Michael Crichton's "State Of Fear" and George Will

[Bark Bark Bark]

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/will/s_286085.html

Will's review illustrates how the Wingnuts will counter all sense and science in future...

Michael Crichton's "State Of Fear" is "The Day After Tomorrow" for Dittoheads. It involves Dirty Libberul Activists who somehow "rig" ecological disasters (including "a tsunami that would roar 500 miles an hour across the Pacific and smash California's coast on the last day of a Los Angeles conference on abrupt climate change"--wow, how obvious!) to bolster their 'false' visions of impending doom due to Global Warming (which Crichton poo-poohs).

George Will eats it up, like a fly eats excrement--but his review is amazing in that it adopts a lot of common "Dirty Libberul" themes:

(quote)

Crichton's subject is today's fear that global warming will cause catastrophic climate change, a belief now so conventional that it seems to require no supporting data. Crichton's subject is also how conventional wisdom is manufactured in a credulous and media-drenched society.

Various factions have interests -- monetary, political, even emotional -- in cultivating fears. The fears invariably seem to require more government subservience to environmentalists, and more government supervision of our lives.

(end quote)

Replace "global warming," "climate change," and "environmentalists" with "PNAC," "terrorism," and "fascists"--or whatever subjects you prefer--and Will is singin' our song. But in Will's sick little world, it's those gosh-darn ENVIRO-WACKOS who are forcing government subservience and supervision of our lives upon us. They hate oil spills, too!...

What a creep.

As for Crichton (the director of "Looker" and "Runaway" and author of "Congo" and "Timeline"--barrrrrf) his famed scientific background is...wanting. I remember reading "The Terminal Man" many years ago as a child, and the thing that stood out about the novel was the apologetic foreword Crichton was forced to insert. In spite of all his research, he wrote the novel under the impression that people who suffer epileptic seizures run around murdering everyone in sight with knives and axes. ("You mean...they don't? Duh, whoooooops.")

"I am so smart! I am so smart! S-M-R-T! I mean, S-M-A-R-T!!"
--Homer J. Simpson

[fujiyama]

1. Chrichton is a dumbass

and a mediocre writer.

I enjoyed his books when I was 13.

[chicagiana]

4. He may be a poor writer ...

... but Chrichton certainly is no dumbass. The guy went through medical school. You can't be a dumbass and get through that.

Don't make the same mistake as some Nazi baffoon. Just because you don't LIKE someone, you shouldn't critcize and super-impose negative values that clearly do not fit their target.

Two intelligent people are perfectly capable of reaching different conclusions on issues. The differences come from underlying priciples and values as well as personal experience.

I probably don't share Chricton's sense of core values. But I'm 100% sure that he isn't stupid.

[Sufi Marmot]

8. Just because he completed medical school...

...doesn't make him an expert on all things scientific.

Two intelligent people are perfectly capable of reaching different conclusions on issues. The differences come from underlying priciples and values as well as personal experience. Right - scientists call these subjective qualities 'bias', and good scientists seek to eliminate it from their analyses.

-SM, who would be curious to see Michael Crighton head to head in a debate with scientists who support theories of global warming.

[chicagiana]

10. I didn't say he was an expert of all things scientific ...

... I said he isn't stupid. And I also said I disagree with him on global warming while agreeing with him that "science of consensus" is in general a bad idea because it turns scientists into clergyman.

I don't think Chricton HAS a strong opinion on global warming one way or another. I think he is an advocate of very strong empirical/experimental science.

I think a debate with Chricton on global warming would be boring. Chricton would say they haven't proved it and an ethical scientist would be obliged to acknowledge that they haven't.

The policy argument is one of managing risks. What is:

a) The odds that global warming is indeed happening.
b) The consequences to human civilization if it does.
c) The cost of abating global warming vs)
d) The monetary cost imposed on the economies of the world from global warming.

We will point out that coastlands will flood. But conservatives will point to Holland and New Orleans as regions that have managed the "coastal sub sea level" problem quite well. They will further point out that melting ice will bring new opportunites to the snow capped lands of the earth (nothern canada, siberia, Antarctica). That will provide more terrestrial habitat to offset the un-mitigable losses of shallow islands.

Personally, I think that global warming is happening and if left unchecked will be an utter catastrophe. I'm not so much worried about the coastlands and islands as I am about the north atlantic conveyer. Too much freshwater would shut it down and create a localized (and quite ironic) ice age that would turn England, Northern Europe, Eastern Canada and NE US into a snowball.

At the same time, the loss of "air conditioning" would swelter the equator and could likely dessicate many tropical paradises. That and it would probably change the climate pretty much everywhere else in ways we cannot predit.

Irregardless of whether lost land is replaced by new land, the scenario is one of mass exodus, starvation and conflict. I for one think thats bad. I think the cost of mitigating this risk is appropriate when you regard the cost and seeming likelihood of the event.

The key here is realizing where the other side is coming from. Yeah sure, the corporate guys are coming from greed. But they will have their BS shills ready with all these red herrings. It's up to your side to be able to defeat them and move the argument to your core values of wanting to avert global catastrophe while simultaneously diversifying the US energy market and alleviating our dependence on middle east oil.

[Bark Bark Bark]

16. Remember Li'l Dubbie

Bush graduated Harvard and Yale! It was hard werk! He must be a jeanius!

Crichton's been a darling of Der Reight for some time. He obviously has accepted this with relish. Now he allows his politics to predetermine which sources he trusts, and the conclusions he reaches based on what little research he may do. That ain't science. That's crapola.

[Jesus H. Christ]

14. I know plenty of dumbasses who make it through med school.

It's not all it's cracked up to be.

[okasha]

24. He may be a genius

but your average med student still doesn't go through school thinking that epileptics are compulsive murderers. One way or another, Mr. Crichton's synapses ain't all snappin'.

Okasha

[leftofthedial]

9. and richer than Croesus

and reaching millions of people with every mediocre word

[stanwyck]

18. He's the righwing radio novelist

taking their fear of the month and writing it into a novel. Years ago, it was sexual harrassment. Only it was the guy being harrassed. Cause in the rightwing world, the women are all making it up (EXCEPT when Clinton was the target). Crichton wrote a stupid novel, can't remember the name, and the right lapped it up as gospel. He also wrote a very skewed version of Japanese businessmen preying on innocent Americans...made into a movie with some softening of the racism. But it was just more hate-radio fear slopped into a book and then into a movie. He has as much credibility as the swiftboat vets. In fact, that's exactly the mindset. Wasn't really there. Don't really know the facts. But, hey, for a few bucks I'll write or say whatever the wingnuts want. Truth be damned.

[Bark Bark Bark]

20. That'd be "Disclosure" and "Rising Sun"

Both made into sapheaded movies; "Disclosure" featured Michael Douglas as the victim of Demi Moore (gaaaaahahahahahah) and "Rising Sun" featured Wesley Snipes ('nuff said). Like you said, books and movies alike were trash.

[stanwyck]

23. Thanks, Bark

for filling in the blanks. So people will know which books/movies to avoid. I remember "Disclosure" being a hate-radio topic. The wingnuts were really getting off on the sexual harrassment by Demi idea. Nothing like taking a serious topic and giving it the special "family values" spin of the right. They've also attempted to portray domestic violence as primarily perpetrated by women...only the police reports worked against them.
There is absolutely no issue which can't be taken and mangled toward their purpose. Hate radio flogs it, those who are lazy believe it, and we have to live with the aftermath.

[FULL_METAL_HAT]

2. Crichton Crouches with Tigers and Hides with Dragons...

Andromeda Strain still rings solid both as a book and a movie, but ever since then the author has really been sliding down a slippery slope to the rather obvious point he now is a full shill for the monied class, formenting fear and lathering on the loathing.

Taking his book Congo as an example of craptastic writing, I have to say it was actually WORSE than the movie, which was fantastically crap.

Another example of the "hijacking of science" into the hands of the theocrats.

All the best,
FMH

BTW BBB, there's a nifty tag to use here on DU to create a nice box around excerpt/quotes: simply put the text within

<div class=excerpt> text </div>
(square brackets of course for DU)

[chicagiana]

5. Actually Chricton argues against mixing science and religion ...

Chricton's thesis on "The Science of Consensus" is famous by now. I don't agree with Chricton's conclusions on global warming. But I agree with him 100% on not making scientists into clergyman who interpret a new kind of "faith" for the masses.

Truly I believe the problem is with some of the notions of science. The idea that everything is theory exposes it to notions of quackery. Clearly some things reach a stage when they are incontrivably fact. Those things may be re-interpreted in broader contexts (ie Newtonian Mechanics vs Einsteinian Relativity) but the core notion doesn't change.

To me there is something in between theory and scientific law. It is the area where global warming and evolution lie. These are things that you will probably NEVER be able to prove in a classic sense. They are like murder mysteries. The standard is not experimental, it's Sherlock Holmes. You must show that all other possible explanations do not hold merit.

The beauty of science, unlike religion, is that it doubts itself. Ultimately, the body science will have a difficult time convincing policy makers to make such large sacrifices when they consider their own work merely transitory.

[Killarney]

3. I read the book

I pre-ordered it weeks before it even had a summary, so I didn't know what it was about. I'm a big fan of Crichton--loved Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park, and Timeline (book only).

This book sucked.

He totally jumped the shark. Despite the whole global warming thing, it was still stupid. The bad environmentalists had technology that could replicate weather. They could pinpoint people and kill them with lightning. Cause earthquakes under people's cars. Change the direction of hurricanes. It was fucking dumb. Politics or no politics.

I'm highly disappointed in Crichton.

[nostamj]

6. "Be Aware... They Are Lying To You"

just saw a TV ad for the book on CNN. that was the 'tag' line.

so, he's saying that environmentalists are LYING?

and, isn't that OUR line?

p.s. the man hasn't written anything worth reading in years. the last time I read one, I through it against a wall when I finished and vowed, never ever again.

[October]

12. They always take our lines...it's part of their game plan (eom)

[hatrack]

7. One hack slobbers on another's boots

I can't remember the last time Crichton wrote anything worth reading, and his scientific background (he has a medical degree) doesn't include any formal training in atmospheric physics, climatology, glaciology, oceanography, atmospheric chemistry, botany, biology or any of the other many fields which intersect with the study of climate.

Given that, his scientific authority on rapid climate change, particularly as his opinion directly opposes the opinions of 99.5% of the world's scientists and the results of nearly 20 years of peer-reviewed science is . . . what? The fact that he sells lots of books?

Well fine - and if so, why not just have Tim LaHaye speaking authoritatively on monetary policy, or Dr. Phil laying down the Next Big Thing in paleontology?

In addition to that, Will boldly states that it's nothing but fear-mongering by monied interests. Well, George, what would you call Crichton's stance, considering that he's out pimping the new book which he hopes to sell in large quantities? Selflessness? Altruism? Courage?

[chicagiana]

11. Your last argument could be applied to Michael Moore ...

Is Moore evangalizing or getting rich off "sappy liberals"??? Of course someone wants to pimp his way of thinking. But how do you distinguish harvesting commercial forces vs shameless commercialism???

As far as Chricton's "expertise" in the field, I'm sure he's read a lot about it. I'm sure he gobbles up Scientific American just like us other science fans.

I think the disconnect is that Chricton doesn't believe in the distinction between a producer of science and a consumer of it. And I don't either. To Chricton the argument should be clear enough that a person with reasonable education should be able to comb the material and reach a conclusion.

The idea that "only the climatoligists" can judge is like saying that only priests and reverends can interpret the bible. You reject it out of hand.

Science doesn't need a "clergy" to tell the ignorant rabble what to believe. We need scientists very convinced of their own fallability especially where such complex phenomenon is involved.

We need them to state that while the preponderence of evidence points in a certain direction, their is a definite chance that they are wrong. The risks and costs need to be analyzed.

Many people who have never been burglarized install security systems. Can they prove someone will break into their house??? Of course they can't. But they do it anyway?? Why waste money on something they don't know will happen???

They have run a formula in their head weighing the risk, and cost of their actions. They have found that the risks justify the costs. People do this every day. And perhaps it is paranoid or unjustified.

No one here believes that it's unwise to spend money on port security. Is there a single known case of terrorists smuggling a nuclear device into the country this way ... no. But we know it's a distinct possibility and it's something that will probably be tried. So we erect barriers against this possibility because it's a VERY large risk.

This is NOT a science discussion. It's a discussion about risks and economic security. We cannot PROVE the phenomenon since it happens on such large scale over long periods of time. So we will invariably LOSE an argument on science even though it's on our side!!!

[hatrack]

13. Really, really bad analogy

Moore is using data accessible to anyone to make his political points. Bush and his administration have repeatedly lied and misled on Iraq, on al Qaeda, on terrorism, on tax cuts, on economic policy, on environmental issues and a host of others.

Again and again they have predicted that tax cuts would produce millions of jobs (they haven't), that deficits would be short-term and small (they're long-term and huge), that Iraq had WMDs (they didn't), that invading Iraq would make democracy flower in the desert (it hasn't), that voluntary programs would cut US ghg emissions (they haven't) and on and on and on. These are facts that are out there and obvious to anyone not attached the Fox News IV drip. Time and again, their statements and predictions have been shown to be demonstrably and obviously false.

Beyond that . . .

"As far as Chricton's (sic) "expertise" in the field, I'm sure he's read a lot about it. I'm sure he gobbles up Scientific American just like us other science fans." - I'm sure he does. So, since I read a lot of Scientific American and Discover, does that give me the intellectual standing and believability to make sweeping statements about science and scientists and their work? According to you, yes. Yeah, OK . . .

"I think the disconnect is that Chricton (sic) doesn't believe in the distinction between a producer of science and a consumer of it. And I don't either. To Chricton (sic) the argument should be clear enough that a person with reasonable education should be able to comb the material and reach a conclusion." - So, a reasonably well-educated college sophmore in an organic chem lab should not be distinguished from Wallace, von Neumann or Lavoisier? Fascinating.

"The idea that "only the climatoligists"(sic) can judge is like saying that only priests and reverends can interpret the bible. You reject it out of hand." - Oh really? Maybe you should contact the Pope and the rest of the world's Catholics. They don't reject that idea out of hand. And along those lines, I just can't wait for Colin Quinn's interpretation of "The Feynman Lectures On Physics". I'm sure his interpretation will be just jam-packed with new insights. I guess Rush Limbaugh DOES really know just as much about climate change as Michael Crichton, or me or you. Hell, why study climatology? Just get you a radio show and publish, publish, publish yer scientific studies n' opinions!

"We need them to state that while the preponderence (sic) of evidence points in a certain direction, their is a definite chance that they are wrong. The risks and costs need to be analyzed." - Yes, they've been saying what the preponderance of evidence is for about ten years now. They've been analyzing risks and costs for at least the same length of time. And they've given themselves a wide range of possible outcomes in climate forecasts, from minimal disruption of existing systems to massive collapse and rapid change. Or have you not been paying attention?

"This is NOT a science discussion. It's a discussion about risks and economic security. We cannot PROVE the phenomenon since it happens on such large scale over long periods of time. So we will invariably LOSE an argument on science even though it's on our side!!!" - Well, Crichton's certainly not participating in a science discussion. And if we are doomed to lose the argument on science, despite all the research and all the data, why not say that God told us? Why not say that our pet hedgehog informed us of impending disaster? After all, it's not a science discussion!

:eyes:

[chicagiana]

17. The "god told us" angle isn't bad ...

It's been working for the conservatives for quite some time.

As far as the popes of science go, I think they all know part of their job is communicating the nature of their work. We can all sit down and read the works of Einstein and comprehend the nature of his "stretchy" universe. We can read the nature of the satellite experiment that confirmed General Relativity.

This is what Chricton is looking for. Something that a reasonably educated person can comb through and see all the conclusions that the "science popes" are making.

Yeah, I'm sure the popes and bishops would disagree with my assessment of scripture. And ya know what ... I don't care. Perhaps I believe my version because it pleases me, and I'm sure they hold their view because it ingratiates them.

Climatology is NOT an exact science. They rely VERY heavily on simulation. Well, simulations are only as good as the assumptions that are plugged into them. A simulation is NOT an experiment. The results of any simulation are just a hypothesis.

The bitch is that digging ice cores and simulation are the few metrics available to climatoligists. While I happen to agree with them. I also realize that this is a personal belief, not a fact. It's an inprecise conclusion drawn upon a body of evidence. It's like believing that OJ did or did not kill his wife.

Scientists typically have a stronger basis for belief in the hypotheses they propose. But nonetheless, things unproven are still just beliefs. Failure to understand this is the basis for failure in the political arena.

[Jesus H. Christ]

15. Eaters of the Dead.

Last thing Chrichton wrote that was worth reading. And half of it was a translation that he didn't translate.

[depakid]

19. Micheal Crichton sells books

and a good way to sell books is to create controversy.

George Will is a dishonest psuedo-intellectual. A total phony whose inability to grasp complicated subjects is well recognized and ridiculed in academia. Sheeple read him to try to feel "smart."

But, this is a moot issue for the time being. The federal government will do NOTHING positive on the environmental front for at least 4 years and probably until some catastrophe really does hit. By then of course it will be too late- and ll the talk will shift to "inevitability."

Neither liars like Will nor contributory naysayers like Crichton will ever be held accountable.

[The Revolution]

21. Hey! I like Crichton!

I actually happen to like Crichton's books. He's one of my favorite authors. I like his stories and his style and I'm not afraid to say it! :)

True, some of the newer books haven't been quite as good (I liked "Prey", but it kind of falls apart toward the end). But I'm still getting enjoyment out of reading them, which is the whole point.

I guess that's one of the things I don't like about DU. It seems like every day there's a thread bashing something I like and relating it to right-wingers/stupid people. I don't understand why people can't just let others be and have to insult them for liking a particuar author/tv show/movie/etc. Some people enjoy things that other people don't. Its just the way it is, and doesn't make them inferior or traitors.

This isn't really directed at anyone in particualar, just something that generally annoys me.

P.S. Congo was awesome! (book and movie :))

[Khephra]

22. I'll defend Congo the book as a throwback to old pulp adventures

and in that regard it's a successful book. I enjoyed it quite a bit at the time.

But the movie?

Gak!

Even with the added pleasure of Bruce Campbell being in it, there's no way I can defend that piece of dreck.