Revisiting Michael Crichton’s Critique of Environmental Dogma

Written by Dr. Matthew Wielicki on May 27, 2024. Posted in Current News

“I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer,” author Michael Crichton declared in his speech, Aliens Cause Global Warming.

“The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda.” he said.

This challenge, Crichton asserted, is particularly urgent in the information age, which he aptly termed the “disinformation age.”

Crichton believed that distinguishing truth from falsehood is essential for human progress. “We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real,” he said, “whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we’re told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems.”

This struggle to perceive reality accurately is increasingly complicated by the myriad of information sources available today, many of which have agendas that blur the lines between fact and fiction.

The manipulation of data and selective reporting has created a climate where it is difficult to discern the genuine threats from those manufactured or exaggerated for political or ideological purposes.

Crichton famously argued that environmentalism has become a substitute religion for many people. “Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism,” he noted.

This perspective is echoed in the modern discourse on climate change and environmental policies, where questioning the prevailing narrative can lead to social and professional ostracism, myself being a prime example.

Crichton’s assertion that “environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths” remains relevant.

He compared the belief in a past Eden, a fall from grace, and a future judgment day to the environmental narrative of a pristine past, a polluted present, and an apocalyptic future. This mythic structure persists in today’s environmental activism, where ‘sustainability’ is often presented as the path to salvation.

Modern climate change discourse often echoes Crichton’s concerns about the dangers of consensus and the politicization of science. The portrayal of ‘climate change’ as an existential crisis requiring immediate, drastic action has become almost dogmatic.

Crichton’s critique that “one of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts” is strikingly relevant.

The intense pressure on scientists and policymakers to conform to the consensus can stifle legitimate scientific debate and innovation. For example, renowned climate scientist Judith Curry faced significant backlash for her critical stance on climate alarmism, illustrating how dissent is often marginalized in the name of consensus.

The COVID-19 pandemic provided a stark illustration of Crichton’s warnings about the dangers of consensus and the politicization of science.

Early in the pandemic, scientific debates over the origins of the virus, the efficacy of lockdowns, and the use of certain treatments were often stifled in favor of a unified narrative.

The suppression of alternative viewpoints, such as those questioning the lab-leak hypothesis or advocating for early treatments, hindered a comprehensive understanding and response to the crisis.

This suppression of facts echoes Crichton’s warning that “… your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts.”

Crichton criticized the uncritical promotion of certain environmental solutions, a trend that continues today. The push for ‘renewable’ energy sources like wind and solar often overlooks their limitations and environmental impacts.

For instance, the disposal of solar panels and wind turbines poses significant environmental challenges, and the intermittent nature of these energy sources requires backup from traditional ‘fossil fuels’ or nuclear power.

These complexities are frequently downplayed in public discourse, where ‘renewable’ energy is often presented as an unequivocal solution to ‘climate change’.

The fervor surrounding ‘climate change’ has led to policies that sometimes cause more harm than good. For instance, the European Union’s emphasis on reducing ‘carbon’ emissions led to an increased reliance on biomass energy, resulting in the deforestation of valuable ecosystems.

Crichton’s observation that “the past record of environmental action is discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our best-intended efforts often go awry” is exemplified in such scenarios. Policies driven by ideological zeal rather than sound science can have unintended, detrimental consequences.

Crichton called for a rational approach to environmentalism, one that is based on scientific rigor rather than religious fervor. “We need an environmental movement, and such a movement is not very effective if it is conducted as a religion,” he argued.

He urged for environmentalism to be “absolutely based in objective and verifiable science,” emphasizing the need for flexibility and humility in addressing environmental challenges.

This perspective is crucial as we confront the complex and evolving realities of environmental issues. The tendency to oversimplify and dramatize these issues can lead to misguided policies that fail to address the underlying problems effectively.

Michael Crichton’s insights remain profoundly relevant in today’s complex world. His critique of consensus and the transformation of environmentalism into a quasi-religious belief system underscores the importance of maintaining scientific integrity and open debate.

As we navigate the challenges of the 21st century, from ‘climate change’ to global health crises, Crichton’s call for distinguishing reality from fantasy and truth from propaganda is more urgent than ever.

To address these challenges effectively, we must embrace a scientific approach grounded in evidence and free from ideological constraints.

This approach will ensure that our efforts to protect the environment and promote human well-being are based on reality, not on the fantasies or dogmas that have too often led us astray.

See more here substack.com

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.