Follow the Leader

I decided to read the article on "Michael Crichton's Scariest Creation". It is very obvious from the very first sentence of this article that the author is a fan of Crichton's work and supports his ideas wholeheartedly. According to the author Crichton is "capable of discovering the hidden truth about global warming that has eluded the world's leading scientists". There are several things I find interesting about this phrase. First is the use of the word truth. Apparently Crichton did not interpret the information presented to him the same as many people previously had (at least the more outspoken of the bunch) and because of this he has "discovered the hidden truth". This implies that the previous truth is now obsolete, incorrect, and not to be used anymore, and, to use a Stephen Colbert-ism, less truthy. This relates to everything we have talked about in the class so far and our quest to decide what truth is and how it becomes truth. The second aspect of the previous phrase that interests me is that the author implies that scientists, people who have years of training in the subject they study, weren't unable to come to the interpretation that a man who spent a few years doing some amateur research in a subject that he cannot be considered an expert in (I believe anyway...). Instead of immediately taking this argument down the path of corruption and bias, the author simply seems to suggest a lack of knowledge or ability on the part of the scientist.
Later in the article the idea that scientists might have certain interpretations based on who provides their funding is brought into play, but I think the overwhelming logic being employed by the author to prove Crichton is correct is simply that President Bush liked it. The fact that he has "captivated Washington" with a novel that he declares as fiction shows how persuadable some people are. Those who wanted proof that global warming was not an issue now have documents and interpretations to use in their arguments. And poof! we have two sides to our story now.
While I do not doubt that Crichton did his homework while writing the novel, I do not think that this much emphasis can be placed on it during political debates. State of Fear is so appealing because it appears to be without bias. Crichton didn't get paid to say something specific, just to write the book. We would all like to think that he is correct because he is apparently outside of our very political scientific community, but the average Joe is once again jumping on the bandwagon 'because he says so, and he sounds like he knows what he's talking about'. People need to learn to form their own opinions on these things, not just follow the leader each time the popular opinion changes.