1. After rereading this excellent lecture I went back to see what Skeptical Science had to say about it. Their criticism was mostly of Crichton’s lack of complete explanation of the greenhouse effect and mischaracterization of the similarity of the “consensus” in climate change science with the other examples he gave. In that attitude they missed the central point of his speech. My take on his central point is that consensus positions on scientific questions end inquiry, stifle discussion, and replace uncertain understanding with the accepted dogma. The very fact that Skeptical Science considers putting jelly beans into a jar can be analogues to CO2 flow in the atmosphere is an example of the dogma displacing the ability or at least the desire to reason. The censoring of Harde , Salby and many others is the product of the consensus claims leading to disallowing dissent and the corruption of the scientific process Crichton warns of.

  2. Stunning lecture, prescient in its recognition of the ever-present threat to science
    of greed and influence. The antecedents bear an uncanny resemblance
    to the recent censorship of Harde, developed in Salby’s Hamburg lecture,


    along with why, to sustain the consensus, such censorship was necessary.

    Crichton’s closing line says it all. If scientists don’t stand up for science, who will?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.