Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming (Lecture on Science & Public Policy)

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

Excellent speech, excellent read, and extremely eloquent. I particularly enjoyed his coverage of nuclear winter. That is perhaps one of the greatest examples of poor, agenda-skewed science of the 20th century. (Debunking it was also an element of my Master's thesis at the Naval War College)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Managed to get three-quarters through it Stokes. It may just be Crichton himself - I made the mistake once of reading the first two Jurassic Park novels. First one was okay, if typical Crichton (great for technical detail, lousy for characters, and very simplistic on plotlines), but the second was putrid, sarcastic crap. He basicly spent 200+ pages deriding the film of the first book and the first book itself. Now catharsis is a useful thing - but I don't want to read someone else's, you understand?

And this is the same thing. He's trashing people whose reputations far exceed his (because their work far exceeds his), with no significant reason for doing so. And this was at a lecture, don't forget - no peer review, no criticism, and no comments.

Now, had he wanted to put this forward seriously, it'd be submitted with supporting evidence to a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal.

I haven't seen it in one - have you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I like what Crichton says about how computer models just project the present into the future. Thats kind of what my thoughts are on current computer models of global warming. They don't take into account newer technologies which may not produce all of the carbon dioxide current fossil fuels do.

But as with SETI and lowering interest in aliens. He doesn't take into account that the 60's were a time when uni's and scientists in general could finally start searching for E.T. Of course they would have been excited and over enthusiastic. 40 years of searching later and you could be excused for getting a bit less enthused. Same goes with life on Mars and even Venus which fascinated people in the early to mid 1900's.

I think knocking the SETI people kind of contradicts what he says about the scientists who are remembered are those who go against the concensus. His concensus says E.T. doesn't exist so he knocks those scientists in SETI as being foolish.

Don't know about you guys but it sounds like he may just be on the soap box having a bit of a bitch even though he does make a good point about the mixing of science and political ends and policy. Though this has happened all through history. One of the big ones today being missile defence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I really enjoyed the speech. Have a look at another one.

 

^^ read that one some months ago. It's excellent.

You're missing the point. He's not postulating some new theory or discipline, but rather, highlighting the intrinsic, logical flaws in the underpinnings of some of the most pervasive scientific fallacies of the 20th century. He doesn't need corroboration to do that.