marklynas.org

What do scientists really know? This is all new territory. I’ve been thinking the rate of CO2 & GW increase is much faster than any time in the past, so Brave New World, here we come.

I’ve been asking on RC if the speed of increase is something to consider (aside from simply the amounts), but they haven’t answered, because who really knows, there’s nothing to go on from the past.

Now if contrarians jump on this & say we should continue business as usual because it’s too late anyway, I’d respond that there’s even a greater need to reduce GHGs more drastically, so as to reduce the impact AMAP. Perhaps each # of CO2 we reduce could have a much greater impact of reducing harm, than anyone has calculated.

Now I don’t want to come over all Jeremiah here, but I remember getting a book called “Global Warming: The Greenpeace Report”, in 1990. Since then I’ve been thinking about how and if we’re going to get out of this mess, talking about it with other people and wondering what I could do myself to have any meaningful impact on the problem.

It is now 16 years later. I looked back at the book recently and was amazed by how much of what we know now was already known then. I was talking to someone a few days ago who started telling me about Michael Crichton’s book and how, in his opinion, climate change is all made up by the media.

You really do have to have your optimist’s hat on to think that we’re going to achieve anything worthwhile in the next 10 years.

Mark,

I had similar experiences with a couple of friends who were quoting Michael Crichton, which prompted me to write this (very long) article …

Peter

DON’T LET THE FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF A GOOD STORY! A critical review of Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear”

By Peter Winters, August 2006

“libenter homines id quod volunt credunt” (men willingly believe that which they wish for) Cær

INFLUENCE OF “STATE OF FEAR”

I am worried about the influence of Michael Crichton!

I hadn’t taken much notice when his “State of Fear” was first published, late in 2004. I had heard that it was a thriller, in the genre of Dan Brown’s “Da Vinci Code”, which included some sceptical arguments against the theory of global warming. “So what, it’s fiction!” was my reaction at the time.

Yet since then I have had conversations about global warming with a friend and then a colleague, both of whom I have the highest respect for, who both believed global warming to be an unproven theory. They suggested that the evidence for global warming was “based on models rather than the real world”. Also, one argued that scientists had been misled into thinking that the world was warming by data which, in reality, was a reflection of the “urban heat island effect”!

Not only that, Michael Crichton’s views were being formally sought at the highest levels of US government. He gave evidence to the US Senate, on 28th September 2005, about how climate science is being conducted.

I would try and convince my friends and colleagues (and anyone else who would listen to me!) that what Crichton was saying was not at all in accordance with current scientific thinking. There is now an established scientific consensus that, as sure as we reasonably could be, human activity is causing a significant amount of global warming; and a great deal more is forecast to occur during 21st Century.

For example, in 2005, prior to the Gleneagles G8 summit, scientific institutions from Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the US wrote an open letter with the title “Joint science academies’ statement: global response to climate change”

Under the sub-heading of “Climate Change is real”, the document states:

“There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However, there is now strong evidence that significant warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001). This warming has already led to changes in the Earth’s climate.”

Indeed, the Royal Society has written a detailed document outlining the misleading arguments that are being made about the scientific consensus on global warming.

Evidence for attributing human behaviour to global warming can be found at many places on the internet; these include Grist , Real Climate , the IPCC , and the Hadley Centre . NASA has measured 2005 to be the warmest year since modern records have been taken and concludes that “the remote location of most warming makes it clear that the warming is not a product of local urban influence”.

This evidence has largely been accepted by the G8 in the somewhat cautious diplomatic language of the Gleneagles Communiqué/a> and that measures should be taken to stop and then reverse the growth of greenhouse gases. This Communiquétarts with the following paragraph:

“1 a) Climate change is a serious and long-term challenge that has the potential to affect every part of the globe. We know that increased need and use of energy from fossil fuels, and other activities, contribute in large part to increases in greenhouse gases associated with the warming of our Earth’s surface. Whilst uncertainties remain in our understanding of climate science, we know enough to act now to put ourselves on a path to slow and, as the science justifies, stop and then reverse the growth of greenhouse gases”

The New York Times has catalogued a list of American scientific organisations which have accepted the impact of human activity on global warming; this list includes the “Climate Change Science Program, the Bush administration’s coordinating agency for global-warming research, [which] declared it had found “clear evidence of human influences on the climate system.”

There is great concern that global warming will be a major contributor to catastrophic species loss over the next 50 years; and there is also increased concern that carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is turning the oceans acidic, with potentially disastrous impacts on marine life. Spencer Weart of the American Institute of Physics provides a useful <a href=http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html > website concerned with the history and science of global warming.

Yet, I am not sure that I was winning the argument with my friends and colleagues. On my last holiday my wife, Chantal, gave me a copy of “The State of Fear” and suggested I review it.

STORYTELLING

Academics tell us that “We seem as a species to be driven by a desire to make meanings; above all, we are surely homo significans – meaning-makers” Daniel Chandler, “The Basics: Semiotics” (1994) . As such, story telling can have a powerfully persuasive effect on people as, irrespective to how true each story is, they help us to make sense of events.

For my own job in market research, an essential final task with a study is to try and understand and communicate “the story” of the research. It is how clients can understand and remember the research results. It also relies on the skill and integrity of the researcher to develop an accurate story that is supported by the research.

As a market researcher, I am also fascinated by how different people are in the ways they live their lives and how they make their decisions. People have different stories or myths about how the world is, and they use these myths as a guide to their lives. These myths are guided by both emotional and rational elements, even if the building blocks of these myths are “scientific facts”. One definition for “myth” you might find in a dictionary is that it describes something which is “false”. Others, such as those working in Discourse Analysis, believe myths could be part true, part false and part incomplete. It is in this sense that I am using the word “myth”.

Given the same set of facts, one person might say “everything is getting better” whilst another might say “we are all doomed”. One intriguing aspect of participating in Mark Lynas’ blog , which is devoted to global warming, is how different people have consistently different impressions of events according to these “myths”. Indeed, when I first met Mark Lynas in person, one of the first things he said to me “Ah, you are the optimist!”.

In the context of this article, if we consider the story behind “State of Fear”, when looking at a jungle village in Indonesia, do we imagine a traditional, simple and harmonious society – or one where inhabitants suffer from poverty, viciousness and short-life spans? Probably both viewpoints are part true, part false and part incomplete and would benefit from better information and scientific analysis to indicate which picture is more accurate.

The luxury that a novelist has is that he can fit his information to match his story. In the “State of Fear”, the jungle village that some of the main characters visit is more vicious and unpleasant than you could possibly imagine!

Journalists and novelists are our modern day myth-makers. They can have great power in creating the stories that people adopt to understand and interact with the world. These stories can be very pervasive and difficult to disprove. They can also be based on very little evidence; or indeed no evidence at all if the book is fictional. By reading a novel it is often possible to make a good assessment as to the values and outlook of the author.

ABOUT “STATE OF FEAR”

In the “State of Fear”, Michael Crichton, as an expert story teller, is like a court-room lawyer whose job it is to persuade the jury of the following 8 propositions:

1. Human induced global warming isn’t happening 2. Glaciers aren’t, on average, retreating 3. The earth isn’t suffering undue species loss 4. Sea levels are not rising 5. There has been irrational fearfulness in the population since the end of the cold war in 1989, which, by design or consequence, is useful by elites to govern 6. There are no win-win solutions in environmental management 7. It is not possible to manage wilderness 8. Civilization protects us from nature

That might seem like a tall order! However, on the assumption that most readers of “State of Fear” will not read an alternative view, he has the advantage that he will not be cross-examined. He can select just the relevant scientific references that are needed to support his case.

The novel itself is readable with engaging levels of suspense, action and romantic interest. In true Hollywood style, most of the main characters make it through some extremely dangerous predicaments. Separately or collectively, they manage to extricate themselves from a crevice in Antarctica, escape from cannibals, avoid targeted lightening strikes, flee from an SUV which is about to be destroyed by a raging torrent, survive poisoning from a deadly octopus and being shot at from gangs of eco-terrorists (who themselves, tend to die unpleasantly!). Indeed, one might do a statistical analysis as to whether particular characters would survive these dangerous situations according to how macho, intelligent, attractive, and in particularly how sceptical they are about global warming – the last being the key marker for a character’s survival chances.

Crichton’s main technique seems to be to create straw men (such as Ann and Ted Bradley) who offer limited arguments against the knowledgeable global warming sceptic, Kenner. Kenner always has real-life references at his finger-tips to support his arguments. Not only are Ann and Ted quite unintelligent, ill-informed and mystical in their arguments about saving the environment (and so, no match for Kenner) they also have personal failings. Ted is insufferably vain and both are hypocritical when it came to matching their environmental ethics with their own environmentally-profligate lifestyles.

Another theme in the book is how many people are using scientific information without properly understanding it. This is true of Janis, the fitness instructor and occasional girlfriend of one of the heroes, Peter Evans, who provides ongoing healthcare advice to him without knowing much about what is going on in his life; or the cops who did not properly use the forensic equipment at the accident scene of Morton’s car.

Towards the end of “State of Fear” (on page 580 of the paperback version) we find that Kenner’s view of the unpleasant life in an Indonesian jungle village to be totally vindicated. Indeed, more so than he would have wished as three of the men are being held captive by cannibals and are in a very sticky position! Kenner turns to Ted and goads him about his naï views of “village life”. In a condescending manner, Kenner urges Ted to change his views from one that believes that “civilization” is horrible, polluting and which separates us from nature to one that holds that “civilization” protects us from nature.

Ted tries to defend the altruistic and co-operative side of human nature – but you know that is not going to work in this novel. Clearly, a more effective response from Ted would have been something like:

“Will you get over yourself, Kenner! Both you and I are fictional characters and our terrifying predicament has been totally contrived by Michael Crichton to fit in with his Hobbesian view of man and nature!” And with some irritation “And whilst we are about it, I know you are a hero in this novel and somehow or other you will get out of this fix. As for me, within the next few pages, I am quite sure I am going to be tortured and eaten by those savages outside!”

At the end of the book, Crichton has a section about his own views called “Author’s Message”. Somewhat hidden amongst other points about the environment that Crichton wishes to make, with respect to global warming, Crichton agrees that whilst atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing and human activity is the probable cause, the actual level of increase in the next century is anyone’s guess (his satirical estimate is 0.812436 degrees C) and that increases in temperature will come from land use rather than atmospheric changes. Given that he does not believe in the Precautionary Principle we should not worry or do anything about global warming, we will move away from fossil fuels anyway and he is sure that people in 2100 will be fine.

In a second section on “Why Politicization Science is Dangerous”, Crichton compares the current discussions with global warming to the false popular scientific 20th Century doctrines of both eugenics and the Lamarckian ideas proposed by Lysenko. The eugenics argument seems to build on that proposed by Richard Lindzen in a 1995 article called “Science and Politics: Global Warming and Eugenics” . Crichton argues that the issue of global warming is similar in that the theory is gaining support from politicians, scientists and celebrities from around the world, and that critics are few and harshly dealt with. Whilst the analogies are not exact, Crichton claims that an open and frank discussion of the global warming data is not being held and that the whole area is being suppressed.

What should we make of these final two sections? It seems that Crichton does believe that global warming is likely to be happening after all! However, he is critical of our level of knowledge about global warming, the actions that are being made to deal with it and the way that the science and the politics are being managed.

Yet I think the separation between the novel and these two end sections to be largely inconsequential in the minds of most readers. The take-away messages from the book, in particular that global warming is an unproven theory, supported with scientific references and numerous charts, have already been made.

OVERALL REVIEW OF “STATE OF FEAR”

Overall, I agree with some of the arguments that are presented in “State of Fear” and disagree with others.

I agree with Crichton that people should be critical of the scientific information presented by the media, and think for themselves. I agree that for scientific analysis, we should avoid a romantic view of nature. I agree that we should also be rigorous and scientific about the successes and failures of humans in their influence of the environment.

I agree that people should think about global warming and the environment generally in terms of “the big picture” of the history of the planet and especially since the period of human civilization. (I am writing this article in Crete. Here the mountains used to be covered by forests, which attracted rainfall, but are now largely bare rock. Particularly during the Venetian period (1200 – 1650), this has been due to centuries of logging, consequent soil loss and seedling-hungry goats.)

There were also general arguments that I disagreed with. I did not really understand what Crichton disliked about the Precautionary Principle but it seems as though he is using a philosophical reductio ad absurdum line of reasoning against it. The Precautionary Principle, as expressed at the Earth Summit of 1992, is “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”. That seems reasonable to me! When it comes to species loss and climatic tipping-points , I wish some of our ancestors had adopted this principle as once some things are gone, they are gone forever.

Crichton also thinks that “we haven’t the foggiest about how to maintain wildernesses”. There are certainly massive challenges facing our ability to maintain wilderness, such as whether we can avoid losing the Amazon rainforest to drought – yet for many of the biggest challenges, it is not so much a question of not knowing what to do as not having the collective will to be able to do it. Fortunately, I think there are some tremendously encouraging results from marine reserves, such as the Te Whanganui-A-Hei (Cathedral Cove) Marine Reserve which I visited in 2004. At a single species level, we can see how the southern white rhino has survived thanks to captive breeding and protection measures, whilst the Western African black rhino is now feared extinct . The tiger is surely doomed to extinction in the very near future without targeted conservation efforts and political intervention. The leading biologist E O Wilson in his book, “The Future of Life” (2002) gives some good guidance on this, and what is being done.

Michael Crichton is also a supporter of Bjorn Lomborg’s work, and complains that Lomborg has “been subjected to relentless ad hominem attacks, which can only mean his conclusions are unobjectionable in any serious scientific way”. Personally, I find this difficult to believe. That Lomborg’s work has been criticised is quite correct in my view as his cost-benefit approach to the world’s problems does not properly take into account the health of the natural environment. A key failing of cost-benefit analyses is that they often do not properly value natural capital – just think about how the world’s fish supplies are managed !

Yet, Lomborg also seems to be getting plenty of opportunity to defend his views in a professional environment. I saw Lomborg speak at the Royal Society in late 2004, co-incidentally around the same time that “State of Fear” was first published. He was treated courteously there – even though his analysis seemed to me to be the equivalent of conducting a cost-benefit analysis on the deck chairs of the Titanic. Indeed, the Royal Society pointed out in its document “A guide to facts and fictions about climate change” that “the distinguished economist Jeffery Sachs pointed out in the Lancet that the Copenhagen Consensus (Lomborg’s group) suffered from “severe shortcomings” because it did not include input from scientists and “scientific information is presented through the over-simplified lens of rudimentary cost-benefit analysis”.

Whilst I do believe that well-designed cost-benefit analysis can offer useful insights, I also think cost-benefit analysis alone can be quite misleading as to what would be the best measures to tackle global warming. Game theory suggests that there are a range of strategies which can be used to reach an objective which do not intuitively make “economic sense”. Examples include an analogy with the criminal justice system (where rules are more important than considering cost-effective solutions to individual cases), with developing economic and technical infrastructures (where a loss-leading strategy can lead to profitable new platforms in the longer term) and the development of brand strategies (which can help stop people thinking on terms of price). To take this last point, people can be highly motivated to action by good marketing and powerful emotional branding. Saving nature and keeping the planet habitable for our children and grand-children should be a wonderfully motivating subject!

As references for comments made in the previous paragraph, the Pew Centre makes a useful, if somewhat dated, review of the various cost-benefit models for the Kyoto Protocol in a report called “An Introduction to the economics of climate change policy” (2000) . A wonderfully entertaining book about game theory is James Miller’s “Game Theory at Work” (2003). Scott Barrett uses game theory to assess the Kyoto Protocol in his book “Environment and Statecraft” (2003), and is actually quite critical of aspects of this treaty. Kevin Roberts discusses the power of emotional branding in his book “Lovemarks” (2004), and his final chapter is on how this can be used to save the world.

Crichton provides a range of scientific references within “State of Fear” to support his sceptical arguments about global warming; a critical review of these references can be found at the Real Climate site in an article called “State of Confusion” , posted on 13th December 2004.

Crichton argues that politics is too involved in climate science, and I would tend to agree but in a different way to that suggested by Crichton. As already discussed, climate scientists were called to account of their activities by, Joe Barton , chairman of the Committee of Energy and Commerce, US House of Representatives, in 2005. The aggressive manner of this enquiry was questioned by the EGU , the AAAS and the head of the National Academy of Sciences , amongst others.

It is also surely no coincidence that the most positive review I could find of “State of Fear” was one posted on the site of Tech Central Station , a conservative lobbying group, which whole-heartedly supports the science and stories behind “State of Fear”. Here is a section from this article:

“Crichton also hits other climate- and eco-myths, explaining that the world’s sea level is not rising faster than normal, the world isn’t experiencing more storms or other extreme weather phenomena; DDT doesn’t cause cancer, and that native people weren’t noble savages living in harmony with nature.”

Taking the last point from this quote, it does seem incredible that I am expected to be persuaded that “native people weren’t noble savages living in harmony with nature” based purely on Michael Crichton’s fertile imagination and no independent evidence!

Yet, I wouldn’t want to be too critical of Tech Central Station. To a greater or lesser extent, many of us our guilty, myself included, of accepting reports uncritically if they are consistent with the beliefs we have of the world. One of the main points I would like to make with this article is that we need to keep challenging our beliefs about the world against good evidence – see the concluding section to this article.

My main concern with “State of Fear” is that I believe that Crichton does not do this. He uses his story-telling skills to misrepresent our scientific knowledge of climate change. I believe he uses evidence in a selective and distorting manner to communicate the messages that he wishes to communicate. I think there are far more constructive ways he could make a contribution to the debates about climate change, and environmental matters, than by writing a fictitious novel in the manner of “State of Fear”.

CRICHTON’S EVIDENCE TO THE US SENATE, 28th SEPTEMBER 2005

Also of concern is what Crichton has been doing after he wrote “State of Fear”.

In September 2005, Crichton gave testimony to the US Senate on the subject of the how climate science is being politicised, and why this is a bad thing. Crichton’s evidence to the US Senate reads like a film script.

The plot of this evidence invokes a specific case of where medical researchers were terribly concerned that their double-blind trial might be compromised by a chance meeting. This invoked an emotional connection of the audience to the diligence and thoroughness of medical researchers, which is then compared unfavourably to the climate scientists who appear to be shifty, politically-driven and lacking rigour in their work. Crichton depicts double-blind medical trials as the apogee of scientific endeavour and one that should be adopted by scientists from other fields. Then Crichton dealt in specific about the case of the climate scientist, Professor Mann, who had led an analysis known as the “Hockey Stick” which purported to show how global temperatures had soared due to global warming in recent years. Crichton then showed how this analysis was exposed as false by two Canadian researchers called McIntyre and McKitrick.

After reading “The State of Fear”, one can almost imagine these 2 Canadian researchers to be the real-life incarnations of the military-trained, meticulously intelligent ex-MIT professor, Kenner from the Center of Risk Analysis who pragmatically accepts that sometimes his job requires him to kill eco-terrorists for the common good.

Yet the story that Michael Crichton presented to the US Senate is very far from the truth.

The study of climate science is conducted in a rigorous way around the world, and the work of American climate scientists is amongst the most open and valuable. Some interesting details of how this is done can be found in Professor Mann’s testimony to the Barton enquiry in July 2005. This letter was published on the Internet two months before Crichton’s testimony to the US Senate mentioned above.

In the letter, Professor Mann makes clear that his results “are consistent with the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change” and “has been subject to intensive peer-review”. “Other scientists have replicated all facets of my research and have found it accurate and reliable.” “Your letter notes that the National Research Council’s “gold standard” for scientific research is the ability of other scientists to replicate first-generation research, and I fully agree. My colleagues and I have complied with National Research Council standards for disclosure of research data, and all of our data and methodologies have been fully disclosed and available to anyone with a computer and an internet connection. As a result of our willingness to share our research with others, an independent team of scientists has used the research data my colleagues and I have made public to replicate our research and confirm the reliability of our findings See Wahl, E.R., Ammann, C.M. Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes Reconstruction of Surface Temperatures: Examination of Criticisms Based on the Nature and Processing of Proxy Climate Evidence, Climate Change (2005)“.

A useful resource demonstrating the open-nature of the debates about climate science, for which Professor Mann is one of many contributors, can be accessed at www.realclimate.org . At this site it is also possible to make comments about articles (something which is not possible at Michael Crichton’s site ).

In contrast, the paper by these two Canadian scientists is questionable . The paper was published in a non-climate science journal, Energy & Environment, which did not allow Professor Mann and his colleagues a chance to comment on it before publication. They subsequently responded to these criticisms in an article published in Nature .

In his testimony to the US Senate, Crichton also holds up that the double-blind trial of the medical world is the gold standard of scientific endeavour – implying that this should also be used by climate scientists. This takes little account of whether it is suitable for the study of climate – a very dubious assumption. There is a world of difference between the scientific method of experimental science with that of other natural sciences, and of the social sciences.

It is also perhaps worth mentioning that even in the medical world the use of double-blind trials is just a part, albeit a very important part, of the scientific discipline required to develop safe and effective pharmaceutical drugs. As just one example, double-blind trials did not identify the side effects associated with Vioxx, a COX-2 drug which was widely used to relieve signs and symptoms of arthritis, acute pain in adults, and painful menstrual cyclesbefore, being withdrawn in late 2004. The pharmaceutical industry is now implementing a wide range of other scientific measures to do with Adverse Event Reporting designed to identify such problems earlier. Indeed, I personally am involved in market research studies for the pharmaceutical industry which I consider scientific but which are not double-blind clinical trials.

CRICHTON’S PRESENTATION TO THE WASHINGTON CENTER FOR COMPLEXITY AND PUBLIC POLICY, 6th NOVEMBER 2005

In November 2005, Crichton presented a paper to the Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy, on a paper called “Fear, Complexity, & Environmental Management in the 21st Century” .

In order to fit in with his story, he makes a big play about the fact that he had planned to write a book about Chernobyl “since it was the worst man-made disaster that he knew about”. Yet, when he discovered that only 50 people had died at Chernobyl, it led him eventually, to write “State of Fear” instead.

He makes an even bigger play of the fact that the New York Times and the BBC were talking in terms 15,000 to 30,000 dead when the actual number was 56. If 56 people were a foot of space then 56 people would be the space to the fourth row of the auditorium whereas 15,000 people would be three miles away. Therefore it follows, according to Crichton’s line of reasoning, that we live in a state of fear! This is the key message he places in the minds of the audience. Later in Crichton’s paper he discusses that the actual number of delayed deaths from Chernobyl to be less than 4,000.

Yet, I believe that if you examine the evidence, there is little substance to Crichton’s Chernobyl story.

Firstly, he draws a comparison between his reality of “56 deaths” and the reported “15,000 – 30,000 deaths” estimated by the New York Times and the BBC by the year 2000. Whilst, Crichton does not provide a reference to this in his speech, the figure of 56 dead appears to come from the International Atomic Energy Authority’s (IAEA) which had indicated that 4,000 children would likely die, in time, from thyroid cancer. I can find no references to New York Times/BBC estimates of 15,000 to 30,000 dying immediately following the accident at Chernobyl; and this is not a credible number of people to die immediately following this type of nuclear accident. Radiation does not work like that. To make a fair comparison, Crichton should be comparing his reality of 4,000 delayed dead against the estimates of 15,000 to 30,000 dead he claims are made by the New York Times/BBC.

Secondly, Crichton writes as though he has some omnipotent knowledge that the actual number of deaths was less than 4,000. In reality, no-one knows exactly how many people have died or will die from Chernobyl. There are a very wide range of estimates of the casualties caused by Chernobyl and Crichton has chosen the lowest from amongst these estimates. And the figure of 4,000 that Crichton chose was, in fact, already no longer valid at the time of Crichton’s speech. In September 2005, the anticipated death toll from Chernobyl according to the IAEA (which led the Chernobyl Forum comprised of a number of UN agencies, including WHO) was revised upwards from 4,000 to 9,000 delayed deaths.

Yet there are many estimates which put the death toll much higher. According to a Guardian article published in April 2006, to mark the 20 year anniversary:

“in the past few weeks four major scientific reports have challenged the World Health Organisation (WHO), which believes that only 50 people have died and 9,000 may over the coming years. The reports widely accuse WHO of ignoring the evidence and dismissing illnesses that many doctors in Ukraine, Russia and Belarus say are worsening, especially in children of liquidators. The charge is led by the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, which last week declared that 212,000 people have now died as a direct consequence of Chernobyl. Meanwhile, a major report commissioned by Greenpeace considers the evidence of 52 scientists and estimates the deaths and illnesses to be 93,000 terminal cancers already and perhaps 100,000 deaths in time. A further report for European parliamentarians suggested 60,000 deaths. In truth no one knows.”

In researching this article I came across the work of the European Committee of Radiation Risk (ECRR) – which published a report called “Chernobyl: 20 Years On” in April 2006. This report is extremely critical of the work of UNSCEAR, WHO and especially the IAEA-sponsored Chernobyl Forum. A summary presentation of the Chernobyl Forum’s conclusions can be found here , and the context of the Chernobyl Forum’s work within the United Nations can be found here .

Personally, I am not convinced by the scope and completeness of the Chernobyl Forum’s report. Indeed, I do not believe it is reasonable to expect a body that represents an industry (such as the IAEA for civil nuclear power) to produce a report which would, very likely, fundamentally question its licence to operate. (It would be difficult to overstate the damage that Chernobyl has done so far to the civil nuclear power industry!) Would it not be better to have an independent body to review the evidence – in the manner of The Royal Commission’s 1976 “Flowers” report on “Nuclear Power and the Environment” ? It is not a question at all of being anti-nuclear; we do face difficult and urgent choices to deal with regard to our energy and climate change needs. It is a question of understanding the truth and forming our opinions, and making decisions, on that basis.

The ECRR report provides access to medical and epidemiological papers, many translated from Russian, which support the view that low dose internal radiation provides massive harm to the organs and systems of living creatures (see Chris Busby’s Introduction). They present disturbing evidence that countries such as Belarus, will have to deal with a dangerous and poisoned landscape forever (in any meaningful human timescale). In one paper, Dr. Rosalie Bertell of IICPH, Toronto estimates, in addition to the 290 deaths due to direct radiation damage that a “conservative estimate of cancer fatalities in Europe attributable to Chernobyl (to be) 889,336 to 1,778,672” (p.247). She also concludes that “the true damage to health to the Chernobyl disaster has been kept from the public through poor and incomplete scientific investigation” (p.248). I found this report deeply disturbing and it suggests, inter alia, that we should do more to assist the people in the badly affected areas, and how complacent we are about the long term health of the biosphere.

And Chernobyl could have been much worse. What would have happened if all the reactors had caught fire? What would have happened if there had been a complete melt-down of the Chernobyl reactors? How would that have affected Ukraine – or indeed Europe, Russia and other former-USSR countries? How much of Europe would have been habitable in this scenario? One of the features of the radioactive fall-out is how far some of the radioactive hotspots are away from the source. We can all be affected by these incidents!

I would have thought that there was plenty of material here for a Crichton story on man-made disasters. Indeed, if Crichton really wanted to write a book about man-made disasters of global proportions, he could think about deaths and suffering attributable to global warming. There would be plenty of material to consider from the IIED report “Up in smoke? : Threats from, and responses to the impact of global warming on human development” (2004) or, more recently, “The climate of poverty : facts, fears and hope” from Christian Aid (2006). Or perhaps he could write about environmental pressures which can lead to social breakdown and genocide as Jared Diamond discusses with respect to Rwanda in his book “Collapse” (2005)?

END COMMENT

Michael Crichton is a master story teller, but, I fear, a misleading scientist. In his polemic, “State of Fear”, and subsequent engagements, facts have been manipulated to present the stories he wishes to communicate.

It is not all bad. I think he has helped stimulate a debate, and I am now much more aware of the work that the climate scientists at “www.realclimate.org” are doing in a way that I would not have done without Michael Crichton. Thank goodness for the Internet and the open society we live in! If we treat Crichton’s work in a constructive way, we should be grateful to him for challenging assumptions we may have to do with global warming and the environment.

But, on the downside, I suspect that Michael Crichton’s writings have influenced many people to believe global warming to be an unproven theory. As a consequence, I am worried that people are less likely to consider that global warming warrants attention and appropriate action. I am worried that people will avoid making the hard decisions that are often required to tackle global warming. I am worried that Michael Crichton gives solace to those whose political or other vested interests are threatened by the changes required to deal with this threat.

I am also concerned that readers of “State of Fear” may also accept some of his other environmental ideas uncritically. Many of Crichton’s ideas to do with the environment are often just that; ideas with no evidence to substantiate them.

There is a long tradition of using novels, and other art forms, to challenge the prevailing view. Maybe some of his ideas have merit, but his misuse of scientific information causes me to question his work. It is a great shame! Let’s hope he is open to re-evaluating his stories and work with the science of global warming more constructively.

If Michael Crichton ever reads this article (and I have sent a copy to the email address on his website), I hope he takes it in the right way. I have no reason to suspect that he does not have the highest of intentions. Yet I suspect that once he convinces himself of the truth of a story, he then selects the evidence to fit that story.

Indeed, I think we all create stories in our minds to make sense of what is going on the world. Quoting Julius Cær “libenter homines id quod volunt credunt” (men willingly believe that which they wish for). To reach for the truth, it is an obligation for us all to question whether our stories are fair, balanced and open to constructive criticism. (I would certainly welcome any constructive criticism to this article!) And knowing the truth is becoming more essential as our technology becomes more powerful, and our moral choices become more based on the consequences of our decisions rather than an absolute creed. We do really need to know the truth about the effects of Chernobyl to understand the choices we are making!

Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear” draws our attention to the tension between the lawyer’s imperative to build a consistent and compelling case, and the scientist’s imperative to search for the truth. Scientific truth involves uncertainty, debate and an openness to changing one’s opinion based on the evidence. As Professor Bradley wrote in his deposition to the Barton enquiry, in July 2005, after a description of how scientific enquiry proceeds, he writes:

“This scientific approach, following well-established procedures involving the courteous exchange of views, both informally in scientific meetings and formally in the scientific literature, is what moves science forward. It does not move forward through editorials or articles in the Wall Street Journal or USA Today; it does not advance through ad hominem attacks on individuals scientists in the Congress of the United States; it does not move forward through novelists deciding that they can sort the problem out by fleeting references to scientific papers within the pages of fiction [my emphasis]. The problem of climate change will be documented through patient and careful analysis, carried out by those with the scientific background necessary to understand the problem”.

Peter Winters has written this article in a private capacity as an individual concerned with global warming and other environmental dangers.

Last year we heard the Exeter conference and James Hansen talking of ten years to make the necessary changes. These are commonly understood as a need for world emissions to be peaking and falling by 2015.

Yet various campaign groups are still mired in spening more time opposing new nuclear build than calling for coal-fired stations to be closed as fast as possible; over-confidence in biofuels or carbon burial; calling for 3% cuts rather than Contraction and Convergence, and so on.

I was going to write about the two races: the race to switch from fossil fuels, and the race to persuade others of the need for the first race. Only I’m finding it hard to lead to a positive upshot!

Second favourite for the next British prime minister after ‘Clarkson’ Brown is ‘I’m alright Jack’ Alan Johnson, who as trade and industry secretary steadfastly refused making more than 3 MtC cuts in UK emissions trading allowances, whereas Margaret Beckett and DEFRA had sought at least 8 MtC.

Johnson told the Climate Change Review press conference that it was not the UK’s job to be in the vanguard of emissions cuts. Whereas his successor at the DTi Alistair Darling committed to 8 MtC not long after this year’s reshuffle.

Johnson’s DTi also refused a suggestion by Colin Challen MP (in a Parliamentary Question) that palm oil if used in power stations be disqualified from the Renewables Obligation.

Saturday’s Daily Mirror claimed that Johnson was in line to become Gordon Brown’s environment secretary. And I suppose that at least would be a turkey shoot for the Opposition.

A week ago the News of the World included a large interview feature with Al Gore, headlined “we’ve got ten years to save planet” and featuring Mark’s Jacabamba pictures in higher res than they appear above right!

Did this spring from Gore’s recent presentation to a Rupert Murdoch hosted event?

Now The Sun has begun a week-long series on going green including today a feature filling pages 4 & 5 “10 years to save planet” again featuring Al Gore, and a centre-page spread which makes a few controversial remarks but highlights that 63% of Britons would sacrifice a foreign holiday by air to help save the planet – a Sun opinion poll finding!

Or are they just after coupon collectors for their offer of UK holidays from £9.50 which also runs this week, subtitled (I kid ye not): “Be green and forget going abroad”?

Jim, I could never, ever warm to the Sun’s editorial policy, but you raise the £9.50 UK holiday, and it certainly brings up an interesting point about the nature of tourism in general.

(The Problem With…Tourism)

We may be snobbish about caravan parks and holiday camps, but their use of resources is small compared to the typical holiday home, and the means of getting there (UK to UK, often by train when considering the market being aimed at) is far greener than that chosen by the hoards of cheap flight tourists.

We should support people who wish to holiday in their own countries with enthusiasm; and do all in our power to dissuade people from jumping on the cheap flight journey to disaster.

www.ryanairpollution.com

www.easyclimatechange.com

www.virginclimate.com

Nice ones, and brave stuff since at least one of the parties being parodied will sue the hell out of anyone using a familiar English word in their brand name even with a completely different typeface, apart from an internet service provider who preceded him, fortunately for many of the defendants.

The cheap flights issue needs a bit of controversy, Jim. I say, let them try and sue the owner of the sites – maybe he/she will make the experience public.

I bought the Greenpeace report about a year after it was published. This rather well thumbed volume now sits on my bookshelf next to “High Tide”. It was an excellent introduction to the subject and, if I recall rightly, was about the only book for the lay person available about climate change at the time.

The initial chapters contain a good summary on the science and I agree that the basics about the whole issue have not moved on greatly, the chapter dealing with potential feedbacks being particularly comprehensive and full of foreboding. I particularly remember the line that went something like this ”...Co2 in the atmosphere now stands at a figure close to 350 parts per million, a level never approached before whilst humans have walked the earth..”, and indeed here we are 16 years later and and we are now at, or I presume probably past, 380 part per million.

I do recall, and it may just have been my perception, that after a flurry of interest in the issue during the late eighties, it largely vanished from the media during the early and mid-nineties, almost to the point where I wondered if the problem just wasn’t being treated as a serious concern, before rising steadily in prominence from the late nineties onwards.

I agree that given the glacial progress to date and the huge time lags built into the system-many decades for the temperature to rise to the level determined by any particular CO2 concentration, and hundreds of years for sea levels to fully respond, it is very unlikely we will miss out on severe disruption, particularly given ongoing population growth and increased emissions and given that the effects appear to being felt far faster than previously envisaged.

I’m looking forward to reading “Six degrees”.

The link between Mind and Social / Environmental-Issues.

The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature.

Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

Subject : In a fast society slow emotions become extinct. Subject : A thinking mind cannot feel.
Subject : Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys the planet. Subject : Environment can never be saved as long as cities exist.

Emotion is what we experience during gaps in our thinking.

If there are no gaps there is no emotion.

Today people are thinking all the time and are mistaking thought (words/ language) for emotion.

When society switches-over from physical work (agriculture) to mental work (scientific/ industrial/ financial/ fast visuals/ fast words ) the speed of thinking keeps on accelerating and the gaps between thinking go on decreasing.

There comes a time when there are almost no gaps.

People become incapable of experiencing/ tolerating gaps.

Emotion ends.

Man becomes machine.

A society that speeds up mentally experiences every mental slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.

A ( travelling )society that speeds up physically experiences every physical slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.

A society that entertains itself daily experiences every non-entertaining moment as Depression / Anxiety.

FAST VISUALS /WORDS MAKE SLOW EMOTIONS EXTINCT.

SCIENTIFIC /INDUSTRIAL /FINANCIAL THINKING DESTROYS EMOTIONAL CIRCUITS.

A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY CANNOT FEEL PAIN / REMORSE / EMPATHY.

A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY WILL ALWAYS BE CRUEL TO ANIMALS/ TREES/ AIR/ WATER/ LAND AND TO ITSELF.

To read the complete article please follow either of these links :

PlanetSave

EarthNewsWire

sushil_yadav

Peter, very interesting and useful piece! I particularly appreciated your references to myth and myth makers. This stuff falls well outside my area(s) of expertise but I understand it is important. Reading list (short) please.

There are (still!) 101 forms of denial of AGW/CC. I too have many discussions with friends on the issue and observe that while more or less everyone “knows” about global warming their knowledge is patchy. This helps explain why many do not really, really “get it” and therefore fail to change their (CO2 producing) behaviour.

Your summary of the evidence and sources of information is excellent and includes an indication of your learning process which doubters should pay close attention to. You make a necessary point about “good evidence”. Many of the doubters/denialists don’t seem to have much of a clue about the scientific method and processes.

I have some reservations about how kind you are to Crichton with respect to his “intentions”. Now I have to be cautious here as I have no hard evidence(!) but I’m inclined to question his motives. The BS detector twitches you see … !

Maybe this is about you being you and me being me. Different political histories and different personalities. You are clearly a very, very nice man with a saint like ability to give all and sundry the benefit of the doubt. I tend to be pretty unforgiving if I suspect malign intent and/or an unacceptable political position.

Have you any plans to publish? Your approach and style could appeal to some difficult to target people.

Looking forward to the big (huge?) climate demo on November the 4th!!!

Cheers

Douglas Coker

DON’T LET THE FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF A GOOD STORY! A critical review of Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear”

By Peter Winters, August 2006

“libenter homines id quod volunt credunt” (men willingly believe that which they wish for) Cæsar