Toro! Toro! Michael Crichton
by
Donald W. Miller, Jr.,
MD
by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD
Michael
Crichton graduated from Harvard Medical School in 1969, four years
after I did. The
Andromeda Strain, the first novel he wrote under his own
name, was published while he was still a medical student. (He had
written six previous novels under pseudonyms to help pay his way
through school.) Following the success of this book, and the 1971
film based on it, he opted to write popular fiction on a full-time
basis, including screenplays and the TV series ER, based
on his experience as a medical student in emergency rooms, rather
than practice medicine (or do research). Since then he has written
17 novels, 4 non-fiction works, and directed 7 films. Publishers
have translated his books into 30 languages and have sold more than
100 million copies of them. Twelve of his books have been made into
movies, with Jurassic
Park (1993), at $357 million, being the fifth highest-grossing
film ever.
In
State
of Fear, a novel about ecoterrorism published on December
7, 2004, Michael Crichton addresses the science of climate change.
This book has angered the environmental "politico-legal-media
complex" (his term) because it raises doubts about global warming.
Like a bull (Toro) in a bullring, proponents of human-caused global
warming are charging after him. The New York Times’ reviewer
calls State of Fear a "ham-handed" novel that is
"half movie treatment, half ideological screed;" and he
suggests that "Mr. Crichton" is seeking "to drum
up publicity for himself by being provocative and contrarian."
Regarding the climate science cited in the book, the reviewer says
that it, like the book’s story, is also fiction. The New
Yorker comments, "Blondes with lightning burns aside, State
of Fear wants, weirdly enough, to be taken seriously."
Slate calls him "right-leaning [and] contrarian"
and the book a "political and hectoring screed." ("Contrarian"
and "screed" are two terms that left liberals like to
use to brand people and the articles and books they write that criticize
their worldview.)
Americans
learn in school and are told on television and in the print media,
including in respected magazines like The National Geographic
and Scientific American, that global warming threatens
the planet. The 20th century is said to have had the
greatest rise in temperature of any century over the last thousand
years and that 1998 was the warmest year ever recorded. The threat
is framed by the New York Times in a report
that begins: "Heat-trapping gases from tail-pipes and smokestacks
around the world are contributing to profound environmental changes,
including sharp retreats of glaciers and sea ice, thawing of permafrost
and shifts in the weather, the oceans and the atmosphere."
Authorities
warn that the consequences of this human-caused global warming could
be catastrophic. They predict that the level of oceans and tidal
estuaries will rise 9.5 to 42.5 inches and the average temperature
will have increased 10 degrees Fahrenheit by 2080.
One
of the protagonists in State of Fear, a well-meaning attorney
for an environmental philanthropist, defines global warming as "the
heating up of the earth from burning fossil fuels." (p. 80).
A better definition of global warming, however, which another character
in the book gives, is this: "[It] is the theory that
increased levels of carbon dioxide and certain other gases are
causing an increase in the average temperature of the
earth’s atmosphere because of the so-called ‘greenhouse effect.’"
(p. 81, italics in the original). The carbon dioxide (CO2)
level in the atmosphere at the beginning of the Industrial Era (ca
1750) was 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume); and over the last
50 years CO2 levels have risen from 315 ppmv to 370 ppmv,
which is thought to be a result of humans burning coal, oil and
natural gas. The mean global temperature increased 0.9° F (0.5°
C) over the last century. So, according to the theory of global
warming, human activity is causing the Earth to warm.
The
novel’s Indiana Jones-like hero, Dr. John Kenner, a professor of
Geoenvironmental Engineering on leave from MIT, teaches the other
characters in the book (and the reader) climate science while they
go about their adventures. On pages 562563, he gives a clear
and concise 400-word summary of our 5-billion-year-old planet’s
history that puts climate change into perspective. The Earth, Dr.
Kenner tells us, is now on its third atmosphere. The first one contained
only helium and hydrogen; but, as the new planet cooled, it was
replaced with a second one consisting of steam and CO2.
Then, 3 billion years ago, newly evolved bacteria began to consume
the CO2 in the atmosphere and replaced it with oxygen
and nitrogen two gases their cells excreted. The first ice
on the planet occurred 2 billion years ago when its floating land
masses (on tectonic plates) joined and blocked the circulation of
ocean currents. And finally, as he puts it, "For the last seven
hundred thousand years, our planet has been in a geological ice
age, characterized by advancing and retreating glacial ice. No one
is entirely sure why, but ice now covers the planet every hundred
thousand years, with smaller advances every twenty thousand or so.
The last advance was twenty thousand years ago, so we’re due for
the next one."
Michael
Crichton has studied climatology with the eye and rigor of a well-trained
doctor/scientist. Before State of Fear was published I had
read a lecture he gave at Caltech, in January 2003, titled "Aliens
Cause Global Warming." I was impressed with his grasp of
this subject and also with his cogent observations on science in
general. In this lecture he warns, as he does in the book, "once
you abandon strict adherence to what science tells us… you [can]
subvert science to political ends."
Woven
into the fabric of a page-turning thriller, State of Fear gives
an unbiased assessment of the scientific evidence for global warming.
The book also contains a 20-page annotated list of books and journal
articles on the subject, an author’s message on climate science,
and an appendix titled "Why Politicized Science is Dangerous."
His conclusion: There is no human-caused global warming.
He’s
right. Most of the rise in temperature in the 20th century
occurred before 1940, before CO2 levels started rising.
Temperatures fell 0.3° F from 1940 to 1970 while CO2
levels rose, from 310 to 325 ppmv (there is a graph of this
on page 86). The temperature of the planet’s upper atmosphere (which
the theory of global warming predicts should warm first), as measured
by satellites, beginning in 1979, and weather balloons, has remained
unchanged over the last 25 years despite a rise in atmospheric CO2
levels to 370 ppmv (p. 99).
Claims
trumpeted by the media about how much warmer the planet is now compared
with previous decades, centuries, and millennia are equally false.
Indirect measurements of temperature, obtained from ice cores, tree
rings, corals, ocean sediments, boreholes, and glacier movement,
show that there was a Medieval Warm Period, from 800 to 1,300 (there
were no thermometers then), when the planet was considerably warmer
than it is now. Vineyards flourished in England and cattle grazed
in areas of Greenland that today are blanketed by ice more than
a mile thick. (The climate was also warmer 6,500 years ago during
the Holocene Climate Optimum.)
Policy
makers and environmentalists claim that a "consensus of a very
large group of scientists" agrees that greenhouse gas emissions
are causing global warming. In his Caltech lecture, Dr. Crichton
says, "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…
In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible
results… Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science
is not solid enough." He’s right. Furthermore, the proclaimed
consensus for global warming is bogus: 1,500 scientists (of whom
only 181 work in fields related to climatology) signed a pro-global
warming petition in 1997, but 19,000 scientists signed a petition
a year later opposing the U.N.’s Kyoto Treaty Against Global Warming.
(The petition states, "… The proposed limits on greenhouse
gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science
and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There
is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon
dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will,
in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's
atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate….")
Environmental
activists view CO2 as a pollutant. If plants could talk,
however, they would disagree. Like oxygen is for animals, CO2
is a plant’s lifeblood. CO2 levels 200 million
years ago were 5 to 10 times higher than they are now (without mothers
driving SUVs). The planet was greener, enabling dinosaurs to thrive.
"Contrarians" can say, with good evidence to support it,
that burning fossil fuels to raise atmospheric CO2 levels
promotes healthy plant growth. Studies
show that a 300-ppmv boost in CO2 above current levels
(in climate-controlled greenhouses) increases the productivity of
plants by 30 to 50 percent, as measured by rate of photosynthesis
and biomass production. Orange trees produce twice as many oranges,
each containing a 20 percent greater amount of vitamin C. Rather
than cause catastrophic global warming, perhaps continued burning
of fossil fuels will help forestall the onset of the next ice age.
Why
do so many people (including those 1,500 scientists) believe in
global warming? One reason, as one of the characters in State
of Fear puts it, is that "all reality is media reality."
People who get their information from watching television and reading
the New York Times do not learn the true facts of the matter.
Media reality says there is man-made global warming, which if not
constrained will be catastrophic.
For
some scientists their views on this subject can affect their livelihood.
Government and NGOs (non-governmental organizations) award $2 billion
in grants each year for climate research. These organizations expect
the scientists they fund to support the idea that global warming
is a problem. As Michael Crichton points out (in his Caltech lecture),
we now live in an "anything-goes world where science or non-science is
the hand maiden of questionable public policy… Evidentiary uncertainties
are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy,
and for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that
are desired by the patron."
There
are two other reasons why people believe in human-caused global
warming despite strong evidence against it. Global warming is like
a religion. In "Distinguishing
Reality from Fantasy, Truth from Propaganda," a lecture
given to the Commonwealth Club in September 2003, Michael Crichton
identifies environmentalism as "the religion of choice for
urban atheists." Gaia, the living planet, is its Mother Goddess.
In this religion’s canon, industrial civilization (to paraphrase
Merlin Stone, author of When
God Was a Woman) is acne on her face. Crichton notes how
environmentalism mimics Judeo-Christian beliefs: "There’s an
initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature,
there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result
of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions
there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners,
doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability."
The Kyoto Protocol is it's articles of faith. What about the fact
no change in satellite and balloon-measured temperatures has occurred
over the last 25 years despite rising CO2 levels? No
problem. Adherents of this religion ignore facts like this and recite
their catechism of apocalyptic computer climate models.
Global
warming also has ideological underpinnings. "Environmentalism
is the last refuge of socialism," as one observer
puts it. Although socialism may have failed as an economic model,
many believe it can halt man-made global warming and, by this means,
reform civilization. Constraining CO2 greenhouse gas
emissions, as stipulated in the Kyoto Treaty, will require a kind
of global governance that only a socialist state can provide a totalitarian
global bureaucracy with international government inspectors at one’s
doorstep that closely regulates, prosecutes, and confiscates property
of people and industries that make "greedy [CO2
producing] choices" (like driving SUVs). The apparatchiks of
this movement lawyers, bureaucrats, environmentalists, and media
people use scare tactics as part of a "global warming sales
campaign" to promote their agenda and acquire influence. As
Professor Norman Hoffman in State of Fear points out, fear
is one of the best managers of social control in a state’s armamentarium.
The
global warming agenda is pro-state, pro-war (against humanity in
general), and anti-market. To meet Kyoto CO2 emission
constraints the U.S. would have to reduce the amount of electricity
it obtains from burning coal by 50 percent. Since 55 percent of
this country’s electricity is supplied by coal (nuclear power and
hydropower provide the rest), this would require reducing electricity
use by 25 percent, which would cause a corresponding 25 percent
drop in GDP. It dropped 10 percent in the Great Depression. Since
poverty is a major cause of death, a drop in GDP this severe would
be the functional equivalent of a death sentence for millions of
Americans. John Kenner in State of Fear says, "Enviros
refuse to take into account the possible harm the policies they
recommend can cause" (p. 488). David Brown’s answer to that
is, "Human suffering is much less important than suffering
of the planet" (he is the founder of Friends of the Earth).
Because of their hostility to markets and self-directed human activity,
environmental activists would rather there be mass starvation (of
people in Africa) than have capitalists profit from preventing it
by employing such "unnatural" measures as high-yield genetically
engineered crops. (I recommend Paul Driessen’s Eco-Imperialism:
Green Power, Black Death and Robert Bidinotto’s Death
by Environmentalism for further reading on this subject, and
also my article Advantages
of Nuclear Power on why switching to wind and solar power won’t
help.)
A
real life John Kenner is Harvard professor Willie Soon. Like Dr.
Kenner in the book, a professor from nearby MIT, Dr. Soon, tirelessly
and without flinching, takes on the global warming establishment.
He, in collaboration with fellow professor Sallie Baliunas and others,
has identified the true cause of global warming (and cooling). The
cause is variability in energy output from the sun. (Modelers take
for granted that solar luminescence is constant in their computer
climate models.) Sun spots, which reflect changes in solar magnetic
field, deflect and modulate galactic cosmic rays and cosmic
rays affect the cloud cover of the earth and thus drive terrestrial
climate. When sun spots occur frequently, its effect on cloud cover
causes global temperature to rise. When they decrease, or are absent,
global temperature falls. (Currently they are more frequent.) After
the Medieval Warm Period sun spot activity declined drastically
and a Little Ice Age occurred (from 1300 to 1850). Willie Soon examines
this in his book, written with Steven Yaskel, The
Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection (2003),
and in an article, written with Sallie Baliunas, titled "Lessons
and Limits of Climate History: Was the 20th Century Climate
Unusual?"
Few
Americans have ever heard of Willie Soon. (I found out about him
several years ago when he gave a lecture at a Doctors for Disaster
Preparedness Meeting.) But millions of Americans, and, with it being
translated into many languages, people throughout the world will
read State of Fear and know its protagonist John Kenner.
And through him, and other characters in the book, abetted by its
author’s message and bibliography, they will discover the true facts
on "global warming," facts which the New York Times
and other print and television media choose not to disclose.
As
one of the 483 reviewers of the book on Amazon.com writes, "He
[Michael Crichton] is making a lot of people look ridiculous. He
is Martin Luther, Salman Rushdie, and Andre Sakharov. He is smashing
the established order and it will not be tolerated. The liberal
inquisitors will do everything in their power to destroy him over
this book, if only to attempt to discourage further truth telling
by like-minded authors. That is reason enough for you to buy this
book."
Toro!
Toro! Michael Crichton.
March
16, 2005
Donald
Miller (send him mail)
is
a cardiac surgeon and Professor of Surgery at the University of
Washington in Seattle and a member of
Doctors for Disaster Preparedness
and writes articles on a variety of subjects for LewRockwell.com,
including bioterrorism. His web site is www.donaldmiller.com.
Copyright
© 2005 LewRockwell.com
Donald
Miller Archives
|