http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/books/29cric.html?ex=1285646400&en=34deb5fa8e399858&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss(may require registration, hence quoted)
This is ludicrous, really. Particularly the bold bits. (observations in red)
[q]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 - His last book, "State of Fear," was published more than nine months ago, but the reviews were still pouring in on Wednesday, even as Michael Crichton folded his 6-foot-9-inch frame into a seat to testify before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
A novel that casts doubt on scientific theories of global warming.
"More silly than scary," the flier dropped off by the Natural Resources Defense Council said.
"Notable mainly for its nuttiness," an analysis from the Brookings Institution said.
"Does not reflect scientific fact," the Union of Concerned Scientists said.
For all his previous works as a writer (13 novels, 4 nonfiction books, numerous screenplays) and his prominent career in Hollywood as a writer, producer or director of 13 films and as the creator of the popular television series "ER," little has yanked Mr. Crichton so deeply into political controversy as "State of Fear," an environmental thriller that casts doubt on the widely held notion that human activities contribute to global warming.
It has become a hugely divisive policy issue in recent years, gaining a new urgency, perhaps, by the recent hurricanes that slammed into the Gulf Coast. Many prominent scientists, no friends of Mr. Crichton, to be sure, believe that man-made greenhouse gases are causing the earth to warm and are urging lawmakers to pass new regulations that govern carbon dioxide emissions.
But after considerable study of his own, leading to "State of Fear," Mr. Crichton has concluded that the science is mixed at best, and that lawmakers should take that into consideration when they decide what they might do about it.
His is an unpopular and contrary stance when measured against the judgment of groups like the National Academy of Sciences. But it was not those organizations that asked Mr. Crichton to Washington to counsel Congress on how to consider diverse scientific opinion when making policy. It was
the committee chairman, Senator James M. Inhofe, a plainspoken Oklahoma Republican who has unabashedly pronounced global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."Nice to have an unbiased opinion to head a committee, eh?In Mr. Crichton, a Harvard medical school graduate who never practiced medicine, he had found a kindred spirit - and a star witness for his committee.
"I'm excited about this hearing," Mr. Inhofe said, nodding toward Mr. Crichton as the proceedings began.
"I think I've read most of his books; I think I've read them all. I enjoyed most 'State of Fear' and made it required reading for this committee."So of all the myriad scientific studies, textbooks, etc, what gets set as a required reading? A fictional novel. From someone who isn't even qualified in the field.Over the next two hours, Mr. Crichton and four other witnesses offered their thoughts, Mr. Crichton hewing to his firm belief that lawmakers should examine more closely "whether the methodology of climate science is sufficiently rigorous to yield a reliable result."
He took notes. He raised his hand to make points. He responded to criticism evenly and never lost composure. But it seemed like a lot less fun than winning an Emmy, as he did for "ER," or a citation as one of the "50 Most Beautiful People," as People magazine ranked him in 1992. And all he could do was sit there quietly, as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton scolded him for views that "muddy the issues around sound science" and Senator Barbara Boxer said, "I think we have to focus on facts, not fiction."
In an interview later, Mr. Crichton said with a pained expression: "Comfortable with this? I'm very uncomfortable. Who wants this?"
Several of his previous books led to national debates and criticism, he said, recalling "Rising Sun," a murder mystery that suggests that Japan is economically devouring the United States, and "Disclosure," which examines sexual harassment when a woman is the predator. Both became popular movies.
"But this has been worse," he said of the aftermath of "State of Fear."
Still, he retains enough of his scientific background to thrust himself into the debate, insisting that the environmental movement "did a fabulous job in the first 10 years, a pretty good job in the second 10 years and a lousy job in the last 10 years."
As a result, he said,
its influence on policy needs to be reined in, at least until alternative views are given equal airing and fair consideration by independent reviewers. Only then, he said, can policy makers make informed decisions.
I feel obliged to point out he's talking about global warming here. God knows what converse reality he's living in...But he never figured that he would be offering lawmakers an opinion on how they should legislate. His years of writing have taken on a pattern, he said. Research. Write. Move on.
"When I'm finished, I'm done," he said. Except when he's not, which is the case with "State of Fear." But that may not be true for his next book, which is almost complete. "It's extremely uncontroversial," he said, offering no details.
And even though the global warming debate endures, it's not likely that "State of Fear" will, beyond the book. "No studio has optioned it," he said, insisting: "It'll never be made. It's way too red hot."
[/q]
I actually own a few of his books. what I've found out is that a) they always use the same story (man creates/finds high tech thing, hi tech thing destroys man, man destroys hi tech thing) and b) very rarely are they factually accurate or sensible.
I'm not sure exactly how to quantify how...bizarre this whole situation here is. A novellist without and qualification being invited to give scientific opinion? Out of all the people in the world who could have been invited? I'm literally speechless.
