In an interview in 2004 with the Philadelphia Inquirer Chrichton invoked criticisms of Bjorn Lomborg's work as similar to the reaction to his thriller State of Fear which embraces the views of climate sceptics.Īsked what his opinion on a 'scientifically sound view' on climate change is, Crichton echoed Lomborg's arguments. Within the section about global warming, Crichton asserts: 'No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world.' This is nonsense, as demonstrated by. But yet again, this is a bizarre example to pick: although tobacco companies vigourously denied the effects of second hand smoke, the dangers are now well recognised. Environmental Protection Agency was 'committed to a conclusion before research had begun', and had 'disregarded information and made findings on selective information'. Only the accumulation of new evidence and theory made Wegener's hypothesis tenable.Ĭrichton recounts the claims about second-hand smoke, about which a federal judge ruled that the U.S.

Most geologists did not believe that this could be possible. One of the main problems with Wegener's theory was that he believed that the continents 'plowed' through the rocks of the ocean basins. Continental drift was vigourously debated. But again, Crichton's views are rather one sided. All of these can be given reasonable guesses to explore different scenarios.Īnother example he examines is continental drift, as an example of traditionalists holding onto a ' scientific consensus' instead of doing real science. None at all.' Which is odd, because the quantities involved as things such as warhead size, warhead yield and detonation height. Within the nuclear winter section, Crichton examines an equation for the effects and asserts that, 'none of the variables can be determined. Nuclear winter has never occurred, obviously, and so cannot possibly have been refuted by 'definitive, reproducible observations' as he claims. He examines the Drake equation-which is about the chances of finding extraterrestrial civilisations-which has nothing to do with the two points above. However, Crichton's expertise to discuss these points is not particularly obvious, and many of his examples are poor.

refusing to examine new research which overturns existing theories.

holding on to established notions, long after the definitive, reproducible observations had proved these notions wrong.

Crichton castigates the scientific establishment for: In 2003 he gave a controversial lecture about the concept of scientific consensus-which he entitled 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'.

2 Crichton discusses Global Warming with George W.

1 Crichton back climate change sceptics.

Michael crichton climate book