From the "You Can't Make This Stuff Up" File

[Viking12]

This Wednesday, the Senate Environment Committee is holding a hearing on global warming.

The lead witness? Michael Crichton.

9:30 a.m.
Environment and Public Works
To hold hearings to examine the role of science
in environmental policy making.

H/T gristmill.org

[ET Awful]

1. You have GOT to be shitting me.

I mean . . . some of his older books were okay (Airframe was cool, as was Sphere), but . . . that's like having Frank Herbert testify about biological warfare since he wrote "The White Plague".

[Viking12]

3. I wish I were kidding....

Unfortunately, EPW Committee Chair Inhofe (RightWingNut-OK) believes Crichton is a scientist :eyes: With "leadership" like that, it's no wonder we're circling the drain....

[Blue_Tires]

22. Inhofe is a pure nutbar

i once had a chance to speak to someone close to the EPW Cmte, and this person said Inhofe is convinved that climate change is one big con

[rasputin1952]

2. "Examine the role of science in env. policy making"..... What else do they

expect? :shrug:

These people are too far off the deep end to figure out that science is the answer to environmental problems...:wtf: is the matter w/these people? Do they really expect the Hand of God to come down w/an aneglic version of Maids on Call to clean up what humans have done to the planet? These people are as close to insane as anything we've ever had in gov't.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. It figures that BushCO would have a FICTION writer as a lead witness.

edited for typos...as usual

[Lerkfish]

8. Actually, I believe he's a physician, STILL unqualified, but a bit more

than just a fiction writer.

[Dogmudgeon]

9. Well, if he's a DOCTOR, he MUST be qualified!

Yep, Dr. Crichton, and Dr. Frist, Dr. Laura, and Dr. Ron Paul all agree, with only Dr. Dean dissenting.

Don't you know that whether it has to do with medicine, the environment, ham radio, or the purchase of municipal bonds, that Physicians are superbly qualified to speak on any and every subject?

:eyes:

You'll have to excuse my cynicism. I am from Philadelphia, the most over-doctored area in the world, and I've even worked for a few of them in my life. And damn near every one is a Republican.

--p!

[Lerkfish]

10. did you even READ my post before going off on it?

I said "still not qualified".

what part of that went over your head?

[Dogmudgeon]

12. Taking it a little personally, aren't you?

My target was the same as yours -- Doctor Michael Crichton.

Sorry if you took it as a personal attack, but although I don't claim to be 100% accurate, I still thought I was making a pretty clear point.

--p!

[Lerkfish]

16. LOL, well, you responded directly to my post,

and seemed to be making a sarcsastic attack against people think doctors are automatically qualified.


hm.

why would I take that personallly?

passive aggressive, much?

[Dogmudgeon]

18. I'm busted!

Yes, I follow you around and make oblique attacks on you, just to get you to make other snarky remarks in return.

Unless you're a young physician, I fail to see how that misfire of a post of mine was a soul-stomping assault -- especially since you seem to have understood it was about the "Dr. God" syndrome.

No, I'm not really all that passive-aggressive. But you might want to reflect on that "LOL".

--p!

[Viking12]

11. Not necessarily germaine to your post but....

Dr. Laura is not a physician, psychologist, nor a psychiatrist. Dr. Laura's degree is a doctorate in physiology.

[Dogmudgeon]

13. Yes, indeed, she isn't

Isn't a physician, that is.

Neither was Dr. Seuss. But some people think that if the person uses "Doctor" as a title, it means that the person is an expert. Which may be true in a limited sense, but as we see with "Dr. Laura", the claim to title is bogus.

I'm amused by the intellectual gravitas people ascribe to "Doctors" of any sort. Ironically, most of the better physicians I've known dislike all the titles and honorifics, but it seems that those who dedicate their lives to their science/art/craft/discipline don't care much about the social fringe benefits.

(Incidentally, my post appears to have been taken more seriously than I intended it. I shall have to recalibrate my rants ... it has become so difficult to keep up with real-world events! :) )

--p!

[Viking12]

14. For what it's worth, I'm a doctor too

PhD and quite proud of it. However, as you've pointed out, the title doesn't allow me to speak authoritatively on any and every subject.

[kestrel91316]

17. To some people, doctors are demigods.

I happen to think many, if not most, physicians are nowhere near as intelligent and informed as we veterinarians.

Maybe it's just my bias. But there you have it.

[htuttle]

26. No way

I'm almost certain that where I live, Madison, WI, is the most over-doctored area in the world. We have at least two driving taxis here in town, among other things.

[highplainsdem]

24. Dems should ask him about his NON-fiction book, TRAVELS, & spoon-bending,

talking to a cactus, channeling, having his aura fluffed, etc. That might put his "scientific" opinion that global warming is a hoax into perspective, since he took the spoon-bending, etc., quite seriously.

It's been many years since I skimmed through TRAVELS, but I found a review of it online in a newsletter of The North Texas Skeptics, at http://www.ntskeptics.org/1989/1989januaryfebruary/januaryfebruary1989.htm . The review of Crichton's book is about halfway down the page. The section after that, "Questions that Left Michael Crichton Speechless," is worth reading, too.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

5. But... but.... he writes FICTION n/t

[chelsea0011]

6. And the egomaniac excepted the invitation to discuss global warming?

That's the killer for me. Did they get Elizabeth Taylor in the discussions leading up the the "Defense of Marriage Act"?

[txaslftist]

7. Eliz. Taylor...Rotflmao. You gotta warn a guy....

[gulfcoastliberal]

15. OMFG - what a sham! Two words: AL GORE!

What a crock of shit - Michael Crichton - dumbass.

[Viking12]

19. Streaming audio live at 9:30 eastern

http://capitolhearings.org/

[Viking12]

20. As expected, nothing worthwhile

There were good opening statements from Senators Jeffords, Boxer, and Clinton. Boxer took the opportunity to question why the Environment committee would devote time to "the arts"; it was a pretty funny shot.

Crichton provided nothing more than the usual schtick about the "hockey stick" and "independent verification." Yawn.

[blindpig]

21. seems like every week we reach a new low...

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[tex-wyo-dem]

23. A little on what Crichton has been up to besides writing...

Outside Magazine (May 2005):

http://outside.away.com/outside/features/200505/counter...

Earth Shakers: The Counter-Enviro Power List
With "the death of environmentalism" being debated across the land—and with the mainstream movement under siege from without and within—it's time to meet the winning side in America's new green wars. Here they come, ready or not: the 20 most powerful voices leading the environmental counterrevolution.

<snip>

Michael Crichton:

The 62-year-old author of stunningly successful novels like Jurassic Park, Crichton is a master at using science as a springboard for blockbusters, which is one of the reasons environmentalists have been so distressed by his latest bestseller, State of Fear. Weighing in at 603 pages, the novel is a relentless diatribe against the environmental movement, featuring nefarious, grant-hungry greenies who conspire to create deadly natural disasters just to fool the world into believing that global warming is a threat. To reinforce his view that climate-change theories are hokum, Crichton laced the book with graphs, appendixes, and footnotes from scientific journals.

A number of scientists have charged that Crichton often misinterprets data, cites questionable studies, and overlooks the consensus of the overwhelming majority of climatologists: that global warming is a serious threat. Several leading authorities—including NASA climatologist James Hansen and NYU physics professor Martin Hoffert—have said Crichton distorted their research in his work. "Crichton is not a scientist, who would examine evidence evenhandedly to get at the truth," Hansen says. "He is a scientific fraud and a charlatan."

The flak didn't stop more than 570,000 Americans from buying State of Fear—and perhaps buying its message as well—in its first three months. As one Amazon.com online reviewer notes, "You can laboriously read tomes on the science or you can give yourself a break and read Crichton to get enough to fortify or enlighten the non-scientific mind."

SOUND BITE: In a 2003 speech in San Francisco, Crichton called environmentalism "the religion of choice for urban atheists."

NEXT UP: Though the Chicago-born Crichton is not a scientist—he graduated from Harvard Medical School but never practiced—he now lectures about "Science Policy in the 21st Century" before influential outfits like the National Press Club. His thrust: decrying the poor quality of research on which environmental policy is based.

<snip>

[highplainsdem]

25. Thanks! But that link doesn't work (incomplete); here's the correct one:

http://outside.away.com/outside/features/200505/counter-enviroment-power-list-1.html

[Viking12]

27. RealClimate responds.....

Today we witnessed a rather curious event in the US Senate. Possibly for the first time ever, a chair of a Senate committee, one Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), invited a science fiction writer to advise the committee (Environment and Public Works), on science facts--in this case, the facts behind climate change. The author in question? None other than our old friend, Michael Crichton whom we've had reason to mention before (see here and here). The committee's ranking member, Senator James Jeffords (I) of Vermont, was clearly not impressed. Joining Crichton on climate change issues was William Gray of hurricane forecasting fame, Richard Benedick (a negotiator on the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting chemicals), and David Sandalow (Brookings Institution). As might be expected, we paid a fair bit of attention to the scientific (and not-so-scientific) points made.

Many of the 'usual suspects' of half-truths and red herrings were put forth variously by Crichton, Gray, and Inhofe over the course of the hearing:

the claim that scientists were proclaiming an imminent ice age in the 1970s (no, they weren't),
the claim that the 1940s to 1970s cooling in the northern hemisphere disproves global warming (no, it doesn't),
the claim that important pieces of the science have not been independently reproduced (yes, they have),
the claim that global climate models can't reproduce past climate change (yes, they can)
the claim that climate can't be predicted because weather is chaotic (wrong...)
and so on.

-more-(with a fully linked analysis)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=188