Only a Liberal…

The author of Jurassic Park passed away last Tuesday. He is most famous for writing Jurassic Park, Twister, Sphere, and even the show E.R., but he has also contributed greatly to the war against the myth of man-made global warming. State of Fear is a 2004 techno-thriller novel by Michael Crichton concerning eco-terrorists who attempt mass murder to support their views. I’d like to show you some passages from a speech he gave in 2003 that illustrate the absurdity of Al Gore’s quest. The wonderful, and appalling, part about this whole “climate crisis” is you don’t have to be a climatologist to debunk this stuff. Just know that the title is satirical…

ALIENS CAUSE
GLOBAL WARMING

California Institute of Technology (1/17/03)

(link to entire speech)
In 1960,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

This serious-looking equation gave SETI a 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.

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…

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…

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.

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?

So the next time you see a “We can solve it” commercial, change the channel. The earth doesn’t have a fever anymore; it actually has a cold. The earth has cooled since 1998. Besides, the temperature on earth is correlated more closely to sunspot activity than carbon dioxide (see my post).
Before anyone who believes in this climate crisis nonsense comments on this post, please re-read the passage on consensus. I do not care how many climatologists you quote, or papers you send me proving man-made global warming is real. I can send you just as many that say its not. The fact that they use the word consensus is the proof that its not science.
CRISIS AVERTED.

Here’s another very well written speech where he talks about how he wanted to write a realistic disaster book, one that was totally credible, and that’s how he came to his conclusions. He was unable to find a credible disaster storyline, even from the consensus of climate “crisis.”