Do you think Michael Crichton is credible on global warming or any scientific subject?

Question

Michael Crichton thinks environmentalism is a religion and man-made global warming is bogus. He also says

"I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen" and

"I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it."

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html

Of course, the EPA, National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, British Columbia Cancer Agency, etc. disagree. For proof, see my answer here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvmcUzZN520lOjce9ebp2nLsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080531123342AAX0ea7&show=7#profile-info-VxRUuABEaa

And of course almost all climate scientists disagree with Crichton on global warming. See the 'Consensus' section here: http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global-warming-skepticism

Do you think science fiction writer Crichton is credible on global warming or secondhand smoke or DDT when he disagrees with the experts (and does not support his opinions)?

Answer 1

Think he is a great fiction writer.  I don't think he is a practicing scientist and his statements indicate the he is one person who equates not rejecting a null hypothesis (an ASSUMPTION)  with accepting it as the truth.  This is often a confusing concept for people.   As the data get better, what you ASSUME to be true may be PROVEN false. You can't prove an assumption is true using statistics, only prove it is false.

Answer 2

Michael Crichton is right on both your examples.As far as DDT, it was not claimed to be a carcinogen (everything in large quantities is a carcinogen), it  was the claim of thinning eggs which got it banned. Since that time, millions have dies from diseases which DDT had effectively eradicated. So much so that they are talking about bringing it back (I think they may be allowing limited spraying now).

As for the 2nd hand smoke, 2 major studies were done. Both concluded that 2nd hand smoke was not causing an increase in cancer cases. One of the studies was funded by the American Heart Assoc. When they got the results, they refused to publish them. The cigarette companies ended up publishing the results instead.

As for climate scientist disagreeing with Crichton, well, that is just laughable at it's inaccuracy. Here is where the entire Consensus lie began.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt...

Answer 3

No.

Here's James Hansen's response to Michael Crighton on global warming:

Michael Crichton’s “Scientific Method”

James Hansen

Columbia University Earth Institute and Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Michael Crichton’s latest fictional novel, “State of Fear”, designed to discredit concerns about global warming, purports to use the scientific method. The book is sprinkled with references to scientific papers, and Crichton intones in the introduction that his “footnotes are real”. But does Crichton really use the scientific method? Or is it something closer to scientific fraud?

...continued:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2005/Crich...

Answer 4

Wow.  I never got past the first link with this.

When I googled DDT and carginogen, I found the following two sites:

http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Li...

http://www.malaria.org/DDT_open.html

This gave me a better feel for where Crichton was coming from.  I also found this site:

http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/ext...

This is from Cornell University, a source I've found to be reliable, last source quoted in references is 1991. In it is the following statements:

"The evidence regarding the carcinogenicity of DDT is equivocal."

and

"The available epidemiological evidence regarding DDT's carcinogenicity in humans, when taken as a whole, does not suggest that DDT and its metabolites are carcinogenic in humans at likely dose levels."

So based on that, I'll concede the point to Crichton, as you've presented it.  But what he did was to simplify a complex topic that misrepresents the issue to the uninformed.

And, the assumptions on which he built his general case on environmentalism as religion were flawed.  For example:

"I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society.

and

"What people want is to spend a week or two in a cabin in the woods, with screens on the windows. They want a simplified life for a while, without all their stuff."

Okay, so studying anthropology in college apparently qualifies him to leap off this cliff.  But religion hasn't disappeared, it's still with us, only people aren't all as formal about it as they used to be.  And the initial reasons for the establishment of organized religion, as I see it, was to "control" the masses.  Environmentalism doesn't do this that I can see, not in the same fashion, anyway.  

In the 2nd paragraph I cite, he's right again, to a point.  People are disconnected from nature.  It is only recently I've decided that, from what I've seen, there is a growing sector of the public that is coming to appreciate wilderness and open space more than ever because it has become so precious by it's absence.  As for the cabin comment, yeah, I just did that, but it's because it was too cold to go backpacking that month, and we don't have the right equipment for winter camping.  But I love to go backpacking whenever I can because it's not for everyone, and that's where I can recharge, and find the places where it's hard enough to get to that not everybody does.

To (finally, sorry) answer your question, is he credible?  Yeah, unfortunately, he's got enough credibility to say what he's saying.  Do I agree with it?  No.  And now, having finally paid full attention to what's he been saying, I'm quite bothered by it.  He's in a great position to conduct a dialogue and bring people to the table for a grand discussion, and instead, he choses to polarize the public.  Instead of informing, he's offering opinions but propping them up with flimsy props.  And precisely because of his books, because he is well spoken, he is getting heard.

There are many eloquent spokemen and women for environmentalism.  But many are known only to limited audiences.  I can't think offhand of someone who is universally known and speaks to the world as someone like Crichton is.

Very interesting, all of this.  I think I'll clear my palette by finishing of E.O.Wilson's "Creation" book.  I got busy for a few weeks and never quite finished it.  There's a writer who presents a case eloquently and well, but he's not known to all.  Unfortunately.

Answer 5

Environmentalist can be a religion for some people, but Crichton is wrong if he suggests all people with serious concern for the environment hold that view base on faith.  There is more than enough science (has been for 20 years) to rationally and unequivocally demonstrate that we need to be careful with how we treat the environment because it can have very negative affects on our own lives if we don't.

As for DDT, second hand smoke, global warming, and whatever other subject Crichton has weighed in on, I suspect he's no different than a lot of other people.  He assumes he knows more about a subject than he really does and he doesn't have a sufficiently humble attitude toward real scientists working in the various fields.

Answer 6

He's one of these guys who dabbles in many areas of scientific research.  He's and interesting guy and great at bringing emerging hypotheses to light.   But he has got to where he thinks he knows science as well as the scientists who's work he's trying to understand at an outline level.  He deserves absolutely no credibility in areas of science; I don't understand why someone would even ask him to speak other than on story telling or on his processes to study his novels.

btw, the reason DDT was banned was not that it was a cacinogen.  It caused the California Condor's shells to be too thin.  And also btw, the Condor has made a comeback since DDT was banned.

Answer 7

Ok.....I may sound a little silly here, but.....

who the heck is Michael Crichton and why should I care what he thinks about global warming????

He sounds like a real hard head!  Does he go by the name of "Dr. Jello" on yahoo?

Answer 8

He is a credible author, that means he does research the subject matter he is going to write about.  Is he a  scientist? no, and he does not claim to be one.

Answer 9

I think he has an interesting opinion on the psychology of extreme environmentalism.  I don't think he's a scientific expert by any means.

I also think this question is perpetuating the off-topic discussion.  Why can't we stick to the science of global warming?