Posted: 02/03/2005 | Author: S. Fred Singer
The Real Fear About Global Warming
More Than Lack of Science, It’s Claimed Consensus That Frightens.
If Michael Crichton’s new novel, “State of Fear,” did nothing more than to have policy makers, and especially the media, dismiss the horror movie, “The Day After Tomorrow,” as environmental fantasy, it might judged a success. But it does so much more.
While “The Day After Tomorrow” was a box-office flop based on a questionable premise and little science, Crichton’s novel is thoroughly researched and heavily documented. Crichton accuses the worldwide environmental movement of seizing the global warming argument to prey on the fears of fellow citizens simply because it pays to do so.
He documents the lack of science behind the fear-mongering with charts, graphs and numerous references in a way that’s oddly reassuring for a novel. His disarmingly straightforward message is this: Proof for human-caused global warming doesn’t exist. For example:
- Climate has never been constant, and always is either warming or cooling independent of human influence.
- Pre-1940 warming was both real and natural, a recovery from the preceding “Little Ice Age” that terminated around 1850.
- The observed cooling from 1940 to 1975 shows the greenhouse effect to be unimportant.
- Weather balloons and satellites that cover the entire globe and are not contaminated by urban effects report insignificant warming over the past 25 years.
Media reports I’ve seen about “State of Fear,” especially from ABC, CNN, BBC and The New York Times, dismiss Crichton’s book as fiction, ignoring his pedigree as a scientist – and his M.D. from Harvard Medical School. And there is a great deal of scientific evidence supporting claims made in “State of Fear.”
To cite just one example, current warming is well below even the lowest limits given by the U.N. – appointed climate science panel. In fact, the real villain is “consensus” science. “If it’s consensus,” says Crichton, “then it isn’t science.” Tellingly, he points out that critics of consensus and skeptics of global warming tend mainly to be retired academics – and others who no longer compete for lucrative research grants and career- building honors.
I suspect that Crichton is motivated by the same anger as many of us who do not want to see science misused for political purposes or to gain grants from government or foundations. And even though Crichton eschews mixing politics and science, we can only hope that members of Congress will read “State of Fear” and heed its message.
Crichton claims that everyone has an agenda except him. Almost correct. Many hundreds of other scientific skeptics, who signed the Heidelberg Appeal, Leipzig Declaration, and Oregon Petition, also agree.