Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


MICHAEL CRICHTON’S NOVEL State of Fear, published last December, is a curious volume, combining all the clichés of pulp fiction (heaving breasts, cannibals, poisoning by octopi) with graphs and comment and lengthy footnotes directing readers to journals like Nature and The Lancet, along with the same small set of studies the climate skeptics have been promoting for years. Its premise is that environmentalists have made up a lie about the dangers of climate change in order to raise funds, and that to keep the lie alive they will do almost anything—notably, try to trigger a tsunami that will make people worry about rising sea levels. The latter is a laughable proposition—tsunamis, caused by volcanic explosions or tectonic shifts, are one of the few natural phenomena still unaffected by man, and no one has ever claimed otherwise.

Within a few weeks of the novel’s publication, of course, a real tsunami swept across South Asia. While everyone else was organizing to help the survivors, some climate contrarians organized to use the event to cement the claim from Crichton’s book that environmentalists were evil opportunists. Thirty-six hours after the wave struck, the lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal (command central for the “What, me worry?” forces) insisted that “in the world of environmental zealotry, even an event such as this is seen as an opportunity to press the agenda. Thus the source of the South Asian tsunami is being located in global warming.” The editorial quoted two activists—Stephen Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace UK, and Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth—and noted that “people prone to hysteria often become further unhinged in the face of a great disaster,” adding that “it is perhaps appropriate that the strongest, recent refutation to such feverish assertions may be found in Michael Crichton’s new thriller.”

The only problem was that Juniper and Tindale had never said a word about the tsunami. The Journal editorial cited an article in Britain’s Independent about record property damage from natural disasters in the year 2004. The two men—interviewed, as it turned out, before the tsunami had even struck—were talking about floods and hurricanes and the $100 billion price tag they’d exacted, totals high enough that those radicals in the European insurance industry had become outspoken proponents of curbing carbon emissions. But as usual in these discussions, the actual facts made no difference—within hours the story that environmentalists were “using” the tsunami had been pumped into the media bloodstream by all the usual suspects. Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute issued a press release attacking “anyone who has the moral audacity” to blame deaths from the tsunami on global warming, and added that “Michael Crichton should sue environmentalists who blame the massive death toll” on global warming for plagiarism. Citing the same sources as the Journal, Dennis Avery, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute perhaps best known for his claims that organic food is dangerous to eat, wrote in a newspaper column that “a colleague warned me that environmental activists would move quickly to blame the Asian tsunami on global warming. I didn’t have long to wait.” Steven Milloy, who’s thepublisher of JunkScience.com as well as a FoxNews.com columnist, used the same Tindale and Juniper quotes to back his insistence that “environmental activists are shamelessly trying to exploit” the tsunami “in hopes of advancing their global warming and anti-development agendas.” He added that catastrophes like the tidal wave “pale in comparison to the not-so-natural disaster known as modern environmentalism.”

Think it doesn’t matter? That it’s just some columnists and web jockeys who can’t really do much damage in the face of firmly established scientific consensus? A few days later, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, chair of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and hence the man past whom any climate legislation will have to pass, took to the floor on the opening day of Congress’ new session to give a lengthy speech in which he accused the greens of linking the tsunami to climate change, adding, “There is something inhumane about that, that they would capitalize on the tragedy of a hundred thousand people to push a hoax like global warming.”

Inhofe, too, recommended Michael Crichton’s book.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate