NationStates Jolt Archive


Michael Chrichton Blasts EnviroKooks

Eichen
12-12-2004, 10:21
Twists and Turns

"State of Fear" is, in a sense, the novelization of a speech that Mr. Crichton delivered in September 2003 at San Francisco's Commonwealth Club. He argued there that environmentalism is essentially a religion, a belief-system based on faith, not fact. To make this point, the novel weaves real scientific data and all too real political machinations into the twists and turns of its gripping story.

For example, the climate computer models relied upon by global-warming proponents like Drake -- or, in real life, by John Adams (NRDC), Carl Pope (Sierra Club), Kevin Knobloch (Union of Concerned Scientists) and John Passacantando (Greenpeace USA) -- predict that such warming will be strongest at the earth's poles, turning glaciers into floods and raising sea levels. In "State of Fear," Drake warns that Greenland's ice cap is melting and will push the sea level up by 20 feet. (As it happens, on Wednesday of this week Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, testified with similar alarm before a British legislative committee, saying: "If the ice-sheets in Greenland melt, sea levels would rise 6.5 metres and London would be underwater.")

Yet as Mr. Crichton has his scientist Kenner correctly note, Greenland's ice cap is in no imminent danger of melting away. It is well established scientifically that average temperatures in Greenland and Iceland have been falling at the rather steep rate of 2.2 degrees Celsius per decade since 1987. As for temperatures in most of Antarctica, they have been falling for nearly 50 years, and ice there has been accumulating rather than melting. And those sea levels? Nils-Axel Mörner, a professor of geodynamics at Stockholm University, has been studying the low-lying atolls of the Maldive Islands in the Indian Ocean. He has found "a total absence of any recent sea level rise" and has instead found evidence of a fall in sea level in the past 20 years -- a fact that Mr. Crichton has the good instinct to report in the course of pushing his plot forward.

And what about the trend in actual global average temperatures, a question central to the debate in "State of Fear"? According to satellite data, since 1978 the planet has been warming up at a rate, per decade, of 0.08 degrees Celsius. Simple arithmetic reveals that, if the rate continues, the planet will warm by 0.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. That compares with an increase of 0.6 degrees Celsius during the 20th century. No catastrophe there. Indeed, Mr. Crichton has one of his characters note the costly uselessness of the supposedly heat-reducing Kyoto Protocols.

The Greatest Tragedy

Such facts help to counter the conventional wisdom we hear every day in real life and, in "State of Fear," act as a plot-driving counterforce to Mr. Crichton's less-than-admirable activist characters. Along the way, Mr. Crichton makes vividly apparent how environmentalist misinformation costs lives and money. He has Kenner tell fatuous Hollywood environmentalist Ted Bradley (Martin Sheen?) that banning DDT was "arguably the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century." Why? Because DDT was the best defense against malaria-carrying mosquitoes. "All together, the ban has caused more than 50 million needless deaths," Kenner says. "Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler, Ted. And the environmental movement pushed hard for it." True enough.

Mr. Crichton mentions the phony power-line cancer scare perpetrated in the New Yorker magazine by activist Paul Brodeur in the late 1980s, which cost the country billions of dollars by requiring power companies to bury lines needlessly and by pushing down property values for no reason at all, except, so to speak, religion. Drake is made to recite the alarming claim that 40,000 species are disappearing every year. In real life, that figure was ginned up in 1979 by Oxford University biologist Norman Myers, who declared in his book "The Sinking Ark" that the world could "lose one-quarter of all species by the year 2000."

Including the Clam

Of course, that didn't happen. In 1994, the World Conservation Union found known extinctions since 1600 to include only 258 animal species, 368 insect species and 384 vascular plants. Since the establishment of an endangered species list in the 1960s, only seven species have been declared extinct in the U.S.: four freshwater fish, a freshwater clam and two small birds. We mourn for them all, of course, including the clam, but we mourn all the more for the people duped by appalling scare tactics like those of Mr. Myers. Mr. Crichton gets the scare-mongers exactly right throughout "State of Fear."

Not that Mr. Crichton is 100% accurate. Kenner tells Morton's friend: "Environmental groups in the U.S. generate half a billion dollars a year." The actual amount for just the 12 largest environmental lobby groups in the U.S. in 2003 was $1.95 billion. That buys a lot of influence in the Washington. One way to mitigate its effect is to read "State of Fear" -- every bit as informative as it is entertaining. And it is very entertaining
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(From the Wall Street Journal Online-
Author: Mr. Bailey is Reason magazine's science correspondent and the author of the forthcoming "Liberation Biology: The Moral and Scientific Defense of the Biotech Revolution)
Eichen
12-12-2004, 10:25
ummmm, This was supposed to go in another thread, but oh well. What's up with Jolt lately? At least I could add a title without an edit showing up..
Cannot think of a name
12-12-2004, 10:32
Isn't this the same guy that wrote a book where it was possible to bring dinosaurs back to life from mosquitoes and frogs? I'm just sayin'....
Anime-Otakus
12-12-2004, 10:37
Doesn't sound like the same guy from the thread title due to the extra "h". However the "h" disappears within the thread, so I don't know... :P
Armed Bookworms
12-12-2004, 10:44
Isn't this the same guy that wrote a book where it was possible to bring dinosaurs back to life from mosquitoes and frogs? I'm just sayin'....
*sighs* That wasn't the point of the books.
Cannot think of a name
12-12-2004, 10:52
*sighs* That wasn't the point of the books.
they need a head shaking smiley....
The Mycon
12-12-2004, 11:02
Such facts help to counter the conventional wisdom we hear every day in real life and, in "State of Fear," act as a plot-driving counterforce to Mr. Crichton's less-than-admirable activist characters. Along the way, Mr. Crichton makes vividly apparent how environmentalist misinformation costs lives and money. He has Kenner tell fatuous Hollywood environmentalist Ted Bradley (Martin Sheen?) that banning DDT was "arguably the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century." Why? Because DDT was the best defense against malaria-carrying mosquitoes. "All together, the ban has caused more than 50 million needless deaths," Kenner says. "Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler, Ted. And the environmental movement pushed hard for it." True enough.
See? How many times have I told you folk- Rachael Carson is the most evil woman of the 20th century, history's greatest mass-murderer, and ugly to boot. I mention this fact damn near once a week, and nobody ever believes me.

Granted, that's not why MC mentions it. It's because she's competition. Silent Spring, her book which is nearly independently responsible for this banning and the existence of the EPA, is apocalyptic soft-SciFi. Like his own novels, the writer knows no actual science, but that doesn't stop her from acting as if it were Science Fiction.
RomeW
12-12-2004, 11:23
I'm curious about that DDT thing.
Lutton
12-12-2004, 11:40
I didn't realise anybody actually read and took notice of anything Michael Crichton wrote. Just goes to show - never underestimate your fellow human's scope for true idiocy. :headbang: :p
Eichen
12-12-2004, 12:09
Is anyone going to talk about the science here directly, and not shift focus to the author fo the fictional book? It wasn't posted as an ad for the author, it was posted to encourage discussion about the scientific claims made in the article.
Jeruselem
12-12-2004, 12:51
Why's this about DDT? I've seen old film clips where DDT was sprayed everywhere like it was totally harmless and the miracle chemical. Now it's banned due to it's cancerous properties. Malaria may kill millions but DDT will also kill millions, very slowly through cancer. Yes it works, but surely a non-toxic alternative to DDT would be appropiate.
Armed Bookworms
12-12-2004, 14:09
Granted, that's not why MC mentions it. It's because she's competition. Silent Spring, her book which is nearly independently responsible for this banning and the existence of the EPA, is apocalyptic soft-SciFi. Like his own novels, the writer knows no actual science, but that doesn't stop her from acting as if it were Science Fiction.
? You really think Crichton doesn't know any science? All of his books except Jurassic Park and the lost world are generally simple extrapolations of certain situations where Murphy has decided to fuck with reality beyond the point that he normally does. That and since Jurassic Park and the Lost World were much more social commentary than anything science related I don't really think you can hold their unscientificness against them.
Armed Bookworms
12-12-2004, 14:16
Why's this about DDT? I've seen old film clips where DDT was sprayed everywhere like it was totally harmless and the miracle chemical. Now it's banned due to it's cancerous properties. Malaria may kill millions but DDT will also kill millions, very slowly through cancer. Yes it works, but surely a non-toxic alternative to DDT would be appropiate.
Not really, there is no cheap alternative that does what DDT does. For a country like the US it makes sense to stop using it because we can afford to without taking to big a hit and because malaria ain't that big of a deal here.For Third World countries, however, it was the only thing that they could afford that would stop the spread of malaria. There really is no good answer because when used copiously it tends to be dangerous, but to actually get cancer requires one to be exposed or ingest high concentrations of the stuff.
Ryanania
12-12-2004, 14:23
I didn't realise anybody actually read and took notice of anything Michael Crichton wrote. Just goes to show - never underestimate your fellow human's scope for true idiocy. :headbang: :pYet you fail to tell us why reading Michael Crichton makes someone an idiot. I guess you just don't like what he has to say because it puts the light of truth on your beliefs.
Owenarcia
12-12-2004, 14:26
a major problem with chemicals like ddt and also nutrients such as human waste is, believe it or not, the high content of oestrogens or imitation oestrogens in them. DDT is an organochlorince, which once broken down, mimics oestrogen. once the chemicals get into the water through the bottom of the food chain, they accumulate as they up higher in the food chain and cause mutations and birth defects, which can decline a species successful reproduction rate significantly and cause cancer.

More studies have to be done as far as I am concerned on this and on large environmental issues, I don't think we have enough information to comment on anything yet, we only have been tackling these environmental issues for such a small time which on a geological timescale is insignificant. We are still very ignorant and we must remember this.

thanks,
Owenarcia
Quagmir
12-12-2004, 14:28
[u]
It is well established scientifically that average temperatures in Greenland and Iceland have been falling at the rather steep rate of 2.2 degrees Celsius per decade since 1987.


BS! At least in Iceland it is warming, and glaciers are receding!
Escocia Nuevo
12-12-2004, 14:30
Yet you fail to tell us why reading Michael Crichton makes someone an idiot. I guess you just son't like what he has to say because it puts the light of truth on your beliefs.
It's because he's a poor writer.
Ryanania
12-12-2004, 14:32
It's because he's a poor writer.Okay. Would you be so kind as to inform us why you posit that he's a poor writer?
Quagmir
12-12-2004, 14:35
Okay. Would you be so kind as to inform us why you posit that he's a poor writer?

Maybe some bad financial advice?
Jeruselem
12-12-2004, 14:49
Not really, there is no cheap alternative that does what DDT does. For a country like the US it makes sense to stop using it because we can afford to without taking to big a hit and because malaria ain't that big of a deal here.For Third World countries, however, it was the only thing that they could afford that would stop the spread of malaria. There really is no good answer because when used copiously it tends to be dangerous, but to actually get cancer requires one to be exposed or ingest high concentrations of the stuff.

What U say is true, but if you're environment has been DDTed already you will be exposed to it. It gets into the environment at low levels but the more contaminated food and water you take it, in concentrates over years even decades. There's even DDT in the snow of Himalayas from contaminated global water.
Quagmir
12-12-2004, 15:13
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsSeaLevelRiseIndex.html#US

...info on sea level...
Escocia Nuevo
12-12-2004, 16:16
Okay. Would you be so kind as to inform us why you posit that he's a poor writer?
Did you ever read Prey? The concepts and possibilities that nanotechnology lays before us are truly mindboggling. Crichton managed to reduce it all to a bunch of people running up and down trying to escape from a big grey cloud. If you took the big grey cloud and replaced it with a dinosaur you'd have the Jurassic Park books lifted clean. Oh, except that the stuff in Prey manages to take over human beings... but there, that's the one difference, and I summed it up in a single sentence, and it's been done a hundred times better by a hundred other writers already. I was so ANGRY that I'd wasted time on Prey. I just kept reading because I couldn't believe he was going to do the same thing AGAIN! These books are like mainstream Hollywood movies. We already know EXACTLY what will happen, and to whom.

Crichton's writing is regularly described as "accessible", but that's not the right word. It'd be better to say "dumbed down". If you want a book that explores the issues raised in Crichton's, then as I've said already there are FAR better out there. If you want a thriller, there are FAR better out there. If you want a hack who'll claim to be putting the two together while churning out any old rubbish because he knows the book will sell anyway, then Crichton's your man.

Trash, trash, trash.
Armed Bookworms
12-12-2004, 17:08
That doesn't really mean that he's a poor writer, just not a really really good one.
Escocia Nuevo
12-12-2004, 21:27
That doesn't really mean that he's a poor writer, just not a really really good one.
Yes, alright.

Although one might argue that it is inherently depressing that a mediocre writer (the very highest accolade I can allow him) should be listened to so willingly, and be so absurdly overpaid. And no, I'm not bitter.

Stop looking at me like that.

ALRIGHT, I'M BITTER.