Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Lying requires 2 things; the facts to be incorrect, and the intention to mislead. Do you think Crichton's intention was to mislead? If so, what do you posit as a motive considering he was already a very wealthy person independent of any oil ties, or any other apparent interests that would motivate deception?
Occam's Razor suggests that the testimony given was given in good faith, since any other conclusion requires extra theories as to why he would mislead.
It wasn't Crichton's idea to testify before congress, but was instead asked by politicians to do so. If any mistake was made, it was having a non-climate scientist appear to testify. If I were brought before congress to testify, I'd give my understanding of things from my perspective too.
So, it seems unlikely that Crichton's intention was to mislead, which still leaves the question of the facts. I'd ask what specifically did he state as fact that has been proven to be incorrect? If you're going to call someone a liar, it's on you to be specific about what the lie was, or we can ignore the accusation and be suspect of any future accusations.
Ultimately, Crichton wasn't even accused of lying under oath, and no charges were ever leveled against him. Googling the subject returns zero results.
Should we apply the same rules of condemnation to Gore for the many untruths told in "An Inconvenient Truth"? He gave specific facts and timelines which we now know to be false. False prophecy if you will.
BTW- I'm not willing to call Gore a liar and I wouldn't delight in his demise. Being wrong isn't sufficient justification for hatred. Nothing is.
|
He spoke as an 'expert scientist',without respecting Richard Feynman's admonition to all scientists, that they do everything in their power to prove themselves wrong before ever opening their mouth.He made no attempt to vet his information.Crichton's been convicted of crimes against humanity in the court of popular opinion.He could have declined the invitation to testify,claiming non-command of pertinent data.
Only Crichton knows his motive.Each week I look for a copy of his book.
If he weren't so stupid,he might have realized the ramifications of potential influence in misleading federal policymakers in matters which may define the future of the entire planet.I don't give him a pass.I'll dig out the indictment.
As to Gore,the only criticism I've read so far,is that he exaggerated.And the individual who labeled him thanked him for it.Scientists finally figured out that Americans require some level of drama or attention-getting device in order to shift their attention.