Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Aliens Cause Global Warming
Caltech Michelin Lecture ^ | January 17, 2003 | Michael Crichton

Posted on 12/11/2003 1:44:39 PM PST by Dan Evans

Edited on 01/02/2004 6:36:11 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: carlsagan; crevolist; environmentalism; globalwarming; pufflist; sagan; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

"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.

1 posted on 12/11/2003 1:44:40 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
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.

2 posted on 12/11/2003 1:47:51 PM PST by dirtboy (New Ben and Jerry's flavor - Howard Dean Swirl - no ice cream, just fruit at bottom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
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.

3 posted on 12/11/2003 2:01:15 PM PST by laotzu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
OUTSTANDING article. Well worth the lengthy read.
4 posted on 12/11/2003 2:13:23 PM PST by Sloth ("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
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.
5 posted on 12/11/2003 2:13:25 PM PST by Gorjus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sloth

Crichton for President!

6 posted on 12/11/2003 2:17:15 PM PST by Sloth ("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
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.)
7 posted on 12/11/2003 2:22:40 PM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Uday and Qusay and Idi-ay are ead-day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Reality is only consensual agreement.

What we believe is what is real.

8 posted on 12/11/2003 2:36:26 PM PST by UCANSEE2 ("Duty is ours, Results are God's" --John Quincy Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Excellent article - thanks for posting! Bookmarked.
9 posted on 12/11/2003 2:41:54 PM PST by 11B3 (Liberalism is merely another form of mental retardation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
What we believe is what is real.

As separate individuals, we can hold two contradictory beliefs at once. I, one and you, another. Which is real?

10 posted on 12/11/2003 2:44:27 PM PST by RightWhale (Close your tag lines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
This is real series! Can you please provide the condensed version?
11 posted on 12/11/2003 2:46:07 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
Crichton for President!

I'll second that!

12 posted on 12/11/2003 2:47:32 PM PST by RightWhale (Close your tag lines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
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.

13 posted on 12/11/2003 2:49:36 PM PST by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
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.
14 posted on 12/11/2003 2:53:17 PM PST by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
ping
15 posted on 12/11/2003 2:54:49 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Bump.
16 posted on 12/11/2003 2:55:16 PM PST by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans; AAABEST; Ace2U; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; amom; AndreaZingg; Anonymous2; ...
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.

17 posted on 12/11/2003 2:56:11 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laotzu
I call it the Mother Ship theory.

So does Louis Farakkhan! lol

18 posted on 12/11/2003 3:00:47 PM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans; *puff_list; Leisler
Excellent read. Michael Crichton deconstructs the hot air blowing from the "scientific community".

19 posted on 12/11/2003 3:00:54 PM PST by metesky (Kids, don't let this happen to you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Zing!
20 posted on 12/11/2003 3:01:15 PM PST by BossLady (Every time a celebrity complains......a Freeper gets their wings.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
Reality is only consensual agreement. What we believe is what is real.

I can't wait for the Democrats to start a "2+2=5" belief to pound "evil Republicans" with! ;-)

21 posted on 12/11/2003 3:02:07 PM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend


22 posted on 12/11/2003 3:10:24 PM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must address this.

Bump! Great read.
23 posted on 12/11/2003 3:11:33 PM PST by Pro-Bush (Homeland Security + Tom Ridge = Open Borders --> Demand Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
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.
24 posted on 12/11/2003 3:13:59 PM PST by beezdotcom ("...but never let the data get in the way of the 'right' conclusion...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
This got linked at Arts & Letters which gets a lot of academic interest.


http://aldaily.com/
25 posted on 12/11/2003 3:18:07 PM PST by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Great read, thanks.
26 posted on 12/11/2003 3:21:54 PM PST by wjcsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
What sacred cow of your's did he threaten?

27 posted on 12/11/2003 3:30:56 PM PST by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
Great article on psuedo science.
28 posted on 12/11/2003 3:34:16 PM PST by blanknoone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
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?

29 posted on 12/11/2003 3:36:50 PM PST by knak (wasknaknowknid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
M-M-M-My Sharona!

Hahaha - that's what you get for looking up my member since date. Now you'll have that song stuck in your head for the next hour or two.

Never heard of the song! LOL!
30 posted on 12/11/2003 4:12:42 PM PST by restornu ( "The biggest room in the world; is the room for improvement.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
I, one and you, another. Which is real?

To whom?

31 posted on 12/11/2003 4:30:17 PM PST by UCANSEE2 ("Duty is ours, Results are God's" --John Quincy Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Science Ping
32 posted on 12/11/2003 4:38:20 PM PST by NathanR (California Si! Aztlan NO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus
A variation might be the Battlestar Galactica theory.
33 posted on 12/11/2003 6:49:57 PM PST by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xp38
Which Battlestar Galactica? The first one or the horrible "remake"? ;-)
34 posted on 12/11/2003 6:55:19 PM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom
His comment about continental drift reminds me of when I was in college in the late 50's. I shared lodgings with 4 or 5 geologists. When I said I believed in continental drift, they didn't try to argue with me, but just laughed at me as a crank! Three years later, they should have been red-faced.
35 posted on 12/11/2003 7:14:26 PM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
Aliens Cause Global Warming? Of Course, haven't you seen "The Arrival" with Charlie Sheen?


36 posted on 12/11/2003 8:01:31 PM PST by McCloud-Strife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus
Hard to say since I haven't seen the horrible remake. There are many currents in Battlestar Galactica theory. One denies the existence of Galactica 1980 where earth is found but found wanting. Others contend validity. The presence of Lorne Greene (an important movement called Greene theory) in the cast of these somewhat forgotten episodes however adds gravitas and robustness to these findings.
37 posted on 12/11/2003 8:07:46 PM PST by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president,...

Ummm what?

Otherwise a great read

38 posted on 12/11/2003 8:37:38 PM PST by Mike Darancette (Proud member - Neoconservative Power Vortex)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Long read but worth it on the topic we were discussing the other day.
39 posted on 12/11/2003 8:41:52 PM PST by Swordmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
Poor article, in my opinion. Maybe he could learn something about presidential inaugurations. He makes the wrong point about the Nuclear Winter, namely that the peer-reviewed journals didn't accept the results. Sagan, et al., went to the Press first. The same for Cold Fusion. It does help to check things out before going to the Press. Nobody (actually, none of the climatologists that I know) except for Sagan thought that the Kuwait oil fires would have any effect. We've seen oil fires before.
40 posted on 12/11/2003 8:54:51 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Excellent article. I've known for some while that the second hand smoke claims are bunk but few will listen.
41 posted on 12/11/2003 9:05:30 PM PST by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gorjus; Lonesome in Massachussets; UCANSEE2; RightWhale; Restorer; Fledermaus; Pro-Bush; ...
One of the more frightening concepts in recent times is the notion that there can be more than one truth, and that the truth is relative or determined by consensus. But rational people know that there is only one reality, one truth. Science must accept that as a given. If you believe that reality depends on consensus then you must believe that the sun once revolved around the earth or that the earth was once flat.

Good science seeks the truth and, yes, truth can be used for good or evil, but the nature of evil is that it uses lies as often as it uses the truth. The truth, therefore, favors good.

Crichton thinks that that bad science can be overcome by establishing an independent research organization with all kinds of cross-checks but I don't believe this is the answer. People who will deliberately distort the truth will not be stopped by any schematic process because they will always find a way around it.

The way to combat dishonesty in our institutions is the way that has worked for centuries -- exclude dishonest people. But lately, honor codes and sanctions against disreputable people have fallen out of favor and become politically incorrect. We need to return to the times when a man's reputation was the most important thing he had.

When enough dishonest people populate an organization they will begin to exclude the reputable -- and there is no cure for that except for the rest of society to isolate that entire entity.

42 posted on 12/11/2003 9:14:22 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Not that I read the thread, but I figered there was some link between Mexicans, beans and methane over-production creating global warming...my bad.
43 posted on 12/12/2003 12:43:18 AM PST by Outraged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
bump for later reading
44 posted on 12/12/2003 12:47:31 AM PST by Just another Joe (FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
BTT!!!!!
45 posted on 12/12/2003 3:15:48 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Read Kostler's "The Sleepwalkers". One of the best history of science books ever.

The rot set in after WW-II when the government got involved and scientists became overwhelmingly government employees. (Most university scientist live on government hand-outs.) Einstein was a patent examiner who dabbled in physics part-time. If he'd been professor at a modern American university he'd be too worried about giving offense or too busy pontificating on Republican perfidy to accomplish anything useful.

Just as credentialism and unionism has ruined education, it was visited its blessings on science.

Critchon never even got to lynx hair, I noticed.
46 posted on 12/12/2003 3:49:40 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Uday and Qusay and Idi-ay are ead-day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Thank you for posting this much enjoyed article.
47 posted on 12/12/2003 4:01:52 AM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
An EXCELLENT article on the sad decline of science. And the issue with Lomborg is why I finally dropped my SA subscription. He hit that one square on the head.
48 posted on 12/12/2003 5:05:14 AM PST by PogySailor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
What sacred cow of your's did he threaten?

None. He was being satrical, and so was I.

49 posted on 12/12/2003 5:57:35 AM PST by dirtboy (New Ben and Jerry's flavor - Howard Dean Swirl - no ice cream, just fruit at bottom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
sanctions against disreputable people have fallen out of favor and become politically incorrect

Instead, the sanctions are now against Christians and political conservatives, instead of against the dishonest.

50 posted on 12/12/2003 6:00:49 AM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson