Charlie Rose did the whole hour with Michael Crichton, author of more than a dozen best sellers, and spoke about bioengineering, global warming, and the general illicit mixing of politics and science. A very interesting show, and very informative.
Crichton has been getting a bad rap for his book "State of Fear" about the politicization of climate science. Many of my friends are pissed off at him, and me, for being stubborn on the concept that science cannot be manipulated for social or political ends.
Under some very intense (and fair) questioning by Charlie Rose, who is doing a lot of good interviews since his heart attack, Crichton elaborated usefully and, to me, clearly, about the whole storm he's raised by pointing out the exaggerations in current global warming publicity. His point seemed to be this:
Yes, he agrees that there has been warming, and there will be some more. How much more he doesn't know, and having actually looked at a great deal of the science literature on the subject, he noted that the models used to predict the amount of global warming, and its correlation with CO2 increase, are being used for propaganda projections that the authors warn against in dry technical language.
Crichton points out that the climate of Earth is a large coupled non-linear system which is modeled poorly by the existing computer systems because they cannot handle the amount of data needed for projective accuracy. As a result, Crichton thinks, because of the vast amount of remedial funding necessary (hundreds of Trillions of dollars) it would be better to compare the projections for the next ten years or so against the real world, and further fine tune the models.
He analogizes to medical testing and warnings on new drugs, and that we would never allow a drug with side effects comparable to the percentages of error now given for the climate models. I find this analogy useful.
Crichton points out that a mere trillion dollars spent on immediate problems like malaria, clean water, AIDS, and so forth would have a much greater effect than spending it on possible future problems from global warming, and that society would be much healthier and resistant to whatever problems global warming caused if the money were spent immediately on present problems. I find that a wider overview than taken by the global warming viewers-with-alarm.
We have a similar situation with nuclear electricity, where our diarist NNadir does the science, and is attacked on psychological grounds rather than scientific ones. Lysenko, in the USSR between 1930 and 1960, was also very effective politically in forcing some very economically destructive agricultural policies through clever use of fake science and fast political moves. We may be doing the same thing.
In the 1970's, the Club of Rome predicted awful things were going to happen, based on bad economic and scientific models, and gave predictive science a black eye that continues today. Science needs to keep its nose clean, and Crichton seems mainly to be doing that.
It's a purist position based on a long view of society and media structures and effects. I think he's right. He offered to come back and debate anyone Charlie wanted, on the issues of science, not personality. I'll be waiting. Contrary view.