Quotations

Updated on 17th July 2025.

A. BY PEOPLE EXPLAINING HOW AND WHY ACADEMIC EARTH SCIENCE IS WRONG.

1. ‘I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.’

2. ‘There is an idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school – we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation …. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty – a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid – not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked – to make sure the other fellow can tell they’ve been eliminated.’

Richard P. Feynman,

This website proves that this advice was not followed by geophysicists and geochemists designing and leading education concerning the science of the Earth, other planets and moons.

———————————————

3. ‘I use the term ‘groupthink’ as a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action……Groupthink refers to a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgment.’

Irving Janis, Victims of Groupthink, 1972

The term ‘groupthink’ applies to the geophysicists and geochemists who, as this website proves, never questioned the science or the way it was done under the leadership of colleagues who, likewise, never questioned the most basic principles of relevant assumptions as taught in schools and universities.

———————————————-

4. ‘The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.’

President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address, 1961

This foresaw the present situation in the Earth being taught as definitely right by the elite geophysicists and geochemists who, as proved on this website, were disastrously wrong not to question the basic principles of what they were taught.

5. ‘Recent examples of bias and corruption in science are bad enough. What’s worse is the reluctance of scientific leaders to criticise the bad apples.’

Matt Ridley, December 2014.

Tragically, the bad apples were the leaders themselves, although I have never used this description.

———————————————–

6. ‘That slick expression, you’re entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts, now has a deeper meaning in this latest stage of post-enlightenment. If your facts plainly contradict someone else’s orthodox beliefs, then you are simply being “unhelpful” or even “harmful” and should therefore be suppressed. That’s to be done not by logical refutation or counter argument, but intimidation, bullying, shunning, character assassination and threats to a person’s career or livelihood.

Basically, the gloves come off and you get mobbed by a gang of like-minded thugs. Destroy the person, not the argument.’

Pointman, May 2014

This was much more scathing than I would ever be but nonetheless it made what has proved to be a valid point.

———————————————————-

B. BY THE NERC

Extracts from one of its past websites.

‘Public Engagement with Environmental Science 2016-2018 Strategy

Purpose. As environmental science will continue to be at the heart of some of our society’s biggest challenges, NERC has both an opportunity and a responsibility to ensure we find innovative and relevant ways for members of the public to engage with this important research. Through this strategy we signal a renewed commitment to public engagement and our Royal Charter duty.

In our role as the leading commissioner of UK environmental science, NERC emphasises the value of public engagement with research to benefit environmental science, researchers and society as a whole. NERC has a Royal Charter responsibility to ‘encourage public engagement and dialogue’, ‘communicate research outcomes’ and ‘generate public awareness’.

Research Councils UK has adopted the following definition for Public Engagement …. “Public engagement describes the myriad of ways in which the activity and benefits of higher education and research can be shared with the public. Engagement is by definition a two-way process, involving interaction and listening, with the goal of generating mutual benefit.”

Objectives. NERC is committed to a strategic and effective approach to excellent public engagement with research. Our activities and those we commission will be guided by three objectives:
1) To convene informed public debate about contemporary issues in environmental science, including the ethical and social implications.
2) To inform, interest and inspire members of the public and future researchers in environmental science and the processes of research, in a way that is accessible and relevant.
3) To carry out public dialogue on complex and controversial issues.

Actively listening to members of the public allows NERC to make decisions that are relevant to society.’