Slashdot Mirror

Hey, could everyone please stop using words like "denialists" and "deniers" to describe those who believe concerns about anthropogenic global climate change are overstated? Labels like "denier" really don't foster open and thoughtful discussion, and it shows a certain contempt for independent thought. Let's attack and defend ideas, not people.

There are lots of idiot "deniers" (the Fox News viewer) and idiot "believers" (the California soccer mom saving the planet with her Prius). If we're trying to have a productive discussion about A-GCC, these people should be ignored, since they only rile people up and make them forget about the important details

For those "believers" out there looking to challenge their own views, there are some thoughtful "denier" arguments about A-GCC that you should read. The "believers" out there have an intellectual duty to read them, just as "deniers" have an obligation to contemplate arguments from "believers". If you're on a "side" with A-GCC, you're probably doing it wrong, because the scientific method isn't about picking sides.

Here's an excellent speech from a well-known "denier".

*Disclaimer: I personally don't know what the hell's going on with A-GCC, and I don't think anyone really does. I have seen thoughtful, analytical, convincing arguments from "believers" and "deniers" alike. I have also smelled a lot of money getting involved on both "sides", which makes me even more hesitant to trust anything I read. The oil industry is on the "denier" side, and Goldman Sachs is on the "believer" side. I don't know which I trust less.

Hey, could everyone please stop using words like "denialists" and "deniers" to describe those who believe concerns about anthropogenic global climate change are overstated? Labels like "denier" really don't foster open and thoughtful discussion, and it shows a certain contempt for independent thought. Let's attack and defend ideas, not people.

There are lots of idiot "deniers" (the Fox News viewer) and idiot "believers" (the California soccer mom saving the planet with her Prius). If we're trying to have a productive discussion about A-GCC, these people should be ignored, since they only rile people up and make them forget about the important details

For those "believers" out there looking to challenge their own views, there are some thoughtful "denier" arguments about A-GCC that you should read. The "believers" out there have an intellectual duty to read them, just as "deniers" have an obligation to contemplate arguments from "believers". If you're on a "side" with A-GCC, you're probably doing it wrong, because the scientific method isn't about picking sides.

Here's an excellent speech from a well-known "denier".

*Disclaimer: I personally don't know what the hell's going on with A-GCC, and I don't think anyone really does. I have seen thoughtful, analytical, convincing arguments from "believers" and "deniers" alike. I have also smelled a lot of money getting involved on both "sides", which makes me even more hesitant to trust anything I read. The oil industry is on the "denier" side, and Goldman Sachs is on the "believer" side. I don't know which I trust less.

The reporters that had no idea still irritate me to this day when they mention Y2K.

Michael Chrichton (yes, that Michael Chrichton) wrote an excellent essay on Speculation... http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-whyspeculate.html
One of my favorite parts
Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.

But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn't. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.

It's called the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect.

Well Crichton he is a Scientist and also a Medical Doctor and Science Fiction writer who happened to write a fiction book called "State of Fear".
However, he also a scientist who gave a factual speech to National Press Club that I linked in the other message as well.
If you think we should discount Crichton, then perhaps we should debunk the "global warming" movement because one of its leaders, Al Gore, also is a politician whose highest degree is Bachelor of Arts in Government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_gore

Michael's detailed explanation of why he criticizes global warming scenarios. Using published UN data, he reviews why claims for catastrophic warming arouse doubt; why reducing CO2 is vastly more difficult than we are being told; and why we are morally unjustified to spend vast sums on this speculative issue when around the world people are dying of starvation and disease.

When i read the blurb before going to Ars Technica,. I said to myself "Gee you don't suppose global warming nuts are behind this?".
I don't know whether Yun Xie is one of those global warming nuts, but a quote from the book cited equates global warming deniers
as being antiscience.

Since that obviously must be true, it saddens me to see Michael Chrichton was anit science:
Chrichton on Global Warming

If they were serious about the state of science in the US, they would suggest that liberal coocoo's stop trying to drag science into politics.

Michael Crichton's Gene Patenting Rant

As Michael Crichton said:

"Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

"In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know."

For those that modded the parent "Troll": Michael Crichton's Web site seems to be down now, but he gave a speech called "Aliens Cause Global Warming" in which he claimed to debunk "consensus science." The gist was that political discussion of global warming too often invoked "scientific consensus," where he argued that science was not consensus-based and that such claims were therefore meaningless.

Similarly, though we may not have consensus that Michael Crichton is dead, it makes absolutely no difference to him.

Michael Crichton criticised the Drake equation years ago:

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

My personal guess is that there are OVER 9000 civilisations out there.

Anyone who believes this isn't a man-made disaster ... shut the f&*k up.

Alternatively, any one who would like to stop hearing opposing view points, feel free to close the browser.

It's worth repeating, historically, the mob is often, if not always, wrong. Below is an excerpt from a speech that is well worth reading for an historical perspective:

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

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 compelling 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.

The argument can easily be made that over the last ten to twenty years we have moved from a consensus of there-is-no-warming to a consensus of global-warming. One might argue that a few determined scientists with excellent data managed this swing in just a few short years.

But the argument can also be made that the consensus prior to global-warming was not there-is-no-warming, but rather global-cooling and trying to drive policy to prevent the coming ice age. These people have a poor track record with predictions, but always seem ready with recommendations for how to behave.

Only history will prove them right or wrong. Prior to that, we are just running around with our hands in the air like chicken-little and demanding that massive works are undertaken to shore up the sky. Had we done this for global-cooling in the 1970s, we would have wasted a lot of money and resources.

I would suggest that the global warming crowd make a track of predictions for average surface, ocean and atmospheric temperatures for the next ten years. They should be able to predict the average within a margin of error EACH year on the way to that goal. If they can select the measurement criteria and firmly state their predictions... then we can observe their accuracy and react accordingly as the reality of the situation unfolds.

Up until now, all they've done is move the target.

Sure, works well... :)

You're referring to the Drake Equation, which is complete bunk. Rather than write a long winded post debunking it, I'll just link to someone who's already done the heavy lifting.

Aliens Cause Global Warming, by Michael Crichton.

The second group that some people imagine may know the future are specialists of various kinds. They don't either. As a limiting case, I remind you there is a new kind of specialist occupation-I refuse to call it a discipline, or a field of study-called futurism. The notion here is that there is a way to study trends and know what the future holds. That would indeed be valuable, if it were possible. But it isn't possible. Futurists don't know any more about the future than you or I. Read their magazines from a couple of years ago and you'll see an endless parade of error.

From http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-whyspeculate.html

Are we to avoid mining the moon because it will harm the native lifeforms? Oh yeah, there aren't any.

Do we need to invent the word "rock-hugger"?

In essence, science is nothing more than a method of inquiry. The method says an assertion is valid-and merits universal acceptance-only if it can be independently verified. The impersonal rigor of the method means it is utterly apolitical. A truth in science is verifiable whether you are black or white, male or female, old or young. It's verifiable whether you like the results of a study, or you don't.

(Oh, and this argument against scientific consensus could just as easily be made against evolution, general relativity, or even quantum mechanics.

Not really. I have read several Richard Dawkins' books and I don't remember him even once appealing to the notion of "scientific consensus" - instead he explains the theory of evolution over and over and over again presenting you with reasonings and examples and computer simulations. And I have studied theoretical physics for five years and haven't once heard anyone invoking consensus to defend general relativity or quantum mechanics.

There is one physics-related field, however, when you can hear about the consensus. It is every now and then invoked by the proponents of nuclear energy, for example when they want to convince you that less than forty people died as a result of the Chernobyl catastrophe. And who knows? Maybe it is true. But on the other hand, it's hard not to notice that, since the whole reason for existence of their field depends on the nuclear energy actually being a viable option, they might be somewhat biased. And, had there been no threat of climate change, probably the climate scientists would have to look for another occupation too? Which, of course, doesn't mean that the climate change couldn't be a real threat.

And I don't know about climate science, but of course with respect to the nuclear energy in reality there is no consensus among scientists. In stark contradistinction to evolution, general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Related reading: "Aliens Cause Global Warming"

Yes.

A newspaper got major details of a story wrong.

Newspapers get major details of every story wrong. See also: Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect.

The Drake equation is bullshit(*), with no basis in fact. Crichton has been criticized for his conclusions but he does make some very strong points - that the Drake equation isn't scientific I particularly agree with. I think the likelyhood of extra-terrestrial life is rather good, but that's just a "gut feeling" of mine. Anyone who respects scientific principles shouldn't look to the Drake equation for answers to that question, though.

(*) "Aliens Cause Global Warming", a speech by Michael Crichton. He speaks about the Drake equation a few paragraphs down.

I've said it before, and cited references, that global warming hasn't been proven. Instead of warning labels on textbooks concerning evolution, they should put them on textbooks about global warming:

"Warning: Global Warming is not a fact, it is just a theory"

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. ETI 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.

We now are finding lots of extra-solar planets, and have moved on to analzying some of their atmospheres. Is SETI really a "religion"?

-Ted

-Ted

When you discredit yourself by talking pseudoscientific fiction as if it were facts on which to base politics then you should be ignored.

The books aren't bad, but anyone making decisions based on what's written in there is a fool who should themself be ignored.

Crichton's joining his famous voice against gene patents just makes it harder in the long run to fight it. It weakens the credibility, and attracts idiots who will believe anything a famous fool says who themselves become a difficult to defend flank in the battle.

So Crichton criticizes a large number of scientists, questioning their authority. When I do the same for him, it's not okay? Mmm . . . double-standards. Love 'em.

His Aliens Cause Global Warming speech is great reading. I love the part here:

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.

By this logic, it's stupid to even try to predict the future. You'll be wrong, and thus, it's a pointless task. You're in good health now? Living comfortably? Why bother flossing your teeth and putting money in your 401K? You can't predict the future, after all.

First, we need an environmental movement, and such a movement is not very effective if it is conducted as a religion. We know from history that religions tend to kill people, and environmentalism has already killed somewhere between 10-30 million people since the 1970s. It's not a good record.

Fortunately, two congressmen want to make the full benefit of the decoded genome available to us all. Last Friday, Xavier Becerra, a Democrat of California, and Dave Weldon, a Republican of Florida, sponsored the Genomic Research and Accessibility Act, to ban the practice of patenting genes found in nature. Mr. Becerra has been careful to say the bill does not hamper invention, but rather promotes it. He's right. This bill will fuel innovation, and return our common genetic heritage to us. It deserves our support.

sigh.... <a href.

Using the Preview button this time...

Guess this guy didn't read "State of Fear" (Michael Crichton). Vanatu files suit against United States for Global Warming in San Francisco district court.

Wouldn't you have to prove that global warming actually exists and secondly is caused by automobile polution?

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/index.ht ml

The fact is that most of the warming in recorded history happened between the 10th and 15th centuries.

About 0.28% of greenhouse gas emissions is from human activity, if water vapor is taken into account, and about 5.53% if it's not. the rest is from natural sources.

I have some suggested reading for everyone, whether you believe in it or not: State of Fear by Michael Chrichton. It is the only novel I can remember reading with a several page long bibliography. It basically explain's why environmentalism isn't a science, it's more of a state-sponsored religion

if you don't like what I've said, read my references, if you still don't like it, oh well, because unfortunately this won't be going away with so many children attending public schools, where most every person in the US learns it.

The fact is that most of the warming in recorded history happened between the 10th and 15th centuries.

About 0.28% of greenhouse gas emissions is from human activity, if water vapor is taken into account, and about 5.53% if it's not. the rest is from natural sources.

I have some suggested reading for everyone, whether you believe in it or not: State of Fear by Michael Chrichton. It is the only novel I can remember reading with a several page long bibliography. It basically explain's why environmentalism isn't a science, it's more of a state-sponsored religion

if you don't like what I've said, read my references, if you still don't like it, oh well, because unfortunately this won't be going away with so many children attending public schools, where most every person in the US learns it.

Yes, by definition. When a scientific community comes to consesus, whatever it presently concludes is accepted as correct until it's proven wrong. That's how science works. If you don't believe the climate science community, you don't believe science.

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.

Well said. Just posted this: http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches _quote05.html Typically, environmentalists tend to be urban atheists, and have this rediculous romantic notion of what nature is. Nature is brutal and unpredictable.

This brings to mind a speech by Michael Crichton about how environmentalism has become a religion. He brings up some interesting points. http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches _quote05.html

you found my message unsupportable - yet I assume you found his completely justified?

Which do you want more? To be proven right or to be correct, even if that means admitting you are wrong?

What disconfirming evidence have you looked at, and why did you discount it?

Crichton is definitely a complete moron when he speaks about global warning (and probably on other subject too, but let's be conservative). That speech http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches _quote04.html, of which I discover the existence here on /., is a very good sample of that.

The most obvious proof of his blatant ignorance is that citation:

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?

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.

The best lecture on global warming I've ever read is this:

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches _quote04.html

Excelent point. There is an article that you might want to read that speaks of people trying to pass hypothesis like theories, when they don't have much more than equations or few data.
The author doesn't clam such hypothesis are false, just that they shouldn't be accepted as a given truth. He speaks of things like nuclear winter and SETI.

Aliens Cause Global Warming

That's because Aliens cause global warming.

Excellent speech. Please read.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches _quote04.html

"CRICHTON, (John) Michael. American. Born in Chicago, Illinois, October 23, 1942. Educated at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa). Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65. Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. Graduated Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969; post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, La Jolla, California 1969-1970. Visiting Writer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988. "

also :"Always interested in computers, Crichton ran a software company, FilmTrack, which developed computer programs for motion picture production in the 1980s; for this pioneering work he won an Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences Technical Achievement Award in 1995. His film Westworld was the first feature film to employ computer-generated special effects, back in 1973. "

found this at

http://www.crichton-official.com/aboutmc/biography .html

It appears he is a scientist as well as a writer.

"Environmentalism as Religion"

by Michael Crichton
Commonwealth Club
San Francisco, CA
September 15, 2003

I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.

As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about environmentalism. And in order not to be misunderstood, I want it perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our actions, including the consequences to other people, and the consequences to the environment. I believe it is important to act in ways that are sympathetic to the environment, and I believe this will always be a need, carrying into the future. I believe the world has genuine problems and I believe it can and should be improved. But I also think that deciding what constitutes responsible action is immensely difficult, and the consequences of our actions are often difficult to know in advance. I think our past record of environmental action is discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our best intended efforts often go awry. But I think we do not recognize our past failures, and face them squarely. And I think I know why.

I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state o

"Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths. There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe. Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith. And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them."

http://www.crichton-official.com/prey/index.html/

So if we clean the air, temps rise. Kind of suggests a natural rise in temps, doesn't it? Now watch as most of the media completely ignores this news piece.

I suggest everyone here read Michael Crichton's essay, "Environmentalism as Religion". in it, he says environmentalism is the religion of urban atheists, and posits that environmentalism is a remapping of Judeo-Christian religion through the following comparison:

1.) Both preach of a romantic, natural Eden in the past unsullied by Man then destroyed by the folly of Man.

2.) Both preach of a return to that natural Eden through prayer/worship/recycling/naturism.

3.) Both preach of a judgment day whereby those who didn't adopt the tenets are judged--either by God on Judgment Day or by the world when a natural disaster strikes.

He goes on to describe how there never was an Eden and that naturism doesn't work and that there has never been some mythic symbiotic relationship between man and nature. In fact, nobody actually wants to experience real nature.

It's really quite an interesting read, and it's funny to apply this religious mapping to other movements, even OSS. Perhaps this return-to-Eden mindset is hard-wired in the brain, as Crichton suggests.

From "Aliens Cause Global Warming"
Michael Crichton

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches _quote04.html

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.

aliens cause global warming:

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches _quote04.html

"Jamie adds: and all it took was twelve years of overwhelming scientific consensus"

To quote another:

"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."

Not that it's anywhere in the same league as particle physics, but you might enjoy reading Michael Crichton's Aliens Cause Global Warming speech. Best line: "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. "

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches _quote04.html

Science make bold and utterly false prediction, just to have some other upstart technology steal the show.

Eh, no. Science never made any such predictions. SCIENTISTS sometimes make predictions, however, the good ones limit themselves to hypothesis, and then attempt to prove those hypothesis through Science. These "bold and utterly false predictions" are made by people seeking media attention and fame.

Michael Chrichton does a good job of explaining the difference in Aliens Cause Global Warming.