Now deceased techno-fiction author, non-scientist (although he did earn an M.D.) and global warming denier Michael Crichton once said "I'm certain that there's too much certainty"... and, in regards to that, I say well said, Mr. Crichton, well said.
Well said because any straw man the benefits the oil oligarchs is a straw man that I can wrap my arms around, hug and then tongue kiss. Because acknowledging the fact that 97 percent of climate scientists actually DO agree when it comes to AGW, as pointed out by the (anti-science smear site) deSmogBlog could be bad news...
| One of the most consistent of all the attacks from climate science sceptics and deniers is the one which tries to convince the public that expert scientists are divided on the causes of climate change. Those attacks have come from ideologically motivated think tanks and the fossil fuel industry, often working together. In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute was developing a campaign with the explicit aim of convincing the public that "uncertainties" existed in the science of climate change and its causes. In 2002, Republican pollster Frank Luntz wrote that: "Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly". (5/30/2014 Article from deSmogBlog). |
So, the aforementioned "bad news" could be that the public demands our elected officials actually address the problem. And that could affect our oil oligarch's bottom line... a prospect I find quite unacceptable. How DARE these scientists smear our oil oligarchs by telling the truth!
Which is why our side (the side that allies itself with Big Oil) needs celebrities to help spread the straw men around. In this case, techno/science fiction writer Michael Crichton, best known for being the author of the book that became a popular and profitable movie franchise, Jurassic Park. Although he is, unfortunately, no longer with us, having passed away in 2008.
Mr. Crichton, by the way, "experimented with astral projection, aura viewing, and clairvoyance, coming to believe that these included real phenomena that scientists had too eagerly dismissed as paranormal".
Proof that Mr. Crichton held other rational (non crackpot) beliefs that reinforce his credibility when it comes to his AGW denialism?
Byline: This scientific commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of denying that I'm a global warming denier. LLIN-127.
As an MD, I'm sure AGW was right up Mr. Crichton's alley. However valid science gets the nod, as it well should. Science is science and snake oil is snake oil. There is some of the later in both camps but too few of the former in one.
ReplyDeleteMr. Crichton had a skeptical, yet inquisitive mind - and a lack of superstition. He will be missed (except by Gavin Schmidt who he wiped the floor with in that PBS debate). And, in regards to that, as everyone knows winning a debate means your argument is the correct one, because swaying the opinion of a crowd counts much more than facts do.
ReplyDeleteSchmidt's excuse was that "Crichton went with the crowd-pleasing condemnation of private jet-flying liberals - very popular, even among the private jet-flying Eastsiders... and] while those against the motion had presented the agreed scientific consensus of IPCC reports, the audience was "apparently more convinced by the entertaining narratives from Crichton and Stott than they were by [Schmidt's] drier fare. (as quoted from Wikipedia).
And being a professional writer surely gave Crichton an advantage. So what if Crichton used a logical fallacy known as an "appeal to emotion" to win the debate? A win is a win, I say. And, just like I love straw men, I love all logical fallacies. Kudos to Mr. Crichton for his use of "appeal to emotion" to cinch the win, I say!