Global cooling
Last night I saw Michael Crichton on Charlie Rose’s show and was surprised to hear, for once, I talk-show guest who was careful to stick to the facts as he knows them.
I don’t share Mr. Crichton’s view on global warming (he doesn’t believe in it; this snotty speech will give you the overview), but honestly I’m not in a position to evaluate all the data and reach a scientific conclusion. What I do have is the evidence of my senses: increased storm activity, melting polar ice, and the vast expenditure of money by insurance companies in arming themselves against future financial effects. My experience of insurance companies is that they do nothing for the good of anyone but insurance companies, so if they believe in global warming, I believe in it.
What was refreshing about Mr. Crichton was his allegiance to the facts as he knows them. Unlike Jane Smiley, he didn’t purport to be able to read the mind of George W. Bush or to channel past events involving the quote unquote president. He parsed administration actions, like the partial ban on stem-cell research, for both the upside and the downside. When Charlie Rose tried to paraphrase Crichton’s words, the latter would gently but firmly correct him because the paraphrase wasn’t right. At other times, Crichton said, “I don’t know.” And why didn’t he know? Because he isn’t a mind reader, hadn’t been at the event, didn’t have empirical evidence, wasn’t presented with the data — and so, he couldn’t know.
Contrast this with the bulging-eye, popping-vein school of commentary on Fox News or MSNBC or, really, anywhere else. In media terms, Crichton was cool, and so much commentary has become hot that he almost seemed as though he didn’t belong on TV. An adherence to the facts as one knows them? Why would we expect that? And, given their personal interest, how many people in entrenched political camps want that?
February 20th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
I have been longing for some clear-eyed and calm discussion about global warming. The argument right now is all anecdotes, which have to navigate around whether it’s hot as living hell or snowing like mad. I don’t want this to be yet ONE MORE political football, though of course that is exactly what it has become
February 21st, 2007 at 11:31 am
That’s funny. John Stewart also had an anti-global warming “pundit” on the Daily Show last night. Christopher Horner who wrote The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming. I thought his arguments were specious and misleading. Plus he personally seemed smarmy. Of course, that’s just my subjective opinion. Has nothing to do with whether I agree with him. 🙂