Vitenskapens sørgelige utvikling

[PetterT]

Aliens Cause Global Warming

Micheal Crichton describes the fundamental political problem of climate change: it is a religion promoted by nutcases who dismiss facts, logic, and science that contradicts their environmental belief. I have taken the liberty to bold some of his sentences to make his message more clear. â?? Ed

by Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003

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.

En skikkelig avsløring av "fake science"
Se mer her:
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-authors/michael-crichton/aliens-cause-global-warming/?fbclid=IwAR2WhrdEoPBJ101sNwDi1nXPT6LC09lh9CND9htfmemsaIIyH7elRrIz4w4

[Telehiv]

Det var en svært interessant artikkel, PetterT!
Takk for innspillet!

[stjakobs]

Selv har jeg deltatt i SETI-letingen omtrent siden starten, men jeg er enig i det Crichton forteller.

[ConTrari1]

Aliens Cause Global Warming

Micheal Crichton describes the fundamental political problem of climate change: it is a religion promoted by nutcases who dismiss facts, logic, and science that contradicts their environmental belief. I have taken the liberty to bold some of his sentences to make his message more clear. â?? Ed

by Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003

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.

En skikkelig avsløring av "fake science"
Se mer her:
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-authors/michael-crichton/aliens-cause-global-warming/?fbclid=IwAR2WhrdEoPBJ101sNwDi1nXPT6LC09lh9CND9htfmemsaIIyH7elRrIz4w4

Det er vel Crichton som ga den kanskje mest kjente kritikken av konsensus:

"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 youâ??re being had.

Letâ??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 itâ??s consensus, it isnâ??t science. If itâ??s science, it isnâ??t consensus. Period."