Aliens Cause Global Warming

Caltech Michelin Lecture ^ | January 17, 2003 | Michael Crichton

[Phaedrus]

Excellent article. I've known for some while that the second hand smoke claims are bunk but few will listen.

[Dan Evans]

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.

[Outraged]

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.

[Just another Joe]

bump for later reading

[E.G.C.]

BTT!!!!!

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

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.

[DugwayDuke]

Thank you for posting this much enjoyed article.

[PogySailor]

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.

[dirtboy]

What sacred cow of your's did he threaten?

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

[expatpat]

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.

[Smile-n-Win]

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

Basically, the article is a warning about the spread of politically motivated junk science. It cites historical examples such as SETI or "Nuclear Winter" and identifies the Global Warming hoax as fitting into the same pattern.

Some interesting quotes:

"This is not the way science is done, it is the way products are sold."

"I cannot help but quote the caption for figure 5: 'Shown here is a tranquil scene in the north woods. A beaver has just completed its dam, two black bears forage for food, a swallow-tailed butterfly flutters in the foreground, a loon swims quietly by, and a kingfisher searches for a tasty fish.' Hard science if ever there was."

"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."

"In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results."

"Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

"Once you abandon strict adherence to what science tells us, once you start arranging the truth in a press conference, then anything is possible. In one context, maybe you will get some mobilization against nuclear war. But in another context, you get Lysenkoism. In another, you get Nazi euthanasia. The danger is always there, if you subvert science to political ends."

"That is why it is so important for the future of science that the line between what science can say with certainty, and what it cannot, be drawn clearly-and defended."

"The deterioration of the American media is dire loss for our country. When distinguished institutions like the New York Times can no longer differentiate between factual content and editorial opinion, but rather mix both freely on their front page, then who will hold anyone to a higher standard?"

"And so, in this elastic anything-goes world where science-or non-science-is the hand maiden of questionable public policy, we arrive at last at global warming."

"If I was selling stock in a company that I told you would be profitable in 2100, would you buy it? Or would you think the idea was so crazy that it must be a scam?"

"I remind you that in the lifetime of most scientists now living, we have already had an example of dire predictions set aside by new technology."

"it is impossible to ignore how closely the history of global warming fits on the previous template for nuclear winter."

"Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He's a heretic."

[Smile-n-Win]

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.

Yes, that is indeed how they view it. And that's why they ally themselves with Islamists: Both seek the destruction of mankind.

[Smile-n-Win]

Agreed 100%!

[Carry_Okie]

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.

This has been tried. David Packard gave it a go at the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary. He admitted failure.

So Crichton advocates a top-down approach, as if researchers in a major institute spend enough time in the field getting their hands dirty and don't let their beliefs, friendships, and ambitions cross up the process? He thinks nobody else besides researchers are capable of generating honest information? The funniest part is that he advocates funding by "industry, by government, and by private philanthropy" as if those weren't the sources of funding for the existing mess he decries! He thinks some centralized institute wouldn't operate in its own interests rather than objective disinterest. Is that ever projected hubris.

Then there's a little matter of complexity. Does an institute of central environmental planning have a way to manage that much data? Can it chunk information in a dynamic and self-optimizing fashion such that competing risks are assessed objectively? Does it have a way to flush out the manipulator, the incompetent, or the merely venal? How does he propose to deal with offers of money under the table to skew the data in somebody's favor?

How about something completely different, Michael? How about repeated experiments with validated data conducted by someone who has something to lose if he is wrong? How about a market that organizes information by its capability to offset human impact, provide beauty, or manage competing species? Our real problem is one of motivation and accountability. Crighton doesn't get it.

[RightWhale]

to whom?

The Reality Referee, of course.

[RightWhale]

Good science seeks the truth

Always seeking, never reaching. Real scientists know that.

[Gorjus]

We need to return to the times when a man's reputation was the most important thing he had.

Okay, and how do you go about it? Crichton's article had a reasonably specific, implementable plan. There were two keys to his idea. One was to institute 'blinds' in the data collection and analysis systems. The other was to have a body that had a reasonable chance to be considered objective review the various findings. Both are probably good ideas, but your basic point is valid - neither guarantees success.

What's the real solution? The first step to that is to determine what the real problem is, and that problem is socialist control of academia. People with no grounding in ethics or understanding of good science are gaining degrees. It's no secret that the best and the brightest don't go into teaching or journalism. However, lately they haven't been going into science/technology, either. As long as socialists control the universities, no 'peer review' or 'independent review' system will work.

In a larger sense, many of the hypotheses which may reveal something about the universe are inherently untestable. How do you directly measure temperatures from 10,000 years ago - or 100 years from now? (By the way, the models are testable - and not one of the 'global warming' models, if applied to the conditions of 1900, comes at all close to predicting the conditions of 2000.) However, the need to use proxies is used as a smokescreen. The absence of absolute certainty (or at least, testable hypotheses verifed by test) means that there is no way to disprove many of these hypotheses, either. And there is indeed a lot of money to be made by scare tactics on science. There is now a vicious circle, where journalists with inadequate training gain money and influence by 'crisis' reporting (and also gain influence when power is concentrated in accordance with socialist principles), and so-called scientists gain money and influence by 'crisis identification'. Until we break that cycle - and Crichton's proposal at least attempts to do so - we're not going to return to a situation where scientists gain influence by legitimate science.

[Dan Evans]

We need to return to the times when a man's reputation was the most important thing he had. Okay, and how do you go about it?

It's easy:

1) Elect a president like Ronald Reagan, only more conservative.

2) Appoint federal judges and supreme court justices who are conservative enough to restore the right of free association.

3) Impeach, try for treason and hang all liberal judges.

4) Remove all federal aid to education.

5) Establish the principle that a man's constitutional rights are not voided if he engages in interstate commerce or takes money from the government.

How's that for a plan?

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

[Gorjus]

How's that for a plan?

No thank you, Herr Oberfuehrer.