Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
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.
|
When I get time I'm going to listen to the testimony (and one day read his book) so that I'm prepared to consider your specific accusations of deceit.
So far as I can tell, Crichton is acting in good faith in the same manner that Bjorn Lomborg is. That is to say, trying to shift attention to problem areas most likely to benefit humanity, and to find the appropriate level of concern. As an aside, it's often pretty easy to tell when someone is speaking from conviction, or when they are speaking to mislead. There is no indication from either person that they are speaking with the intent to mislead. Again, I'd ask for tell-tale signs that they are attempting to mislead, other than they disagree with your held position.
A disagreement about what level of concern people should have surrounding various issues is frustrating, but isn't an indication of malfeasance.
Let's imagine for a moment that the most extreme alarmist positions on global warming never come to pass, not because their prescription for the problem was followed, but because the problem was not as intractable as they imagined. Should those people be condemned for inciting undue worry and financial hardship?
I have seen no evidence that "the court of popular opinion" has convicted Crichton of anything except writing compelling stories and directing/producing some entertaining movies. Popular opinion doesn't consist of some small group of extremists, rather it encompasses all people.
Finally, I wouldn't even go so far as to call AOC a liar, as my best assessment of her is that she's embellishing the underlying beliefs she holds, similarly to how Trump operates. As you point out, squishing the facts to create a sense of urgency from the public. The second part of Crichton's quote is "Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.". My modification of that would be whenever you hear that you must quickly surrender freedom to avoid catastrophe, to reach for your levers of resistance, because your individuality is under assault.