Reading State of Fear, Michael Crichton's global warming debunking novel, made me realize how political all of his books were. His 1968 novel A Case of Need is pro-abortion. Prey is about the danger of self-reproducing technology.
Many of his books were about the awesome power of technology. People have called him "technophobic", but his own description in Andromeda Strain about the scientists is more revealing: “What they did not anticipate was the magnitude, the staggering dimensions of their error.” Jurassic Park is the same story, and the Jeff Goldblum story is maybe Crichton himself.
He once said,
"Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people—the best people, the most enlightened people—do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in god, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious."He thought that the religion had become environmentalism. But it is amazing how passe environmentalism has become over the past 20 years. Who cares about it anymore? Open borders trumps environmentalism, for example.
He gave a lecture at Caltech about the unscientific notion of "consensus" being used to sell global warming:
"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.Global warming looked like a promising scam; luckily the hoax is as dead as a doornail. The elites were scheming to impose an awful taxation and regulation tyranny.
In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period."