Monday, December 26, 2011
Michael Crichton on "Scientific Consensus"
"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 consensus."............This, to all of the people out there who think that the global-warming debate is settled.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
A few years ago Michael Crichton challenged Al Gore to a debate about global warming.This was shortly after Gores idiotic movie was released.Oh course knowing he would be cut to ribbons by Crichton,Gore refused.
The world lost a really bright guy when Michael Crichton passed away.
So your "solution" is to do nothing and wait for gobal climate change to be disproved? What if it turns out to be absolutely correct?
I think we should go with the best available information. Consensus is not irrelevant. There is a reason most of the scientists agree.
By the way most of the greatest scientists in history did not break with consenus... they built on the research that came before them.
My conclusion...
This post = load of crap.
Newton didn't break from consensus? Copernicus didn't break from consensus? Einstein didn't break from consensus? Methinks that you are all too familiar with crap, wd.
wd - So take a load off. Take a good crap for yourself.
You must be really constipated to be so full of it.
My conclusion.
In this post, Will shows a critical mind, reason, and a willingness not to accept spoon-fed dogma. Good going.
Another outstanding comment by the outstanding blogger WD,whose outstanding blog I plan on visiting soon.
I just think that we need to be intelligent about this, fellas'. Spending trillions and trillions and only being able to reduce the temperature by a couple tenths of a percent and ALSO letting China and India totally off the hook.......I mean, I don't know.
Greetings Will: I am probrably going to regret getting involved in this. I am not afraid to admit that I accept Global Warming as probrable fact. My motivations are a bit different. Those who are living in the year 2100 are going to have a few big problems to solve. 1)Overpopulation. 2) Food Production. 3)Energy and 4) Dwindling resources (e.g. chemical fertilizers, etc.) Currently we are living in a mind set that says there is unlimited gas, oil, food, etc and we can consume unabated without thought or concern. The American lifestyle in particuliar I believe is unsustainable. What is even more troubling is that other countries with very large populations like China and India want to emulate this lifestyle. With increased consumption which includes the burning of fossil fuels, I believe this will lead to an ever escalating and dramatic impact on our environment unless we are willing to change. I agree that in a discussion like this one, facts should rule the day. I for one, am willing to go where the facts lead or make a good hypothesis with what we do know. The cynic in me thinks that in a poisonous political environment, this is difficult. With Global Warming in particuliar this is pronouced. Is this really a debate about what is being said or who is saying it?? Would perceptions be different if Chris Christie or Marco Rubio made a movie about Global Warming?? I think it is unfair to suggest I am somehow a brain dead zombie who is hyponotized by Al Gore...it is also unfair to categorize skeptics as rigid accolytes to conservative political dogma...The future depends on our children. I hope they have the wisdom to what we apparently can not...Peace.
"Currently we are living in a mind set that says there is unlimited gas, oil, food, etc and we can consume unabated without thought or concern."
We are no where near peak oil. We create NEW food all the time!
The American lifestyle is quite sustainable.
"Would perceptions be different if Chris Christie or Marco Rubio made a movie about Global Warming??"
Those two have not made movies. But Gore has, and his movie has been proven to be full of fakery.
dmarks: I respectively disagree. The articles I've seen suggest that around the years 2060-2070, oil will be very hard to find, especially at the current rate of consumption. This isn't even factoring in increased demand from China, India and others. This also doesn't factor in population growth that staggers the mind...Do you really believe that our lifestyle is sustainable? At present, (2012) the US represents 10% of the worlds population but consumes 80% of the resources. What happens when the rest of the world catches up? Weather you want to believe it or not, the world is on the verge of a very real crisis. I fear for my grandkids and what they will face. Finally, no, Rubio/Christie did not make a movie about global warming...the point I am trying to make here is a lot of folks don't give a damn about the facts. What drives them is hatred of Al Gore, nothing more. If idealogy drives this debate, then we are doomed...How we survive as a species should not be subject to a political philosophy. Yes, there are a few problems with Global Warming (the same is true of any theory.) but we ignore the overall reality of planetary crisis at our peril. Peace.
"Weather you want to believe it or not, the world is on the verge of a very real crisis."
As was said by those heralding the New Ice Age in the 1970s... and Y2k... and 2012. And Y1K for that matter.
Marcus, is population the problem, or is population the solution? We've been hearing about these doomsday scenarios for centuries now and the quality of life for most of the world's population has actually gotten better. Yes, there's still a fair amount of poverty. But is that due to overpopulation or the fact that many of the world's governments are ridiculously corrupt? Japan, for instance, is incredibly overpopulated and they're doing surprisingly well. Certain countries in Africa they, on the other hand, are showing just the opposite. I think the reality here is that, as long as fossil fuels are decidedly cheaper than wind, solar, etc., that's what we're probably going to be using for the foreseeable future. I wouldn't worry about it too much, though. The next Edison/Gates/Oppenheimer will eventually come up with something to facilitate energy options. At least that's what I'm hoping for anyway.
Readeth thou the Holy Scriptures above, and may the Gods of Junk Science smite down thee who question thy Holy Dogma.
Sorry for squelching the discussion, dmarks, but I told this fellow that I didn't want him here and I meant it.
Will: I for one, won't miss the massive screeds of psuedo-science which you deleted. They were mindlessly cut-and-pasted from elsewhere, and only fostered ignorance.
"Holy Scriptures" indeed they were: more faith and dogma and not much science and common sense.
The thing that bugs me the most, dmarks, is this whole "the debate is over" stuff that guys like Chris Matthews are constantly spouting. I don't know, for me, it's kind of like what guys like Bjorn Lomborg are saying. Yes, there's global warming and, yes, it's a problem but let's not go off all half-cocked and drive off the cliff with trillion dollar bills in our hands. We've acted in haste before on other things. Let's not make the same mistake again.
And regardless when does it ever make sense to do things like curb greenhouse gasses by enacting the Kyoto Accords... which have china INCREASE such gas emissions?
Didn't the U.S. Senate knock down that sucker, 99-1 (or was it 95-0?). And the French didn't particularly care for it, either, no?
Post a Comment