Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming

He makes some good points, but I think he exaggerates his evidence. In particular, while the Drake equation and TTAPS equation both have unknown terms, at least some of the TTAPS equation terms can be estimated through observation and experimentation -- a far cry from "none of the variables can be determined. None at all." Insisting that a line of inquiry be abandoned simply because it is difficult to measure exact values seems contrary to the investigative spirit of science. Of course, Crichton is correct that we should not be drawing firm conclusions from fuzzy numbers.<p>Likewise, just because many scientists share a consensus about something doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong; scientists share a consensus on the ineffectiveness of Laetrile, the relative harmlessness of aspartame, and the unlikelihood of cell phones causing cancer. These things are hard to prove absolutely, and may even be incorrect in specific circumstances, but in absence of better evidence, a consensus is the best we can have.<p>I found this juxtaposition funny:<p><i>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. [...evidence of pellagra as dietary problem...] They continued to deny it until the 1920s.</i><p>Also this one:<p><i>When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down. [...] Speeches contained on this site are the property of Michael Crichton and may not be reproduced, copied, edited, published, transmitted or uploaded in any way without express permission.</i>

this is really depressing. are all of you asleep at the wheel? this essay is NOT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING. global warming is only the latest in a long line of scientific studies that have become corrupted due to the influence of politics. The details of the current case are not important. Whether or not anthropogenic global warming is true is not important. What is important is the way scientists are behaving. If scientists are reduced to squabbling children as soon as there is some blood in the water what hope does the rest of humanity have?<p>This essay is one of genuine concern over the direction of humanity. And as the best hope we have for a rational future, concern over the direction of science.

Oddly enough, I was at this speech. I left with a lot more respect for Crichton as a scientific thinker, and I almost read the book he was publicizing at the time, Prey.

I faintly remember discussing another Crichton article of the same gist on HN?<p>While I did not make it to the end, I feel there are two strategies at work in this article:<p>A) Talk so much that your opponent loses the ability to focus and becomes vulnerable for injection of any meme you slip into the speech.<p>B) Draw random analogies and take advantage of the flaw of the human brain, that is "addicted" to drawing analogies if there are none.<p>Because ultimately he says "look, there were false things that were believed by a lot of people. Global warming is believed by a lot of people, therefore it must be false". That is simply a logic error. I wonder if Crichton was aware of that (and since he was intelligent, I suppose he was), because if so, I consider the article a disgusting, dishonest attempt at manipulation.

I had always wondered how that whole global warming thing happened.

Ya'll are a smart crowd. What do you say to the argument that being skeptical about anthropogenic Global Warming is like being skeptical about gravity or evolution?