4 ms·

This attitude is why Michael Crichton wrote the essay "Aliens Cause Global Warming" http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/09/aliens-cause-global-warming-a-caltech

This attitude is why Michael Crichton wrote the essay "Aliens Cause Global Warming" http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/09/aliens-cause-global-warming-a-caltech-lecture-by-michael-crichton/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/09/aliens-cause-global-wa...

stirbot 13y ago
Don't link to WUWT if you want to be taken seriously.
- newnewnew 13y ago
  Force skeptics to outer circles, and then ridicule anything that doesn't come from the inner circle. It's an incredibly effective way at insulating the brain from inconvenient argument.
  - stirbot 13y ago
    If they have legitimate science to contribute there are plenty of channels for that. I've spent way too much time on WUWT. There is very little discussion of science or statistics. It mainly focuses on politics, individuals (Mann, Gore, etc.) and nitpicking over insignificant errors. Within a few hours topics will range from: climate change isn't happening to it is happening but it's not caused by humans to it's us but it will be beneficial and back again. Users are banned and occasionally dox'd for contrarian comments on that site, so if you're concerned about 'insulating the brain from inconvenient argument', you shouldn't support WUWT.
    - newnewnew 13y ago
      You should try climate audit. It attracts less of a crowd because of its technicality, but the intellectual environment is correspondingly healthy.
lolcraft 13y ago
Which is annoying and self-righteous, and laughably wrong, and charmingly unaware that it has exactly zero arguments to support its position -- apart from tone trolling, of course. I facepalmed on just about every paragraph, and I'm not even a graduate student. Just a taste: > 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. ... because there's no significant "skeptic" communities for relativity or geocentrism. Nobody has any vested interest in claiming those theories are false. Theoretical physicists and astronomers aren't constantly asked to defend their positions against fallacious argument after argument, nor have they to fight against a minor but very influential political minority which is on faith completely against them. No Secretary of Interior ever said: "If the troubles from theoretical physicists and geocentrists cannot be solved in the jury box or at the ballot box, perhaps the cartridge box should be used." If you can't see even that, there's no point in arguing. And then the completely bullshit tangent about how the Nuclear Winter equation is just as goofy as the Drake equation, which just is... just... facepalm. Quick, Crichton, tell me the probability that life on a planet evolves to intelligence. Since, you know, you just argued that it's as well understood and measurable as the reflectivity of dust. In regards to its line, that scientific knowledge is being perverted by politics... you know that psychological projection thing, when someone sees in others what they can't bear to see in themselves? I'm not usually someone that whips The Freud out that quickly but, damn, Crichton is really in contest for some psychoanalyzing. I mean, he's just argued that climate scientists are wrong, on purely political terms. Literally, he doesn't like the politics they do. Mind numbing.
- nsxwolf 13y ago
  Scientists have no need to "defend" global warming. They just need to keep doing the science. Oh, but they want to be making policy, not science. As an aside: I get the feeling from your comment that you might not be aware that Michael Crichton is dead.
  - danielharan 13y ago
    Imagine being a scientist, and your models show a billion people could die soon. How would you take it if people told you: "You're such an alarmist. Shut up, and keep working on your models" And if scientists shouldn't speak up, who is left in public discourse?

stirbot 13y ago

Don't link to WUWT if you want to be taken seriously.

newnewnew 13y ago
Force skeptics to outer circles, and then ridicule anything that doesn't come from the inner circle. It's an incredibly effective way at insulating the brain from inconvenient argument.
- stirbot 13y ago
  If they have legitimate science to contribute there are plenty of channels for that. I've spent way too much time on WUWT. There is very little discussion of science or statistics. It mainly focuses on politics, individuals (Mann, Gore, etc.) and nitpicking over insignificant errors. Within a few hours topics will range from: climate change isn't happening to it is happening but it's not caused by humans to it's us but it will be beneficial and back again. Users are banned and occasionally dox'd for contrarian comments on that site, so if you're concerned about 'insulating the brain from inconvenient argument', you shouldn't support WUWT.
  - newnewnew 13y ago
    You should try climate audit. It attracts less of a crowd because of its technicality, but the intellectual environment is correspondingly healthy.

lolcraft 13y ago

Which is annoying and self-righteous, and laughably wrong, and charmingly unaware that it has exactly zero arguments to support its position -- apart from tone trolling, of course. I facepalmed on just about every paragraph, and I'm not even a graduate student. Just a taste: > 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. ... because there's no significant "skeptic" communities for relativity or geocentrism. Nobody has any vested interest in claiming those theories are false. Theoretical physicists and astronomers aren't constantly asked to defend their positions against fallacious argument after argument, nor have they to fight against a minor but very influential political minority which is on faith completely against them. No Secretary of Interior ever said: "If the troubles from theoretical physicists and geocentrists cannot be solved in the jury box or at the ballot box, perhaps the cartridge box should be used." If you can't see even that, there's no point in arguing. And then the completely bullshit tangent about how the Nuclear Winter equation is just as goofy as the Drake equation, which just is... just... facepalm. Quick, Crichton, tell me the probability that life on a planet evolves to intelligence. Since, you know, you just argued that it's as well understood and measurable as the reflectivity of dust. In regards to its line, that scientific knowledge is being perverted by politics... you know that psychological projection thing, when someone sees in others what they can't bear to see in themselves? I'm not usually someone that whips The Freud out that quickly but, damn, Crichton is really in contest for some psychoanalyzing. I mean, he's just argued that climate scientists are wrong, on purely political terms. Literally, he doesn't like the politics they do. Mind numbing.

nsxwolf 13y ago
Scientists have no need to "defend" global warming. They just need to keep doing the science. Oh, but they want to be making policy, not science. As an aside: I get the feeling from your comment that you might not be aware that Michael Crichton is dead.
- danielharan 13y ago
  Imagine being a scientist, and your models show a billion people could die soon. How would you take it if people told you: "You're such an alarmist. Shut up, and keep working on your models" And if scientists shouldn't speak up, who is left in public discourse?