State of Fear
December 14th, 2004Posted by: admin
Tom Yulsman writes:
Michael Crichton’s new book, “State of Fear,” is a lampoon of environmentalists and a crusade against climate change science. According to Andy Revkin in today’s New York Times, one environmental group in the book “sends agents in Prius hybrid cars to kill foes with bites from blue-ringed octopuses carried in sandwich bags.” (Maybe I should try this during my next faculty meeting!)
Climate scientists concerned about the impact of the book are probably damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If they ignore Crichton, his evidently anti-science message wins — through the sheer power of his celebrity. If they publiclly rebut him on the merits of the case, they further publicize the book (already second on Amazon’s best seller list). And he wins again because of his celebrity.
So, any opinions about “State of Fear” and how scientists should respond to it?
— Tom Yulsman, Center for Environmental Journalism
Roger Pielke responds:
Does it really have to come to this?
In today’s New York Times, climate scientist James Hansen criticizes novelist Michael Crichton for “pretending.” Is this really how the climate science community wants to engage this issue? Take a close look; we are seeing glimpses of where the scientific enterprise is headed — “The Day After Tomorrow” vs. Michael Crichton. And don’t kid yourself into believing that science will in the end dominate any public, political debate — movie makers and novelists will always be more compelling to the public than scientists. What is at risk here is more than just political outcomes over climate change.
A quote worth emphasizing:
“In the resulting media contest [over science] between competing authorities, it is not possible to tell whether science or politics is speaking. We then lose both the power of science and the credibility of democratic process.”
Kantrowitz, A., 1994. Elitism vs. checks and balances in communicating scientific information to the public. Risk: Health, Saf. Environ. 101
December 14th, 2004 at 3:27 pm
We’ve asked a few others to comment, and I’ll add their thoughts as soon as they come in.
December 14th, 2004 at 3:42 pm
But Roger, should scientists go on Fox News to rebut Crichton point by point?
I’ve looked into this a bit today, and although I haven’t yet read the book, it seems that Crichton has cherry picked the data, twisted the facts and even made stuff up. (Which explains why he’s so popular on Fox News. After all, it takes one to know one, eh?)
So scientists can confine themselves to the blogosphere, in which case, Crichton’s big lie will stand unchallenged. Or they can take him on in venues like Fox News, in which case he will still win because he is a celebrity and his challengers would be mere scientists. (Moreover, the broadcast media will certainly frame it as a typical “he said/she said, global warming: yes or no?” conflict.)
My opinion: Sometimes scientists still have to stand up in very public places and remind people that on the question of global warming, the consensus answer is ‘yes.’
In other words, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. Do what you can to blow Crichton out of the water. (Also remember, however, that you may win the battle but lose the war.)
— Tom Yulsman
December 14th, 2004 at 3:53 pm
Hi Tom!
I don’t think that scientists should waste any of their time responding to Crichton. It is, as you say, a losing proposition. “The Day After Tomorrow” didn’t sway opinion towards action on climate change, and “State of Fear” won’t sway opinion either.
In any case, the public already believes in global warming, overwhelmingly, see this post:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/index.html#000054
For scientists there is absolutely nothing to win here, but plenty to lose.
Thanks for commenting!
Roger
December 15th, 2004 at 3:50 pm
Hi Roger:
So if the vast majority of Americans seems to agree with the proposition that the Earth is warming, and that humans are at least partly responsible — as the polling you cite seems to suggest — can I take this as evidence that perhaps we journalists have not done quite so badly as is often alleged? Maybe we’re still stuck on the ‘yes or no’ question. But maybe that fixation has at least contributed to widespread recognition that on global warming, the answer is ‘yes,’ despite what cranks like Crichton say.
Of course, I understand that getting from ‘yes’ to taking action is another question, and that we journalists may not be doing the best possible job on this issue.
–Tom
December 16th, 2004 at 8:11 am
Tom,
Nice to “read” from you — I came to one of your classes and showed you the Ice Core Lab when I was at CU.
I think you journalists have done a reasonable job with environmental issues in general, EXCEPT the global warming question. I am always amazed by the apparent need to be “balanced” on this issue. What I don’t understand is why in the mainstream press there are always two points of view offered on things like climate change, but generally only one point of view on things like the Iraq war. The latter is a far more open question it would seem to me.
For the record, I think there are some entirely credible voices of skepticism on the global warming debate (e.g. MIT’s Dick Lindzen — see the comment about him on RealClimate.org), but notably these aren’t the guys that journalists cite. They cite people (I won’t mention names) who have little or no credibility. It is strange, because the anti-global-warming crowd would probably convince more people of their point of view if they used credible sources. For some reason though, they seem happy to make things up. And the amazing thing is that journalists take what they say at face value. Why? They wouldn’t cite Crichton on, say, a serious medical issue like second hand smoke (though Crichton has taken it upon himself to dismiss that as junk science too, though I’m sure he knows even less about it than he does about climate).
Eric
December 16th, 2004 at 9:24 am
Tom, Eric-
A quick reply … I think that there is good evidence to support the notion that the media writ large has done a pretty good job of covering the scientific aspects of the climate debate, at least as measured by the views of those who get their information on climate change from the media. In other words, at a gross level (i.e., on big picture issues like attribution and trends) the balance of opinion on climate change among the public is a close approximation to the balance of option among the scientific community.
The media has also done a pretty good job on the political aspects of the debate, accurately characterizing the positions of those who support particular courses of action, and those who who are opposed to particular courses of action (e.g., in the Kyoto Protocol).
The media has in my view none done as good a job on the policy aspects of climate change, it has a myopic view of policy options focused on Kyoto, and has failed to cast the net a bit wider to those experts (e.g., Steve Rayner, Rob Lempert, Dan Sarewitz, Bill Hooke, etc.) who have thoughful things to say about climate policy, but don’t fit into the Kyoto “yes or no” debate. Part of this I am sure is related to the fact that many in the media want to play a role in the politics of the issue, on one side or another, and thus find the Kytot “yes or no” framing to be very appealing, and thus it is easy to neglect perspectives that don’t fit this framing of the issue.
Roger
December 16th, 2004 at 9:34 am
Eric-
You write … “What I don’t understand is why in the mainstream press there are always two points of view offered on things like climate change” … my quick answer to this, and the “balance” issue more generally is that many people like to characterize climate change as a scientific issue and point out that there is an overwhelming consensus on this issue, hence media “balance” is a mischaracterization of the distribution of scientific perspectives.
What is missed in such chracterizations is that climate change is a political, not scientific, issue. As a political issue it does have two sides. And the side opposed to Kyoto or other action on energy policy has thus far dominated the politics. So it makes perfect sense that not only would there be balance in the media, but that the media coverage would emphasize this particular political perspective, just like the President can dominate coverage as compared to the political party in opposition.
The fact that they choose to use science to justify their actions tells you how impotent science is in compelling certain political outcomes. In my view the whole “balace as bias” discussion completely misses the mark, and itself it part of the lament among some that scientific information doesn’t compel their favored political outcomes.
For dynamics of the two sides issue, see Chapter 14, titled “Yes or No”, of Walter Lippmann’s 1922 classic Public Opinion.
Roger
December 17th, 2004 at 11:57 pm
Real Politics
The new blog Real Climate claims: RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes m…
December 28th, 2004 at 11:16 am
Real Politics
The new blog Real Climate claims: RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes m…
February 7th, 2005 at 11:03 pm
Real Politics
The new blog Real Climate claims: RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes…