One red flag that should give anyone pause, when something is under dispute, is if the argument encompasses too many other things beyond the data specifically under dispute: who is paying for what, who knows whom, who benefits from this, and so on. Anything that is not about the data, such as it is, but is instead information (or disinformation) meant to either discredit opponents or benefit supporters, is a clear indicator that the dispute is about more than what it appears to be about on the surface.
That is not to say these things are irrelevant. Many in the petroleum industry are going to be biased in their viewpoint by what they do, and from where they get their money (and also sometimes their personal identities, and, indeed, their joie de vivre. Just as many in politics, in the environmental movement, and in various research institutes and academic centers, will have equally biased viewpoints in the opposing direction, based, again, on from where they receive funding, what they have to do to get grants, what raises their donations, and what informs their personal opinions of themselves and feeds their egos.
But if you are arguing about the temperature on Mars and Pluto, or the history of agriculture in Greenland, or the actual level of carbon output and the relative volume of water vapor in comparison to carbon dioxide and their relative properties as greenhouse gases, and the pro-Global Warming crowd starts talking about how the scientist gets funding from an oil company or this researcher once worked for a petroleum lobby, this is an indication that their argument is inconclusive at best, flawed or even intentionally disingenuous at worst.
The Devil and Michael Crichton
One person who raises a lot of salient points in regards to Global Warming is Michael Crichton, whose tough questions and razor-sharp arguments have mostly been answered by personal attacks dismissing him as a hack science-fiction writer with delusions of grandeur, accusations of being in bed with big oil or big fossil fuel, and insinuations that he is motivated entirely by ego and a very, very thin skin (a tactic most recently exhibited by Michael Crowley, regarding his belief Crichton was attacking him via a character named Mick Crowley in his most recent novel). Thus, none of his arguments have to be addressed. Lucky them! Because is arguments, grounded deeply in science and history, raise a lot of powerful points.
Indeed, Michael Crichton might have been indulging in an immature bit of critic-bashing with his inclusion of the slightly endowed child molester, Mick Crowley, in his latest novel, but—while purporting to address Crichton’s arguments against Global Warming specifically and the fantastical religion of Environmentalism generally—Michael Crowley spends the entire article that he feels inspired Crichton’s grade-school wrath by maligning Crichton in a similar, if much more direct, manner.
He starts the article by quoting a sex scene from State of Fear--because such tawdriness should immediately discredit anything he has to say about anything else, of course. Crowley writes, disingenuously as he must know many leading scientists largely agree with Crichton, and Crichton sources many of them in his speeches and even in State of Fear, "It may be hard to fathom that someone capable of writing the above passage is also capable of discovering the hidden truth about global warming that has eluded the world's leading scientists." Even if he did not know that many climatologists, meteorologists, geologists and general scientists are skeptical of, or completely reject, the theory of man-made Global Warming, it would still point to the fact that he’s starting his argument by trying to minimize and dismiss Crichton, rather than addressing any of his arguments.
Later, when recounting his phone interview with Crichton, Crowley does mention that Crichton sinisterly does not want to discuss his meeting with president Bush, and instead, for some crazy reason, wants to keep talking about satellite data, the Kyoto protocol, nation-by-nation emissions data, the anti-windmill movement in England, the greenhouse properties of water vapor, the infamous Hockey Stick graph ,etc. Does Crowley quote any of that? Respond to any of that? Refute any of that? Hardly! Here are a few quotes from his article that, I think, pretty much demonstrate Crowley’s substantive refutation of Crichton:
. . . he says in a slightly jaded monotone that belies his breathless potboiler prose.He does not address any of Crichton’s arguments, any of his points, or any of his data—he doesn’t ever respond to a single argument, in regards to the environment, or the dismal history of environmental policy, that Crichton makes, in State of Fear or elsewhere. He explains that Crichton, longing for stature and importance, is insinuating himself into the Global Warming debate, and he’s a shitty writer, to boot. Indeed, Crichton is so tedious that Crowley complains about how Crichton kept wanting to talk about environmental data and graphs and satellite imagery and the science of greenhouse gases, when the real issue is that Karl Rove set up a meeting between Crichton and Bush, and that Crichton doesn’t kiss the boots of smart media elites. Like, I dunno, Crowley.
Global warming--or, specifically, the massive hoax by scientists and environmentalists that it allegedly represents and the resulting sexual conquests of nubile women that inevitably flow from the uncovering of this conspiracy . . .
So Crichton's ravings on the subject might be excusable as just a bad case of authorial self-promotion . . .
Crichton has relentlessly propagandized . . .
Crichton has helped create an anti-intellectual ethos where the country's most powerful political leaders can embrace a science-fiction writer as a great authority. . .
Through the 1970s up to the early '90s, Crichton offered few serious ideas . . .
Crichton's device was not an innovation: These were mere versions of the Frankenstein story . . .
Though his books are pulp for the coach-class set . . .
… almost as if aping the reported social commentary of, say, Tom Wolfe.
Crichton has never been known for nuanced character development
But, since then, Crichton has delighted in bashing a wide class of media and intellectual elites here at home.
. . . And that worldview has reached its bitter, frothing apex with State of Fear.
And it's no wonder: State of Fear is by far Crichton's most aggressive polemic.
. . . and we are meant to follow along with the help of graphs, copious footnotes referencing scientific studies, and long, pedantic exchanges between the characters.
. . . And now, like a mighty t-rex that has escaped from Jurassic Park, Crichton stomps across the public policy landscape, finally claiming the influence he has always sought. In this sense, he himself is like an experiment gone wrong--a creation of the publishing industry and Hollywood who has unexpectedly mutated into a menacing figure haunting think tanks, policy forums, hearing rooms, and even the Oval Office.
While one could reasonably argue that it was not Crowley’s intent to debunk Crichton’s "faulty science" or address Crichton’s points on Global Warming, all you need to do is search on Crichton and Crowley on Google, and you will see that Crichton’s personal attack on Crichton and his writing—and his sinister meeting with President Bush, initiated by the even-more-sinister Karl Rove—is referred to by 3rd parties as proof that Crichton was "making up science to debunk global warming"., as an article "hitting blockbuster novelist Michael Crichton's very public denials that global warming was a proved phenomenon" and so on—although some correctly identify it as a critique of Crichton.
Of all the references to the Crichton/Crowley flap I reviews, only The New York Times, registration required, actually touch on the fundamental content of Michael Crowley’s original piece—a 3,700 word article dismissing Crichton as an egotistical, anti-intellectual hack. The New York Times being even-handed. Go figure.
Numerous message board references to the flap are similar to this one posted at The Official Michael Crichton Message Board:
I understand that Crowley printed an evaluation of the poor science of Crichton's previous book and, rather than refute the actual claims that the journalist made, Crichton created a character in his book "Next" identical to Crowley in almost every way -but also made that character a child rapist with a small penis.As I noted, there wasn’t a single shred of "evaluation" in Mick Crowley’s story, something that has been very common with most of the criticism of Crichton’s assertions: they attack the man, rather than his data and his arguments and, when they occasionally do actually address the hard data, they produce the most minor technical arguments that simply do not address the substance of what he says. Still, the "meme" regarding the Crowley flap has largely (and, to some extent, I think intentionally) been spread that Crowley wrote a reasoned and detailed argument scientifically refuting Crichton’s arguments, and Crichton responded by saying Crowley had a small penis. When Crowley never made one single fact-based refutation of anything Crichton has ever said—in fact, was apparently too bored to pay attention to all the tedious science and data Crichton kept on about when Crichton was gracious enough to grant him an interview and earnestly try to address and explain this issues he raises in State of Fear with hard data and real history.
I wonder why Crichton responded in this way instead of refuting the claims if he is so sure of the science of his position.
As an aside, I find it ironic and the few sentences Crichton devotes to the child molesting political pundit, Mick Crowley, in his latest novel, Next, inspired this retort from Crowley:
Crichton launched his noxious attack from behind the shield of the small penis rule because, I'm sure, he's embarrassed by what he has done. In researching my article, I found a man who has long yearned for intellectual stature beyond the realm of killer dinosaurs and talking monkeys. And Crichton must know that turning a critic into a poorly endowed child rapist won't exactly aid his cause. Ultimately, then, I find myself strangely flattered. To explain why, let me propose a corollary to the small penis rule. Call it the small man rule: If someone offers substantive criticism of an author, and the author responds by hitting below the belt, as it were, then he's conceding that the critic has won.As for "substantive criticism", Crowley was mostly accusing Crichton of being anti-science, anti-intellectual, overly-ambitious, polemical, and bitter. Oh, and Crichton’s novels are formulaic. He doesn’t directly address any of Crichton’s points—indeed, he regards the anti-science, anti-intellectual Crichton’s obsession with factual data, reports, correlative factors, history, and policy-specifics as tedious and besides the point (or "ravings", as he also refers to them)—the point is that Crichton is anti-intellectual and ego-maniacal and should be dismissed and disregarded, rather that feted and rewarded with tremendous books sales. According to Crowley, Crichton is "an experiment gone wrong", "a menacing figure haunting think tanks, policy forums, hearing rooms", of aping Tom Wolfe, of re-writing the Frankenstein story with every book, of never offering serious ideas, of is worldview having "reached its bitter, frothing apex", his books are all for "the coach class set", Crichton "relentlessly propagandizes".
Perhaps calling Crowley, by proxy, a pharmaceutical profiteer and a child molester with a small penis is a worse, and less substantive, thing to do. But not by much. Also, I think that kind of obsessive, highly-personalized reaction was actually what Crichton was looking for and, far from being embarrassed, thinks the author has won and the critic got punk’d, sucker. Given that Crowley is almost certainly not a child molester, pharmaceutical trust-fund baby, or so shabbily endowed, that he launched into such an impressive diatribe in response indicates that his ending, asserting that Crichton is conceding that the critic has won, is entirely backwards. Crowley’s response indicates that Crichton has won. Indeed, in his retort, Michael Crowley writes, "It is impossible not to be grossed out on some level--particularly by the creepy image of the smoldering Crichton, alone in his darkened study, imagining in pornographic detail the rape of a small child." That’s better than Crichton including a toss-off character named Mick Crowley who, other than being a Yale graduate and a political pundit, doesn’t actually have anything in common with Michael Crowley? And still, for all the ink spilt, not one single refutation of Crichton’s data, his thesis, or his skepticism regarding Global Warming.
Hmm. Maybe the critic has won, after all. Instead of talking about Global Warming, the scientific data, and the consequences of public policy predicated upon junk science, it’s all about Michael Crichton being thin-skinned and Michael Crowley actually not having a small penis at all!
Next, more red flags, and more Michael Crichton . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment