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

Skip to comments.

Michael Crichton debunks the "consensus science" of Dr. Carl Sagan
www.crichton-official.com ^ | January 17, 2003 | Michael Crichton

Posted on 01/03/2004 8:45:36 AM PST by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at crichton-official.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: climatechange; crichton; nuclearwinter; science; skepticism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-94 last
To: EggsAckley
Not only is Crichton a great writer, he also pretty much nails environmentalism. Great speech........

I read all his books when they come out. The last one about rouge nano-bots was very good. Here's one I must re-read.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060509058/102-9379793-5270529?v=glance
51 posted on 01/03/2004 10:52:02 AM PST by dennisw (G_d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
Carl Sagan had political agendas of his own. I believe he was pretty far to left politically. He opposed the Gulf War and so came up with this bullcrap about the Kuwaiti oil fires. Anyone with half a brain knows that heavy concentrations of particulates in the air will soon draw condensation and fall to the gorund as rain or snow.
52 posted on 01/03/2004 10:56:00 AM PST by attiladhun2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Benrand
Yeah, SA has mutated into a monthly package of political screeds with a little science thrown in for flavor. I switched to Physics Today and Astronomy to get my science fix. Good stuff!
53 posted on 01/03/2004 11:04:40 AM PST by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Benrand
Even to a child, the contrast was clear between the world of politics-a world of hate and danger, of irrational beliefs and fears, of mass manipulation and disgraceful blots on human history.

This 'child' didn't have much of a childhood, did he? Not that I believe 
for a minute he believed all of that at such a tender age.

Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

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

SETI is a religion.

That does not follow.  Faith does not equal religion.
The rest of the article/speech is great.  Injecting religion
into the debate, though, just sounds like ranting.

54 posted on 01/03/2004 11:11:00 AM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Benrand
Crichton, like many of us, evolved from the 60's era of fads and knee-jerk liberalism to today's thoughtful conservative who questions not just authority but everything else included. For his latest book "Prey" he studied nanotechnologies, predator-prey behavior studies, distributed intelligence of hives and (as usual) our government's interests in these fields. That he is slammed for deviating from his usual path of science-thriller ("Disclosure") is unfair, because it was a study of how people can use indoctrinated assumptions as weapons when a society never questions those assumptions. Any good father trying to gain custody of his children from a bad mother in a U.S. court would tell you.
Mr.Sagan, on the other hand, became too famous too quickly to withstand the BS that accompanies that phenomenon.
Fame and money have been the downfall of too many talented souls who one would hope to have known otherwise.

RadioAstronomer, people are wary of the SETI project because of the Twighlight Zone episode "To Serve Man".
55 posted on 01/03/2004 11:15:38 AM PST by NewRomeTacitus (English MUST be made the official language of the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Benrand
I enjoyed the Crichton article, but his reasoning becomes rather circular. He wants to reduce unsubstantiated scientific "speculation," but he seems to miss his own point that many of the out of step theories of the past were dismissed as just that and later proved to be true. He thinks this can be avoided with a purely objective approach but he then fails to see his own observation that science has always been infected with "politics." The "consensus" would use his double blind studies approach to stifle new discoveries.

And on the Drake equation, it just recognized what variables would go into calculating current extraterrestrial civilizations, and then plugged in some conservative numbers to observe that in a vast universe even a tiny percentage of star systems with civilizations would amount to a lot. But the equation also illustrates (as I believe Carl Sagan often observed - he was NOT a fan of UFO's, the likelihood of contacting aliens, or even of manned space exploration) that even with a lot of civilizations spread around, the universe would remain a pretty lonely place because of its vastness across time and space. In other words, even if we are not alone, we may never find any neighbors.

I think Crichton went too far because what he really wanted to do was point out that global warming is unsubstantiated and is similar to some earlier "popular" assumptions. But is it really worthwhile to insist that science can't predict anything 100 years in advance, and that we shouldn't try? That seems rather short sighted and fatalistic.

56 posted on 01/03/2004 11:17:14 AM PST by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewRomeTacitus
RadioAstronomer, people are wary of the SETI project because of the Twighlight Zone episode "To Serve Man".

I almost missed this. SETI is a receive only endeavor.

57 posted on 01/03/2004 11:20:32 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Williams
as I believe Carl Sagan often observed - he was NOT a fan of UFO's, the likelihood of contacting aliens

Agreed. Mention SETI and invariably the topic of UFOs crops up. Sigh.

58 posted on 01/03/2004 11:22:09 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Benrand
Great article, and well worth the read.
59 posted on 01/03/2004 11:22:44 AM PST by paulklenk (DEPORT HILLARY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Allan
Bump
60 posted on 01/03/2004 11:26:41 AM PST by Allan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Benrand
bflr
61 posted on 01/03/2004 11:27:39 AM PST by CFC__VRWC (AIDS, abortion, euthanasia - don't liberals just kill ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Benrand
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.

Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do. Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science-namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy.

I have a special interest in this because of my own upbringing. I was born in the midst of World War II, and passed my formative years at the height of the Cold War. In school drills, I dutifully crawled under my desk in preparation for a nuclear attack.

It was a time of widespread fear and uncertainty, but even as a child I believed that science represented the best and greatest hope for mankind. Even to a child, the contrast was clear between the world of politics-a world of hate and danger, of irrational beliefs and fears, of mass manipulation and disgraceful blots on human history. 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. The world might not be avery good place, but science would make it better. And it did. In my lifetime, science has largely fulfilled its promise. Science has been the great intellectual adventure of our age, and a great hope for our troubled and restless world.

But I did not expect science merely to extend lifespan, feed the hungry, cure disease, and shrink the world with jets and cell phones. I also expected science to banish the evils of human thought---prejudice and superstition, irrational beliefs and false fears. I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists. The world has not benefited from permitting these demons to escape free.

But let's look at how it came to pass.

Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:

N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL

Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.

This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice.

As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.

One way to chart the cooling of enthusiasm is to review popular works on the subject. In 1964, at the height of SETI enthusiasm, Walter Sullivan of the NY Times wrote an exciting book about life in the universe entitled WE ARE NOT ALONE. By 1995, when Paul Davis wrote a book on the same subject, he titled it ARE WE ALONE? ( Since 1981, there have in fact been four books titled ARE WE ALONE.) More recently we have seen the rise of the so-called "Rare Earth" theory which suggests that we may, in fact, be all alone. Again, there is no evidence either way.

Back in the sixties, SETI had its critics, although not among astrophysicists and astronomers. The biologists and paleontologists were harshest. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard sneered that SETI was a "study without a subject," and it remains so to the present day.

But scientists in general have been indulgent toward SETI, viewing it either with bemused tolerance, or with indifference. After all, what's the big deal? It's kind of fun. If people want to look, let them. Only a curmudgeon would speak harshly of SETI. It wasn't worth the bother.

And of course it is true that untestable theories may have heuristic value. Of course extraterrestrials are a good way to teach science to kids. But that does not relieve us of the obligation to see the Drake equation clearly for what it is-pure speculation in quasi-scientific trappings.

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.

Now let's jump ahead a decade to the 1970s, and Nuclear Winter.

In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences reported on "Long-Term Worldwide Effects of Multiple Nuclear Weapons Detonations" but the report estimated the effect of dust from nuclear blasts to be relatively minor. In 1979, the Office of Technology Assessment issued a report on "The Effects of Nuclear War" and stated that nuclear war could perhaps produce irreversible adverse consequences on the environment. However, because the scientific processes involved were poorly understood, the report stated it was not possible to estimate the probable magnitude of such damage.

Three years later, in 1982, the Swedish Academy of Sciences commissioned a report entitled "The Atmosphere after a Nuclear War: Twilight at Noon," which attempted to quantify the effect of smoke from burning forests and cities. The authors speculated that there would be so much smoke that a large cloud over the northern hemisphere would reduce incoming sunlight below the level required for photosynthesis, and that this would last for weeks or even longer.

The following year, five scientists including Richard Turco and Carl Sagan published a paper in Science called "Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions." This was the so-called TTAPS report, which attempted to quantify more rigorously the atmospheric effects, with the added credibility to be gained from an actual computer model of climate.

At the heart of the TTAPS undertaking was another equation, never specifically expressed, but one that could be paraphrased as follows:

Ds = Wn Ws Wh Tf Tb Pt Pr Pe… etc

(The amount of tropospheric dust=# warheads x size warheads x warhead detonation height x flammability of targets x Target burn duration x Particles entering the Troposphere x Particle reflectivity x Particle endurance…and so on.)

The similarity to the Drake equation is striking. As with the Drake equation, none of the variables can be determined. None at all. The TTAPS study addressed this problem in part by mapping out different wartime scenarios and assigning numbers to some of the variables, but even so, the remaining variables were-and are-simply unknowable. Nobody knows how much smoke will be generated when cities burn, creating particles of what kind, and for how long. No one knows the effect of local weather conditions on the amount of particles that will be injected into the troposphere. No one knows how long the particles will remain in the troposphere. And so on.

And remember, this is only four years after the OTA study concluded that the underlying scientific processes were so poorly known that no estimates could be reliably made. Nevertheless, the TTAPS study not only made those estimates, but concluded they were catastrophic.

According to Sagan and his coworkers, even a limited 5,000 megaton nuclear exchange would cause a global temperature drop of more than 35 degrees Centigrade, and this change would last for three months. The greatest volcanic eruptions that we know of changed world temperatures somewhere between .5 and 2 degrees Centigrade. Ice ages changed global temperatures by 10 degrees. Here we have an estimated change three times greater than any ice age. One might expect it to be the subject of some dispute.

But Sagan and his coworkers were prepared, for nuclear winter was from the outset the subject of a well-orchestrated media campaign. The first announcement of nuclear winter appeared in an article by Sagan in the Sunday supplement, Parade. The very next day, a highly-publicized, high-profile conference on the long-term consequences of nuclear war was held in Washington, chaired by Carl Sagan and Paul Ehrlich, the most famous and media-savvy scientists of their generation. Sagan appeared on the Johnny Carson show 40 times. Ehrlich was on 25 times. Following the conference, there were press conferences, meetings with congressmen, and so on. The formal papers in Science came months later.

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

The real nature of the conference is indicated by these artists' renderings of the the effect of nuclear winter.

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.

At the conference in Washington, during the question period, Ehrlich was reminded that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, scientists were quoted as saying nothing would grow there for 75 years, but in fact melons were growing the next year. So, he was asked, how accurate were these findings now?

Ehrlich answered by saying "I think they are extremely robust. Scientists may have made statements like that, although I cannot imagine what their basis would have been, even with the state of science at that time, but scientists are always making absurd statements, individually, in various places. What we are doing here, however, is presenting a consensus of a very large group of scientists…"

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. 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.

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 the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compellng evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therap6y…the list of consensus errors goes on and on.

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.

But back to our main subject.

What I have been suggesting to you is that nuclear winter was a meaningless formula, tricked out with bad science, for policy ends. It was political from the beginning, promoted in a well-orchestrated media campaign that had to be planned weeks or months in advance.

Further evidence of the political nature of the whole project can be found in the response to criticism. Although Richard Feynman was characteristically blunt, saying, "I really don't think these guys know what they're talking about," other prominent scientists were noticeably reticent. Freeman Dyson was quoted as saying "It's an absolutely atrocious piece of science but…who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war?" And Victor Weisskopf said, "The science is terrible but---perhaps the psychology is good." The nuclear winter team followed up the publication of such comments with letters to the editors denying that these statements were ever made, though the scientists since then have subsequently confirmed their views.

At the time, there was a concerted desire on the part of lots of people to avoid nuclear war. If nuclear winter looked awful, why investigate too closely? Who wanted to disagree? Only people like Edward Teller, the "father of the H bomb."

Teller said, "While it is generally recognized that details are still uncertain and deserve much more study, Dr. Sagan nevertheless has taken the position that the whole scenario is so robust that there can be little doubt about its main conclusions." Yet for most people, the fact that nuclear winter was a scenario riddled with uncertainties did not seem to be relevant.

I say it is hugely relevant. 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.

What happened to Nuclear Winter? As the media glare faded, its robust scenario appeared less persuasive; John Maddox, editor of Nature, repeatedly criticized its claims; within a year, Stephen Schneider, one of the leading figures in the climate model, began to speak of "nuclear autumn." It just didn't have the same ring.

A final media embarrassment came in 1991, when Carl Sagan predicted on Nightline that Kuwaiti oil fires would produce a nuclear winter effect, causing a "year without a summer," and endangering crops around the world. Sagan stressed this outcome was so likely that "it should affect the war plans." None of it happened.

What, then, can we say were the lessons of Nuclear Winter? I believe the lesson was that with a catchy name, a strong policy position and an aggressive media campaign, nobody will dare to criticize the science, and in short order, a terminally weak thesis will be established as fact. After that, any criticism becomes beside the point. The war is already over without a shot being fired. That was the lesson, and we had a textbook application soon afterward, with second hand smoke.

In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults," and that it " impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% coinfidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen.

This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that "Second-hand smoke is the nation's third-leading preventable cause of death." The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent.

In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had "committed to a conclusion before research had begun", and had "disregarded information and made findings on selective information." The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our science….there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings…a whole host of health problems." Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn't even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It's the consensus of the American people.

Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke.

As with nuclear winter, bad science is used to promote what most people would consider good policy. I certainly think it is. I don't want people smoking around me. So who will speak out against banning second-hand smoke? Nobody, and if you do, you'll be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds. A big tobacco flunky. But the truth is that we now have a social policy supported by the grossest of superstitions. And we've given the EPA a bad lesson in how to behave in the future. We've told them that cheating is the way to succeed.

As the twentieth century drew to a close, the connection between hard scientific fact and public policy became increasingly elastic. In part this was possible because of the complacency of the scientific profession; in part because of the lack of good science education among the public; in part, because of the rise of specialized advocacy groups which have been enormously effective in getting publicity and shaping policy; and in great part because of the decline of the media as an independent assessor of fact. 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. It is not my purpose here to rehash the details of this most magnificent of the demons haunting the world. I would just remind you of the now-familiar pattern by which these things are established. Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron. Next, the isolation of those scientists who won't get with the program, and the characterization of those scientists as outsiders and "skeptics" in quotation marks-suspect individuals with suspect motives, industry flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental nutcases. In short order, debate ends, even though prominent scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done.

When did "skeptic" become a dirty word in science? When did a skeptic require quotation marks around it?

To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to a conclusion: "These results are derived with the help of a computer model." But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world-increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs.

This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands.

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?

Stepping back, I have to say the arrogance of the modelmakers is breathtaking. There have been, in every century, scientists who say they know it all. Since climate may be a chaotic system-no one is sure-these predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite. But more to the point, even if the models get the science spot-on, they can never get the sociology. To predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd.

Look: 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?

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? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS… None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about.

Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it.

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. I refer to the green revolution. In 1960, Paul Ehrlich said, "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergoe famines-hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ten years later, he predicted four billion people would die during the 1980s, including 65 million Americans. The mass starvation that was predicted never occurred, and it now seems it isn't ever going to happen. Nor is the population explosion going to reach the numbers predicted even ten years ago. In 1990, climate modelers anticipated a world population of 11 billion by 2100. Today, some people think the correct number will be 7 billion and falling. But nobody knows for sure.

But it is impossible to ignore how closely the history of global warming fits on the previous template for nuclear winter. Just as the earliest studies of nuclear winter stated that the uncertainties were so great that probabilites could never be known, so, too the first pronouncements on global warming argued strong limits on what could be determined with certainty about climate change. The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes." Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate."

What is clear, however, is that on this issue, science and policy have become inextricably mixed to the point where it will be difficult, if not impossible, to separate them out. It is possible for an outside observer to ask serious questions about the conduct of investigations into global warming, such as whether we are taking appropriate steps to improve the quality of our observational data records, whether we are systematically obtaining the information that will clarify existing uncertainties, whether we have any organized disinterested mechanism to direct research in this contentious area.

The answer to all these questions is no. We don't.

In trying to think about how these questions can be resolved, it occurs to me that in the progression from SETI to nuclear winter to second hand smoke to global warming, we have one clear message, and that is that we can expect more and more problems of public policy dealing with technical issues in the future-problems of ever greater seriousness, where people care passionately on all sides.

And at the moment we have no mechanism to get good answers. So I will propose one.

Just as we have established a tradition of double-blinded research to determine drug efficacy, we must institute double-blinded research in other policy areas as well. Certainly the increased use of computer models, such as GCMs, cries out for the separation of those who make the models from those who verify them. The fact is that the present structure of science is entrepeneurial, with individual investigative teams vying for funding from organizations which all too often have a clear stake in the outcome of the research-or appear to, which may be just as bad. This is not healthy for science.

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.

I believe that as we come to the end of this litany, some of you may be saying, well what is the big deal, really. So we made a few mistakes. So a few scientists have overstated their cases and have egg on their faces. So what.

Well, I'll tell you.

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?

Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?

When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.

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.

Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church.

Is this what science has become? I hope not. But it is what it will become, unless there is a concerted effort by leading scientists to aggresively separate science from policy. The late Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said that "Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference-science and the nation will suffer." Personally, I don't worry about the nation. But I do worry about science.

Thank you very much.
62 posted on 01/03/2004 11:34:27 AM PST by sharktrager (The last rebel without a cause in a world full of causes without a rebel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Restore
Crichton's point about the equation is that there is no way to plug accurate values into the variables, which makes the equation useless regardless of how it is written.

63 posted on 01/03/2004 11:35:30 AM PST by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Williams
The "consensus" would use his double blind studies approach to stifle new discoveries.

I'm more supportive of his idea. First, way the majority of science (at least in chemistry and physics) goes on with little short-term application to social affairs which would draw the attention of the political system. (e.g. How many theoretical distillation plates are required to separate the numerous atomic isotopes of carbon dioxide. I guarantee you, Hillary doesn't care.) However, for scientific issues that have immediate or drastic policy implications, some method of enforced impartiality should be used before policy is affected. His plan would be a good starting point for discussion. It removes the decision from institutions with built-in bias, e.g. EPA, and it scrambles funding, which limits the major temptation to bias by researchers.

64 posted on 01/03/2004 11:36:53 AM PST by Faraday (FReepo ergo sum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
SETI is recieve only until the moment a demonstratably artificial signal is recieved. Transmission to that coordinate is nearly inevitable considering the narrow focus of our scientific establishment. Any caution would be "poo-pooed" as militaristic paranoia.
65 posted on 01/03/2004 11:41:56 AM PST by NewRomeTacitus (And the trees were all all made equal by hatchet, axe and saw.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
Intellectual inspiration?

"I had a dream today, oh boy ...... The Engish Army had just won the war" .......
==================================

LOL!!! (Drat you! Now I'll have that song stuck in my head the rest of the day.)

66 posted on 01/03/2004 12:58:05 PM PST by yankeedame ("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Touche`!
67 posted on 01/03/2004 1:00:29 PM PST by yankeedame ("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
"LOL!!! (Drat you! Now I'll have that song stuck in my head the rest of the day.)"

Later, while I was working in the yard, I realized I erred in the wording.

In all fairness to purists I post the correct words to "A Day In The Life".

I read a news today, oh boy,
About a lucky man who made a grade,
And though the news was rather sad,
Well, I just had to laugh.
I saw the photograph.

He blew his mind out in a car,
He didn't notice that the lights have changed,
A crowd of people stood and stared,
They've seen his face before,
Nobody was really sure if he was from the House of Lords.

I saw a film today, oh boy,
The English army had just won the war,
A crowd of people turned away,
But I just had a look,
Having read a book, I'd like to turn you on...

Woke up, fell out of bed,
Dragged a comb across my head,
Found my way downstairs and drank a cup,
And looking up I noticed I was late.
Found my coat and grabbed my head,
Made the bus in second flat,
Found my way upstairs and had a smoke,
And somebody spoke and I went into a dream.

I heard a news today, oh boy,
Four thousand holes in Blackburn Lancashire,
And though the holes were rather small,
They had to count them all,
Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall,
I'd love to turn you on.

I will also be singing this for a couple of days.

Sorry about that.

68 posted on 01/03/2004 1:10:18 PM PST by G.Mason ( Oh Hillary? ....... GWB is waiting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Benrand
Wasn't Carl Sagan in some way responsible for that load of hogwash junk-science movie "Contact"?

Sheesh...airy-fairy-ness to the max starring Jodie Foster.

69 posted on 01/03/2004 1:19:41 PM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Benrand
Ever since I read that the amount of sunlight reaching the earth has diminished by over 20%, I simply don't have the heart to bother with stuff like this.
70 posted on 01/03/2004 1:30:43 PM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: what's up
Bump for the Crighton article.

As for 'Contact', I enjoyed the movie. But it was definitely produced from a worldview where the closest thing to God are morally and technologically advanced aliens.
71 posted on 01/03/2004 3:12:58 PM PST by Joe Republc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Benrand
I cancelled my Scientific American subscription after the gratuitous hit piece on Lomborg and its inane pseudo-scientific article on "small arms". The editor that took over a couple years ago toned down the science content and turned it into a Mother Jones magazine supplement.
72 posted on 01/03/2004 5:43:17 PM PST by Deathmonger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deathmonger
I thought "Signs" a much better alien movie.

I couldn't take Foster as the perfect, all-wise, brainy scientist who encounters the god-like aliens.

And the story cemented my dislike of Sagan as junk scientist.

73 posted on 01/03/2004 5:46:13 PM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: what's up
Wasn't Carl Sagan in some way responsible for that load of hogwash junk-science movie "Contact"?

Sagan should not be held responsible for the movie.

74 posted on 01/03/2004 5:47:56 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Benrand
pot calling the kettle black fratricide :-)
75 posted on 01/03/2004 6:52:33 PM PST by Theophilus (Save little liberals - Stop Abortion!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewRomeTacitus; stands2reason
SETI is recieve only until the moment a demonstratably artificial signal is recieved. Transmission to that coordinate is nearly inevitable considering the narrow focus of our scientific establishment. Any caution would be "poo-pooed" as militaristic paranoia.

The problem here is that even at the speed of light it could take thousands of years for a signal to reach its destination. Would be difficult to hold a conversation with each reply taking longer than recorded history. We are broadcasting into space as we speak. So in effect, we are already announcing our presence.

What my SETI search is looking for is a civilization doing the same thing we are, communicating via radio (microwave). Unlike the movies (i.e. Contact), we are not looking for "information". We are just looking for a very sharp narrowband signal that indicates non-natural emanation. To further the odds, we are looking at millions of frequencies at the same time. This is not unlike listening to millions of FM stations on a radio simultaneously. The reason we look at so many frequencies, is that we don't know what frequency may be reaching us, should there be one.

Also note, I do not "believe" in ET. I suspect there may be other civilizations (ET) out there. If we do not look we will never know. This IMHO, is win win science. If we do find a signal that would be profound, if we do not, that too is profound.

If we do "see" and confirm a signal, it will redefine our place in the universe.

76 posted on 01/03/2004 7:11:42 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: js1138
My understanding is that the movie was based on a book written by Sagan. Junk-science is his forte.

I think it's excellent how Crichton pans Sagan's approach in this article. Sagan has been setup as some sort of guru by millions who don't understand real science.

77 posted on 01/03/2004 8:01:58 PM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: BartMan1; Nailbiter
... must read ...
78 posted on 01/04/2004 7:02:02 AM PST by IncPen ( "Saddam is in our hearts! Saddam is in our hearts!" "Saddam is in our jail!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IncPen; BartMan1; Nailbiter
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science   politics. I regard consensus science   politics 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 [...] agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Read this paragraph and let the words of the Clinton era pass in your mind:

There's nothing to see here

Let's move on

This is old news

Vast right-wing conspiracy...

In all things Clinton, it is essential to place the questioner outside of the realm of civility and sense, to indicate that whatever the voice dissenting with Clinton-speak is saying, the consensus is that the querist is wrong to dissent

The great thing is, this tactic is now being employed by Bush, but in a slightly different way. Whereas questioning Clinton's dalliances and misdeeds meant to question things that were 'culturally ugly' and thus permissible, to question Bush is to question our very survival.

Thus Bush (rightly) silences his critics by reminding them, "We're not talking thongs and cigars here. This is the future of the friggin' species"

In the realm of science the argument that 'global warming' is the 'future of the species' is put forth, but the evidence (while seemingly seductive) is not obvious.

The political contrast in the terror scenario is, I think, clear.

You can disagree with Bush about the terror war, but the prospect of doing nothing (as Dean and the Dumbos would have) is as clear as 911. I can't necessarily see that tossing a pop bottle out the window causes global warming, but I can see that not chasing Osama might well cause me to become extict.

An unintended consequence of Osama's little war is that he's made a very grey world look suddenly black and white. I wrote on FR on the evening of 911 that among the unintended consequences of Osama's attacks would be the cleaning up of 'a lot of slop'. This is but one consequence: that people will say, in the open, that the Emperor of Junk Science has no clothes. It was almost unthinkable 5 years ago.

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.

/rambling discourse

79 posted on 01/04/2004 7:50:17 AM PST by IncPen ( "Saddam is in our hearts! Saddam is in our hearts!" "Saddam is in our jail!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
He put himself through med school writing potboiler mysteries. No fool he!
80 posted on 01/04/2004 7:52:35 AM PST by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NewRomeTacitus
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.
81 posted on 01/04/2004 9:43:41 AM PST by bootless (Never Forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: bootless
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.
82 posted on 01/04/2004 10:48:48 AM PST by NewRomeTacitus (General Clark says that time travel smells like broccoli.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
"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.

83 posted on 01/05/2004 5:39:12 PM PST by Windsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Windsong
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.
84 posted on 01/05/2004 5:45:01 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Benrand
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.
85 posted on 01/05/2004 6:40:39 PM PST by Havoc ("Alright; but, that only counts as one..")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IncPen
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 ?

86 posted on 01/05/2004 6:41:36 PM PST by BartMan1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Nakatu X
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.

87 posted on 01/05/2004 6:51:10 PM PST by Havoc ("Alright; but, that only counts as one..")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
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

88 posted on 01/05/2004 7:42:50 PM PST by StopGlobalWhining (Cheney - Rumsfeld in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: StopGlobalWhining
Thanks for the link! Good reading.
89 posted on 01/06/2004 6:44:57 AM PST by EggsAckley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Benrand

Bump!


90 posted on 06/06/2004 9:40:55 PM PDT by Windsong (FighterPilot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windsong

Rebump!


91 posted on 04/02/2006 8:33:06 PM PDT by Hebrews 11:6 (Do you REALLY believe that (1) God is, and (2) God is good?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Benrand
"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 )

92 posted on 04/02/2006 8:38:35 PM PDT by Tench_Coxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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


93 posted on 06/10/2006 5:34:40 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (All Moslems everywhere advocate murder, including mass murder, and they do it all the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Benrand
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.

94 posted on 06/10/2006 7:23:57 PM PDT by Dr.Deth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-94 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