Hi Jeff,
Crichton’s bit is also, in part, a smear campaign. He paints a nasty picture of environmentalists, rather than their reasons, like when he explains that environmentalism is just Judao-Christian mythology reformulated:
>We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe. First, we could just as easily recast this narrative at, say, businesspeople – “We are all consumption sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation which is now called profit. Profit is salvation at the church of the corporation. Just as money is its communion…” In other words, Crichton is storytelling, not giving sound empirics. Smear.
Second, he seems to be attacking the lowest apple on the environmentalist tree. It’s like attacking Christianity by pointing to the crusades, or attacking Objectivism by pointing to [insert the “Objectivist” you think is most nuts here]. Smear.
Third, his point to resolve this alleged problem is right on target: Use facts, not faith. But then, the environmental studies I've read appear quite fact oriented, so I'm wondering if maybe his diatribe is better directed toward the media or against that low apple on the environmentalist tree. Or maybe calling them faith-based is just a nasty way of getting us to agree that they're wrong.
When influential scientists, and others, deliberately ignore data and distort analyses -- as is unfortunately done in this area all the time -- it's appropriate to call them on it. It's not clear to me that they're unfairly ignoring or deliberately mis-analysing, but I do sympathize with your point. It's fair to question scientists, not just their science. I just think investigating the messenger calls for the same type of empirical inquiry as investigating the message.
Jordan
|
