Michael Crichton debunked

From the link, an IPCC rebuttal to a critique in the WSJ about the IPCC removing certain words to make it more alarmist:

Dr. Seitz is not a climate scientist. He was not involved in the process of putting together the 1995 IPCC report on the science of climate change. He did not attend the Madrid IPCC meeting on which he reports. He was not privy to the hundreds of review comments received by Chapter 8 Lead Authors. Most seriously, before writing his editorial, he did not contact any of the Lead Authors of Chapter 8 in order to obtain information as to how or why changes were made to Chapter 8 after Madrid.

I wonder if Davidson and Robson are still around. Must be unethical, right?

Hey, thanks for the link, Tim.

I can explain why this situation is so DANGEROUS.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Max Planck, 1920
But what we have now is the opposite of what the case is with the Flat-Earthers and many other cultists. The people with what common sense and the evidence and the scientific method would tell us is the opposite of the truth are the very people in control of whether other people live or die, not just themselves. Hence, we aren't free to wait them out as they bring inevitable disaster on themselves.
It's the same sector, frankly, that's practiced a kind of inverted Marxism centered on capitalism since the 1940s or 1950s, starting in America and Austria and expanding outward.
For this reason, we have to hope Planck (and Thomas Kuhn) were at least somewhat wrong, and that with sufficient will (perhaps energized by the other assaults on science itself now taking place) we won't have to wait for the very last of the Lindzens et al. to actually die out before they're no longer given public prominence and completely undue, outsized influence in place of the overwhelming majority of working scientists.
My fervent hope is that at least the nonsense about the scientists formerly believing in global cooling (as opposed to studying the relative strength of dimming vs. warming) can be eliminated from the self-respecting media and the idea that global warming has been studied for over 100 years - and hence is not new at all - can be propagated. It's much more akin to continental drift than it is to some new theory about formation of neutron stars. It dominates things like the ridiculous sunspot or cosmic cloud theories as strongly as continental drift and normal catastrophism dominate Velikovskianism.

I do have some quibbles with this:
"Recently, my attention was directed to a speech by Michael Crichton, given at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, California, on January 17, 2003."
however.

There is a difference between a speech, and speech-like primate vocal behavior resulting from a fear reaction to something new, perceived as a threat.