Michael Crichton: “Aliens Cause Global Warming”
Recently, my attention was directed to a speech by Michael Crichton, given at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, California, on January 17, 2003. I was told that, while this speech contained some of the usual fallacious skeptical arguments, there were also somewhat convincing ones. So, I’ve given it a read, and I’d like to address Crichton’s arguments.
In his lecture, Crichton spoke against “pseudoscience” and against science being too closely linked with politics. Crichton then provides several examples of what he considers to be bad science being accepted by the scientific community and the public. He starts with the SETI project, which he considers to be a “religion”, saying that it opened the door for other “pernicious garbage”. Next, he tackles previous claims about a nuclear winter, second-hand smoke, and computer models, all of which he claims were foolish. Having established, in his mind anyways, that all of these previous examples were false, he then correlates the acceptance of these to the acceptance of global warming and provides his own remedy for the problem, which is separating each of the phases of scientific research, so as to avoid corruption of the process.
Crichton approaches this subject as though it were a trial in which humanity were being charged with causing global warming. If this were the case, he would make a great defense attorney, because he provides plenty of doubt. However, I think the case should be turned around. It is the overwhelming majority of the world’s climate scientists whose work he is attacking who are on the defense. Therefore, Crichton is required to provide some detailed scientific arguments against the work of these scientists, which he has failed to do. At one point, he actually admits that he does not intend to do so:
And so, in this elastic anything-goes world where science or non-science is the hand maiden of questionable public policy, we arrive at last at global warming. It is not my purpose here to rehash the details of this more magnificent of the demons haunting the world. I would just remind you of the now-familiar pattern by which these things are established.
I find it unfortunate that he decided to abandon the only method by which he could truly convince the world of his argument. Regardless of Crichton’s lack of any substantive scientific argument, I would still like to address many of the assertions made in his speech, as I believe that they are many times not grounded in fact.
Crichton’s first target is the SETI program. He starts with an introduction of the Drake equation, which can be used to estimate the number of planets in the universe that have intelligent life. He then ties this equation to the very acceptance of the SETI program, saying that it “gave SETI a serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry.” Then, Crichton dismisses the equation and consequently the entire program upon which it is supposedly based, saying that “the Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science”. According to Wikipedia, supporters of SETI have responded to these claims:
In response, SETI advocates note, among other things, that the existence of intelligent life on Earth is a plausible reason to expect it elsewhere, and that individual SETI projects have clearly defined “stop” conditions. Concerning the latter argument, the justification for SETI projects doesn’t necessarily require an acceptance of the Drake equation. In addition it should be noted that the Drake equation by itself is not an hypothesis and hence it is not even supposed to be testable. The equation can serve as a tool in formulating testable hypotheses.
The search for extra-terrestrial intelligence is not an assertion that extra-terrestrial intelligence exists, and conflating the two can be seen as a straw man argument.
And indeed this argument is a straw man. Crichton sets it up perfectly by tying the very acceptance of SETI projects in the scientific community to a single equation. Then, he can dismiss the entire program by showing that the equation “cannot be tested”, even though it is not meant to be an hypothesis by itself.
Next, Crichton moves on to the topic of Nuclear Winter. Here, he explains the chronology of thinking on the subject, which supposedly peaked in 1983 with the TTAPS report, which, according to Crichton, stated that a “limited 5,000 megaton exchange would cause a global temperature drop of more than 35 degrees Centigrade, and this change would last for three months”. Before I move on, I’d like to mention one thing that Crichton has not, which is that in 1990, a corrected version of the TTAPS report was released, lowering its previous projections:
For the most likely soot injections from a full-scale nuclear exchange, three-dimensional climate simulations yield midsummer land temperature decreases that average 10 degrees to 20 degrees C in northern mid-latitudes, with local cooling as large as 35 degrees C, and subfreezing summer temperatures in some regions.
Crichton then compares this finding to two irrelevant phenomena - volcanic eruptions and ice ages:
The greatest volcanic eruptions that we know of changed the world temperatures somewhere between 0.5 and 2 degrees Centigrade. Ice ages changed global temperatures by 10 degrees. Here we have an estimated change three times greater than any ice age. One might expect it to be the subject of some dispute.
Now, don’t get me wrong. These are valid in the sense that they are events that have also changed global mean temperatures, but they are not valid comparisons in terms of scale. Some of our greatest volcanic eruptions, like those of Krakatoa and Pinatubo, released large amounts of aerosols into the atmosphere from one location. Ice ages are a completely different case altogether, as they are caused by Milankovitch Cycles. However, a “5,000 megaton nuclear exchange” would involve enough nuclear bombs to destroy about 1,000 cities, meaning there would be widespread destruction, debris and burning man-made products. Targets could include sensitive sites such as oil refineries, which would produce even more smoke and debris. So, while volcanoes and ice ages resulted in global temperature changes, a nuclear war would be a different phenomenon.
If Crichton is not satisfied with the results of the TTAPS report, I would suggest that he actually reference a study that has been performed since, which estimates a much lower temperature change due to nuclear war. To my knowledge, there is not one. Better yet, he could perform his own study and publish it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. I guess that would be much more difficult than simply making invalid comparisons and taking pot shots at Sagan about his predictions involving the fires from oil fields in Kuwait during the first Gulf War, which he has since acknowledged as erroneous.
Next, Crichton takes on the concept of scientific consensus. In this area, I think he demonstrates that he does not know the first thing about either climate science or the IPCC’s processes:
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus in science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
Crichton’s scenario only works if you accept the underlying assumption, which is that the science on which a consensus is claimed is complete and total bunk. In that case, the claim of consensus would indeed be meaningless, as it is an empty claim, not rooted in scientific research. This, however, is not the case. The purpose of the IPCC is in fact to establish the state of climate science every few years, which requires thousands of participants, many of them climate scientists, who examine the findings of all relevant research on climate change since the previous report. Therefore, the claims of consensus are, in fact, based solely on published scientific research. In this instance, then, consensus does not simply describe the feelings or thoughts of anyone, but rather describes the agreement among the conclusions of published scientific research. Consensus is a concept that many skeptics disagree with, but as I’ve posted before, it actually means the opposite of what they would have us think.
The next topic of discussion in this list of supposed examples of bad science is second-hand smoke. In the 1990’s, the EPA classified second-hand smoke as a Class A Carcinogen. Crichton disagrees with this decision, calling it “fraudulent science”. However, the only evidence he provides to back up his claim is the decision of a Federal judge:
In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had “committed to a conclusion before research had begun”, and had “disregarded information and made findings on selective information.” The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: “We stand by our science… there’s wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings…a whole host of health problems.” Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn’t even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It’s the consensus of the American people.
Actually, Browner’s comment about the American people was just an aside. Her comment on “wide agreement” was directed at the scientific review they underwent before releasing their report:
Eighteen well-respected scientists looked at it, agreed with the conclusion it is EPA reached. The judge simply made a procedural ruling.
[…]
…we undertook a comprehensive review, 31 independent scientific studies were reviewed, 18 scientists from outside of EPA looked at the conclusions, the weight of the evidence, and they all unanimously agreed that second-hand tobacco smoke brings with it real health problems.
[…]
What [Judge Osteen] essentially said is that industry, that R.J. Reynolds should have sat at the table to review the science. And we don’t agree with that. We think independent scientists — as we did — are the appropriate people to review a body of scientific evidence.
Also interesting to note is the fact that before Judge William Osteen was a federal judge, he was a lobbyist for the tobacco industry. So here, you have a former tobacco lobbyist ruling in favor of the tobacco industry, despite scientific evidence supporting the EPA’s decision. Another fact that Crichton failed to mention was that one year before he gave his speech, the case was overturned:
Osteen’s decision was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 2002 on the technical grounds that the report was not a reviewable agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, and the EPA classification of tobacco was ultimately left intact.
Moving on, we finally get to the subject of global warming, where Crichton offers up a question to which I would like to respond:
When did “skeptic” become a dirty word in science?
First of all, “skeptic” is not a dirty word, at least it’s not meant to be when I use it. Skepticism is very healthy in science, and any scientist will say the same. However, there is a huge difference between a healthy skepticism, which allows one to carefully examine the evidence before accepting a theory, and blatant denial, even in the face of overwhelming mountains of evidence supporting a particular theory. It is this latter category into which Crichton and others have strayed, refusing to acknowledge what is right under their noses.
Next, Crichton discusses his distrust of computer models and the general idea that we might be able to predict the future of our climate. One particular argument he made jumped out at me as a perfect example of his complete lack of understanding, even on an elementary level, of climate science - the difference between climate and weather:
Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked to believe a prediction that goes our 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?
As I’ve posted before, climate and weather are very different, in terms of predictability. Weather is extremely variable over short periods of time, whereas climate is a collection of the weather in a given location over much longer periods of time, making long term predictions much more reasonable. Besides, the IPCC does not provide magical predictions of exactly this or that temperature by 2100. It provides six different scenarios, each based on different assumptions of population growth and energy consumption, among other factors. These scenarios result in projections from just a little over 1 deg C to over 6 deg C by 2100. This then provides policy makers with the necessary tools to make decisions on climate change.
Crichton then proceeds with progressively more deceiving arguments against predicting the future of our climate, the first of which is an analogy of a stock purchase:
Look: If I was selling stock in a company that I told you would be profitable in 2100, would you buy it? Or would you think the idea was so crazy that it must be a scam?
I, for one, would definitely think it was a scam. However, this is not a valid analogy. The company in question would most likely not have 650,000 years worth of proxy data or decades of scientific research available in order to determine whether it might succeed. To say the two situations are different would be a bit of an understatement.
Probably his most deceptive argument against our ability to predict the future of our climate comes in the form of a list of technological advances that came about in the last century. After going through a long list of these advances, Crichton again concludes that prediction is impossible:
You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it’s even worth thinking about. Our models carry the present into the future. They’re bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives it a moment’s thought knows it.
Now, I must admit that, after only “a moment’s thought”, I agreed with him. This soon changed once I devoted more than a moment to it. That’s when I realized that climate scientists aren’t attempting to predict “the world of 2100?. It is not necessary to predict each and every technological advance over the next century in order to be able to predict the climate change over that period of time, which is all climate scientists are trying to do. Interestingly enough, increasing technology in many cases equals increasing energy consumption. Many of the items on Crichton’s list of advancements have contributed greatly to the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in our atmosphere. All climate scientists need to know is population projections, energy consumption, types of energy used, and possibly levels of environmental awareness. This is by no means an issue that is so incredibly unknowable that it should not even be attempted. To make this case is completely absurd and, quite possibly, based on a lack of understanding of the intent and purpose of the IPCC’s climate change projections scenarios.
In another attempt to undermine climate modelers, Crichton attacks their previous population projections:
In 1990, climate modelers anticipated a world population of 11 billion by 2100. Today, some people think the correct number will be 7 billion and falling. But nobody knows for sure.
First of all, of course nobody knows for sure. It’s a projection, not a soothsaying. Second, whenever I see someone use phrases like “some people think”, red flags start to go up. In this case, I looked up population projections on Wikipedia, and found that, while they only go to 2050, most methods still anticipate about 9 billion by that year, so I’m not sure who is predicting 7 billion 50 years later, but they seem to be going against the grain there. Is anyone else noticing a trend of lackluster arguments here? I find it astonishing, considering the point here is supposed to be to defend the sanctity of science.
Crichton then repeats yet another common skeptical argument about how words were changed in the 1995 IPCC report to make it more alarmist:
The 1995 IPCC draft report said, “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.” It also said, “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes.” Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate.”
These claims were first advanced in an article in the Wall Street Journal, written by a skeptic named Frederick Seitz. In response, the Lead Convening Author on the Chapter of the IPCC Report in question, Ben Santer, wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal, which was also signed by 40 other scientists who were involved with the same IPCC report. Santer’s letter was a scathing rebuke of Seitz:
The pre- and post-Madrid versions of the chapter are equally cautious in their statements. Uncertainties have not been suppressed. Roughly 20% of Chapter 8 is devoted to the discussion of uncertainties in estimates of natural climate variability and the expected “signal” due to human activities.
The deletions quoted by Seitz relate to the difficulties involved in attributing climate change to the specific cause of human activities, and to uncertainties in estimates of natural climate variability. These issues are dealt with at great length in the published chapter. The basic content of these particular sentences has not been deleted.
Dr. Seitz is not a climate scientist. He was not involved in the process of putting together the 1995 IPCC report on the science of climate change. He did not attend the Madrid IPCC meeting on which he reports. He was not privy to the hundreds of review comments received by Chapter 8 Lead Authors. Most seriously, before writing his editorial, he did not contact any of the Lead Authors of Chapter 8 in order to obtain information as to how or why changes were made to Chapter 8 after Madrid.
Another letter was also sent to the Wall Street Journal by three scientists who were above Santer in the IPCC process. These scientists were Bert Bolin, Chairman, IPCC, John Houghton, Co-Chairman, Working Group I, IPCC, and Luiz Gylvan Meira Filho, Co-Chairman, Working Group I, IPCC. Their letter was an equally strong refutation of the assertions made by Seitz:
The crucial error in Dr. Seitz’s article -which could have been avoided if he had simply taken the time to familiarize himself with IPCC rules of procedure- is his assumption that the version of the IPCC report from which he quotes was the final version approved by the scientific authors and accepted by the IPCC. This is not the case. He quotes from the draft version of October 1995, which was sent out to delegates in preparation for the November 1995 Plenary Meeting which was held in Madrid. The final version is the one which was modified in accordance with the guidance received at the Madrid meeting and which has now been published. His attack on Dr Santer and the other scientists involved is therefore completely unfounded.
[…]
It is, of course, easy to take isolated sentences from the earlier version which that have been deleted or replaced to bolster arguments or suspicions such as those presented by Dr. Seitz. But that is to misunderstand the nature of the science with which we are dealing and the very open IPCC scientific assessment process.
And so it seems that neither Frederick Seitz nor Michael Crichton did any fact-checking before speaking out on this non-incident. I guess some skeptics are only skeptical of what they already disagree with.
Finally, Crichton discusses a book that was written by a Danish statistician named Bjorn Lomborg, called The Skeptical Environmentalist, and it’s reception within the scientific community. Crichton describes the scientific community’s response as “disgraceful”. According to him, the worst offender was the scientific journal, the Scientific American:
The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was “rife with careless mistakes”.
I must say I laughed out loud (LOL, for all you text messagers) when I read the part about “only…nine factual errors”. This book was published by the Cambridge University Press, and was supposedly peer-reviewed, and yet nine factual errors are understandable? Other rebuttals can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, oh, and here.
In his closing paragraph, Crichton states the following:
Is this what science has become? I hope not. But it is what it will become, unless there is a concerted effort by leading scientists to aggressively separate science from policy.
To this, I have two responses. First, there are some instances in which science and policy must meet, and climate science is one of them. Others include scientific research on medicine, health, environment, etc. In these fields, scientific research provides policy makers with the knowledge to make informed decisions. Climate science is no different. If research is pointing to human activity as the cause of warming, policy makers must know so that they can take action to help stop the harm we are doing to our planet.
Second, I find it very ironic that Crichton has communicated, through a very non-scientific speech, about his concern over the sanctity of science. There was not a single scientific argument to be found and the arguments that were made were filled with half-truths and errors in logic.
If you made it this far, I commend you. This post was much longer than I thought it’d be. I hope it’s been insightful or helpful in some way.
reasic.com |
