Michael Crichton Speech #2

[superemomax]

great series, where are parts 1 and 5?

[eddied111]

RIP MC. I must say that story about the guy in belview in NY, and the medics reciting their Barmitzvah pieces is one of the funniest stories Ive ever heard.

[blatspanner]

why is no-one insulting this polymath7 geezer? everyone seems to want to 'take him on' in the intellectual arena. this seems unwise. just stick the boot in! i'll start;  prick!

[jlnthreestooges]

Rest In Peace Mr. Crichton

[myndenway]

Liberals can't get the public to fall behind their schemes unless they lie to them and scare them. Unfortunately, as Crichton points out, the media is controlled by left-leaning people. So they have the levers of propaganda at their control. This is not left vs right. This is left vs rational thought. And since few people are as intelligent as Dr. Crichton, and as educated and critical in their thinking, few are capable of withstanding the propaganda without being programed by it.

[bluehq]

Why don't people on the GW side ever say- He makes good points, Gee I hope he turns out to be right, maybe I should look at science closer. I think people like living in fear.

[polymath7]

What, in your judgment, are some of the "good points" he makes?

Those of us who are as you put it "on the GW side" -that is to say, those who are neither scientifically illiterate nor unscrupulously disingenuous- have, it must be admitted, a rather infantile incapacity to concede any good points when none have in fact been made.

[ourhomeplanet]

when it comes to truth, and especially to science, such things as majority opinion doesn't matter. since when does popular opinion and majority consensus amount to objective truth?

[sliponshoe]

Exactly, "question authority" but only if you agree with us, is their motto.

[44wave]

This man is a desperate, attention seeking fool.

[polymath7]

He's not simply seeking attention; his motives are, I'm sure, entirely mercenary.

[mikeboosh]

For how much liberals preach "Question Authority". All they seem to do is ascribe to authority to prove their point.

[safuna]

Yes, he exhaustively studied the research which agrees with his point of view, and ignored the overhwelming majority which he doesn't agree with.

[Gwynne66]

What research did he ignore? I think the problem was that he asked questions that AGW alarmists didn't want asked.  Like why should the people who run climate simulations should be allowed to self-validate the results.

[caseybritton]

Michael Crichton is one of the few authors I really look forward to. He made extremely good points in State of Fear. And the amount of research that went into it was amazing.

[cluelessxpanda]

Earlier this year Michael Crowley of The New Republic wrote an article critical of Crichton and his views on global warming.

His novel "Next," published later, includes a minor character named Mick Crowley, who is a reporter and a child molester.

What a lovely person.

Later

[raderator]

Like the global warming fanatics aren't vicious

[timDOGcrane555]

Aren't they vicious, and they hate facts.

[polymath7]

That is a textbook example of a to quo que argument. It is a logical fallacy, and this talk is a veritable litany of them.

[mrmadcoil]

Could you point out a few specific ones?

[polymath7]

Is this a polite request or a truculent challenge?

It is difficult to know where to begin -and not for want of examples.

*Quite* the contrary; there is an embarrassment of riches.

For the sake of economy, I will begin where Crichton begins.

The media over-reportage of deaths from the Chernobel disaster is not even obliquely germane to the scientific question of climate change.

It is an *utter* irrelevancy.

Why?

Because climate change is a scientific proposition, not a journalistic one.

[polymath7]

II.

As regards a matter of scientific truth, it simply *does not* matter in the slightest what newspaper columnists say -it matters what *scientists* say. Only scientists -or more specifically, climatologists- are qualified to adjudicate the proposition of climate change itself (opposed to the political matter of how it should be dealt with), and the input of journalists, politicians, and authors of airport novels contributes absolutely nothing.

Crichton might have a point here if in fact...

[polymath7]

III. ..media coverage in general was widely at odds with or greatly exaggerated thew pronouncement of actual scientists.

In latter instance, the obverse is true. Both the sense of certainty and of exigency that is conveyed in the mainstream media is in fact invidiously incommensurate to the both the certitude and sense of urgency conveyed by scientists in the relevant fields.

Now if one wants to quarrel with the assertion that climate change is occurring, is human caused, and could have...

[polymath7]

IV. ...genuinely catastrophic consequences if ignored, one must quarrel with the scientists themselves. Crichton neglects to do this almost entirely.

He proceeds as if Al Gore and Newsweek were the most cogent or most relevant exponents of a scientific proposition, and anyone who proceeds in this way is either altogether scientifically illiterate or blatantly intellectually dishonest.

No exceptions.

None. 

Quite apart from whether one is right or wrong about the actual *evidence*'...

[polymath7]

V.

...anyone who would build his *case* this way is either an ignoramus or a liar.

Crichton, manifestly, is the latter.

He knows exactly what he's doing.

His intelligence and erudition flatly preclude any possibility that what he is doing is inadvertent and is proceeding in earnest. His disingenuousness is utterly transparent to anyone who understands the methodology of science and how scientific arguments are constructed, and if you deny this with any sincerity of your own you...

[polymath7]

VI.

...will only vividly belie the fact that you are a scientific ignoramus yourself and your chance of bluffing any scientifically literate person to the contrary will be exactly the same as your chances of bluffing room full of chines people into thing you speak French. Your arguments on this score, should you attempt them, will inevitably be no better than pulling back the corners of your eyes with your fingers and muttering "ching-chong-chang"

But let us return to Crichton...

[polymath7]

VII. I've really only just begun! Proceeding sequentially, I'll move now to Crichton's citation of the "predictions" of Paul Ehrlich. This is misleading and irrelevant on so many levels for so many reasons a proper explication cannot really be extruded through the narrow aperture of these 500 character boxes, but in brief (XD):

The predictions to which Crichton refers were not predictions; they were hypothetical scenarios intended to illustrate the possible consequences of inaction...

[polymath7]

VIII.

...(perhaps the distinction is too subtle for you).

But more to the (again, not-so-subtle) point, this has nothing to do with climatology. Let us consider the tacit implications in this line of reasoning, which are so absurd Crichton dares not state them overtly but which are patent nonetheless.

Paul Ehrlich was a scientist who wrote a book in the sixties which made (putative) predictions that turned out to be wrong.

The Club of Rome is a think tank that made a prediction that....

[polymath7]

IX.

...turned out to be wrong. Newsweek and The New York Times are Popular nonscientific publications that at times have inaccurately reported nonscientific nonexistent non-predictions that (naturally enough) turned out to be wrong.

Ergo: when (actual) scientists make unsettling predictions based on actual hard data we ought be automatically suspicious.

Has Crichton cited any climatological data yet? Nope, not yet.

Instead he argues that we ought to be additionally suspicious...

[polymath7]

X. ..because, as he reasons, apocalyptic paranoia is a large part of human nature.

But surely wishful thinking and the temptation to believe that everything is going to be just fine despite indications to the contrary is at least equally intrinsic to human nature.

So, if one is inclined to follow Crichton's example and decide factual propositions largely on the basis of emotional considerations -and is actually prepared to disbelieve whichever side seems to have the stronger emotional...

[polymath7]

XI.

...incentive, then really, which scenario (on this criterion) is really the more plausible?Crichton is shamelessly misleading even when he does (obliquely) discuss the evidence. Take for instance his accusation that the mathematicians and computer scientists who run the computer projections of climate change are secretive about their methodology (a blatant lie) and won't allow anyone else (i.e. outside their fields) review thei8r data. This is *quite* howler because:

A. anyone with...

[polymath7]

XII

...the scientific competence is in fact *quite* free to do so.

B. Anyone without the scientific competence... NOT COMPETENT TO DO SO!

This is not a tautology, an Crichton's disingenuous blather is on exactly the same level as saying that quantum physicists are secretive and authoritarian as regards their findings because they do not recognize the competence of non-physicists to discuss quantum mechanics.

Again, it is impossible that Crichton doesn't know any better.

He's a liar.

[polymath7]

XIII.

Crichton later asserts that computerized projections of climate change are unreliable because we can't even predict the weather will be like in a week.

Another knowing untruth.He's saying in effect, that you cannot predict an overall trend in system if you cannot precisely anticipate short-term fluctuations. Again, to the learned this truly idiotic.

By this reasoning, the fact we that can't be sure if it will rain tomorrow means we cannot be reasonably certain that winter...

[polymath7]

XIX.

...in a given region will be cooler overall than summer.

It really is that bad.

I could go on ad infinitum, but will leave off for now.

But make no mistake -I can effortlessly dismantle and demolish everything this Machiavellian demagogue says. If you suspect otherwise, I invite you to put me to th test. i am smarter than you or the campy airport novelist above or anyone who is likely to read this, and have the further virtue of actually being an honest broker.

So there you are...

[polymath7]

XV.

To borrow a felicitous phrase from Christopher Hitchens, *that's* my answer and that's the *short* version. Try me on this again, and I'll have a lot more for you.

Cheers.

[polymath7]

Oh, dammit; that should read: "...bluffing a room full of Chinese people into thinking you speak Chinese."

Oh well; I suppose this what happens when you compose your comments as swiftly as you can hit the keys.

[mrmadcoil]

Give me the long version, please.

[polymath7]

Sure, but it's going to have to wait a while; I'm off to bed.

May I ask you again, is this a challenge or an earnest request?

[mrmadcoil]

It's a request. Just trying to figure out where you're coming from, because most of your comments don't seem to have anything to do with his talk, as in I haven't heard him make any such points during these videos.

Maybe in your long version you could reference the times in the video he makes them?

[brav0wing]

I have followed your comments on many issues, and i have to say that there is a pattern in your logic: you use fancy words to give yourself the importance of a smart man where almost everything you say is biased and unproven. The issues regarding the GW is still debatable. To present what you say as the absolute truth is unscientific without proof, because everything you say, just like Crichton is debatable. There is always someone that will prove you wrong!

[polymath7]

B-I.

I have read several of your own comments brav0wing, and I must say a quarrel with me is quite beyond your abilities.

An actual pattern, in my commentary, is that (as 'smart men' often do) I tend to employ lucid English prose and robust logic -directly supported by empirical evidence when possible and posited in the appropriately speculative tone when not- to effortlessly trounce anyone so foolhardy as to challenge me.

Biased and unproven?

Would you care to back this up with an example?

[polymath7]

B-II.

If I state something as a fact, be assured that it is a fact. You disagree?

Cite an example to the contrary.

If anywhere I seem to be stating a more generalized conclusion as a simple fact, you have simply misread me. Again, provide an example to the contrary, if you are able.

[GorterPoss]

@cluelessxpanda I'm sure  it was just a literary device.