Senate calls fiction writer to advise on global warming

It's the 19th Anniversary for T1B - Fuckin' A

Moderator: Jesus H Christ

User avatar
Dr_Phibes
P.H.D - M.B.E. - O.B.E.
Posts: 3954
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:11 am

Senate calls fiction writer to advise on global warming

Post by Dr_Phibes »

Michael Crichton, Novelist, Becomes Senate Witness

Sept. 28 - His last book, "State of Fear," [A novel that casts doubt on scientific theories of global warming] was published more than nine months ago, but the reviews were still pouring in on Wednesday, even as Michael Crichton folded his 6-foot-9-inch frame into a seat to testify before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

"More silly than scary," the flier dropped off by the Natural Resources Defense Council said.

"Notable mainly for its nuttiness," an analysis from the Brookings Institution said.

"Does not reflect scientific fact," the Union of Concerned Scientists said.

For all his previous works as a writer (13 novels, 4 nonfiction books, numerous screenplays) and his prominent career in Hollywood as a writer, producer or director of 13 films and as the creator of the popular television series "ER," little has yanked Mr. Crichton so deeply into political controversy as "State of Fear," an environmental thriller that casts doubt on the widely held notion that human activities contribute to global warming.

It has become a hugely divisive policy issue in recent years, gaining a new urgency, perhaps, by the recent hurricanes that slammed into the Gulf Coast. Many prominent scientists, no friends of Mr. Crichton, to be sure, believe that man-made greenhouse gases are causing the earth to warm and are urging lawmakers to pass new regulations that govern carbon dioxide emissions.

But after considerable study of his own, leading to "State of Fear," Mr. Crichton has concluded that the science is mixed at best, and that lawmakers should take that into consideration when they decide what they might do about it.

His is an unpopular and contrary stance when measured against the judgment of groups like the National Academy of Sciences. But it was not those organizations that asked Mr. Crichton to Washington to counsel Congress on how to consider diverse scientific opinion when making policy. It was the committee chairman, Senator James M. Inhofe, a plainspoken Oklahoma Republican who has unabashedly pronounced global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

In Mr. Crichton, a Harvard medical school graduate who never practiced medicine, he had found a kindred spirit - and a star witness for his committee.

"I'm excited about this hearing," Mr. Inhofe said, nodding toward Mr. Crichton as the proceedings began. "I think I've read most of his books; I think I've read them all. I enjoyed most 'State of Fear' and made it required reading for this committee."

Over the next two hours, Mr. Crichton and four other witnesses offered their thoughts, Mr. Crichton hewing to his firm belief that lawmakers should examine more closely "whether the methodology of climate science is sufficiently rigorous to yield a reliable result."

He took notes. He raised his hand to make points. He responded to criticism evenly and never lost composure. But it seemed like a lot less fun than winning an Emmy, as he did for "ER," or a citation as one of the "50 Most Beautiful People," as People magazine ranked him in 1992. And all he could do was sit there quietly, as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton scolded him for views that "muddy the issues around sound science" and Senator Barbara Boxer said, "I think we have to focus on facts, not fiction."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/books/29cric.html

Mr. Crichton also took a moment to warn about a new danger that the American people had not taken into account. Apparently a giant fire wyrm will come when the fog rolls in and destroy coastal villages.

I would imagine that the bible is no longer seen as malleable enough for today's changing media landscape?
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 29908
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Post by Mikey »

Next up:

Mario Puzo to testify before the Senate Subcommittee on organized crime.

Tom Clancy to replace John Walters as Drug Czar.


Thank God and GOD we're finally listening to people who have proven first-hand knowledge of these important issues.
User avatar
Dr_Phibes
P.H.D - M.B.E. - O.B.E.
Posts: 3954
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:11 am

Post by Dr_Phibes »

Then again they could have used the 'League of Relatively Bias Scientists', but I suppose they were feeling a little imaginative that day.

And didn't they consult Tom Clancey after 9/11? I don't know if that was the government or just the news media, but I recall he was heavily on-air for a while.
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29342
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

Dr_Phibes wrote:Then again they could have used the 'League of Relatively Bias Scientists', but I suppose they were feeling a little imaginative that day.

And didn't they consult Tom Clancey after 9/11? I don't know if that was the government or just the news media, but I recall he was heavily on-air for a while.
Well, Clancy did roll with the good Doctor Thompson back in the 70's. So he was at least qualified to dispense that all important advice, "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."

That being said, why does this surprise anyone? We live in the age of Faith Based government. Bush probably thinks Hunt for Red October was a documentary. And you just know that all the Dittoheads got their drawers wet when those evil left wing scientists got their asses kicked for messing with God's plan for dinosaurs.
User avatar
Dr_Phibes
P.H.D - M.B.E. - O.B.E.
Posts: 3954
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:11 am

Post by Dr_Phibes »

BSmack wrote: That being said, why does this surprise anyone? We live in the age of Faith Based government. Bush probably thinks Hunt for Red October was a documentary.
Sorry I haven't replied for a while B, I've been fighting off velociraptors. Surprised?

This is just surreal:
I enjoyed most 'State of Fear' and made it required reading for this committee."
User avatar
Ang
Jumpin' Little Juke Joint Gal
Posts: 359
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 4:31 am
Location: the Moat

Post by Ang »

Where is Mystery Science Theater 3000 when we need it?
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29342
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

Dr_Phibes wrote:
BSmack wrote: That being said, why does this surprise anyone? We live in the age of Faith Based government. Bush probably thinks Hunt for Red October was a documentary.
Sorry I haven't replied for a while B, I've been fighting off velociraptors. Surprised?
Not at all. Those velociraptors are some mean hombres. I hope you were able to feed them some liberals and make your escape without losing any body parts.
This is just surreal:
I enjoyed most 'State of Fear' and made it required reading for this committee."
At least he isn't making them read "My Pet Goat". Lets give thanks for small favors.
User avatar
Mike the Lab Rat
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 1948
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:17 pm
Location: western NY

Post by Mike the Lab Rat »

What do you expect from a country in which morons who made those awful-in-every-way "Left Behind" books bestsellers elect a scientifically-illiterate boob for President?

There was no legitimate reason to have Crichton testifying. None.
THE BIBLE - Because all the works of all the science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.
User avatar
tough love
Agondonter
Posts: 1886
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Prison Urantia

Post by tough love »

Mike the Lap Rat Wrote:
There was no legitimate reason to have Crichton testifying. None.
Same thing could be said for the self_serving scientific community.
Seems like most of their findings have to do more with best guess work then anything.
Funny is; the more that actually becomes revealed to man, the more wrong S_tard turns out to have been.

For all we know, they could be equally wrong about most all things which matter, no?

Just saying, for all we really know. :?
Am I wrong...God, I hope so.
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 29908
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Post by Mikey »

tough love wrote: Funny is; the more that actually becomes revealed to man, the more wrong S_tard turns out to have been.

For all we know, they could be equally wrong about most all things which matter, no?
You're a fucking idiot.

Really.
User avatar
Bizzarofelice
I wanna be a bear
Posts: 10216
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Post by Bizzarofelice »

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:elect a scientifically-illiterate boob for President?
Just because he allows a stock picker to question medical doctors about the capacity of drugs doesn't mean Dubya knows nothing of science.

Just because he thinks intelligent design warrants "consideration" doesn't mean he knows nothing of science.
why is my neighborhood on fire
User avatar
tough love
Agondonter
Posts: 1886
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Prison Urantia

Post by tough love »

Micky Wrote:
You're a fucking idiot.

Really.
Even if; that would still not excuse the self-serving scientific community dogs from barking up the wrong tree.

http://www.urantiabook.org/newbook/ppr132_1.html


The standard of true values must be looked for in the spiritual world and on divine levels of eternal reality. To an ascending mortal all lower and material standards must be recognized as transient, partial, and inferior. The scientist, as such, is limited to the discovery of the relatedness of material facts. Technically, he has no right to assert that he is either materialist or idealist, for in so doing he has assumed to forsake the attitude of a true scientist since any and all such assertions of attitude are the very essence of philosophy.

Unless the moral insight and the spiritual attainment of mankind are proportionately augmented, the unlimited advancement of a purely materialistic culture may eventually become a menace to civilization. A purely materialistic science harbors within itself the potential seed of the destruction of all scientific striving, for this very attitude presages the ultimate collapse of a civilization which has abandoned its sense of moral values and has repudiated its spiritual goal of attainment.

The materialistic scientist and the extreme idealist are destined always to be at loggerheads. This is not true of those scientists and idealists who are in possession of a common standard of high moral values and spiritual test levels. In every age scientists and religionists must recognize that they are on trial before the bar of human need. They must eschew all warfare between themselves while they strive valiantly to justify their continued survival by enhanced devotion to the service of human progress. If the so-called science or religion of any age is false, then must it either purify its activities or pass away before the emergence of a material science or spiritual religion of a truer and more worthy order.
Am I wrong...God, I hope so.
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:What do you expect from a country in which morons who made those awful-in-every-way "Left Behind" books bestsellers elect a scientifically-illiterate boob for President?
So what proportion of those 51,000,000 are you referring to, MtLR? Certainly, there are the morons...but you're not seriously arguing that a majority of those 51,000,000 are moronic, are you?

If so, I think it reveals more about you than they.
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29342
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

DrDetroit wrote:
Mike the Lab Rat wrote:What do you expect from a country in which morons who made those awful-in-every-way "Left Behind" books bestsellers elect a scientifically-illiterate boob for President?
So what proportion of those 51,000,000 are you referring to, MtLR? Certainly, there are the morons...but you're not seriously arguing that a majority of those 51,000,000 are moronic, are you?

If so, I think it reveals more about you than they.
Call me crazy, but it appears that the subject of Mike's sentence is the "morons who made those awful-in-every-way "Left Behind" books bestsellers". Therefore, I would assume that people who bought the books AND voted for the scientifically illiterate boob would be the target of his wrath.

Of course now I expect that you will be the target of his next Scotch laced blast.
User avatar
stuckinia
2012 NFL Picks Champ
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:24 am
Location: Midwest

Post by stuckinia »

I guess it takes a SciFi writer to testify on a subject that is purely science fiction.
User avatar
tough love
Agondonter
Posts: 1886
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Prison Urantia

Post by tough love »

mv wrote:
For once, he's actually right. I couldn't care less how much of the alphabet you have behind your name. If you claim that climate change is due to human activity, you are a fucking idiot or a political demagogue. Plain and simple.

We don't even understand half of the variables in that equation.
If 'We" don't even understand half of the variables in that equation, how can anyone honestly say that climate change is not due to human activity.

Same reasoning would hold true to me not being a fucking idiot. :)
Am I wrong...God, I hope so.
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29342
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

mvscal wrote:
tough love wrote:If 'We" don't even understand half of the variables in that equation, how can anyone honestly say that climate change is not due to human activity.

Same reasoning would hold true to me not being a fucking idiot. :)
For the simple reason that we know that far more radical climate changes have occured in the past long before there were any humans around.

Explain to me why this cycle is any different from any of the others.
I missed the comet slamming into the earth.
User avatar
RadioFan
Liberal Media Conspirator
Posts: 7487
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:59 am
Location: Tulsa

Post by RadioFan »

"I'm excited about this hearing," Mr. Inhofe said, nodding toward Mr. Crichton as the proceedings began. "I think I've read most of his books; I think I've read them all. I enjoyed most 'State of Fear' and made it required reading for this committee."
:lol: :lol:

Another outstanding action from the senator from Oklahoma.

Perhaps he can make this next on committee's required reading assigments:

Image
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29342
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

mvscal wrote:Oh so comets slamming into Earth are the sources of all the previous warming and cooling cycles. Got it.

I'm sure you wouldn't mind sharing the evidence you used to arrive at this novel conclusion....
Way to mischaracterize. Detard would be proud.
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29342
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

mvscal wrote:You clearly implied that comets slamming into Earth were the cause of previous climate changes.

Backpedal some more, bitch.
But not all. You took a statement that applied specificly to the most violent climate change event in the history of the world and deliberately misrepresented it. WHY MUST YOU LIE?!?!?
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29342
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote: You took a statement that applied specificly to the most violent climate change event in the history of the world and deliberately misrepresented it.
Cite your evidence for this claim or shut the fuck up, dipshit.
I'd rather watch you melt. I'm totaly in your dome.
User avatar
tough love
Agondonter
Posts: 1886
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Prison Urantia

Post by tough love »

mv wrote:
Explain to me why this cycle is any different from any of the others.
Worrisome Melting Polar Caps.
Am I wrong...God, I hope so.
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 29908
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Post by Mikey »

mvscal wrote:
tough love wrote:
mv wrote:
Explain to me why this cycle is any different from any of the others.
Worrisome Melting Polar Caps.
Antarctica is experiencing a net gain in ice, so you can drop the plural.

You also might want to take a look into the recent geothermal activity that has been discovered under the Arctic icecap.

Or you can continue to squirm around in your paranoid fantasy.
Do you have links for either of those contentions, or are you blowing smoke out your ass again?

According to the British Antarctic Survey about 8000 sq km has been lost from the Antarctic ice shelf since the 1950s.
User avatar
Dr_Phibes
P.H.D - M.B.E. - O.B.E.
Posts: 3954
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:11 am

Post by Dr_Phibes »

mvscal wrote: No comment on his actual testimony?
I take it back, Crichton's research was impeccable. I liked the bit where he cited 'a conversation with some guy at the airport twenty years ago' as a source.
User avatar
RadioFan
Liberal Media Conspirator
Posts: 7487
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:59 am
Location: Tulsa

Post by RadioFan »

mvscal wrote:
RadioFan wrote::lol: :lol:

Another outstanding action from the senator from Oklahoma.

Perhaps he can make this next on committee's required reading assigments:
No comment on his actual testimony?
Nope. Mocking Jim Inhofe is what's important here. I'll save my serious take for when J.K. Rowling is called for the next "science" hearing. I'm sure Inhofe will be looking into the very serious matter of witches and warlocks when it comes to our kids doing so poorly in science, and she's the real expert.
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29342
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

Mikey wrote:
mvscal wrote:
tough love wrote: Worrisome Melting Polar Caps.
Antarctica is experiencing a net gain in ice, so you can drop the plural.

You also might want to take a look into the recent geothermal activity that has been discovered under the Arctic icecap.

Or you can continue to squirm around in your paranoid fantasy.
Do you have links for either of those contentions, or are you blowing smoke out your ass again?

According to the British Antarctic Survey about 8000 sq km has been lost from the Antarctic ice shelf since the 1950s.
Why must you misrepresent?

sin

The Snows of Kilimanjaro

Image

Two pictures from NASA showing Mt. Kilimanjaro. The top image is from February 17, 1993 while the bottom image if from February 21, 2000
User avatar
RadioFan
Liberal Media Conspirator
Posts: 7487
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:59 am
Location: Tulsa

Post by RadioFan »

mvscal wrote:Are you attempting to suggest that an MD is not qualified to comment on scientific methodology?
If you mean MC ... sure, about as qualified as Bono would be testifying before the Armed Services Committee.

Crichton is a good science writer, from what I've read of him. "Jurassic Park," in particular, with the Chaos theory interwoven throughout the book, was nicely done.

My comment was along the lines of Inhofe reading "Eaters of the Dead" (probably Crichton's most underrated book) and Inhofe believing it was true history -- very plausible, given that Inhofe is easily the most worthless POS "senator" this side of dumbfuckville.

The real "no real surprise here" is that Inhofe would bring in a science fiction writer to testify about global warming.

But then again, if a Bigfoot is found, I suppose Inhofe could recall Crichton to testify further on Ibn Fadlan's manuscript.
User avatar
RadioFan
Liberal Media Conspirator
Posts: 7487
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:59 am
Location: Tulsa

Post by RadioFan »

mvscal wrote:He is perfectly qualified to offer informed commentary on scientific methodology.
Amazing how Inhofe didn't call him to testify until after he wrote a book about global warming, given Inhofe's idiodic statements on the matter. Nothing political about the timing of his testimony. :roll:

Jim Inhofe -- the epitomy of "it's bad science if it goes against my pork" and vice versa, hasn't gotten one significant piece of legislation passed in the 11 years he's been in Congress, that's how "with it" that POS is.

Btw, a friend of mine has a great story about Inhofe riding a horse the wrong way during a parade in Shawnee, Okla., a few years ago. I'm sure in Inhofe's mind, it was "bad science" in that instance as well, given that his horse decided to go one way, and the parade was going another. Damn methodically liberal parade planners. He showed them. He hasn't been back to the Shawnee Christmas parade -- the largest in Oklahoma -- since.

:lol: :lol:
User avatar
RadioFan
Liberal Media Conspirator
Posts: 7487
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:59 am
Location: Tulsa

Post by RadioFan »

mvscal wrote:How dare these politicians interject politics into our politics!! This is an outrage!!! I demand to know who is responsible!!!
What are you talking about?

Jim Inhofe undurstends muh. Hail, I can still go ovar to the QuikTrip, and buy me a six-pack, cain't I? Thut hasn't changed since he's beeen our Saneator. Evun tho it's 3-2 bear, I kan still bey it, ryt? He's fightin' for my rites, 'an protectin' mae and muy famaly. Yessirree, Jim has dun a darn guud job in thet thar Warshington.

Yoo goe Jeeem! Keep geetin' thum leeebeeruls!

Sincerely,

The voters in dumbfuckville.
User avatar
tough love
Agondonter
Posts: 1886
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Prison Urantia

Post by tough love »

mv:
When it come's to global warming, as well as your take on Aqwar for that matter, I for one hope that your more positive guessccessments result to be more accurate then a WHOLE LOTTA OF THE GLOOMY negative guess work that is also being put forth.

The fact remains ->you are Just Guessing.

I think that it is safe to say that everyone here is hoping that when it is all said and done, you prove out to have been the best guesser of them all. :)
Am I wrong...God, I hope so.
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 29908
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Post by Mikey »

There's a big difference between a guess and an educated guess.
User avatar
tough love
Agondonter
Posts: 1886
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Prison Urantia

Post by tough love »

Mikey;
You can stop being the fucking retard now.
That's my job, remember.


mv;
From NASA all the way down to back yard scientists, there is agreement in that global warming is indeed occuring.
If global warming is the actual of the what is, whomever/whatever that is to blame for it's happening seems to be a tad secondary to the frightening possibilities of such a reality taking place.
You know; tons short and years too late, or like blaming Clinton for the poli_mess of your what now. :wink:
Am I wrong...God, I hope so.
Variable
Untitled
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:11 am

Post by Variable »

Nobody's saying that the planet isn't getting warmer. You can't argue with a thermometer.

The argument is over the cause.

Personally, considering the age of the planet, I think it's pretty stupid to jump to conclusions regarding cause and effect, based on temperature measurements that span a few decades. We don't even have enough data yet to determine if this is a regular cycle or not.
User avatar
Tom In VA
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 9042
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:04 am
Location: In Va. near D.C.

Post by Tom In VA »

While it seems probable the global cycle of warming coincides with the first 100 years of industrialization, is there data that suggests industrialization has contributed to the detriment of various local ecosystems ?
With all the horseshit around here, you'd think there'd be a pony somewhere.
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 29908
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Post by Mikey »

Tom In VA wrote:While it seems probable the global cycle of warming coincides with the first 100 years of industrialization, is there data that suggests industrialization has contributed to the detriment of various local ecosystems ?
That's a loaded question, right?

Check your Love Canal
User avatar
Tom In VA
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 9042
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:04 am
Location: In Va. near D.C.

Post by Tom In VA »

Well see, that alone tells me, it's too late no matter which way we slice it.
With all the horseshit around here, you'd think there'd be a pony somewhere.
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

There's not enough data to support man causing global warming, however our polluting activities are certainly contrary to normal ecological processes and we should monitor them, control them, improve them so we don't reach some "Oh Shit" point at some time in the future.

Based on the Senators guidelines of using a Sci Fi book as "Must read" Material as a reference point for a serious discussion on global warming, Crichton had no business being there. However, his opinion has about as much merit as any other well educated person, and perhaps more so than most of the climatological scientists. There's too much of a conflict of interest between their funding and achieving results they can hang their hats on to take their words for it.

The quote by the scientist: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."

That's all I need to read to see his point of view is perhaps a little stilted.

No reason to believe he's compromised, eh? :roll:
If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —GWB Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
Martyred wrote: Hang in there, Whitey. Smart people are on their way with dictionaries.
War Wagon wrote:being as how I've got "stupid" draped all over, I'm not really sure.
User avatar
Tom In VA
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 9042
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:04 am
Location: In Va. near D.C.

Post by Tom In VA »

Why is it you can only perceive those providing data that contradicts "Global Warming" as being" bought and sold ?

Maybe both teams are doing some buying and selling.
With all the horseshit around here, you'd think there'd be a pony somewhere.
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

Not what I meant. I meant that they're relying on their data interpretation to prove their hypotheses, and thus are unwilling to be proven wrong, and perhaps funding may have something to do with that, thus the conflict.
If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —GWB Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
Martyred wrote: Hang in there, Whitey. Smart people are on their way with dictionaries.
War Wagon wrote:being as how I've got "stupid" draped all over, I'm not really sure.
User avatar
titlover
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 1111
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:00 am

Post by titlover »

mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:The quote by the scientist: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."
I'd have to say the individual who made that quote is not a scientist in any meaningful sense of the term. It really is a stunning remark.
one of the major parts of the scientific community is peer review.

this guy sounds like he's scared of that. :roll:
Post Reply