[Dan Evans]

"Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit?"

As it turns out, the EPA is full of it, the New York Times prints it, and Steve Milloy maintains a daily chronicle.

[dirtboy]

I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming.

Yeah, Crichton, one extra-terrestrial in particular is responsible for global warming and cooling:

Like we need you to tell us that.

[laotzu]

I have always gotten the distinct impression, from environmental extremists, that the only unnatural thing on this planet was man. Everything seems to add a positive component to the world, except man. We just don't fit in.

By logical extension; man, therefore, must have been dropped here from another planet (being so primitive & malevolent, we certainly did not bring ourselves).

I see this as a third alternative, after Creationism, and evolution.

I call it the Mother Ship theory.

[Sloth]

OUTSTANDING article. Well worth the lengthy read.

[Gorjus]

This is an outstanding article.

Which will never be read by those who really need to read it. If you shoved it in front of their eyes, they'd screw them shut like a priest looking at porn.

Truly, global warming IS a religion.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

WOW! Wish I'd said that. Best thing I've read in weeks.

Scientific American really lost it in their review of "The Bell Curve." I read the book, and it had absolutely no relationship to the book SA reviewed. (The author did well to avoid the whole Bell Curve controversy, though it is one more example of his hypothesis.)

[UCANSEE2]

Reality is only consensual agreement.

What we believe is what is real.

[11B3]

Excellent article - thanks for posting! Bookmarked.

[cinFLA]

This is real series! Can you please provide the condensed version?

[Restorer]

Excellent article!

One caveat, though.

In contrast, science held different values-international in scope, forging friendships and working relationships across national boundaries and political systems, encouraging a dispassionate habit of thought, and ultimately leading to fresh knowledge and technology that would benefit all mankind.

By definition, science has no values other than the pursuit of truth. The author decries the politicization of science, but here he is saying that "real science" holds what are indisputably political values. Perhaps most scientists hold these values, and I even personally agree with most of them. But that doesn't make them scientific.

Science, like pure capitalism, has no values. Both are merely efficient methods of achieving certain goals. Those goals can be good or evil.

A scientist who vehemently disagreed with all these values could still do perfectly valid scientific research. It's not politically correct to bring it up, but some of the experiments done by the Nazis on humans had significant scientific value.

[Ancesthntr]

This article should be required reading for all members of Congress - each month. Science has an enormous impact on our lives, and has huge potential to radically change things for better or worse within a generation or two. We MUST have scientists acting like scientists, not partisan politicians.

[Madame Dufarge]

Bump.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[metesky]

Excellent read. Michael Crichton deconstructs the hot air blowing from the "scientific community".

[BossLady]

Zing!

[beezdotcom]

I have seen firsthand that scientific research is only as good as the lack of bias in the person conducting it.

For example, my senior thesis at MIT sought an alternative explanation to a particular geologic phenomenon that a Creationist scientist proffered as proof-positive of in-fiat creation 6000 years ago. While I ultimately disagreed with his contention that it was "proof" (I found other mechanisms that could account for it), his data was meticulous.

What was shocking was the number of papers published in peer-reviewed journals in response to his claims, that were nothing more than character assassinations. Despite being peer-reviewed, they contained no new data, and no reasoned re-interpretations of his data - they merely contained "proof by vigorous assertion" that he was a loon. In twenty papers, I found only one that posed a measured, scholarly response.

Similarly, I participated as a test subject in a metabolic study years ago seeking to show whether a low-carb or a low-fat diet was better for weight loss. Sadly, the strawman was set up that the determining factor would be the presence of a particular thyroid hormone deemed necessary for weight loss. Upon finding that this hormone was higher on the low-fat diet, IT was deemed better for weight loss - despite the fact that many of us LOST weight on the low-carb diet and GAINED weight on the low-fat diet.

[wjcsux]

Great read, thanks.

[knak]

Great read! I liked this part:

Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?

[NathanR]

Science Ping

[Mike Darancette]

Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president,...

Ummm what?

Otherwise a great read

[Swordmaker]

Long read but worth it on the topic we were discussing the other day.