count you could probably find someone who diagrees with practicaly any theory, should we doupt something because their is a tiny hold out that dosen't accept it?

Because it is the basis of our rebel counterculture to dismiss the experts in favour of the rebellious individual and his emotional "hunches".

[Sandman]

At the very least, environmental hysteria is matched by terrorism hysteria. Sure, you get ridiculous films like 'the Day after Tomorrow' on the enviromental side. But on the other side, you have ridiculous wars like the ongoing Iraq campaign.

Is there a more pervasive trope in late capitalist culture? Or one that is as silly?

How about: "You can do anything if you believe in yourself!"?

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by DanS
Gatekeeper: Perhaps so, but from what I've seen, "concensus science" rests on "evidence" gleaned from mathematical models. As Crichton points out, many of the components of these models are unknowable and therefore the models have no real scientific value.

For better or for worse, mathematical models are here to stay, much as polling is.

That said, I'm not one of those people who believes the sky is falling, but neither am I dense enough to think we're *not* altering the environment, and not always for the better. One doesn't have to go too far from home to realize the impact we, as a species, have on our surroundings. Combine that with the findings that scientists are making, and it raises legitimate concerns, IMO.

Just as Crichton proposes that some environmental scientists use "celebrities" to help fund their research and push their views, so do I worry that other people will use Crichton's views to basically do *nothing* to alter their way of life. IOW, they'll continue to rely on oil and coal instead of pursuing cleaner (and better) energy. They'll keep using a poor-mileage vehicle when they don't need it (SUVs come to mind here, along with the civilian Hummers) but have it anyway because of the "glamour" factor and so on.

The twin passions that drive (heh) my desire to abandon oil as an energy source is the fact that the U.S. relies far too much on a volatile Middle East for it and the fact that there are better energy sources out there. I wish a leader would step forward and implement another Manhattan Project effort, except this one would be for energy, not atomic weaponry.

Gatekeeper

[DanS]

Even if we know the Theory is uterly impossible, rediculus, internaly contradictory and in poor agreement with observation. So long as its the best we can do it remains. A new theory needs to decicivly defeat the old theory and become "king of the hill" so to speak.

Hey, I agree with this. You can only do what you can do and nobody should ask you to make up **** to square the circle. On the other hand, you have to be honest about the state of the theory. I don't hear a lot of "well, it's a stupid theory, but it's the best we have." Do you? Rather, I hear a lot of very strident scientists and policy wonks writing the stupid theories into their Book of Truths.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
Rather, I hear a lot of very strident scientists and policy wonks writing the stupid theories into their Book of Truths.

Like the Prez's hand picked commission, the Pentagon, . . .