What do you think of this speech?

Question

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

Answer 1

To be blunt, I think it's dumb and utterly lacking in scientific content.  But then, that's pretty much Crichton's MO.  The few scientific claims he makes (i.e. DDT and secondhand smoke don't cause cancer) are simply wrong.  

Crichton: "I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen"

US EPA: "Classification — B2; probable human carcinogen."

http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0147.htm#w...

National Cancer Institute: "found a clear link between testicular cancer and DDE, which is created when the body or the environment breaks down the pesticide DDT."

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/...

British Columbia Cancer Agency: "Six pesticide analytes also showed a significant association with [non-Hodgkin lymphoma]...p,p-DDE..."

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journ...

Crichton: "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."

US EPA: "Secondhand smoke is classified as a "known human carcinogen" (cancer-causing agent)"

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/conten...

National Cancer Institute: "Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults"

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/facts...

American Cancer Society: "Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds. More than 60 of these are known or suspected to cause cancer."

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/conten...

He's good at fiction, good at entertainment, but very weak on science.

Answer 2

He definitely has a point.  GW on Y!A is a prime example of people stubbornly sticking to their beliefs, rather than weighing the real scientific evidence, on both sides of the issue.  It's a lot like creationism.

Answer 3

boooo global warming

hoooray beeerr!

Answer 4

Environmentalism is more about 'carbon credits' and false data that is used to jusitfy the claims for climate change and global warming.   You know that there is a fanaticism because the supporters of the IPCC are generally the same crowd that are for other 'causes'.

In otherwords,   the amens chorused by the environmentalist bunch are not much different than those in a christian or muslim cult.  They do not preach tolerance,   but only see things in black and white and suggestions or alternatives are an apostasy.

In the end,  they hate religion but have their own and resent a person calling them out on that.  A person or an agency can use whatever models they want to justify their religion (pseudo-science) and you better not disagree.

They will shout down Dr. William Gray by saying he is over the hill or senile.   This being done by a teenager.   It is very sad and indicative or the morass that our society finds itself in.

We have people lying on here about their credentials,  just to justify their position, re: Man-made global warming.  But even the real science community has their frauds.  Meteorologists and other scientists who are too lazy to question the fuzzy sciences being used....

Crichtons' comments were right on target...    Religion is religion whether it is church-based or so-called science-based.

Master of science my axx.   you are lying and neither of you are smart enough to debate.

Answer 5

That one is almost as offensive as the one in which he compares global warming to eugenics:

Why Politicized Science is Dangerous

(Excerpted from State of Fear)

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-sta...

In my opinion the guy seems dangerously creepy.

Answer 6

First, we need an environmental movement, and such a movement is not very effective if it is conducted as a religion. We know from history that religions tend to kill people, and environmentalism has already killed somewhere between 10-30 million people since the 1970s. It's not a good record. Environmentalism needs to be absolutely based in objective and verifiable science, it needs to be rational, and it needs to be flexible. And it needs to be apolitical. To mix environmental concerns with the frantic fantasies that people have about one political party or another is to miss the cold truth---that there is very little difference between the parties, except a difference in pandering rhetoric. The effort to promote effective legislation for the environment is not helped by thinking that the Democrats will save us and the Republicans won't. Political history is more complicated than that. Never forget which president started the EPA: Richard Nixon. And never forget which president sold federal oil leases, allowing oil drilling in Santa Barbara: Lyndon Johnson. So get politics out of your thinking about the environment.

I thought this was a interesting and pretty solid statement. I think it would be foolish to dismiss the speech, he made some valid points, environmental measures need to be in the realm of hard science.   I can say this, having been a hand cutter he is correct about the dangers of the natural world some like to romanticize,  I prefer to respect nature.

Answer 7

Crichton has been right on many of his statements. The funny thing is he generally just says what the real scientific studies have shown. For example, 2nd hand smoke has been shown to NOT cause cancer (in scientifically meaningful amounts). And, DDT is NOT a carcinogen (scientifically all things are carcinogens in large enough quantities). Since it's ban, millions have died. So many have finally died that they are planning to bring back DDT.

What you will find in most of these cases is that the media promotes an agenda without the scientific studies bing completed. So by the time the scientist complete the studies, the media has already distorted the truth so badly that even the studies can not bring around most people to the truth.

I suggest reading http://www.amazon.com/But-True-Citizens-...

Very informative look at how the environmental scares of history are often fueled not by facts, but by the media and scare tactics. Much like the global warming garbage.

Answer 8

It says nothing.  He makes up straw men and attacks them.  He does not cite a belief or quote of a single real person.  Then he gets into using science to disprove science -- showing a very disappointing misunderstanding of the scientific process from a guy who sells himself as a student of science.