Testimony of Michael Crichton before the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 9/28/05

Michael Crichton ^ | 9/28/05 | Michael Crichton

[Carsigliere]

Crichton was trained as a physician and scientist and then turned to writing.

[WillamShakespeare]

Wow, that`s a website I never seen before.. Look at that, all his contributions are to the treason party. And look at the list of the others...

http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/index.php?li=a


Here`s those who give 100% to Repubs, although I`m suspicious if some of these are true...

Roy Acuff
Bob Barker
David Blaine ? (He really is tricking Hollywood)
Julie Bowen
James Cagney
Neil Bush
Candace Bushnell
Drew Carey
Tom Clancy
Catherine Coulter (Catherine? Maybe that is Anns legal name?)
Shannen Doherty
Jerry Doyle
Robert Duvall
Joe Esterhas
Jeff Foxworthy
Eva Gabor (impossible, she is French!)
Kathy Lee Gifford
Sammy Hagar
Merle Haggard
Tippi Hedren
Charleton Heston
Dennis Hopper ?
Arianna Huffington (What??)
Toby Keith
Dean Koontz
Swoosie Kurtz
David Limbaugh
Art Linkletter
Heather Locklear (as if she couldn`t get any hotter)
Wink Martindale
Ted McGinley
Dr. Phil McGraw
Vince McMahon
Ricardo Montalban
Jim Nabors
Chuck Norris
Maury Povich
Prince
Cesar Romero
Jeri Ryan
Rick Schroder
Tracy Scoggins
Paul Schaffer
Jaclyn Smith
Kevin Sorbo
Robert Stack
George Strait
Randy Travis
Alex Trebek
James Woods
Martin Yan
Dwight Yoakam

[25 years Navy]

He's a medical doctor. Physicians are very well versed in the scientific method of exploration and verification. Without that ability they could/would prescribe medicines and treatments based upon the latest whim.
I'd say he is imminently qualified to make these statements.

[discostu]

Nobody said it's immutable. Just that it's verifiable with the current data set. Science is all about the collection of data, it comes up with conclusions based on that data, then new data comes up and sometimes it back up the existing conclusions and sometimes it doesn't. Regardless of whether you believe in young earth or old earth the simple fact is we've been studying how things work for a pretty insignificant percentage of the time the world has been around, we've only just scratched the surface in most sciences, that makes the conclusions nearly infinitely fallible at this point, but they're what we've got.

[Milton Friedman]

State of Fear really took it too the greenies.

My favorite book of his is non-fiction, The Great Train Robbery. Interesting tale indeed. But I always like it more when the stories are true.

[25 years Navy]

He's a medical doctor. Physicians are very well versed in the scientific method of exploration and verification. Without that ability they could/would prescribe medicines and treatments based upon the latest whim.
I'd say he is imminently qualified to make these statements.

[Chameleon]

I'm not sure who could be considered more qualified to discuss such matters than Crichton.

He is undeniably brilliant as proven by extraordinary success acedaemically and professionally.

He has been inside science, and stidued it from the outside.

He consistently tackles difficult scientific concepts through meticulous study, and incorporates them into fantasy thrillers that eduicate the readers about the science.

In tackling these scientific questions, he consistently forms his own opinions based on meticulous study, and presents his own insights rather than regurgutating the conventional wisdom.

Consider that Crichton is trained as a scientist with excellent academic credentials, has proven successful in exploring and explaining science in fiction works, has a track record of meticulous study and deep penetration into a wide variety of leading edge science topics....And then consider that he spent a couple years studying the science behind global warming, analyzing the data and methodoligies...And just who is it that would be more qualified to render an opinion on this subject?

[Paved Paradise]

I enjoy Crichton's books but "State of Fear" sounded boring. Is it a good read too?

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Unless the Government intends to start “licensing” the right to do “science” the scientific community as a whole will continue to make its own decisions about the validity of scientific research.

I also wonder if those who would mandate that government funded research be conducted in triplicate intend to triple government funding of scientific research.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Unless the Government intends to start “licensing” the right to do “science” the scientific community as a whole will continue to make its own decisions about the validity of scientific research.

I also wonder if those who would mandate that government funded research be conducted in triplicate intend to triple government funding of scientific research.

[dollar_dog]

although I`m suspicious if some of these are true

I've found this site to be very reliable. In fact, NewsMeat was the only site that reported Miers' contributions to Gore, Bentsen, and the DNC in the 80s (all which are accurate and were confirmed by the White House yesterday). The other sites like FEC.gov and opensecrets only report from the 90s to the present.

Catherine Coulter (Catherine? Maybe that is Anns legal name?) No, she's a novelist...not Ann, who by the way, has only donated $250 to Pat Buchannan in her lifetime.

Eva Gabor (impossible, she is French!)

Hungarian, I think. Definitely not French.

Arianna Huffington (What??)

Oh yeah...the ultimate evidence that she just says whatever she thinks she needs to say to get attention. At that time, she was the wife (actually, beard) of Congressman Michael Huffington, a RINO and closeted homo. She is 100% attention whore.

[xJones]

Excellent thread, and Michael Crichton is not only a genius, he also has common sense coming out his ears.

[Hildy]

I can't let a thread featuring Michael Crichton go without posting a speech he gave to the National Press Corp in the early 1990's that predicted the fate of the mainstream media. That guy is brilliant. Please, please read this speech if you get a chance. I see it was made in 1993, I remember watching this like it was yesterday and just nodding my head in agreement. Here it is:

Mediasaurus: The decline of conventional media"

[Hildy]

I can't let a thread featuring Michael Crichton go without posting a speech he gave to the National Press Corp in the early 1990's that predicted the fate of the mainstream media. That guy is brilliant. Please, please read this speech if you get a chance. I see it was made in 1993, I remember watching this like it was yesterday and just nodding my head in agreement. Here it is:

Mediasaurus: The decline of conventional media"

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Ahem. I do.

In that case, it seems odd that the fact that social scientists are the primary proponents of the global warming hoax bothers you less than Michael Crichton's qualifications.

PS - "State of Fear" is the only novel I have ever read with an extensive bibliography of documentation from scientific journals. Crichton has done his research, not just attended meetings of socialist academics who think wearing "Earth First" buttons and ribbons makes them special.

[Peach]

In that case, it seems odd that the fact that social scientists are the primary proponents of the global warming hoax bothers you less than Michael Crichton's qualifications.

Man, do you think you could jump to a bigger conclusion with fewer facts at your disposal?

I asked a question. Hint: I asked a question because I didn't know the answer.

I asked if this Michael Crighton was the writer and if he had qualifications and what they were.

I've never read his books but thought I recognized the name but wasn't sure.

Now, do you think you could possibly stop with the lectures? Sheesh. What is WRONG with you?

[Cincinatus]

I enjoy Crichton's books but "State of Fear" sounded boring. Is it a good read too?

It's OK, if a bit obvious and plodding. Crichton really hasn't written a good novel since The Great Train Robbery. Both Jurassic Park and now State of Fear are really interesting more for the ideas that are explored within them rather than details of plot or character, which are quite poor in both.

And almost anything Chrichton has written is infinitely superior to the current pulp mega-seller The Da Vinci Code.

[CollegeRepublican]

State of Fear starts off real slow and then picks up speed at the end. It is not his best book by any means, but it is an interesting read. I have read all of his books and liked Timeline, Jurrasic Park, and Eaters of the Dead the best. And Prey was pretty interesting.

[Fido969]

that makes the conclusions nearly infinitely fallible at this point,

That's the point. Without getting into some semantic argument about what a "scientific truth" is, a "theory" is, etc, it remains that there are good social morals and rules that stand the test of time, and stand changing science.

Let science change - it always will. But don't keep twisting and turning and changing because of whatever scientific fad-of-the-day these overblown PhDs happen to be pushing today. Their God of knowledge (small "k") is fickle, indeed.

Instead, you can use a constant star as your moral compass.

[discostu]

Science really isn't, and shouldn't be, about morals. Science is about knowledge, the only way science should ever be applies to morals is in determining if a moral problem we're trying to solve is really a problem (for instance if global climate change is not caused by man then we have no moral duty to do anything about it, in fact we probably have a moral duty to let the planet and/ or God do whatever they want), and in determining if what we want to do about the moral problem will actually work (for instance government run anti-poverty programs never work, while we clearly have a moral duty to help the less fortunate those effort should be focused in a way that actually helps rather than ones that do nothing or in some cases actually make the problem worse).

Outside of the facts surrounding moral issues science should remain neutral. Which is exactly what Crichton is talking about, certain scientific issues have become imbued with a huge emotional/ moral/ political weight that is clouding the process. We should remove the baggage from the scientific parts of these issues and let science do what it is supposed to do: operate in a political and moral vacuum and just collect the facts and draw conclussions.