CLIMATE CHANGE

Fear of reason
By Gregory Benford and Martin Hoffert
January 21, 2005

Michael Crichton has taken us to fantastic places like Jurassic Park and into realistic ones, as in his TV series "ER." But now he ventures into rugged scientific terrain, and loses his footing.

Crichton's new novel, "State of Fear," takes on global warming and climate change. He lards it with arguments against the reality of climate change and includes many references to the scientific literature, including one of ours. In a recent speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco he even cited our paper from the peer-reviewed journal Science. Such attention can be heartwarming to scientists, but not this time – because Crichton gets the science wrong.

Despite "State of Fear's" long bibliography, Crichton seems to have actually read only secondary sources, and does not understand them. He writes that our paper "concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century." But we didn't say that. Instead, we outlined plenty of technologies that must be further developed to stop a probable several-degree rise in global temperatures. We called for a Manhattan Project-style effort to explore technologies we already have.

Perhaps because he wanted a dramatic, contrarian theme, Crichton did not let facts get in the way. For example, he argues in "State of Fear" that our oceans are not warming. This is important because, as Arthur Clarke reminded us, it makes little sense to call our planet "Earth" when 70 percent of its surface is ocean. Not only are the oceans warming at the surface, there is well-documented and pronounced subsurface warming and heat storage – as predicted 20 years ago and consistent with atmosphere and ocean climate models.

He's wrong, too, when he claims that a simple fact – that cities are warmer than countryside, leading to a "heat island effect" – has been ignored in climate temperature data taken near cities. He misleads his readers when he has his characters say that temperatures measured by Earth satellites are inconsistent with global warming derived from thermometers on land. To "document" his claims, Crichton shows many plots downloaded from the NASA/GISS Web site – but he misrepresents the data.

Further, he invokes the pseudo-sciences of eugenics and Lysenkoism (in the former Soviet Union) as examples of mainstream scientists being led astray. But these were politically driven ideologies. They have more in common with the voodoo science of the climate contrarians than the dominant view of atmospheric scientists and geophysicists. In keeping with many relevant professional societies, like the American Geophysical Union, we are convinced that the fossil fuel greenhouse is already here, and has the potential to vastly transform terrestrial climate for millennia to come.

To believe Crichton and company, you have to believe that there's a vast conspiracy – involving the editors of Science, Nature, Scientific American and some dozen other peer-reviewed journals – to exclude and reject climate skeptics papers. The skeptics mainly publish books and on Web sites, avoiding journals.

The reality of climate change triggered by continued fossil fuel burning – and increasingly coal – threatens entrenched energy interests. Some of these lobby against it with the ferocity of the National Rifle Association. Desperate for scientific cover, some opponents have seized on Crichton's fiction. Incredibly, in a Jan. 4 speech, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, invoked "State of Fear" as an argument against the bipartisan McCain-Lieberman energy bill – which for all its failings acknowledges the reality of global warming. "Dr. Crichton," said Inhofe, "a medical doctor and scientist, very cleverly weaves a compelling presentation of the scientific facts of climate change – with ample footnotes and documentation throughout – into a gripping plot." But Crichton freely admitted that Saturday afternoon movie cliffhangers inspired his plot.

The New York Times Book Review summary of "State of Fear" – "Reverse eco-terrorists create natural disasters to convince the public that global warming is real" – underscores that Crichton is redirecting fear of global warming to anger at the messengers.

This is a tragedy. Our Science paper argues that responding in a technically innovative way to the climate/energy challenge can generate countless jobs and economic growth in the United States.

Much is at stake if we embrace "State of Fear's" take on global warming. Antarctic ice cores show that our civilization has enjoyed a long, comfortable climate for the last 10,000 years. To disturb this with a sudden rise in temperature could soon endanger us. Worse, there are some clues that we could tilt the global equilibrium and not be able to get back to the balmy era we've enjoyed throughout human history. That would be a catastrophe dwarfing the recent tsunami's destruction.

The climate/energy issue failed to surface in the last election not because it's unimportant but because we fail to sense the urgency. In large part this is because of deniers like Crichton, resulting in a U.S. policy that is "aprs moi le déluge."

Still we don't sandbag against the floods of tomorrow. Fairly comfortable now, we live in a science fictional narrative whose ending we're shaping with our inaction.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
* Benford is a professor of physics at UC Irvine and the author of "Deep Time" and the science-fiction Nebula award-winning "Timescape." Hoffert is professor of physics at New York University and lead author of studies on stabilizing climate change from the fossil fuel greenhouse that have appeared in Nature and Science.

For Global Warming education info:
www.realclimate.org
www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com/globalwarming.html

Energy and the Global Climate:

Preventing climate change is at its core an energy challenge. Globally, fossil fuel production and use accounts for nearly 60 percent of the emissions that are causing the Earth’s atmospheric blanket of carbon dioxide to thicken and trap more heat. In the United States, fossil fuels contribute an even larger share – 85 percent – of these emissions. The sources are oil (42%), coal (38%), and natural gas (22%) – split almost equally between use in transportation, industry, and buildings.

Of all the threats to the world’s environment, the prospect of climate change looms largest. There is almost complete consensus in the scientific community that our climate is changing and warming; the remaining uncertainty is about how fast and how much this will impact the globe. The responsible course in the face of these truths, in the face of risks that large, is to get moving in the right direction. Increased energy efficiency and increased use of renewable energy are tools to reduce carbon emissions that are readily available today, and their use would grow with economic incentives. Technologies for capturing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and pumping them into long-term storage underground offer another promising option.

Rising to the Challenge of Climate Change

target='_blank'>Evangelize American Energy Independence
- Democrats need to dream again

I started reading Crichton's book last night and find it up to par with his previous thrillers. At this point, I agree with the first posting on this thread and wonder how many readers will be buying Crichton's view on global warming. I have spoken with two people who have read the book and to my surprise--they are reading to book as scientific fact-not fiction. Interestingly, one of the two was a true believer in the global warming theory.



Bad Science, Bad Fiction
In Michael Crichton's work, the two are intimately connected.

Chris Mooney; January 18, 2005

NOTE: ARTICLE CONTAINS SPOILERS



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Crichton's latest book, State of Fear, is a novel in name only. More accurately described, it's a work of thinly disguised political commentary, in which a wildly implausible plot--eco-terrorists supplant Al Qaeda as the leading global menace, unveiling dastardly weather modification schemes to convince the public of a nonexistent global warming threat--serves as an excuse for a string of Socratic-style dialogues about climate science. Since Crichton's characters repeatedly find themselves jetting across the globe to stop the latest eco-terrorist menace (blowing off parts of Antarctica, unleashing a tsunami, and so on), they have plenty of time in transit to question the reality of human caused global warming. The plot contrivance of a pending climate change lawsuit--abandoned once its proponents realize they don't have a case--provides yet another didactic opportunity for the author. When the legal team cross-examines one of our heroes about climate science, Crichton seizes the chance to insert temperature trend diagrams and copious footnotes into the text.

All of these "educational" dialogues take the same format: A smart-guy character, holding forth in technical banter bearing little resemblance to spoken English, runs rings around a character who holds misguided beliefs that he or she cannot defend with reference to the scientific literature. These erroneous beliefs all hinge on the notion that the earth is warming significantly, that this has resulted at least in part from human activities, and that the consequences have begun to make themselves felt and could grow quite severe over time--a robust mainstream scientific view, although apparently not one shared by Crichton. Hilariously, at the end of his book Crichton states: "A novel such as State of Fear, in which so many divergent views are expressed, may lead the reader to wonder where, exactly, the author stands on these issues…." As if it wasn't obvious.

Crichton's central smart guy is Richard John Kenner, a scientist who heads the fictional MIT Center for Risk Analysis while doubling as a secret agent who likes to bring lawyers and hot babes along on his adventures. Kenner seems a composite of Richard Lindzen, the famed MIT prof and global warming "skeptic," John Graham, who headed the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis before joining the Bush administration (see here for a previous column about what Graham has been up to), and Vin Diesel. In essence, Kenner's character serves as a vessel into which Crichton can pour his agenda-driven reading of the scientific evidence. Here's an example of how Kenner talks:

There are one hundred sixty thousand glaciers in the world, Ted. About sixty-seven thousand have been inventoried but only a few have been studied with care. There is mass balance data extending five years or more for only seventy-nine glaciers in the entire world. So, how can you say they're all melting?

Try reading that aloud, and then ask yourself whether real people, even real scientists, speak this way. Though perhaps intended to make Kenner seem smart, such language only makes him seem fake.

Nevertheless, Kenner excels at getting equally fictitious lawyers and Hollywood celebrities to see the error of their ways. But for some reason, Crichton never has his mouthpiece argue against another scientist who reads the evidence on climate change differently and can cite literature to back his or her view as well. In our world--the real world--you can find a small army of these. I have interviewed many of them, heard others lecture, and met still more at conferences. In Crichton's universe, however, they seem not to exist.

Crichton's scientific footnotes--which he promises "are real"--similarly misrepresent reality. In the text of State of Fear as well as in its 20 pages of citations, Crichton glosses over a high profile 2001 National Academy of Sciences report entitled Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Key Questions, which opens with the following passage:

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. Secondary effects are suggested by computer model simulations and basic physical reasoning. These include increases in rainfall rates and increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought. The impacts of these changes will be critically dependent on the magnitude of the warming and the rate with which it occurs.

The mention of "human-induced warming and associated sea level rises" is particularly interesting, because Crichton seeks to debunk concerns about rising sea levels. Crichton's footnotes also exclude statements by the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union, which broadly agree with NAS. No wonder real life climate experts, of the sort that Crichton excommunicates from his "novel," have scathingly critiqued his depiction of their field and the level of understanding it has achieved.

As these examples suggest, Crichton's skewed reading of the scientific literature leads him into an utter abandonment of literary verisimilitude. For this author, at least, bad science fuels bad fiction. Nowhere does that shortcoming become more apparent than in Crichton's inability to capture human character. His environmentalists are total creeps, and not just that. They're nefarious schemers, who won't even stop at mass murder to achieve their greater goals. As one eco-terrorist puts it, shortly before Kenner silences him with a bullet: "Casualties are inevitable in accomplishing social change. History tells us that."

Sorry, but I've hung out with plenty of environmental activists (although no eco-terrorists), and they're just not as Crichton describes them. They have many flaws--naïve idealism, political impotence perhaps--but they're not cold-blooded killers. They would never dream of causing the types of disasters they're pledged to work against. In Crichton's fictional universe, however, global warming concerns are all made up. Therefore, environmentalists must transform into outright evildoers--how else to account for their real life behavior? Crichton should have realized, from the unreality of his characters, that he'd been tugged in the wrong direction.

The author's depictions of journalists have similar flaws. In State of Fear, reporters exist solely as environmentalist lapdogs. Crichton makes this plain in a scene in which his characters find themselves watching a newscast:

They cut to a younger man, apparently the weatherman. "Thanks, Terry. Hi, everybody. If you're a longtime resident of the Grand Canyon State, you've probably noticed that our weather is changing, and scientists have confirmed that what's behind it is our old culprit, global warming. Today's flash flood is just one example of the trouble ahead--more extreme weather conditions, like floods and tornadoes and droughts--all as a result of global warming."
Sanjong nudged Evans, and handed him a sheet of paper. It was a printout of a press release from the NERF [an environmental group] website. Sanjong pointed to the text: "…scientists agree there will be trouble ahead: more extreme weather events, like floods and tornadoes and droughts, all as a result of global warming."
Evans said, "This guy's just reading a press release?"
"That's how they do it, these days," Kenner said. "They don't even bother to change a phrase here and there. They just read the copy outright. And of course, what he's saying is not true."

In fact, no self-respecting journalist would take an environmentalist press release and copy it verbatim. Members of the mainstream national media do view environmental groups as self-interested, and check their claims with independent scientists. What Crichton can't admit, or can't stand, is that in reality these scientists often agree with the environmental groups.

In State of Fear, however, Crichton is God, and his views become the book's laws of nature. That's never more apparent than in Crichton's numerous "conversion" scenes, in which characters who had previously believed in the dogma of global warming suddenly see the light. At one point in the novel, two such figures confide in one another following a legal cross examination:

"I mean, when I gave those answers, I wasn't saying what I really think. I'm, uh…I'm asking some--I'm changing my mind about a lot of this stuff."
"Really?"
"Yes," he said, speaking softly. "Those graphs of temperature, for instance. They raise obvious questions about the validity of global warming."
She nodded slowly. Looking at him closely.
He said, "You, too?"
She continued to nod.

Let's face it: Such writing is pure porn for global warming deniers, in much the same way that fictional accounts of UFO abduction skeptics converting into true believers titillate UFO fans.

In the end, State of Fear bears little resemblance to Crichton's most successful sci-fi thrillers, like Jurassic Park and The Andromeda Strain. Instead, it's far more reminiscent of Disclosure, Crichton's perverse attempt to address the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace by focusing on a case in which a woman harasses a man, rather than vice-versa. Similarly, in State of Fear the specter of a vast environmentalist conspiracy--a problem even less significant than sexual harassment of men by their female superiors--gets trumpeted while real concerns (climate change, for instance) get scoffed at. By the book's end, one can only ask: What planet is Michael Crichton living on? Because this one is clearly getting warmer

Recent evidence indicates that the West Antarctic ice sheet could disintegrate, causing global sea levels to rise by 16 feet.

Antarctic ice sheet is an 'awakened giant'
February 2, 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Jenny Hogan, Exeter

The massive west Antarctic ice sheet, previously assumed to be stable, is starting to collapse, scientists warned on Tuesday.

Antarctica contains more than 90% of the world's ice, and the loss of any significant part of it would cause a substantial sea level rise. Scientists used to view Antarctica as a "slumbering giant", said Chris Rapley, from the British Antarctic Survey, but now he sees it as an "awakened giant".

Rapley presented measurements of the ice sheet at a major climate conference in Exeter, UK. Glaciers on the Antarctic peninsula, which protrudes from the continent to the north, were already known to be retreating. But the data Rapley presented show that glaciers within the much larger west Antarctic Ice sheet are also starting to disappear.

If the ice on the peninsula melts entirely it will raise global sea levels by 0.3 metres, and the west Antarctic ice sheet contains enough water to contribute metres more. The last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published in 2001, said that collapse of this ice sheet was unlikely during the 21st century. That may now need to be reassessed, Rapley warned.

Cork from a bottle

Changes on the peninsula, where 75% of the 400 mountain glaciers are in retreat, have provided new insights into the ways that ice sheets may disintegrate.

In March 2002, a huge floating ice shelf known as Larsen B shattered into icebergs. This turned out to have an effect akin to pulling a cork from a bottle. With Larsen B no longer impeding movement, the ice floes that fed the shelf began moving faster towards the sea and started to thin. The finding took scientists by surprise when revealed in September 2004 and now modellers are now working to include such mechanisms in their predictions.

Climate records derived from the analysis of sediments show that ice shelves off the peninsula have been absent in several earlier eras, when natural variability warmed the world. But the break-up is affecting ice closer to the pole than ever recorded, said Rapley. "It's like the Heineken effect," he said, referring to the beer adverts that claim Heineken "reaches the parts other beers cannot reach".

Indications that climate change may be affecting the west Antarctic ice sheet comes from three glaciers, including Pine Island and Thwaites. Data reveal they are losing more ice - mainly through the calving of icebergs - than is being replaced by snowfall. According to a preliminary analysis, the difference between the mass lost and mass replaced is about 60%.

Whether the loss of mass by the glaciers is due to natural variation or is caused by human-influenced warming of the oceans is not known for sure. Scientists are now making more field measurements to assess the causes, but warming is a likely culprit, said Rapley: "The fact that three of them are simultaneously accelerating suggests that is the case." The melting of these three glaciers alone is contributing an estimated 0.24 millimetres per year to sea level.

www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6962