From today’s Journal, on Michael Crichton:
It is perhaps fitting that Crichton, whose “Jurassic Park” so informed (and uninformed) our public understanding of paleontology, would become our new public expositor on the complex and contentious issues of climate science.
Fitting, but not necessarily helpful.
I’m a pundit!
On the “scientization,” as Daniel Sarewitz calls it, of a political/policy debate:
Since 1988, Sandia has spent some $10 million of taxpayer money on study after study of its Mixed Waste Landfill, an unlined dump on the southern side of Kirtland Air Force Base. For more than three decades, it was filled with all manner of hazardous and radioactive waste.
Each step of the way, Sandia officials have said the evidence was sufficient to support their argument that the landfill does not pose a risk and that the waste can safely be left where it is.
Each step of the way, activists have disagreed, saying the landfill could contaminate the aquifer and needs to be excavated.
And each step of the way, additional studies have failed to settle the issue, and instead become new subjects of contention.