Debunking Global Warming, Part 4: Environmentalism as Religion, Silencing the Critics

Previously, I mentioned that there are several red flags associated with the predictions of catastrophe, and the quasi-religious modern day belief in Global Warming, that I believe should make you very suspicious about the veracity of the claims made by climate change activists . . .

The first, discussed at length, is the tendency of the majority of Climate Change catastrophists to dismiss critics, attack them, discredit them—in short, do anything but answer the questions they raise or convincingly argue against their objections.

The second red flag is not just the desire but the active advocacy of silencing the critics. The Global Warming crowd is full of folks who want to make it impossible for dissent to be heard. For example, The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen recently advocated that the American Meteorological Society revoke their Seal of Approval for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating climate catastrophe! Read more here.

I find it peculiarly revealing that Cullen compared allowing meteorologists who are skeptical of Global Warming to stay on the air to allowing meteorologists who say that hurricanes rotate clockwise to stay on the air, apparently unaware herself, for all her climate expertise, that hurricanes to rotate clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. Which would encompass an entire half of the planet that Cullen forgot about, there. Hmmm. Maybe she should be stripped of her credentials.

Global Warming Deniers

---

For those who haven’t given the history and purpose behind War Crimes trials much thought, you might be interested to learn (although, if you are reading me, then you are no doubt smart enough to already know) that the primary reason for War Crimes tribunals, and for discussing the likelihood of having them, is to effect and curtail the behavior of those we are at war with presently or might be at war with in the future, and specifically effect the treatment of their own citizens and the soldiers they capture, before there is anybody we can put on trial.

So when environmental activists like David Roberts advocate that we have War Crimes trials for people who are skeptical about the insanely divergent and inconsistent predictions of Global Warming doom, the intent is to silence present day critics. To be clear, what Roberts is advocating is the death penalty, in the future, for people who disagree with the predictions (or the prophesies, which would be a more accurate term given the faith-based nature of the Global Warming belief system) of global climate disaster caused by the free market and the astounding productivity and progress enabled by capitalism. And the reason that such a suggestion would even be floated would be as an attempt to silence present day critics, right now. Since getting the death penalty for the capital crime of disagreeing with liberals, leftists, and socialists is still extremely difficult. Stupid constitution!

Just recently, renowned environmental scientists—oh, no, I’m sorry, I meant: “windbag politicians”—Olympia Snow and Jay Rockefeller wrote a letter telling Exxon to start towing the Global Warming alarmist line on climate change, or face negative consequences. Read more here.

When The Church is so desperate to have critics silenced, one might well be forgiven for suspecting that not only is the evidence simply not there, but that even their faith is shaky.

In Aliens Cause Global Warming, Michael Crichton relays what happened to author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg:

We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called

The Skeptical Environmentalist.

The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press. The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever "published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review." )But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.) But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists?

Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocaust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?

When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.

Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He's a heretic.

Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church.And that, in a nut shell, is the main reason that there is an effort to silence even casual critics of Global Warming: because they are heretics, and when your religion is nascent and struggling to establish and then maintain power, you cannot tolerate heretics, critics, or skeptics. And most of what goes on regarding Global Warming in the mainstream media, in politics, and with environmental activism, is religious and philosophical rather than scientific.

In Environmentalism as a Religion, Crichton argues just that point: that modern environmentalism is a religion, rather than an objective field of science, and he makes the case:

With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious. But not if it's a religion. Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn't quit when the world doesn't end on the day he expects. He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets. One of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts.

…

Most of us have had some experience interacting with religious fundamentalists, and we understand that one of the problems with fundamentalists is that they have no perspective on themselves. They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view. In our modern complex world, fundamentalism is dangerous because of its rigidity and its imperviousness to other ideas.

And he says a great deal more. It’s a must read.

Crichton is not the only one who sees modern-day environmentalism as a religion: so does self-described “green” David Orrell in his book, Apollo’s Arrow. Orrell addresses with some specificity the religious nature of the prediction—i.e., prophesies—of modern day Environmentalism.

David G. Danielson was giving Environmentalism as Religion serious thought back in 1995.

MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen also likens fear of Global Warming to a religious belief. H. Sterling Burnett makes the same point in Human Events. And you know what radical right-wingers those MIT meteorologists are!

So does Tom DeWeese make the argument that environmentalism is a religion, in Capitalism Magazine. Also, The California Conservative makes the point pretty well, as well. Debra Saunders does a great job covering it at Real Clear Politics.

And there is more. You can find your own. Global Warming is a product of modern-day secularism and the human need for religion, rather than the product of rigorous science. I can say this without a doubt, because there is clearly a consensus among Global Warming skeptics, and even some non-skeptics, that most of modern day environmentalism is religious in nature. And we all know that consensus is all the proof we need to establish something as indisputable, undeniable fact.

Debunking Global Warming, Part 3: The Myths of Consensus

Michael Crichton also chews up and spits out the entire idea of "scientific consensus", and I make the point--mostly by citing others who have made the point before me--that the so-called "scientific consensus", even if it had any actual value, is not so obvious and clear cut as the High Priests and Priestesses of the First Church of Climate Change would have you believe.


First, just a note that the academic and reasoned refutation/clarification of Crichton’s State of Fear by Gavin Schmidt comes up as an advertised link, via Google AdWords, and is the only AdWord on the search term Michael Crichton as of this writing. Which could perhaps suggest that others are aware that the typical strategy of: discredit the messenger, call him a hack, and—if a scientist or meteorologists, threaten to strip his or her credentials—may hurt more than it helps the First Church of the Global Warming.

So. Just a little more on Michael Crichton. While numerous scientists and even more non-scientist environmental “advocates” have attacked Crichton for his views of Global Warming and environmental alarmism, and have bemoaned that a “hack science fiction writer” would actually be testifying before the United States Senate (although its fine and makes sense to have Hollywood actors and actresses testifying in support of liberal causes they know less about than Crichton does regarding the issues are talking about), it’s interesting that they neglect what Crichton specifically said in his testimony. His central point is that science is becoming highly politicized, and that independent verification of assertions is critical for the long-term credibility of the conclusions being presented to the public by the “scientific community”.

What right-wing, anti-environmental screed does Crichton open his testimony to the Senate with? Try this:

In essence, science is nothing more than a method of inquiry. The method says an assertion is valid-and merits universal acceptance-only if it can be independently verified. The impersonal rigor of the method means it is utterly apolitical. A truth in science is verifiable whether you are black or white, male or female, old or young. It's verifiable whether you like the results of a study, or you don't.

Thus, when adhered to, the scientific method can transcend politics. And the converse may also be true: when politics takes precedent over content, it is often because the primacy of independent verification has been overwhelmed by competing interests.

What is so objectionable about that, one could be forgiven for wondering, to Global Warming advocates?

Well, it goes on, and it becomes clear what they don’t like, and why they don’t quote it, or link to it, when they criticize:

Verification may take several forms. I come from medicine, where the gold standard is the randomized double-blind study, which has been the paradigm of medical research since the 1940s.

In that vein, let me tell you a story. It's 1991, I am flying home from Germany, sitting next to a man who is almost in tears, he is so upset. He's a physician involved in an FDA study of a new drug. It's a double-blind study involving four separate teams---one plans the study, another administers the drug to patients, a third assesses the effect on patients, and a fourth analyzes results. The teams do not know each other, and are prohibited from personal contact of any sort, on peril of contaminating the results. This man had been sitting in the Frankfurt airport, innocently chatting with another man, when they discovered to their mutual horror they are on two different teams studying the same drug. They were required to report their encounter to the FDA. And my companion was now waiting to see if the FDA would declare their multi-year, multi-million dollar study invalid because of this chance contact.

For a person with a medical background, accustomed to this degree of rigor in research, the protocols of climate science appear considerably more relaxed. In climate science, it's permissible for raw data to be "touched," or modified, by many hands. Gaps in temperature and proxy records are filled in. Suspect values are deleted because a scientist deems them erroneous. A researcher may elect to use parts of existing records, ignoring other parts. But the fact that the data has been modified in so many ways inevitably raises the question of whether the results of a given study are wholly or partially caused by the modifications themselves.

In saying this, I am not casting aspersions on the motives or fair-mindedness of climate scientists. Rather, what is at issue is whether the methodology of climate science is sufficiently rigorous to yield a reliable result. At the very least we should want the reassurance of independent verification by another lab, in which they make their own decisions about how to handle the data, and yet arrive at a similar result.

One can see why Climate Change advocates don’t want to have to meet anything approaching that kind of rigor in their science: they can’t. There is a reason why Global Warming advocates don’t want to meet that sort of standard in regards to their science, just as there is a reason why homeopathic remedies don’t want to be subject to control and review by the FDA. Simply put, neither homeopathic remedies, or Global Warming believers, could make the sort of claims they do if subjected to the standard of clinical trials and double-blind studies.

Read the whole thing and you, too, will understand why the Global Warming crowd apparently thought it best not to draw any attention to what Crichton actually said in his Senate testimony.

The Argument of Consensus

---

Crichton makes a most excellent argument against the entire idea of consensus as science in Aliens Cause Global Warming. I mentioned previously that Naomi Oreskes attempts to refute his contention that consensus is not only not science, but is pernicious and hostile to science, by selectively arguing against his use of eugenics as an example of consensus science at work. But Crichton cites consensus as science on a number of issues having nothing to do with eugenics, and the results of using consensus, rather than science, were uniformly, demonstrably negative. Crichton writes:

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

Perhaps Oreskes didn’t want to tackle this particular example of consensus science because it would be more difficult to point to the advantages of ignoring demonstrable scientific results, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of women over more than a century, the way she argued that eugenics was somehow important to the eventual science of genetics (which is a wholly specious and unhistorical argument that I may come back to deconstruct at a later date).

Oserkes also didn’t address a few of Crichton’s other examples (or even acknowledge they existed, or provide a link to the original article that she was “refuting”). For example:

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees . . .

Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy…the list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

Of course, when you read stuff like this, you understand why critics like Oserkes do not quote or link to the original text, and why protests against Crichton’s senate testimony never address what he actually said when he testified. These are tough, cogent arguments that could possibly provoke skepticism even in some present day True Believers.

But the fact that consensus is not science, and that the consequences of so-called “consensus science” are usually negative, doesn’t really touch on another problem with the Global Warming consensus, one that Naomi Oserkes also argues for most vigorously: that there is, in fact, a large majority consensus that believes in anthropogenic climate change.

Tim Edison, writing in The Collegiate Times, amongst several other points, makes the point that the “consensus” is less something less than overwhelming. David Ridenour, writing in 1997, makes the point that claims for consensus were, at the very least, premature. He writes:

A survey of over 400 German, American and Canadian climate researchers conducted by Dennis Bray of the Meteorologisches Institut der Universitat Hamburg and Hans von Storch of GKSS Forschungszentrum and reported in the United Nations Climate Change Bulletin, for example, found that only 10% of the researchers surveyed "strongly agreed" with the statement "We can say for certain that global warming is a process already underway." Further, 35% of those surveyed either disagreed with the statement or were undecided. Perhaps even more interesting, 67% of the researchers either disagreed or were uncertain about the proposition that climate change will occur so suddenly that a lack of preparation would devastate certain parts of the world -- the underlying assumption on which the talks in Kyoto, Japan were based. Close to half of the researchers -- 48% -- indicated that they don't have faith in the forecasts of the global climate models, the strongest argument in favor of quick, decisive, international action to counter the threat of global warming. Another 20% expressed uncertainty about these models.

Another survey, conducted by American Viewpoint for Citizens for a Sound Economy, found that, by a margin of 44% to 17%, state climatologists believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The survey further found that 58% of the climatologists disagreed with President Clinton's assertion that "the overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now fact, that global warming is for real," while only 36% agreed with the assertion. Thirty-six of the nation's 48 official state climatologists participated in the survey.

Those words were written almost ten years ago. Certainly, those numbers could have changed in favor of Global Warming advocacy. But activists were claiming consensus back then, in the face of those numbers, and the way to address contention over the claim of consensus has, generally, been to simply deny that there is any contention. And also, not coincidentally, to attempt to ostracize those who don’t fall in line with the consensus and (of course) threaten their credentials, reputations and livelihoods in order to prevent them from speaking out in a public manner. After all, what better way to build a consensus than to make sure that those who don’t go along with the consensus view cannot get grants, get jobs, build careers, keep their credentials, or get papers published. I’m just saying.

Thomas Sowell has also recently done a good job of deconstructing the Scientific Consensus myth regarding Global Warming. A reasonably objective history of scientific consensus can be found on Wikipedia, and it’s worth noting that it makes the point that few actual surveys have been taken to establish the validity of the consensus claim, although the claim of scientific consensus has been made very often. The most recent establishment of the consensus view that anthropogenic Global Warming is real and happening now was accomplished by reviewing the abstracts of published papers an extrapolating from that the percentage of scientists that believe in the Great Global Warming, and the published policy positions of a number of advocacy groups that included numerous scientist and climatologists in their ranks, rather than actual surveys of climatologists and scientists, preferably anonymous in order to avoid weighting responses with fear of reprisal. I wonder why there aren’t more surveys regarding the actual consensus view of Global Warming, considering how often we are told it exists. Yet, like many things in the First Church of Climate Change, this is apparently an article of faith. Of the actual surveys of scientists and climatologists, there is no pro-Global Warming consensus, and there are precious few recent surveys in regards to the scientific consensus on Global warming at all. The opinion of consensus is drawn by analysis of published papers by folks like Naomi Oreskes, a geologist and science historian who is a 100% true believer in anthropogenic catastrophic climate change, rather than from independent surveys of climatologists and scientists. Odd, that.

Next: That Second Red Flag and Revisionist Histories and Ice Ages . . .

Debunking Global Warming, Part 2: More on Crichton, his Critics and the Tedium of Factual Debate

More on Crichton, his critics, and The First Church of Climate Change. And don't forget that Hockey Stick.

Previously, I asserted that when discussing issues of hard data, or even issues that make points via logic and rhetoric, that if there is a tendency to address those making arguments of data and rhetoric by discrediting them, attacking their character, or attacking their motivations, or using other strategies that completely ignore the actual data, and the actual rhetoric, it’s a red flag. It’s a red flag that suggests there is something wrong with the opposing argument, in that they either cannot or will not address the issue of the data, or the logic of their opponent’s assertions. Then I note this is common approach to the arguments of Global Warming skeptics. One notable case would be Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote The Skeptical Environmentalist.

My second red flag, which will be discussed in greater detail in my next post, is when one side of the argument consistently attempt to silence and punish critics and skeptics, rather than addressing and refuting their arguments in honest and open debate. And there were several attempts to prevent the original publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, the English language version, and to keep Bjorn Lomborg from speaking in a variety of venues. In one, where he was speaking, he got a cream pie (from a caring environmentalist) in the face. But Lomborg was also attacked based on accusations of incompetence, of insufficient training in many of the fields of study he was researching (what is known as a fresh, outside-the-box perspective when leftists agree with the conclusions), and attempts were made to discredit him based on the fact that conservative publications and pundits frequently cited his book!

Another notable case would be Michael Crichton, who makes a number of specific points regarding environmental science that are glossed over, or completely ignored—see the Michael Crowley post, previously.

In Fear, Complexity, and Environmental Management in the 21st Century Crichton makes a number of salient points. He notes that Chernobyl, which was supposed to have been a global disaster, and certainly a local environmental disaster, was nothing of the sort—despite the doom and gloom prediction of the pundit class. Reports, he notes, have anywhere from 15,000 to 30,000 people dying, now or in the future, but the actual number turned out to be 56. Now, is that number wrong? Might be. But the critics seem to focus on how Michael Crichton, desperate for fame and attention and importance he really doesn’t deserve, puts sex scenes in his sci-fi novels and got an award from a petroleum association.

Crichton writes:

But, of course, you think, we’re talking about radiation: what about long-term consequences? Unfortunately here the media reports are even less accurate.

The chart shows estimates as high as 3.5 million, or 500,000 deaths, when the actual number of delayed deaths is less than 4,000. That’s the number of Americans who die of adverse drug reactions every six weeks. Again, a huge error.

For the moment, let’s presume these statistics are irrefutable, or at least independently confirmable, because, thus far, Crichton’s harshest critics—as far as I can find—have not disputed them, although they’ve have very mean or disparaging things to say about Crichton the man. His larger point is one that is deductive, and rhetorical—it’s a logical conclusion, rather than specifically a recitation of facts, and thus even more open to debate or a good, solid logical refutation:

But most troubling of all, according to the UN report in 2005, is that "the largest public health problem created by the accident" is the "damaging psychological impact [due] to a lack of accurate information…[manifesting] as negative self-assessments of health, belief in a shortened life expectancy, lack of initiative, and dependency on assistance from the state."

In other words, the greatest damage to the people of Chernobyl was caused by bad information. These people weren’t blighted by radiation so much as by terrifying but false information. We ought to ponder, for a minute, exactly what that implies. We demand strict controls on radiation because it is such a health hazard. But Chernobyl suggests that false information can be a health hazard as damaging as radiation. I am not saying radiation is not a threat. I am not saying Chernobyl was not a genuinely serious event.

But thousands of Ukrainians who didn’t die were made invalids out of fear. They were told to be afraid. They were told they were going to die when they weren’t. They were told their children would be deformed when they weren’t. They were told they couldn’t have children when they could. They were authoritatively promised a future of cancer, deformities, pain and decay. It’s no wonder they responded as they did.

In fact, we need to recognize that this kind of human response is well-documented. Authoritatively telling people they are going to die can in itself be fatal.

These are logical, or rhetorical arguments, specifically addressing the danger of alarmism regarding subjects like environmental “disasters”, or global warming. If the facts are difficult to successfully challenge without straining credibility, certainly the logic can be attacked. So why are critics so quick to instead try to dismiss Crichton as a hack, a dilettante, and an anti-intellectual rabble-rouser?

Part of the problem is, no doubt, a factor the anti-Global Warming, and generally conservative, side of the argument has going for it: doomsayers, end-of-the-worlders, and doom-and-gloomers have a long history, and the main thing they share in common is being uniformly wrong. While this is not in and of itself mean that Global Warming is wrong, it does suggest that the latest prophesies of doom from environmental soothsayers should be taken for a grain of salt. And Crichton points out the poor predictive record of environmental alarmist quite often:

Once I looked at Chernobyl, I began to recall other fears in my life that had never come true. The population bomb, for one. Paul Ehrlich predicted mass starvation in the 1960s. Sixty million Americans starving to death. Didn’t happen. Other scientists warned of mass species extinctions by the year 2000. Ehrlich himself predicted that half of all species would become extinct by 2000. Didn’t happen. The Club of Rome told us we would run out of raw materials ranging from oil to copper by the 1990s. That didn’t happen, either.

It’s no surprise that predictions frequently don’t come true. But such big ones! And so many! All my life I worried about the decay of the environment, the tragic loss of species, the collapse of ecosystems. I feared poisoning by pesticides, alar on apples, falling sperm counts from endocrine disrupters, cancer from power lines, cancer from saccharine, cancer from cell phones, cancer from computer screens, cancer from food coloring, hair spray, electric razors, electric blankets, coffee, chlorinated water…it never seemed to end.

Crichton goes on to quote Lowell Ponte demanding action to prevent the imminent, perhaps unstoppable, man-made ice age in The Cooling, and environmental treatise warning of global cooling published in 1978. He quotes Paul Ehrlich, and 1972 study called The Limits of Growth regarding predictions of imminent disaster in the 1970s and 1980s that didn’t happen—that didn’t even come close to happening. Then, closer to our own time, he recounts the numerous prediction of doom, even a complete meltdown of civilization, from the UN Working Group on Informatics, The Y2K Personal Survival Guide, and The Y2K Survival Guide and Cookbook, predicting the end civilization, widespread unemployment, rioting, food shortages, a complete telecommunications breakdown, starvation, no police force . . . all because of some bugs in some software revolving around Y2K.

I don’t know about you, but when I read that I recalled hearing predictions that some power plants might blow up, that some missiles might automatically launch, and that the Air Traffic Control system might fail and that airplanes might start dropping from the sky—with the warning that we had to make sure no aircraft were flying over cities on the midnight of Y2K. Yet, what happened? Nothing. It’s a good example of how alarmism operates, of the dire predictions it makes, and the fact that it’s consistently, invariably mistaken. As Crichton writes:

What actually happened on January 1, 2000? Essentially, nothing.

But once again, notice the urgent language. The situation is desperate, unprecedented action is necessary, ordinary values must be pushed aside, anyone who disagrees is dangerous and reactionary. Terror, fear, and the end of civilization.

Perhaps Crichton is mistaken when he relates these past events of alarmism to Global Warming, perhaps he is not. But what is sure, he makes a compelling and, for those not already true believers in the Church of Environmentalism, a persuasive argument. But, surely, such a rhetorical and associative argument could be at least challenge with counter-examples, or additional information about Y2K or Paul Ehrlich Crichton does not present, rather than attacks on Crichton’s credentials and character. If someone has made such arguments, I can’t find them. Please point me to them, and I will amend this post, with credit.

Amendment: Searching hard, I found one, which links to another one: Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion at RealClimate.org.

Although, I must note, the critique, in many ways, could be said to be "praising with faint damns".

Back to the speech: Crichton then addresses the hubris of people attempting to “manage” the environment, regarding our hundred years and change of trying to manage nature at Yellowstone National Park. This is a long passage, but well worth reading, and should give any casual supporter of modern-day environmental management, which, like Kyoto, would spread the sort of disastrous hubris exhibited regarding the environmental management of Yellowstone into the world economy. The repeating fallacy of thinking we see a problem, coming up a fix, ham-handedly applying the fix, and causing more problems than the original problem, is hard to miss. And should certainly resonate with many environmentalists.

---

The First Church of Global Warming

This is also a story that gets full treatment in Crichton’s novel, State of Fear. So this might be a good place to look at how all the scientific data and logical, rhetorical arguments made in State of Fear are refuted. For example, David Roberts reviews State of Fear in Grist is an excellent example of how critics respond to Crichton’s logical (and I mean logical as a description of the form of argument, rather than as an assessment of quality; logical arguments can also be specious and entirely incorrect, or predicated on bad data) and presentation and analysis of data.

While Kenner reels off statistics and cites scientific journals, his interlocutor's job is to say things like, "But of course Antarctica is melting! Trust me." Kenner references a paper, and a dippy enviro makes the opposing argument in the most naive, flat-footed, dim-witted way possible -- with no recourse to scientific citation. Rinse. Repeat.

A relevant criticism, and an excellent point for a more substantial argument, citing papers and data—even selectively—that would argue against Crichton’s statistics and citations. But, no. And why not? Because they don’t exist? Of course they do. There are a lot of scientific papers and data analysis that, at least on the surface, support the idea of man-made Global Warming quite nicely. Their conclusions may be arguable, but that material is certainly out there. So why don’t folks like Crowley and Roberts address Crichton’s obsessive use of reports and statistical data with equal-but-opposite reports and analyses?

It could be because believers in Global Warming are True Believers; it is a matter of faith, and to argue about the specifics of geological evidence for a flood or evidence of the exodus from Egypt is entirely beside the point. I believe in God, and Christian apologetics hold no charm for me—arguing about physical evidence of Noah’s ark or the Ark of the Covenant is entirely besides the point, for me, and for many people in regards to their religious beliefs. For many in the First Church of Climate Change, arguing data and statistics is besides the point.

It could also be because they don’t want to argue on the data anymore. Arguments on statistics often end up problematical. Things change. Temperature trends or ice flows or hurricane frequency can be cited as evidence for Global Warming, and then, when the trends move in a different direction, what once was used to prove man-made climate change is now used to disprove it. The fact is, when trying to make specific causal conclusions and predictions regarding huge organic systems with hundreds of thousands (or perhaps millions, or billions) of inputs, outputs, interactions, and randomizing factors, it very hard to be accurate in terms of causation or prediction. The same reason the meteorologists can be, and often are, radically wrong about the weather three days from now is the same reason specific predictions and statistical data are not the friends of the Global Warming faithful. The presumption that a certain set of data indicates man-made global warming is a leap of faith; there is simply no way to be sure that that data will remain consistent over time, that it will remain correlative with other factors, or that an expanded analysis of the data won’t indicate the exact reverse of what Global Warming advocates believe it actually proves. As such, even the most dramatic and impressive data—the fabled Hockey Stick Graph, for example—could easily end up working against Global Warming advocates, even if man-made Global Warming turns out to be the hard fact so many seem to think it is. So it’s better to avoid the specifics.

I tend to suspect it is some of both. Accompanied by the fact that human nature would make defending the obviously true seem a pointless task. If Global Warming is such an obvious thing, what’s the point of doing all the work and statistical analysis and complicated scientific refutations just to prove that the sky is blue? But I think it is primarily because modern day environmentalism is largely religious in nature, the motivations and rewards almost entirely emotional and even spiritual, and thus data analysis and logical arguments are irrelevant compared to emotional rewards, peer pressure, social proof, environmental fellowship, and “consensus”.

Which is why that is the most common defense of Global Warming mounted. As David Roberts writes in his Grist review of

A broad and robust scientific consensus exists on the subject of anthropogenic climate change, embodied by thousands of scientists and peer-reviewed studies. How is it that Crichton thinks so many scientists are so wrong, so willing to go along with the baseless hysteria?

I don’t recall if Crichton addresses that in the novel, but in the speech referenced above, he gives several reasons why people—and scientists are, at the end of the day, fallible human beings like the rest of us—go along with the hysteria. Additionally, Crichton never suggests that the Global Warming alarmism is baseless, or unprecedented—just wrong, and potentially more negative in its consequences than Global Warming, if real, would be.

Naomi Oreskes reviewed State of Fear in the San Francisco Chronicle, with a typical title: “Fear-Mongering Crichton Wrong on Science”.

Yet, there’s lots of hyperbole, confident assurances he’s wrong and mistaken, and a return to the touchstone of the Global Warming religion, consensus. But no specific refutation. Indeed, she sets up a straw man, saying that Crichton has, in public speeches, said that because scientists were wrong about eugenics, then they must be wrong about global warming. Which is not Crichton’s argument: rather, it’s that history indicates science can be flawed, and that policy based on flawed science can be destructive force, and that social policy predicated on fad science is usually bad. His point is also that history can teach us much about the current First Church of Climate Change, as eugenics was also embraced by scientists, academics, politicians, celebrities, and businessmen with the same sort of vigor and inevitable correctness that man-made climate change enjoys now.

And she proceeds to argue that Crichton was arguing against genes or genetic research, all the time not quoting a single thing Crichton has said on the issue, in State of Fear or elsewhere.

Oreskes writes: “Crichton has got his science, his history and his politics wrong.” But offers no specific refutations, instead saying:

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.

Like so much in regards in the Church of Climate Change, this is not entirely true. We do know that global Climate Change is real. It always has been, and always will be. We know that humans do effect the environment, at least on the micro level, and it is reasonable to assume, but impossible to prove conclusively, that we also effect the earth on the macro level—though the idea that we might affect the earth more than, say, the temperature and activity of the sun does seem, to some, ill-considered. We know that we have been adding to the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere via the burning of fossil fuels, in such a matter that it may not all be processed in the same manner as it has been historically, and this may or may not effect climate to some degree. But to say that it is all hard science is to stretch the truth. There are some indications that even the scientific consensus on global warming is neither scientific, nor a consensus—but more on that later.

Oreskes continues to argue thusly:

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.

Note the language—like consensus, you will hear certain things again and again from the Global Warming faithful. “No significant scientific argument against it”,”climate change is real and happening now”,”it is well established”,”it is nearly certain”,”Anyone who denies this has simply got the science wrong.”

That is a powerful argument. Anyone who denies this has simply got the science wrong. So satellite data, emissions data, long term temperature trends, scientific and political history, environmental management failures of the past, statistical data from past and present-day environmental disasters, and so on—all easily ignored, because, we are assured, anyone who denies that disaster is imminent, thanks to the free market, capitalism, and the ownership of the SUV, has “simply got the science wrong”.

Oh, and Oserkes ends with a common refrain in regards to Global Warming skeptics. That is, if you don’t agree with me, then shut up.

Crichton is a novelist, and he knows how to write fiction. But he should leave the scientific facts to scientists, the historical facts to historians and the politics to all of us to debate.

Presumably, Crichton is supposed to debate the politics of it, with everybody, without bring up history or science!

Reiterating my addena far above: In my research, I have found someone actually addressing Crichton on the data, and he does a good job, and comes to the conclusion that Crichton's data is actually pretty good, but incomplete, and tends to be selective, often ignoring the fact that the papers he cites comes up with entirely different conclusions than he does. It's Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion. Gavin, the poster, does a evenhanded job of addressing potential issues of Crichton’s science, and offers—ala Crichton himself—copious links and footnotes. Like much of Crichton’s skepticism, I have to say, I think this is the level at which the debate should be happening. Personal attacks, discrediting contrarians because of their personal associations, careers, friends, or childhoods is not only insubstantial, but actually a contraindication when it comes to accepting the assertions of Global Warming supporters. I would certainly be more swayed by Gavin, the poster of this article, than any of the people who, ostensibly supporting and praising him, comment on the article—and, again, attacking “the deniers”.

Ah, well. There’s just not enough time in the day. More in a few days. In the interim, make sure you check out The Hockey Stick Graph. And review the article on The Temperature Record for the past 1000 Years on Wikipedia. If you drink the Kool-Aid and think, because it’s science, this stuff is more than a good guess based on widely variable data, perhaps even established, incontrovertible fact, go right ahead. I remain skeptical. And will resist Chicken-Little political policy based on the sky-is-falling alarmism of The First Church of Climate Change.

Next Time . . . More Crichton, Critics, Red Flags, and Alarmism

Debunking Global Warming, Part I: Red Flags, Crichton, Crowley and the Tedium of Factual Debate

I've been putting this off for a long time--an indepth discussion of global warming--because I knew just how big it was going to be, and how much of my time it was going to take. To make it a little easier, I'm breaking it down into bite size chunks, and this one is the first . . .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 . . .