Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_mchale
Just a general thought; most scientists I have had the pleasure of meeting, regardless of their politics, hate being wrong. What they hate more though is cooking the books. They would prefer show they are wrong than ever fake their data or their conclusions to agree with their politics.
--
Bill
|
This is an excellent point, because it illustrates the problem a lot of people have with the scientists who endorse climate change orthodoxy. (There is also an ever-growing body of climatologists
inter alia who criticize that orthodoxy.) I agree with you that the great majority of scientists are dedicated to truth and intellectual integrity in their field. What they're doing on the public stage, however, isn't science, it's politics, and their integrity and honesty in the pursuit of science doesn't carry over into their political lobbying. Further, since politics by its very nature is never subjected to objective verification, the way to ensure that you're not "wrong" when debating policy is to squelch all debate and railroad the opposition, usually with cries for the rest of us to think of the children, the polar bear, the declining bumblebee population, etc.
One reason why Michael Crichton offends me a lot less in this regard than actual scientists who have entered the fray is that he never pretended to be a scientific expert, or appealed to authority; he was a novelist, who was unapologetic and honest about his ideas and bias, and was completely transparent in his arguments. (He frequently imputed ill will to the other side, which is a problem in almost all political debate these days, but that's a different issue.)