George Rebane

Dr. Michael Crichton M.D., the Harvard educated physician and one of the greatest techno-thriller authors of all time, died yesterday.  Besides leaving a string of page-turners that were technically accurate/plausible, the man was also a bit of a philosopher of science.  At this time of mass hysterias over incomprehensible topics sweeping an under-educated world, it is appropriate to highlight Crichton’s thoughts on how junk science is now sold to the masses.

The most impactive science-related hysteria today is, of course, global warming and particularly anthropogenic global warming.  While there are reams of evidence and cadres of reputable scientists who dispute the UN’s IPCC conclusions, the AGW scare is made real in the public mind by the notion of ‘consensus of scientists’ and ‘consensus of scientific thought’.  From the MSM nozzles this drizzles in our ears day in and day out.

Michael Crichton gave a speech about five years ago at Caltech in Pasadena that is abstracted in today’s WSJ – ‘Aliens Cause Global Warming’.  In it he warned about consensus science and computer models.  About the first he said

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . .

Crichton could also have referenced the statement by Einstein about how little it would take to prove his theories wrong.  He advised us all that it would not take a scientific consensus to accomplish this, but simply the work of one solitary scientist to bring down the façade of any proposed theory.  Crichton continues

I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . .

To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to a conclusion: “These results are derived with the help of a computer model.” But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world — increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs. (emphasis added)

Crichton’s words are prophetic as our world collectively contemplates the rush of lemmings to the sea.  He concludes with

Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?

He left us too early.