Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture by Michael Crichton


The “exoneration” by Climategate investigations (like Muir Russell) that never bother to talk to skeptics, create an impossible conundrum of having essentially a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say.

Given this, I thought it valuable to revisit this Caltech lecture on the state of science and consensus by the late Michael Crichton.

– Anthony Watts

Finally, 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.”

Read it here:


brilliant..consensus isnt isnt consensus..the greatest scientists in the world went AGAINST the over..


~ by seeker401 on March 23, 2013.

16 Responses to “Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture by Michael Crichton”

  1. Hello seeker401.

    I was always impressed by the scientific bibliography at the end of any of Crichton’s novels. A very thorough researcher.

    As to the so-called consensus on “Global Warming” (or the many re-namings that the same scam has been given), this was exposed as a classic case of consensus-making where no consensus existed, since a scientific (or historical or whatever) consensus can only arise as a result of the pooling of research results. What the IPCC did (under Houghton, I think) was to get the scientists together and browbeat them into a collective statement that few actually believed.

    The above is covered at Prof. Judith Curry’s blog, at

    Crichton’s essential point is so basic: you cannot just make stuff up and still claim any validity.

    I wonder if you’ve read any of his travel writings? I was impressed as to his deep metaphysical insights, which made me wonder how someone with this knowledge could just go and die of cancer. Curious.

    All the best.

    Andrew Farquharson.

    • if you missed this post a few days ago you may enjoy it..its to do with consensus science as well:

      a good friend put me onto crichton and i must admit i dont know a lot about him or his books..i am always wary of smart guys falling victim to cancer out of the blue..was he to dangerous?

      he perhaps was an insider who came clean to the games played..

      i note he was harvard college and medical school and MIT.. usually good clues and he was also in Phi Beta Kappa

      “experimented with astral projection, aura viewing, and clairvoyance, coming to believe that these included real phenomena that scientists had too eagerly dismissed as paranormal”

      “In 2004, Crichton published State of Fear, a novel concerning eco-terrorists who attempt mass murder to support their views. Global warming serves as a central theme to the novel, although review in Nature found it likely to mislead the unwary. The novel had an initial print run of 1.5 million copies and reached the No. 1 bestseller position at and No. 2 on The New York Times Best Seller list for one week in January 2005.”

      “On March 14, 2007, Intelligence Squared held a debate in New York City titled Global Warming is Not a Crisis, moderated by Brian Lehrer. Crichton was on the for the motion side along with Richard Lindzen and Philip Stott against Gavin Schmidt, Richard Somerville, and Brenda Ekwurzel. Before the debate, the audience were largely on the Against the motion side at 57% vs 30% in favor of the for side, with a 12% undecided.[64] At the end of the debate, there was a notable shift in the audience vote at 46% vs 42% in favor of the for the motion side leaving the debate with the conclusion that Crichton’s group won.
      In the debate, although he admitted that man must have at some point contributed to global warming but not necessarily caused it, Crichton argued that most of the media and attention of the general public are being dedicated to the uncertain anthropogenic global warming scares instead of the more urgent issues like poverty. He also suggested that private jets be banned as they add more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for the benefit of the few who could afford them.”

      after this paragraph wikipedia decides to add this..which has nothing to do with crichton and is clearly an edit out of fear and panic..there is no reason for this to be included..we dont need your opinions..we are reading about crichton..this is rife throughout Wikipedia..

      “The scientific consensus is that the Earth’s climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.”

      he was a thorn in the side:

      “Complexity theory and environmental management
      In previous speeches, Crichton criticized environmental groups for failing to incorporate complexity theory. Here he explains in detail why complexity theory is essential to environmental management, using the history of Yellowstone Park as an example of what not to do. Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy Washington, D.C. November 6, 2005

      Testimony before the United States Senate
      Together with climate scientists, Crichton was invited to testify before the Senate in September 2005, as an expert witness on global warming.[73] Committee on Environment and Public Works Washington, D.C.

      Caltech Michelin Lecture
      “Aliens Cause Global Warming” January 17, 2003. In the spirit of his science fiction writing Crichton details the fallacy of Carl Sagan’s nuclear winter and SETI Drake equations relative to global warming alarmism.

      The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming
      On January 25, 2005 at the National Press Club Washington, D.C., Crichton delivered a detailed explanation of why he criticized the consensus view on global warming. Using published UN data, he argued that claims for catastrophic warming arouse doubt; that reducing CO2 is vastly more difficult than what is commonly presumed; and why societies are morally unjustified in spending vast sums on a speculative issue when people around the world are dying of starvation and disease.

      Environmentalism as Religion
      This was not the first discussion of environmentalism as a religion, but it caught on and was widely quoted. Crichton explains his view that religious approaches to the environment are inappropriate and cause damage to the natural world they intend to protect.[75] Commonwealth Club San Francisco, California September 15, 2003″


      “In 2006, Crichton clashed with journalist Michael Crowley, a senior editor of the liberal magazine The New Republic. In March 2006, Crowley wrote a strongly critical review of State of Fear, focusing on Crichton’s stance on global warming. In the same year, Crichton published the novel Next, which contains a minor character named “Mick Crowley”, who is a Yale graduate and a Washington D.C.based political columnist. The character was portrayed as a child molester with a small penis. The character does not appear elsewhere in the book.[84] The real Crowley, also a Yale graduate, alleged that by including a similarly named character Crichton had libeled him.”

      death..took about 8 months and gone..hmm

      “In accordance with the private way in which Crichton lived his life, his throat cancer was not made public until his death. According to Crichton’s brother Douglas, Crichton was diagnosed with lymphoma in early 2008. He was undergoing chemotherapy treatment at the time of his death, and Crichton’s physicians and family members had been expecting him to make a recovery. He unexpectedly died of the disease on November 4, 2008, at the age of 66.”

    • will look at currys work thanks..

  2. Game over, or not. I see they are talking about “saving energy”. I don’t know much about Earth Day, so I wonder if it’s linked to the global warming hoax.

    In other news, I been thinking one day they will fool us with aliens as a distraction.

    • This is what I tweeted today:

      @seeker401: “@earthhour: #EarthHour is more than just lights out << its a psyop "feel good" mass propaganda tool,achieves nothing 4 humans living in poverty!

      • earth hour is hilarious. i saw a local news report where they interviewed the owner of a yuppie restaurant… talking about ‘doing his part’ by turning off the lights… and lighting candles instead! (uhm, hello, burning candles produce the “toxic” co2 that they are all so worried about…)

        • Oh shit!!! 🙂

        • I always thought earth hour you were suppose to turn all your lights on and show off your electricity and celebrate Thomas Edison the perfectionist of the light bulb! 🙂 (sarcasm off)

      • We turn all our lights on during earth hour!

  3. Hello again,

    Thanks for the additional information. As for Earth Hour, if one didn’t know what it was alleged to be about, if you took the observer’s position as “Alien Anthropologist”, then Earth Hour looks oddly like a flame-worshipping ritual. Flame = Illuminati.

    It reminds me of the Beatles’ song (penned by Theodore Adorno, of course) “Here comes the Sun”, which is a hymn in praise of the illuminati, the Sun being another one of their prime symbols.

    Further to Mirth Hour (oops, I meant Earth Hour), it’s curious that the candles that are used would overwhelmingly be a product of the petrochemical industry. Bees wax, a beautiful and natural substance, is too expensive to produce masses of candles.

    I also feel that being Australian, as seeker401 is, that Earth Hour starting here is yet another thing to be embarrassed about.

    Best wishes as always,

    Andrew Farquharson.

    • I am embarrassed by it as many of us are. They claim 2 million worldwide involved out of 7 billion people? Not really overwhelming is it? Your spot on about the candles and the hypocrisy of their usage, and it does seem to be a flame ritual, like Obama in Israel.

      Opera house didnt shut down this year, just changed the light colour to green. Wow?

  4. […]; […]

  5. The article actually talks about the effects of bad science and politics using nuclear winter as an example.

    Nothing about aliens are in the article and I read 2/3rd of the way down though what they talked about is true the headlines are absolutely false.

    How can anyone be fooled so easily is beyond me but then again we elected Obama not just once but twice with lots of dirty deeds behind closed doors.

    • its a great article imo and exactly as crichton spoke it..sadly he is gone..

      “My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming.

      Charting this progression of belief will be my task today. Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do.”

  6. In fact the article itself was poorly written shows how little *journalism* is actually journalism.

    An article should have at it’s basic form the Five W’s such as who,what,when,where and why in the beginning of the page then the rest of the juicy details to follow in order to confirm all of the above with a conclusion at the bottom.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: