Author Michael Crichton says environmentalism is religion, not science

[Sarah Ibarruri]

Crichton has published a new novel, State of Fear, in which the bad guys are the environmentalist scientists. The right wing is eating this up with glee. Extremist right wing fundamentalist, Dobson, recommends his book on his website, as proof that environmentalism is just a liberal myth.

"No Time To Panic

The best-selling author of Jurassic Park has a surprising new goal: Debunking environmentalist horror stories.

by Matt Kaufman


You think repetition makes something true?
- Prof. John Kenner, in Michael Crichton's State of Fear

The world is facing imminent apocalypse—not because God will bring it about, but because man will do the job himself.


So we've all been hearing, anyway—over and over again, from every media outlet, for roughly four decades. Environmental disaster is at hand, thanks to the evils of industrial society. Our food is being poisoned. Our water is being poisoned. Our air is being poisoned. Indeed, pollution is causing global warming, which will melt the icecaps and lead to catastrophic floods. And on the drumbeat goes. Anyone who doubts it is a fool, or (worse) a tool of industry.


Since most of us aren't scientists (much less climate specialists), it's easy to get swept up in the tide of fearsome prophecies. Christians, of course, aren't immune: Some leaders of the National Association of Evangelicals have taken up the anti-global-warming campaign, and they're lobbying members of their group (45,000 churches with 30 million members) to join the cause......"

http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/departments/a0036730.cfm

Crichton has also given speeches on this topic. Apparently he believes that environmentalism is a religion.

""Enivronmentalism as Religion"

by Michael Crichton
Commonwealth Club
San Francisco, CA
September 15, 2003


I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real,....."

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html

Republican Senator for Oklahoma, Inhofe, head of the Senate's Environment and Public Work Committee (what a F joke) is using Crichton as a speaker to "help" the Senate's Environment Committee determine if environmentalism is real or not:

"Tomorrow, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, led by anti-environment champion James Inhofe (R-OK), will hold a hearing to “discuss the role of science in environmental policy making.”

It’s an important topic, given the tendency in Washington to choose ideology over facts. Unfortunately, Inhofe’s witness list wasn’t available on the committee’s website, so we called today to find out who would be speaking.

We received the following list. As you’ll see, the featured witness isn’t a noted environmental scientist, or an expert in regulatory policy. It’s Jurassic Park author Michael Crichton...."

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/09/27/crichton-science/

I'm beginning to wonder, is Crichton right wing, or just a windbag trying to cause a scandal to make him more $$?

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Oh he is RW alright

I stopped reading his books years ago. I also don't watch ER anymore since he is (at least he used to be) a writer or producer for this show.

I am completely over this man. He is not worth one second of my attention.

edit: typo grr

[LaurenG]

2. "just a windbag trying to cause a scandal to make him more $$?"

And an idiot. Who is that stupid? Wait until we tell the atheists around here that the are now "religious". :shrug:

spelling

[mitchum]

3. Who cares what a pulp writer thinks?

Michael Crichton = paperback sage

[phantom power]

6. Unfortunately, Congress cares...

they actually had Crichton testifying at some hearing, or panel, on climate change last year. Apparently our Congressmen can no longer distinguish between an actual scientist and a science fiction writer.

[mitchum]

11. That is absolutely disgusting

[phantom power]

14. Not just disgusting... horrifying.

We're on the verge of climate change that may starve billions of people over the next hundred years, and our Congress is busy interviewing a goddamned science fiction author to determine their position on the subject.

[Nutmegger]

19. Sickening

It's like that jackass from Oklahoma, James Inhofe, saying that Global Warming is a "myth" and recommends a book by Steven King. (Forgot the title of the book.)

[JuniperLea]

23. Scientologists could never make the distinction

between a religious leader and a third-rate sci-fi writer either.


And California elected "The Terminator"...


I've come to the conclusion that there are relatively few who can be considered "reality based thinkers".

[Zhade]

41. That's just fucking nuts.

Why not have "Doctor" Laura testify on psychology?

I hear Ronald McDonald is available to speak on "nutrition".

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

42. He's not even a real sci fi writer. In true science fiction, there is a

very real grounding in science.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

49. Fiction = False

Non Fiction = Not False

A basic rule we should all remember.

[zonmoy]

56. You mean that chrichton writes science fiction

I just thought he wrote bad fantasy.

[adarling]

4. It doesn't matter, he is a hack

He has written anything worthwhile since Jurassic Park and the Lost World. I liked the movies more...well maybe not the Lost World :)

[DesertRat]

5. Big time RW'er

He's a science fiction writer who thinks he's an environmental scientist now. :eyes:

[Canuckistanian]

8. And who would know science fiction better than a RWer?

Unfortunately, So much of their "real science" is fiction, too.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. A 10th rate writer who thinks he has something to say.

[ET Awful]

9. Educated men the world over point out that Crichton is a novelist, not a

scientist and ignore him.

Some of his earlier books were pretty cool (Sphere and the like), but nobody wants to hear him try to carry his fantasy worlds into the realm of real science.

[cali]

15. Actually, he is a scientist-

sort of. He has his M.D. from Harvard Medical School. He's not stupid, and I'm not saying that merely because he went to Harvard. He is a right winger. Didn't used to be.

[ET Awful]

22. An MD is a doctor, having an MD does not certify

one to be an expert on climatology (or any of the myriad other sciences that Crichton chooses to write about).

Being an MD does not make one qualified to comment on the legitimacy of thousands of climatologists.

[cali]

30. Of course having an M.D. doesn't

qualify him as an expert on climatology or the environment. Nor did I assert or even insinuate that it did. I was merely pointing out that his background is a little more complex than 3rd rate hack sci-fi writer. Look, if Crichton were taking the opposite position, and getting as much attention, most of the people on this thread would be extolling him to the skies. I don't get particularly riled about hypocricy. I'm with E.M. Forester who said: Only hypocrites can't forgive hypocricy." I just find it amusing as all get out.

[Jara sang]

44. Just like Tom Clancy

The man has never put on a uniform or served in the diplomatic corp, yet he is considered to be an "expert" on national security and global affairs. The guy is a hack who has a formulaic writing style and the current edition of "Jane's Fighting Ships".

[Dr Fate]

10. This man writes childrens Dinosaur movies, right?

These guys will trot out anyone.

[mitchum]

12. LOL!!!

I believe that you are correct, Dr

[momster]

13. Him 'n L. Ron

Two science-fiction writers with a lot to say about religion. One's been a little more successful at getting a lot of idiots to believe what he said. When does M.C. plan to write his "Dianetics?"

I do wish people would stop saying 'I believe in evolution' as this is playing on the ID and creationist and dominionist field. How 'bout everyone resolves to say, "I have been convinced by the evidence that evolution is the best explanation of life on earth."

[EstimatedProphet]

18. How about-

"I believe in God. Evolution is factual."

[melody]

16. I Say Crichton is an overblown hack, not an author

My friend Peter (who is a PhD in some scientific discipline or another) loves picking out the errors in Crichton's awful novels.

M.C. wouldn't know a balanced line of prose if it bit him on his big, white, doughy, improbable ass.

[momster]

25. And as an author....

He wouldn't know characterization if it came up and said 'hi, I'm characterization.' He's got the plucky girl, the stone-jawed hero, the nerdy scientist (who is either evil or saves the day), and of course, the military man who can only come up with crude solutions that get him killed. Of course, he makes a mint off it, but that doesn't make it right.

[melody]

28. I concur

I'm a writer, too. Most bad novelists I've read can't write women or men. Crichton manages both feats.

[EstimatedProphet]

17. Michael Chrighton isn't known for his scientific knowledge

except among people that have NO scientific knowledge.

[pinto]

20. As always, Dobson cherry picks for a headline. Read the speech cited.

While it's a pretty flint eyed look at the "environmental movement", and does make the analogy that it is like a religion - Crichton's over arching point, though, is that black-and-white, all or nothing religious-style dogma has no place in science, regardless of the source. He takes a good swing at fundamentalism on those grounds as well.

Dobson knows that folks generally only get the headline and don't follow-up.

Crichton's got a point to make that seems much more nuanced than Dobson would be willing to admit, imo.

The speech was an interesting read.

Interesting that this pops up now that some religious groups have left the political lock step Dobson demands.

[Lorien]

29. The book isn't new; it was published more than a year ago

and many evangelicals are now very concerned with climate change. My RW fundie mom just joined an evangelical environmentalist group who is upset with Bushco for disobeying God's command that mankind be "good stewards of the land". Oddly, they don't believe in evolution, but they do believe that humanity must show respect for creation if we are to survive.

Something else I read this month in the Utne reader; for nearly 20 years NO scientist who has had articles published in peer reviewed journals has ever cast doubt on the fact that climate change is caused primarily by human activity, yet 53% of all MSM articles on climate change DO cast doubt on both it's causes, and whether or not it even exists. Basically, all one needs to do is follow the money; Corporate interests want to plunder, and they don't want to spend a dime on cleaning up after themselves.

[eggman67]

33. I think so too

I read the whole speech and couldn't find anything that upset me. I agree that dogmatic thinking and politics have no place in science.

[Telly Savalas]

21. What does Jackie Collins think of environmentalism?

It's more relevant since she's a deeper thinker and a better writer.

[mitchum]

26. LMAO!!!

nice one :)

[AX10]

24. I was never a fan of his "writings", if that's what you call them.

[JuniperLea]

27. Wikipedia... "I meant to do that."

Sinp...

Crichton has admitted to once plagiarizing a work by George Orwell and submitting it as his own. The paper was received by his professor with a mark of "B−". Crichton admitted to plagiarizing when he was on the stand in the course of a lawsuit trying to defend the authenticity of Twister, a movie which one individual claimed was based on their story entitled "Catch the Wind". Crichton has stated that the plagiarism was not intended to defraud the school, but rather as an experiment. Crichton believed that the professor in question had been intentionally giving him abnormally low marks, and so as an experiment Crichton informed another professor of his idea and submitted Orwell's paper as his own.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton

[roguevalley]

31. put him out in the arctic ice and have him swim for his life like the

polar bears. He's a complete fucker.

[Jim__]

32. Michael Crichton doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

About gobal warming, anyway; he doesn't know the difference between weather and climate. Yet, somehow, he thinks he's qualified to criticize scientists with PhD's and 20 years experience studying climate.

[applegrove]

34. You have to wonder if Big Oil don't the mother nature as in competition

with them for profits. Like - if she just dumps water out of the sky to Bolivians or gives seeds that produce seeds for next years crop to Indian Peasants in Asia... that she is stepping on their future profits.

[SammyBlue]

35. Hell, if it weren't from Jurassic Park and the Andromeda Strain

I wouldn't know who this clown was!

[incapsulated]

50. Actually, if it weren't for those *movies*, I wouldn't know

And if I did, I wouldn't care. Never read the guy.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

36. What scares me is...

1) If this man is familiar with science (by virtue of having an M.D. degree) then he's lying to support his evil right wing ideology; and,

2) The Senate's Environment Committee is using non-scientists to make their decisions on the environment by having Crichton testify as if he were an environmentalist.

[tlsmith1963]

37. I Used to Read His Books

But not anymore. Ugh.

Tammy

[kestrel91316]

38. You know, I have officially now HAD IT UP TO HERE with this guy.

I was given his book, Prey (hardcover), for Christmas a couple of years ago, and have been mulling over the idea of trading it away on paperbackswap.com. But I think now I will just put it in the fireplace and burn it (if this goddam heatwave ever breaks so I can use the fireplace!!!!!!!).

[karlrschneider]

39. If he's half as good a "doctor" as he is an "author" I'd go to a Shaman

for a cancer cure before I'd consult that nutball. As for Inhofe, well, he's "my" senator and between him, Coburn anc Chrichto, it's a reprise of the Three Stooges. :grr:

[ragin_acadian]

40. i read the book, about two weeks ago,

graphs/charts every four pages (actually cited), including plenty of scientific data claiming that the arctic ice was thickening, the seas were not rising, and everything was hunky-dory. oh, and ice chunks the size of texas, breaking off of antarctica are perfectly normal: happens all the time on planet crichton.

good action, a demeaning assessment of hollywood activists (martin sheen), an accurate greenpeace characterization, and plenty of feel-good covert government operations.


after reading the book, i'm guessing he is an intelligent windbag looking for publicity.

[SPKrazy]

43. State Of Fear Is New?

Is this the same book about global warming (or lack thereof) he published not that long ago?

Or is he on a roll with the RW'ers writing his fiction about damage to the environment?

I mean, someone that writes about time travel, modern dinosaurs, giant apes, etc. is supposed to be an authority on anything?

The only thing I like he's done is E.R.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

45. The wingnuts are on a roll using his book

They're using his book to try and show that environmentalism is bs. He is doing speeches.

[Blue_Tires]

46. the book has been out for awhile now

Crichton is bought and paid for; i.e., just like the certain 'doctors' 50 years ago that said smoking was good for you

[stevietheman]

47. He implies one point I agree with...

that environmentalists and environmental scientists don't have much tolerance for skepticism within their ranks. They seem to insist that "consensus equals evidence" (aka the bandwagon effect) much too often, like on the "global warming caused by human factors" issue. The reality should be that there is no rational replacement for evidence when making points, and that there should always be room for scientists who rationally question the prevailing views.

Note that I'm not taking any sides on the global warming issue (within this post). I'm just trying to make the point that scientists should stop relying on "consensus science" and better tolerate skeptics.

[OneBlueSky]

48. "don't have much tolerance for skepticism " . . .

with good reason . . . they're the ones who understand what's happening to the planet and have a sense of urgency about it . . . they see time running out for many species, for stable weather patterns, for Arctic ice and Greeland glaciers, for genetic diversity and, ultimately, for most life on the planet . . . so they don't want to waste time arguing an issue when the evidence -- and the common sense -- is so glaring . . .

[Lorien]

51. Well said

:thumbsup:

[stevietheman]

54. You made my point... if what you say is true, then...

the planet is surely doomed.

And that's because if those in the scientific community don't have much tolerance for skepticism, and don't spend time trying to understand the skepticism and answer it patiently with evidence, they will find themselves getting nowhere with their important messages.

People want to be convinced. Just saying that "this is the consensus" won't move the message to the more moderate/conservative members of society. And frankly, if the world is doomed and you want to stop it, these people must be *convinced*.

If scientists take the tack that "oh, the masses are too dumb to get it and therefore we won't waste time explaining the pending doom to them", then scientists may as well give up the planet to ruin.

[OneBlueSky]

55. the problem with needing proof is that you can't prove the causes . . .

of global warming . . . all you can do is look at the evidence and use your knowledge of science and some common sense to make a "best guess" . . . and just common sense says that you can't continue to dump tons of shit into the atmosphere without screwing it up . . . I think most people understand this intuitively . . .

[upi402]

52. science says religion is more believable than Michael Crichton

[Kurovski]

53. .

.