Crichton and Gore on Global Warming

Continuing with my discussion of Michael Crichton, I have to comment on his method of presenting his opposition to the theory of global warming in the novel State of Fear. Crichton uses a completely fictional story with completely fictional characters to refute this theory, referencing apparently real scientific and academic journal articles with extensive footnotes throughout the book (making this work of fiction appear like an academic article). And different characters, especially the mysterious Kenner, spout out detailed statistic after statistic from the tops of their heads demonstrating how global warming is a scare tactic designed to control people, put in place by the "PLM" (political-legal-media). [How do you like that nice touch of his, making all of this sound like the PLO?]

How does Crichton portray believers in global warming? They are either fanatical terrorists or are shallow, vain, hypocritical dupes who want to hold on to their creature comforts while depriving most of the world's population of the same. Sounds like a real rap from me against Crichton, doesn't it?

Well, not completely. For one, I don't want to disparage the recently deceased too much. For another, Michael Crichton brings up some good points (if you can stand his ranting through the mouths of his characters, that is). Assuming his revealed research isn't part of his fiction, temperatures in various places across the world haven't really been following any discernible pattern for the past 150 years. Crichton opines that much of the measured warming comes from urbanization and deforestation, not increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Plus, he shows that the amount of added carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is actually very minuscule. But the best argument I got is the chaos argument: you can't linearly change an element of a chaotic, untested system and then expect to get a predictable outcome from it. And our atmosphere, from our many frustrated years of trying to predict and control the weather, is the essence of a chaotic system. So Crichton's views, albeit expressed in a distasteful manner, did make an impact on me. And they reminded me of another voice on global warming: Al Gore.

Former Vice-President Al Gore, as most people know, is famous for his movie An Inconvenient Truth, which sounds the big alarm about global warming and advocates drastic changes in how we run our economies worldwide and use energy. One of Gore's biggest arguments is to make a direct correlation between increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and increasing temperatures. And it's here that I simultaneously have a problem with Gore's approach and begin to scratch my head in confusion. For urbanization and deforestation, which skeptic Crichton acknowledges as warming factors, also correlate with increased carbon dioxide. So what caused the warming then? And what about those figures denoting increasing global temperatures, and how are they reconciled with Crichton's mixed figures? Just because two trends correlate, that doesn't automatically imply a cause and effect relationship between them.
Aside from this confusion, I was a bit taken aback by Gore's flagrant bouts of self-adulation in An Inconvenient Truth. Those rosy autobiographical parts detracted from his message by making Gore appear (to me) as being narcissistic and opportunistic. It's this aspect of Gore that the television series South Park seized upon in its merciless Manbearpig episode about him a few years ago.

So both Michael Crichton and Al Gore have presented their opposing opinions on the subject of global warming, each in their own personally obnoxious and irritating manner. What do I think on the subject? I'm not sure, but if Crichton and Gore can cash in on the subject while making complete nuisances out of themselves in the process, there has to be something in it for me! Let me put on my thinking cap and I'll get back to you on it......O.K., I'm back. I just figured out what I have to do: first, like Crichton and Gore, I have to become famous for entirely something else, and then I can present my alternative theory as an "expert" and reap in the rewards!