I saw the Michael Moore movie Fahrenheit 9/11 when it first came out in Australia as part of an ‘invited audience’ with some other local ABC listeners and a few celebrities.
I found the movie entertaining and amusing but assumed it to be about as historically reliable as that TV series I used to enjoy watching when I was a kid called F-Troop.
It was clear, however, from the discussion that followed the showing, as well as from the ‘ooing and ahhing’ during the movie, that most of the audience was enthralled, enraged and believed what they had just seen to be an historically correct insight into the US led invasion of Iraq… and they loved it.
Others were outraged by Moore’s film with this commentator describing it as: To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of “dissenting” bravery.
I thought of Michael Moore’s film as I started reading Michael Crichton’s book A State of Fear some months later.
Both men, Moore evidently from the left of politics and Crichton from the right, are clearly troubled by the issues of the invasion of Iraq and global warming propaganda, respectively. Both want to communicate their interpretation of events and politics to the general public.
Moore wrote and filmed a polemic which I understand was a huge success at the box office. It was thought the film would influence US politics to the extent that it would result in Bush’s defeat at the last election. It failed on at least this score.
Crichton wrote, and I imagine may one day film, State of Fear as a techno-thriller and criticism of the ‘global warming industry’ including environmental groups and rich philanthropists. Crichton portraits the skeptics as earnest, brave and knowledgeable. I thought the book was a great read. It was entertaining but I never doubted that the hero and skeptic Kenner would triumph so it was not as ‘gripping’ and ‘suspense filled’ a read for me as advertised on the backcover.
I was intrigued by Crichton’s reference to published scientific papers as footnotes to support discussion between his ‘oh so brave’ imaginary character Kenner and the various ‘believers’ that Kenner attempts to convert along the way.
I started checking some of the footnotes, particularly when there was a web address, and was fascinated to see information on NOAA and other sites come up. I thought the technique novel and perhaps the sign of a potential whole new style of writing.
A couple of days ago, a reader of this web-log who sometimes goes by the name of ‘Fletcher Christian’, alerted me to the invitation from the US Senate to Michael Crichton to brief Senators on global warming/climate change issues.
Fletcher and others are apparently outraged that a science fiction writer is being taken seriously by politicians.
Fletcher also emailed me a link to piece by James Hansen (from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies) in which Hansen makes various claims against State of Fear ending with the comment that he can’t understand how Crichton concluded that his prediction in 1988 was in error by 300%.
I reckon what Crichton did is fairly obvious –
On page 245, Crichton’s hero Kenner – who is enroute to LA from the Antarctica where he had, if I remember correctly just foiled the plans of eco-terrorist to blow-up a glacier – explains to the ill-informed Evans how:
“The arrival of global warming was announced dramatically by a prominent climatologist, James Hansen, in 1988. He gave testimony before a joint House and Senate Committee … during a blistering heat wave. It was a setup from the beginning. …”
Kenner goes on to state that Hansen predicted temperatures would increase 0.35 degrees Celsius over the next 10 years but that he got it wrong because the increase was only 0.11 degrees.
I understand from Hansen’s explanation here that Crichton relied on a second hand interpretation of his 1988 testimony that focused on only one of his three predictions – scenario A.
So Crichton took the worst case scenario and wrote it into his ‘techno-thriller’. In the novel, Kenner does not explain in his discussion with Evans that there was a scenario B and scenario C – with the scenario B prediction turning out to be pretty close to the observed.
Crichton was selective. In ignoring scenarios B and C he misrepresented Hansen’s work.
But it beats me why Hanson titled his article ‘Michael Cricthon’s “Scientific Method”‘. Crichton prefaces his book “This is a work of fiction. … However, references to real people, institutions, and organisations that are documented in footnotes are accurate. Footnotes are real.”
Spin, and more spin from the best scientists and best science fiction writers. Who said that the issue was settled?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Michael Crichton has recently given testimony before the US Senate committee on environment and public works. A transcript of his testimony can be found here: http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_senate.shtml. He specifically mentions the current hockey stick controversy in his testimony.
So Jen – you are saying that the scientist (Hensen) turns out to be correct and Crichton’s book, despite giving footnotes etc, is a beat up? So you’ve got a large body of scientific evidience that human-induced climate change is happening on one hand and a science fiction writer, who you acknowledge is ‘misrepesenting’ other people’s work, on the other and your conclusion? That the issue isn’t settled…
Jennifer – a thorough debunking of State of Fear is here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74.
State of Fear is to climate sciece about what Lord of the Rings is to history.
Ender,
What is ‘Lord of the Rings’ to history? And have you read ‘State of Fear’?
Simon,
Yes, Crichton got at least one thing wrong. And yes the book is essentially a work of fiction designed to be ‘exciting and provocative’and a good read. It is a good read and there are a few good characters, and good messages, and good footnotes in there.
And, no, the issue isn’t settled.
There another book that’s a beat up too. Its supposedly written by George Orwell, but research has revealed that’s not his real name. Also the plot is ridiculous – based on the notion of animals running a farm, which is illogical and never actually happened. Animals arn’t intelligent enough. The math is wrong too, as it goes on about all animals are equal, but some are MORE equal, which mathematicians have shown is logically fallacious. So don’t take any notice of a book that’s riddled with nonsense and contradiction, even if it deceptively seems a good story and appeals to your sense of artistry. You’d be using the wrong side of your brain. But don’t apply this reasoning to M. Moore’s film – it’s true art for higher purpose.
Jennifer – No I have not read State of Fear. I mean that it is a work of fiction exactly like Lord of the Rings. However no-one would dream of asking Tolkien (if he was alive) to address the House of Lords on the history of Middle Earth.
I don’t understand the implication that Lord of the Rings is fiction. I saw the movie and discussed it with Gandalf in the foyer immediately afterwards.
Jennufer:
I wish you had read the appendices and each entry of the bibliography. If you had, you might have noticed that Doctor Crichton commented on many of the books he cited, showing that his bibliography was no fake; he put in the time to absorb all of them.
Moreover, he had started out to write a book about global warming as a reality in which he believed. He was stunned to find that research indicated serious problems with global warming, hence State of Fear.
If you are an honest journalist, you should be happy to learn that Dr. Crichton went on to spend three years in research about global warming before writing State of Fear. Given the fact that he already earned an M.D. from Harvard, those three years would easily qualify for an added PhD. So your sarcastic tone reveals a sad lack of attention to readily available information. I’m not shocked, just disappointed.
Hi Lucidity
I am actually a fan of Michael Crichton. I thought I did a reasonable job in the blog piece of putting State of Fear in some context – but concede Crichton may have got it wrong on James Hanson’s predictions.
Anyway, if you or Micheal would like to write a piece for my blog explaining some of the history to the book – please email me at jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com .
What I really liked about ‘State of Fear’ was the style – the use of footnotes with links to real websites and published papers.
I am currently reading ‘Prey’.
Cheers,
Being new to the arguments of politics in media, I was surprised to see that Michael Crichton and Michael Moore could be mentioned in the same sentence. I viewed Michael Moore as a left wing propaganda tool that distorted truth to meet his politically slanted messages. Could Michael Crichton be cut from the same cloth?
Further review into James Hansen’s temperature projections (link provided in your article), and expert knowledge, has led me to understand that Michael Crichton has skewed scientific reporting to support a political agenda. It appears that the right wing is trying to torpedo the effort James Hansen, expert climatologist, to provide the public insights to an issue that requires the attention of the US public. Good, bad, or indifferent, the non-politicized information needs to be communicated to the public.
Michael Crichton and Michael Moore, political propagandists? Thank you for helping me stay in the center on the topic of Global warming! I almost bought in to the Michael Crichton for “sensible reporting” campaign.
Great Article Jennifer!
Dale Espinoza