The Crichton Factor

Climate Change skeptics are fond of employing the writings of Michael Crichton to substantiate their position. His novel “State of Fear” (Harper Collins 2004, Avon Book 2005) is the vehicle often used to challenge the notion of a Climate Change Consensus.  A few comments on Michael Crichton and this novel are, therefore, in order.

 Expertise

While a writer’s expertise on a subject should not carry as much weight as the strength of the arguments the written manuscript and the accuracy of the evidence cited, it is the writer’s expertise that leads him or her to the decisions he or she makes on the evidence to employ.  According to Michael Crichton's biography he  is not trained in meteorology, atmospheric science, or any field remotely related to climate change.  Although he undertook a post-doctoral fellowship at the Salk Institute it dealt with public policy. Consequently, not only has he not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in the field but neither has he undertaken research in it.  Although Crichton has an undergraduate degree in science, he subsequently elected medical school rather than scientific research. Clearly his intellectual skills were sufficient for him to achieve a medical degree, but his evaluation of climate science is not that of an expert.  It is worth noting that among practicing Physicians considerable and justifiable respect is generally granted the judgment of specialists.  Indeed, Physicians frequently recommend patients to specialists when they are in doubt about a diagnosis – or even to seek confirmation.  Crichton, apparently, does not share this respect; rather than suggest that patients consult a specialist, Crichton seemingly would insist he can make every diagnosis himself.  In a Physician this would suggest considerable, dangerous, and unwarranted arrogance.  Is it any more acceptable in a novelist?

 Timing

It is worth exploring the dates of Crichton’s publication.  The first edition of “State of Fear” appeared in 2004.  This means that the research he conducted must have ended in 2004 at the latest. Not surprisingly, then, the majority of the references that Crichton cites are dated considerably before that. Indeed, most of his bibliographic listings date before 2000.  Some areas of science are sufficiently slow moving that this would not be a problem.  Others, however, are undergoing incredibly rapid development; new data and evidence renders earlier publications outdated at a phenomenal pace. Many areas of medicine are like this, as any practicing Physician would know.  Climate science is also like this. Most of the publications which Crichton cites pre-date the 2002 Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control.  As the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report is released, even the TAR is now seen to represent a relatively early stage of our understanding of climate processes. In other words, Crichton’s citations were probably largely outdated when “State of Fear” was published. By now, the 2004 copyright date makes the book and its bibliography almost historic.

A perfect illustration of the problem of relying on outdated data is the assertion (ascribed to one of the characters) that U.S. temperature data from 1880 through the present do not exhibit much of an elevation (Graph p.97, Avon 2005 Edition, see below).  However, when we add the more recent data, rather a clear trend is evident.  Crichton's first edition was published in 2004 and his U.S. climate data end before even the turn of the century; his conclusions based thereon are equally as dated.

Figure 1. Graph of U.S. Temperature 1880 - 2000 as depicted in Crichton's "State of Fear"

The black dashed line represents actual annual data, while the red line is a 'Spline function' computed as the average of each rolling five year period; this technique is employed to smooth out and reveal patterns in rather erratically fluctuating data.

Figure 2. Updated Graph incorporating current data. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Citation Techniques

An important element in justifying a scientific argument is the use of evidence, this being supported by citations to the original publication from which the evidence comes.  Citation allows the reader to evaluate the evidence used to bolster an author’s argument for him or herself.  Among practicing scientists, this works well because the reader is often either familiar with the sources cited, or able easily to check them by consulting the sources.  The technique of citation in a work of fiction is interesting in that it does not quite work the same way and is not always employed for the same purpose.  Basically, there is little likelihood that the average reader will either be familiar with the works cited, or able to check them out.  Instead, the use of a bibliography can serve more to obfuscate than illuminate – it serves more to create the illusion of a legitimate argument than to document it.

Rather than focus on the mere presence of an extensive bibliography of works cited as convincing evidence of legitimacy, a reader wishing to use the arguments made by the author needs to consult analyses of the accuracy and legitimacy of the interpretations and how they are used. In other words, before citing Crichton’s sources as bolstering his argument, it is necessary to check on whether they really state what he claims.

 A couple of authors have been sufficiently curious about Crichton’s citations that they have actually researched them.  Gavin Schmidt (climate modeler with the Goddard Space Center) and others have a web site which explored some of the Crichton’s claims. Science reporter Chris Mooney, meanwhile, consulted some of the authors that Crichton quoted, to ask if they greed with his (Crichton’s) interpretation of their research. 

Two techniques that are commonly employed in Crichton’s form of criticism become evident. The first is illustrated by the Schmidt analysis which points out that Crichton’s insistence that there was unanimity within the scientific community in 1970s that the planet was undergoing a cooling period is flat out wrong.  Apparently either Crichton did not understand the literature or chose to conjure up unanimity where none existed.  Interestingly, there is some suggestion that the Milankovich Cycle (a series of three planetary events that correspond to glacial periods) actually should have us entering a glacial period now.  If that is the case, the global warming that we are seeing becomes even more profound.  It is curious that Crichton conjures up unanimity when unanimity suites his argument, but denies it when conflict suites him. The second technique is illustrated by Mooney who describes several examples of authors who are quoted out of context and thus portrayed to be making arguments totally opposite to what they really think.  Unfortunately, whenever we put ‘pen to paper’ or offer an opinion, we expose ourselves to the possibility of being quoted out of context.  We could pull a Crichton on Michael Crichton in this way.

 Quoting Crichton ‘Out of Context’

In ‘Author’s Message’ (p. 625 of the Avon Edition) Crichton expressed his own views. He opined that: “Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, and human activity is the cause” (p.625). Subsequently, (p. 626) he stated: “I suspect that part of the observed surface warming will ultimately be attributable to human activity.”  At this point, one would be deluded into thinking that Crichton has accepted the consensus view. However, to be more fair to Crichton than he was to those he quoted, he also stated that he thought: “We are in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850” and in relation to the human impact on warming: “I suspect that the principle human effect will come from land use, and that the atmospheric component will be minor.”

 As you can see, it is easy to quote ‘out of context’ and create the illusion of a meaning 180⁰ from that intended. If intellectual honesty in representation is sought, an author will take care to check that he or she is not misrepresenting those cited. Evidently Crichton either misunderstood what he was reading or did not want to create the correct impression.

 When readers of Crichton’s work claim that his bibliography demonstrates the existence of a lack of consensus in the scientific literature either that climate change is occurring or that human activity is in part responsible, they should be aware that the citations Crichton uses are being at worst abused, and at best, misused.  The authors actually agree with the scientific consensus Crichton is using them to refute.

 Belittling Scientific Assessments

 Naomi Oreskes reported in Science 2004 a study on the peer-reviewed scientific literature regarding climate change. She concluded: "This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies.  Politicians, economists, journalists and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."  Michael Crichton apparently overlooked or ignored this analysis.

A theme running through Crichton’s personal commentary is the rejection of scientific assessments.  Time and again he seemed to argue that we know very little about a subject and therefore should not act.  Indeed, Crichton even maintains that the Precautionary Principle “forbids the precautionary principle”. This principle states rather simply that when we make decisions in the absence of complete certainty – as though decisions are even necessary when complete certainty exists – we should make the choice that is liable to bring the least harm or generate the greatest benefit.  Anyone faced with the diagnosis of a life-threatening disease knows exactly that the precautionary principle is what we apply to lead us to undergo treatment.  We apply the precautionary principle and prudence in our daily lives. 

Since it is science that has led to the tremendous advances in technology, agriculture, and medicine (and, consequently, human health) that have fostered our human advancement over the decades, it is rather frightening to witness a novelist take so much pleasure in trying to undermine the entire venture.  Certainly scientists have not always provided accurate assessments of how the world works, but has proven to be a self-correcting venture where errors are exposed and remedied, and science remains the most reliable mechanisms for learning about how the world around us works.

 Maybe Crichton fails to understand that an essential component of science is that it never offers absolute certainty.  The best scientists can offer is their interpretation of what the data suggest, an interpretation that is offered in terms of probabilities.  This is precisely why the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report states that it is very likely (i.e. more than 90% probable) that human activity is contributing to climate change – rather than claiming 'it is certain'.  Crichton argues that there is too much ‘certainty’ in the world.  But when certainty regarding climate change questions is claimed, it is assuredly not coming from the scientists. Ironically, most skeptics of environmental problems demand more certainty (where it cannot be provided) rather than the less certainty that Crichton seeks.

 The Crichton Humor

 But, finally, full credit to Michael Crichton for maintaining his sense of humor:

Since Crichton rejects the predictions of experts and computer models, and argues that his [uninformed] guess is as good as anyone else’s, he suggests that global warming in the next century will be 0.812436 degrees C.

After complaining extensively about environmental organizations Crichton concludes with the comment that: “Everyone has an agenda. Except me.”  Indeed!