The Progressives are Fanning the Flames of Global Warming Fear

By Mick Gregory

There are skeptics about global warming among scientists who are experts on weather and climate. If you heard both arguments, you might not be so willing to go along with those who are pushing to impose more taxes, sacrifice jobs and the middle class standard of living to the latest cause, created by politicians and the media.

Why aren’t your major daily newspapers publishing both sides? Because they already took sides? That’s what I’m thinking.

The New Republic’s editor, Mick Crowley tries his best to discredit Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear.”

The uber-progressive, Crowley slammed one of the most well-educated authors of the past 50 years. Michael Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He has taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT. Crichton’s 2004 bestseller, State of Fear, acknowledged the world was growing warmer, but challenged extreme anthropogenic warming scenarios. He predicted future warming at 0.8 degrees C.

Crichton’s first bestseller, “The Andromeda Strain,” was published while he was still a medical student. He later worked full time on film and writing. Now one of the most popular writers in the world, his books have been translated into thirty-six languages, and thirteen have been made into films.

“It’s all like a Stalinist show trial. The senators all get up and make their statements and leave. No one listens. At one point in State of Fear, a sympathetic character observes that a Senate hearing is an “unquestionably manipulative” means of raising public awareness.

When I read this biased review, I knew I had to buy “State of Fear.” It has kick-started me to look deeper into to
the mass media and Progressive Democrat global warming scare. It must be “for the children.”

Mick Crowley — a neo-Stalinist, is a senior editor at The New Republic, the U.S. version of Pravada.
If he hates “State of Fear,” you know it is a must-read.

21 thoughts on “The Progressives are Fanning the Flames of Global Warming Fear

  1. “to impose more taxes, sacrifice jobs and the middle class standard of living to the latest cause”

    Mick the world is going to move on without you. GM and Ford seemed to take your approach and they’ve just about collapsed thanks to an obsession with SUV’s and Hummers. Railing against green tech and green living will ensure the loss of jobs and decline in middle class standard of living you so fear.

    Honestly Mick, please don’t tell us you’re going to get your information on climate from a pop fiction author (even one as earnest and well educated as Crichton).

  2. Hi Verdurous,

    Have no fear. The Global Warming Alarmists are not going to allow anyone to be left behind. That, after all, is the point behind their Great Hoax. Everyone must play, and everyone will pay.

    Good post Mick.

    the Grit

  3. Yes, Verdurous. I’m going to read more about the politics of “global warming” from people like Crichton and Sowell, not a bafoon like AlGore.

  4. Mick, the choice shouldn’t be between Crichton and Gore. The choice should be between Chrichton and actual climate scientists. They have their own literature now, culminated in the new IPCC report, so we can read and discuss this scholarly research, as opposed to a fictional book.

  5. I’ve read over the new IPCC report summary, and various other research documents by actual climate scientists, and you want me to read a book written by a political scientist and a popular fiction book as prerequisites for discussing climate change? How does that make me part of a flock. I’m trying to discuss this on a scientific level, and you want to invalidate me because I haven’t read popular fiction. I’m not sure I understand the logic in that.

  6. While we’re discussing the Skeptical Environmentalist, I figure you might want to know that the author, Bjorn Lomborg, was chastised by the Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty, in his home country for this book. The committee found “the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice” and stated “there has been such perversion of the scientific message in the form of systematically biased representation that the objective criteria for upholding scientific dishonesty … have been met”. You may also want to read this article in the Scientific American that debunks many of the baseless claims he makes in his book.

    Have you read the new IPCC report summary?

  7. Honesty, do you think you are fooling anyone with your credentials? Have you looked at the conflicting reports? Have you anything to say about the ice ages and warming periods that came before industrialization?

  8. Which credentials are you referring to? I wasn’t aware that I had discussed my qualifications.

    I have read many conflicting reports. Are you referring to any in particular? Monckton’s seems to be a popular one. What I haven’t seen much of is conflicting research. Therefore, I haven’t seen many conflicting reports based on their own scientific research. It usually seems to be something similar to Monckton, where the author is not even a scientist, so he obviously hasn’t done any research, and he simply promotes myths, distortions, and misrepresentations in an effort to “debunk” the work of actual scientists.

    I have, however read such reports. After reading them, it is fairly easy to see through the “logic” used in them, especially after reading rebuttals to them. So let me ask you – have you read any of the reports that have been written in response to the ones that you are suggesting I read, or did you simply stop there and accept them as fact? You also never answered me on whether you’ve read through the new IPCC report summary, which is a culmination of all of the actual research that has been done on the subject.

    First of all, you’ll have to clarify something for me on the ice age and warming period issue. Are you referring to the “Medieval Warming Period” and the supposed subsequent ice age that followed, which have been used in an attempt to debunk the “hockey stick” graph? You’ll have to talk in more specifics so that I can more accurately respond.

  9. Reasic, your logic seems more like a smoke bomb. A 5th grader can tell you that we are in a major warming period compared with the last ice age. The glacier melt formed the Great Lakes in the North East U.S. They are fresh water lakes and the state of Florida is flooded with 30 to 100 ft. of fresh water. Underwater caves have been found with remnants of stone age man living in them. We are living in a warm period. Are you a bearded, baldheaded, sandal wearing vegan?

    Of course you must be a socialist. But why not clear it up for us?

  10. Reasick,
    I just read that the Inquirer gave Skeptical Environmentalist good marks. I’ve never heard of your strange Danish group. The Inquirer is one of the largest newspapers in the U.S.

    I have to wonder about any science you have studied. Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood? Fire Side Theatre’s Mr. Science?

  11. John, you’ve provided almost no substance in your comment and you already jumped to conclusions about me and resorted to name-calling. I’m not surprised, but it is disappointing.

    As I’ve said before, there is no doubt that the Earth’s climate has natural cycles. However, the current warming period is outside of the normal cycle variation. It’s very easy to simply say that since there is always warming and cooling, any change in climate is to be expected, and just leave it at that. However, if you want to actually take a look at the scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming, you will see that greenhouse gas concentrations have sky-rocketed in the last few decades, which has coincided with a comparable increase in temperature. Natural cycles do not explain our current warming.

  12. Mick,

    The Inquirer? The tabloid?! The same “newspaper” that reports about alien babies being born, UFO sightings, and celebrity gossip? Now I feel better about it.

    No, the Philadelphia Inquirer.
    The tabloid you mentioned is owned by a Clinton groupie.

    Funny comments about the science I’ve studied, given your source on Lomborg’s work. Do you want to continue taking jabs at me, or do you want to discuss the science of climate change? I’ve asked you to provide specific examples of “conflicting reports” that you were talking about, and more specifics on the warming period and ice age that you referred to. If you want to get into specifics, I’d be glad to. The remarks about me won’t get us anywhere.

  13. John, I figured I’d respond to your accusation. I can see you have a vision of what the stereotypical global warming believer should look like:

    Are you a bearded, baldheaded, poney tailed, sandal wearing vegan?

    Of course you must be a socialist or government wonk.

    Actually, you’re way off. I’m a Baptist husband and father of two, living in suburban Alabama. By trade, I’m a Civil Engineer. I don’t do drugs, eat tofu, or wear sandals. I’m also clean-shaven and have a head full of hair, for whatever that matters. I haven’t even watched Al Gore’s movie.

    Now, how could it be that this global warming “activist” doesn’t fit your stereotype? I’ve simply looked at the evidence, and in my opinion, it points to human-caused global warming.

  14. Even still, Mick, you’re touting a book by a political scientist, not a climate scientist. Then you’re validating it by an article in a newspaper. Of course you can find a conservative columnist to support Lomborg’s book.

    This guy, Lomborg, was chastised by his own government for misrepresenting science in the book you’re referring to. The point is that the book is not scientific. It even distorts science, which is worse. Climate change is a scientific issue. If you want to “debunk” the IPCC report, you need to do so with scientific research, not misleading arguments from a political pundit.

    Let’s talk science. Are you going to answer any of my questions?

  15. Mick, I’d also like to clarify something about what I’ve said. I don’t discredit Lomborg’s book because of who he is or who he is not. I discredit his work because of the claims themselves. His own government has even called him out for distorting science and being scientifically dishonest. If you want to get into the specifics of his arguments, I’d be glad to. I’m not going to go buy his book, but feel free to mention his better arguments in here, and I’ll find my own sources on the subject, and then we can compare.

  16. Rea(sic), You must have been so proud to see AlGore at the Oscars last night. And the strange song by Melia Estridge that wouldn’t pass the smell test on American Idol.

    What a flop.

  17. Did you read my comment where I stated that I have not seen Al Gore’s movie? Nice shot, but not accurate. I don’t care if he wins an Oscar.

  18. So let me get this right. You believe in Al Gore’s convenient crisis, but you didn’t see his movie or read the picture book? Nor have you read “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton, or “Skeptical Environmentalist.” Why not?

    I will post some of the key parts here, but I am doing so to promote the books as a counter balance to the huge propaganda machine of the media, universities and Democrat party.

  19. This is not Al Gore’s issue for me to believe in. Do you really think that Al Gore, along with the Democrat[ic] Party, the media, and the universities, are just making all of this up? I’ve looked at arguments from both sides, and I think the majority’s argument makes more sense. It’s that simple. What has convinced you that this is a huge conspiracy on the part of the big, bad “progressives”?

  20. I thought of a better way to explain:

    So let me get this right. You believe in Al Gore’s convenient crisis, but you didn’t see his movie or read the picture book? Nor have you read “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton, or “Skeptical Environmentalist.” Why not?

    Al Gore’s movie, Michael Crichton’s book, Lomborg’s book, Monckton’s report, newspaper and magazine articles, etc., are all avenues for advocating positions on the issue, hopefully while referencing some sort of scientific evidence along the way. I’ve skipped those sources and gone right to the evidence itself. All of the sources you’ve mentioned and more are simply a reaction to the research that has been done on the subject.

    Now, if you wanted to go to the source and find out what the science itself says, the IPCC report that is coming out would be a great place to start. It is basically thousands of scientists getting together to try to establish a pattern in all of the research that has been done to date. If you have any questions or concerns about any particular claim, you can always follow the links in the report to the actual research that contributed to the claim.

    Other sources, such as the ones you’ve mentioned, are not essential for learning about global warming. Yes, I’m including Al Gore’s movie in that list, along with any other global warming article you’ve seen in the “drive-by media”.

    OK,reasic, you really are trying to be clearheaded about this. I will try and get you up to speed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s