Michael Crichton's testimony before Congress on mixing science and politics
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 сер 2016
- Michael Crichton's testimony before the Congress on politicization of science. Sept 28, 2005.
#Crichton #climatechange #climatescience #congressionaltestimony #congress #MichaelCrichton #StateOfFear #ScientificMethod
![Michael Crichton • Interview (The Coming Computer Revolution) • 1983 [Reelin' In The Years Archive]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qa1x31Ahn4k/mqdefault.jpg)
He's spitting straight facts right here, it's both impressively prescient and depressing how Crichton's words are even more relevant to the formation of today's public policy.
The man, the legend, Dr. Michael Crichton!
Crichton is becoming one of my favorite people ever. His reaction to being called out for not acknowledging his wife is priceless!
Everyone felt this way about climate science in 2005 and earlier. It was an interesting new theory, worth investigating, but most people were hesitant to jump to conclusions regarding cause and effect. There was truly no consensus, just theories worth investigating, and the general agreement that pollution should be minimized. NOW it is an absurd mix of politics, religion, bias, and propaganda. Very sad.
That's not true. All of the histrionics around climate science was present in 2005.
The hysteria began in 1989 with James Hansen & Michael Mann’s quackery.
He was a technophobe who didn't understand science, believed in global conspiracies and lied about climate change.
How did He know! Grabbed the State of Fear from my moms books! He is spot on! Epic 🇺🇲❤💯
He didn't know. He was a technophobe who knew nothing about science and lied about climate change.
Dr Creighton’s final comment to Congress, “In an information society, public safety depends on the integrity of public information, and only government can perform that task”, is chillingly prescient after the revelations about the NSA data collection, and WiKiLeak's releases about corruption in high places via technology manipulation.
I agree with Crichton on the first part, but disagree with the notion that "only gov't can perform that task". In fact the emergence of whistle blowing as a phenomenon shows that PEOPLE themselves can safeguard public information when they see it as their responsibility.
@@pkubasov Exactly. In certain way, Crichton, contradicts itself saying that "government is the only one to perform that task" while arguing against politics mixing with science...
@@Sergeant_Camacho why? In a non clown world, the government doesn’t necessarily have to be synonymous with politics.
I think Dr Micheal Crichton is and always will b the best author ,director Dr, and Man that this would has
His words, facts and logic clearly fell on deaf ears.
'Next' is a fanatic example of Chrichtons insights into the blurred lines of science and politics . Biotech industry is wild!
Crichton also predicted the problems with the 737 Max in his book, Airframe.
And yet today Michael Mann is still considered a serious scientist on the subject of Climate Change.
And yet, he really is! Not sure how the far right decided that his work, backed by many others for decades now, should be mocked. It's as though every right-winger decided that Heartland "science" was real.
@@scottekoontz
Examples of where it was/is Wrong. Cite Sources.
@@stevenwiederholt7000 No, I'm agreeing with you. Mann is still considered a serious scientist, since we all know that everyone else has gotten the same graph (hard to tell any of them apart). Not sure what examples anyone would need, because there are so many.
@@scottekoontz
He's a Serious Scientist, and I'm a middle linebacker for the Chicago Bears.
@@stevenwiederholt7000 Cite sources. I'll wait.
Wow it's like an audiobook in his actual voice!!!
Spot on.... hello, hello, NOAA, GISS? Whats your heating bias when you fabricate 1/2 of your data points and then flog the data with 'corrections' and 'adjustments', and end up deviating by double, from Radiosondes and Satellites?
No bias. I think every science aliterate should be forced to use raw data and perform a simple trend line. On stage. In front of an audience.
When they discover that the raw figures produce a stronger warming curve, they should be asked "so what did we learn here today?"
First off, thank you for uploading this.
Next, What are the chances of finding this video even a slightly higher quality? Surely the original footage was better? How did you find this footage in the first place?
There was a longer version of this video somewhere in the interwebs - pretty much the same quality, I just edited it a bit to highlight the actual testimony. The original was probably recorded off someone's TV, so I don't think you will find much better quality than this, unfortunately.
@@pkubasov fascinating! Well thank you for reaching out! I'll look into it. I would love to find the full version.
@@pkubasov thank you for uploading something that will be forgotten soon. STATE OF FEAR is an important wotk. Fat mor important than 'fun' novels like "Jurassic Park"
@@JoeMama-gj7id Have you read Jurassic Park? It touches many of the same concepts explained here and in other works like State of Fear
5:11
A method of enquiry - don't tell the BBC that.
BBC tends to use scientists to explain science. Don't tell Republicans that.
Secret battle with cancer eh?
Congress has nothing better to do than to ask Michael Crichton of busy right best-selling writer
what did you think of what he actually said?
The fact that latter reconstructions, by those with government grants, those with oil money, those with grants from other private orgs, those from other countries, and those from many disciplines have all come to the same general graph shows that Crichton should have stuck with writing fiction and not politicizing the science by pretending to know more than Mann.
Excuse me, but when scientists couple their research findings with strongly worded policy statements about how we need to drive electric cars, put solar panels on our houses, fly less, and any number of other strong policy prescriptions requiring congress to act, they themselves have taken the issue out of the scientific arena and into the realm of politics and sales and marketing campaigns for green energy. For this reason, they open themselves up to similar charges of bias and preservation self interest. Phil Jones statement "I have 30 years invested in the research, why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to find something wrong with it" suggests that he is painfully aware of how his own bottom line is affected by sharing of data with whom he disagrees. It is a clear example of how preservation of self-interest applies just as much to Mr. Jones as it does to any oil company executive.
@@4713Caine
I see you completely avoided my post. Crichton (no background in the topic) vs any scientists chosen from many countries with a variety of backgrounds and a wide variety of funding who came to the same conclusions as Mann. This *non-scientist* author, unable to understand the science or major papers, made it so political he was a caricature of today's right-wing science aliterates... he refused to read the science available to him and then made childish statements.
He said science must be "independently verified." YES!! And since it has been independently verified in several formus, by many people from many related disciplines from many countries who had a wide variety of funding.
*Peer review is NOT by "pals" as this science aliterate claims.* What a maroon. Did he really think decades of work on one general topic completely recycled the same "pals" for 100 years? Why yes, he did. And what does/did this clown think of the BEST program where skeptics started their own teach with nothing but raw data and used their own algorithms from scratch, funding from non-government sources, AND made the work completely open to public and scientific scrutiny? He died before this program would prove to the deniers like him once and for all that 99% of all scientists from all countries from all disciplines were correct, and that Heartland and Fox and Friends of Science and Watts/Monckton/Heller/Bast/Morano/Epstein/Hanity/Carlson were all lying. Not wrong but lying.
5:00 Mann's work has been verified many times over and over, and continues to be verified. Crichton used the report from MacIntyre and McKitrick. Fair enough to have "skeptics" look over the work, but why did Crichton ignore the fact that the rebuttal was so deeply flawed that it was dismissed almost entirely by the science community? Peer review is necessary, but shoddy peer review from political groups is hilarious except the US government took the ramblings of an author quoting said political group as science.
Why did Crichton pretend that climate results are not independently verified? Why did he related it to some fantasy conversation on an airplane unrelated to the topic? Because he's not a scientist and had a political bend he wished to press. Why did he pretend that 99% of the peer review on Mann's work was to be dismissed but this one paper was to be taken seriously? Politics.
"when scientists couple their research findings with strongly worded policy statements" Some do when requested, most do not. You know that there are more than one type of job in the world, right? Some scientists are invited or even paid to help policy makers. It's a big world. Policy makers are not about to read science papers and pretend they understand them so they get help. Crichton was an author invited to speak on a science topic he does not understand. That was your go-to guy?
==> Then take your pick of /actual/ scientist to present the results to policy makers, and you will get the same general science facts. The policy makers will then, well, make the policy. Ta da.
What we see happening into video would be hilariously absurd except it happened in the US, a nation with some heavy-ducty science power. Crichton???? An author that has no requisite background in physics or a related science is the guy you'd listen to? An anecdote about people on a plane who are paid to get a result vs actual climate research?
Bias does exist for some "science" organizations. Heartland is the most absurd and silly congregations of paid shills, and so we can all agree that the "Thank you for smoking" group is also the "Climate science is not real" group. They employ the best-known denier Watts (no degree) and Monckton (literature) and Bast (no degree) and Morano (poly sci?) and other non-scientists. They have anti-IPCC meetings and it's hilarious except people take them seriously.
Friends of Science? Heartland? Hilarious.
@@scottekoontzthe problem the science community doesnt seem to get is it was abusing scientific discoveries that got us into the climate mess that scientists are now trying to say is everyones fault even though most regular people are relucant to change so...
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Its been political from the start; before it was about the novelty and industrial potential. Now it's about the burdens and responsibilities.
Like lungs drawing in great breathes... Or the pumping and dumping of a market...