« Real, Reputable Scientists Dissent on Global Warming | Main | The Museum of Hoaxes »
March 1, 2007
How the Media Gets Global Catastrophes Wrong
think it's worth your time to go to Michael Crichton's speeches web site and read the second item down, "Fear, Complexity, & Environmental Management in the 21st Century" in which he describes what happened when he went looking for the facts behind the greatest global catastrophes, particularly Chernobyl.
Some of you know I have written a book that many people find controversial. It is called State of Fear, and I want to tell you how I came to write it. Because up until five years ago, I had very conventional ideas about the environment and the success of the environmental movement.The book really began in 1998, when I set out to write a novel about a global disaster. In the course of my preparation, I rather casually reviewed what had happened in Chernobyl, since that was the worst manmade disaster in recent times that I knew about.
What I discovered stunned me. Chernobyl was a tragic event, but nothing remotely close to the global catastrophe I imagined. About 50 people had died in Chernobyl, roughly the number of Americans that die every day in traffic accidents. I don’t mean to be gruesome, but it was a setback for me. You can’t write a novel about a global disaster in which only 50 people die.
Undaunted, I began to research other kinds of disasters that might fulfill my novelistic requirements. That’s when I began to realize how big our planet really is, and how resilient its systems seem to be. Even though I wanted to create a fictional catastrophe of global proportions, I found it hard to come up with a credible example. In the end, I set the book aside, and wrote Prey instead.
But the shock that I had experienced reverberated within me for a while. Because what I had been led to believe about Chernobyl was not merely wrong—it was astonishingly wrong. Let’s review the data.
Check the whole thing out. More confirmation that the environmentally apocalyptic mindset surrounding Global Warming is a crock. Crichton does a fantastic job of explaining the nature of "complex systems" and why the earth is such a system, and whenever humans get involved trying to change a complex system thinking it is merely a linear system (do this with that result) they actually screw it up.
Priceless writing.
Also, be sure to read the next transcript of "Testimony of Michael Crichton before the United States Senate".
[I]n 1998-99 the American climate researcher Michael Mann and his co-workers published an estimate of global temperatures from the year 1000 to 1980. Mann's results appeared to show a spike in recent temperatures that was unprecedented in the last thousand years. His alarming report formed the centerpiece of the U.N.'s Third Assessment Report, in 2001.Mann's work was immediately criticized because it didn't show the well-known Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures were warmer than they are today, or the Little Ice Age that began around 1500, when the climate was colder than today. But real fireworks began when two Canadian researchers, McIntyre and McKitrick, attempted to replicate Mann's study. They found grave errors in the work, which they detailed in 2003: calculation errors, data used twice, data filled in, and a computer program that generated a hockeystick out of any data fed to it-even random data. Mann's work has since been dismissed by scientists around the world who subscribe to global warning.
Why did the UN accept Mann's report so uncritically? Why didn't they catch the errors? Because the IPCC doesn't do independent verification. And perhaps because Mann himself was in charge of the section of the report that included his work.
“I’ve seen a heap of trouble in my life, and most of it never came to pass.” Mark Twain
Posted by witnit at March 1, 2007 8:58 AM
