Michael Crichton debunks the "consensus science" of Dr. Carl Sagan

www.crichton-official.com ^ | January 17, 2003 | Michael Crichton

[Benrand]

Aliens Cause Global Warming

A long read, but filled with interesting anecdotes from people like Feynman and Teller. I must say, he sounds pretty conservative.

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.

[bootless]

Nice analysis of the evolution of Mr. Crichton's writing. I tore through Prey. :-)

As a sidenote, my father, who was an airline captain who retired in 1979, had him on flight after the Andromeda Strain came out (he was also reading it at the time). Dad said he was a good guy.

[NewRomeTacitus]

Thanks. "Prey" was very good and made me glad that level of technology is pretty far down the road. Bet guys like your dad put the bee in his bonnet for "Airframe". Ironic how that scenario is being played out in reality, critical parts outsourced to the ChiComs and all. I foresee a lot of infrastructure disasters happening due to such practices and the use of unqualified (illegal) builders.

[Windsong]

"I believe I will be alive tomorrow. I have faith in that. That does not make it a religion."

You were also alive yesterday, as well as 5 yrs ago. We on the other hand, have never seen aliens. Not exactly a precise parellel to what he is saying.

[gcruse]

Having faith in something is the only precondition he assigns to a religion. Sorry, but having faith there are other life forms out there is not relgion.

[Havoc]

Excellent! I've been saying these same things for Lord knows how long and even here come up against consensus arguments from hardcore science faithfuls. What a refreshing breath of air.

[BartMan1]

I also believe in the end the distinctions drawn by Bush- and the 'Bush Doctrine' - will go a long way toward restoring some modicum of the value of truth in this country.

This cannot be overemphasized -- it is clear in light of the events of Sept 11 that the post modernist denial of the existence of objective truth is impossible. Of course , I don't pretend to be the first schlep to make the observation, but Crichton makes the argument for it so well.

A chemistry professor I knew once faced a critical student who questioned the existence of electrons because he " couldn'e see or touch them; besides I can live and function without knowing whether they exist or not". The prof's reply was that the student could believe or not believe in electrons -- it was his choice. But if he was going to perform experiments in the lab, and predict the outcome of reactions, he must take a position on the existence or non-existence of electrons. Neutrality was not an option -- the situation demanded a decision, or the student faced failure in the class, and / or even injury in the lab.

Similarly, the President cannot be neutral about the threat of terrorism -- at last we have to come to a decision point and fulcrum event in the history of civilization -- do we label the evil, and fight it, or ignore it and perish ?

[Havoc]

And his Jurassic Park book, while a good read, seemed to be full of stereotypical liberal themes--big evil arrogant corporation buys island, messes with nature, pays for it all in the end... so I was *really* surprised to read this article.

It sometimes helps to understand mindset when reading, doesn't it. I viewed Jurrasic park not as an anti-business rant; but, as a lesson being taught on the errors of abusing science. He comes right out and says so through one of the characters. 'they were so preocupied with whether they could they didn't think about whether they should.' Funny it should be the chaos theorist that says it so blatently. Some just can't stand for the wrong guy to be right. Many are so preoccupied with what they're sure they know that they can't stand it when facts prove them otherwise - it is called quackery, bigotry and any number of other things.

Good example, try debating c14 dating with the faithful. A more convoluted mess of an argument you couldn't find so readily. Science that isn't factual isn't science. I think it's possible we could all list multiple real world examples of this. So what do we do about it? I say stand by your guns and demand strict adherance to scientific method. That tends to tweak the faithful; but, it must be pushed.

[StopGlobalWhining]

For a neutral, easy-to-read, well-sourced global warming article that I found to be a very interesting and fact-filled, I suggest http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Hot link is Climate and the Carboniferous Period

[EggsAckley]

Thanks for the link! Good reading.

[Windsong]

Bump!

[Hebrews 11:6]

Rebump!

[Tench_Coxe]

"In recent years, much has been said about the post modernist claims about science to the effect that science is just another form of raw power, tricked out in special claims for truth-seeking and objectivity that really have no basis in fact. Science, we are told, is no better than any other undertaking. These ideas anger many scientists, and they anger me. But recent events have made me wonder if they are correct. We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist.

The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press. The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever "published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review." )But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.) But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists? "

Now what, pray tell, does this sound like? ( Not pointing a finger to certain threads )

[SunkenCiv]

Aliens Cause Global Warming
Caltech Michelin Lecture | January 17, 2003 | Michael Crichton
Posted on 12/11/2003 4:44:39 PM EST by Dan Evans
Edited on 01/02/2004 9:36:11 PM EST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1038662/posts

[Dr.Deth]

The fact that the Drake equation was not greeted with screams of outrage-similar to the screams of outrage that greet each Creationist new claim, for example-meant that now there was a crack in the door, a loosening of the definition of what constituted legitimate scientific procedure. And soon enough, pernicious garbage began to squeeze through the cracks.

Sounds a lot like the slippery-slope, incrementalist, Gramscian tactics of the socialist left. Or for that matter, any given legislature.