Bush's Chat With Novelist Alarms Environmentalists - New York Times

Check out this speech by Crighton on environmentalism:

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists.

In short, he argues that environmentalism is far too important an issue to leave to the environmentalists.

I would argue that the nations science priorities are far too important to be left to science fiction authors. There are plenty of actual scientists that study climatology (most of whom seem to disagree with Crichton). The very least we could do is find ones who win literary awards for their books.

Next, we could get Tom Clancy to write our foreign policy or James Frey to advise on law enforcement. Why leave it up to experts when we can just get people who make it all seem sexy?

We can't let our leaders meet noted authors. Horrors!

FYI, it isn't that ridiculous. NASA has been asking science fiction authors for ideas and advice for decades.

And Crichton is a medical doctor (Harvard Med) as well as author and filmmaker. He ran a software company for a while. He isn't a brainless airhead like Barbra Streisand or Markie Post, who spent many a weekend jumping on the mattresses in the Lincoln bedroom and chatting politics with then-President Bill Clinton.

Re-reading my comment, I did not state that it was the fact the President was meeting with a sci-fi author that I disapproved of. However, I wasn't clear enough, either. Of course, who wouldn't like to have the ear of the president for a while? We all have the right to state our opinions (qualified or not), especially to the President when the opportunity arises. Whether authors, musicians, actors, students, etc.; we each have a right to express our views.

I do take issue if the President was actually seeking a sci-fi author's opinion as a scientific adviser. There's a sizable leap in being just another opinion and being a qualified expert. In the realm of climatology, I'm just as qualified as Mr. Chricton, even with his 1969 M.D. from Harvard. Author Arthur Clarke is widely credited as inventing the concept of the geosynchronous orbit satellite. I still wouldn't consult with him on how to actually make one operate, though.

Of course, if they were just sitting around discussing plot points and character development, then who could complain? Frankly, I'm glad to hear that the President is a fan of sci-fi.

I would argue that the nations science priorities are far too important to be left to science fiction authors.

Well, it's in science that Crighton has reccomended the base of any new environmental considerations be founded. Not the current religious atmosphere with its Prophets of Doom that are only more dangerous because their view of reality is Protected By Science (tm).

Time and time again, why can't this simple but very important distinction be made: the theory of global warming is not the same as the theory of global warming, caused by direct, human activity.

This distinction is a huge part of the misunderstanding of the debate. The evidence provided by countless thermometers around the globe and in orbit clearly show that the Earth's average temperature is definitely rising. No amount of arguing, complaining or refuting will change this point. Global warming, "the theory," is here to stay.

When people say "global warming is an unproven theory," they sound like idiots. Maybe I'm splitting hairs over nothing, but I think it is an important difference lost far too often. This writer for the NY Times, Michael Janofsky, didn't once make the distinction. From my recollection of Crichton's book and the ensuing discussion, Crichton did not refute global warming; He was dubious that the underlying cause of global warming is human industrial activity.

Whether you believe or not that global warming is indeed caused by human industry activity is up to you, but please be aware of this slight, but important semantical difference.

Kyle Rove: Excellent point. I think a much more accurate title would be the rate and cause of climate change. However, I suppose that's not as media-friendly as global warming.