Aliens Cause Global Warming <Long - good read

Caltech Michelin Lecture ^ | January 17, 2003 | Michael Crichton

[The Shootist]

My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming. Charting this progression of belief will be my task today.

[The Shootist]

Tremendous explanation of science used as power politics.

[PeaceBeWithYou]

Already posted

[Libertarianize the GOP]

ping

[farmfriend]

I'm not going to ping this one. It is a repeat.

[The Shootist]

Already posted

Dang. Can't seem to read them all.

[The Shootist]

'sides, It is worth repeating.

[farmfriend]

Not if you had read Carry_OKie's comments on it.

[BenLurkin]

NOT to worry,

[The Shootist]

I don't agree with Carry's interpretation and even if he/she/it were correct about the "top-down approach" the one paragraph does not negate the logic of Crichton's argument nor was the suggestion about how to fund science the central topic of the lecture. In fact, I would judge it to be at most, tertiary, and not germane at all to the subject at hand.

Carry was simply "picking at nits".

[farmfriend]

the one paragraph does not negate the logic of Crichton's argument

How about a whole book?

[The Shootist]

How about a whole book?

And this book has to do with the effects of junk science and political control? Psuedo-science that allows people to believe in such things as UFOs, copper bracelets for arthritis, magnetic insoles, second hand cigarette smoke as the 3rd leading cause of death, global warming and nuclear winters?

Have you even read Crichton's lecture?

[farmfriend]

And this book has to do with the effects of junk science and political control?

Yes it does.

[GOPJ]

This guy "gets it":

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. 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.

[mercy]

BUMP!

[vannrox]

"...What, then, can we say were the lessons of Nuclear Winter? I believe the lesson was that with a catchy name, a strong policy position and an aggressive media campaign, nobody will dare to criticize the science, and in short order, a terminally weak thesis will be established as fact. After that, any criticism becomes beside the point. The war is already over without a shot being fired. That was the lesson, and we had a textbook application soon afterward, with second hand smoke. ..."

[mercy]

What amazes me is that ANY true scientist would choose to be a leftist. The tenants of communism and or socialism just do not stand up to critical analysis. Nor have they stood the test of time. Why does any critical thinker choose these distructive ideolgies?

My theory is self hatred. They don't like themselves or humanity in general and they want to control mankind. They think in terms of population control but what they really want is extinction.

[GOPJ]

bump

[GOPJ]

Bump

[The Shootist]

You're right. Crichton's observations seem to be dead on. Did you know that besides being a best selling Sci-Fi (Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park, WestWorld, Congo) and "thriller" (The Great Train Robbery, Rising Sun) novelist he is also a medical doctor?

Quite unlike Dr. Dean, thank God.