What the Hell is Wrong with Michael Crichton?
'Fear'-mongering Crichton wrong on science
It's a real shame. We used to really love Micheal Crichton, but clearly he has gone completely around the bend. I mean we understand when most folks get basic science wrong (especially in today's day and age when they're being willfully mislead about evolution, stem cell research and other topics) but Crichton is smarter than the average bear, so how does this occur?
Novelist Michael Crichton has been getting attention lately for his new novel, "State of Fear" -- No. 5 last week on the New York Times best- seller list -- which suggests there's no basis for concern over global climate change. In public speeches, he has compared the existing scientific consensus to the early 20th-century consensus on eugenics -- implying that because scientists were wrong then about eugenics, they must be wrong now about climate change.We hear that the story is about ruthless environmental activists that destroy the environment to get their way saving it and it is up to courageous businessmen (and we guess women) to stop them.
Crichton has got his science, his history and his politics wrong. Climate scientists have been in agreement for some time that global climate change is real and happening now. We know that humans have changed the chemistry of Earth's atmosphere, most measurably through the addition of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossils fuels. We also know that these changes are having a detectable effect on Earth's climate. These are not speculations, guesses or predictions, but observations over which there is no significant scientific argument.
You are now officially on Bizarro World. Please watch your step...
Moreover, given that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and the theory of greenhouse gases is well established, it is nearly certain that a continued rise in carbon dioxide will lead to more changes: increased average temperatures, melting of polar ice (and a subsequent rise in sea levels), and, perhaps, an increase in floods, droughts and hurricanes. Finally, we know that the predicted changes could occur rapidly, giving both humans and nonhumans little time to adapt. Anyone who denies this has simply got the science wrong.Totally bums us out.
As a firm scientific consensus has emerged, climate-change deniers have changed their tactics. Having previously challenged the existence of a scientific consensus, they now admit that there is a consensus, but suggest that it is wrong. Crichton's claims are a good example. He argues that scientists who supported the eugenics movement in the early 20th century were politically motivated, and, because there are political issues at stake in climate change, climate science must be mistaken, too.
No, it isn't outsourcing but we just thought we would put this out there...