Reprinted at the suggestion of the author, originally published on American Thinker
Hollywood Science is a general term given to the phenomenon of scientific principles being misinterpreted, ignored or abused by the Hollywood film industry. The term has given rise to a number of television programs which endeavour to expose whether phenomena seen in films can be replicated. – source
Guest essay by Charles Battig
As the furor over Hollywood kingpin Harvey Weinstein’s sexual exploits floods the media, I say it is time to let those dust balls of deviancy provide another lesson in the foolishness of celebrity worship. Mr. Weinstein is rapidly losing his endorsement by the Hollywood crowd, which he had brought to star status.
Want to sell something, anything? Product placement and endorsement are a lucrative activity for Hollywood’s media darlings and a successful sales strategy for manufacturers. But why? It would seem to be obvious that the endorsement, however sincere in its presentation, is a paid for performance. “Trust me, I am a Hollywood celebrity”…no? Perhaps the answer lies in the observations of Nobel Prize-winner Richard Thaler on human behavior, rational and otherwise. People tend to believe what they want to hear; put off less pleasurable activities, even those in their best long-term interest; and eschew going publicly against the norms of the crowd.
Promoting fears of man-made climate change has become the side occupation for some of Hollywood’s leading stars. Why should the public care what actor X has to say on the topic? Should they be swayed by what an actor says? A consideration of what acting and movie-making entails provides a hint.
Hollywood can be said to be in the professional business of lying and suspending rational thought. In a sense, actors and directors are professional liars – they work to make seem real a work of fantasy. They work diligently to make you accept what you see on the screen as a reality, although it is an illusion of someone else’s making. Actor X is adjudged a star if he is able to take the words of someone else, the script, and deliver a performance on screen that fools us into believing that that actor is the fictitious character. No original thinking is necessary; the actor is parroting the ideas of someone else.
So when Hollywood produces film showing Manhattan sinking beneath the ocean, or actor X steps out of character and portrays a scientific concern for the climate and attributes climate catastrophes to human activities, remember that they are both in the business of fantasy. Climate reality is best left in the hands of those trained in the pertinent scientific fields.
Charles G. Battig, M.S., M.D., Heartland Institute policy expert on environment; VA-Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE). His website is www.climateis.com.
Somehow I think there’s more to it than that. For some reason I’m reminded of Yakima Canutt. Anyway, you couldn’t accuse him of merely parroting other people’s ideas.
Canutt is an entirely different sort. I have acted and written a little for film, so I’d say it’s a co-op arrangement, with the director usually having the final say. Sometimes an actor will come up with an idea on-set that exemplifies the character better than what’s in the script. E.g., Harrison Ford’s “Can’t I just shoot him?” Brilliant. He did, and the resulting moment was one of those things you talk about the morning after you’ve seen “Raiders of the Lost Ark.”
Another famous improvisation is Peter O’Toole’s using his dagger as a mirror in “Lawrence of Arabia”.
Canutt stunt doubled for John Wayne in “Stagecoach”. John Ford couldn’t make use of Wayne’s observation that in the real world, the Indians chasing the coach would just have shot the horses. Even only one dead or wounded horse would have ended the chase, in which scene Canutt jumps from running horse to horse. He was a great athlete.
Gabro – In the entire history of the American West there was exactly one incident of an Indian attack on a stagecoach. Of course in Hollywood movies they have barely put the town they are leaving behind the bend and Indians are all over them.
The classic Hollywood scene of mounted Indians staging a massive attack on a circled wagon train with pioneers shooting at them from the cover of the wagons? Nothing even remotely like this ever happened.
The British defenders at Rorke’s Drift are depicted as using anything they could, including wagons, to build a defence.
Wagon forts go back into ancient history both in Europe and China. One well recorded example is The Battle of Blood River in which 350 Voortrekkers defeated 10,000 Zulus.
I must disagree. Reality is best left in the hands of those who have to experience it.
Too many of those who claim to be trained in “climate” are no more truthful than any Hollywood star, just wannabes. Some of them may be competent and truthful, but not as many as those who would claim to be competent and truthful.
If somebody has a climate model that doesn’t match reality, it doesn’t matter if they have either a PhD or an Oscar. They still fail the reality test.
It is good to see others stating what I have stated – Actors are professional liars!
I cannot claim that phrase as I am sure many have said it before me (I have only been saying it for about 30 years). But the more people that realize what acting is, the less weight they give to fake people.
It’s more trained sociopathy, imo.
I am sure there will be a new movie called “How Climate Science lead the perversion of science”.
Cosmology has decided to follow Climate Science down a very dark path. Scientific America decided to published an article against inflationary theory and check out the response.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/a-cosmic-controversy/
Response look familiar in trying to shut down descent, I was horrified.
Slava Mukhanov was the only one asked to sign the letter and refused.
Next all they need to do is start the 97% consensus junk and start calling objecting voices deniers and they will have taken there Cosmology into the garbage can like climate science.
The fact other scientists are using these tactics is going to come to haunt some science fields. You only have to look at the history of science to see it isn’t going to end well.
At least the pro-inflation authors recognize that science should make falsifiable predictions, unlike “climate scientists” and their cheerleaders like Mosher and Oreskes, who are only to happy to invent a new scientific method, based upon consensus rather than falsifiability.
…..Climate reality is best left in the hands of those trained in the pertinent scientific fields……
I disagree with this statement. As long as it is a pure thought exercise it is science but once the ideas are applied and money is spent based on those ideas it becomes engineering and should be subject to the quality control that are always needed to ensure that money is spent as well as practically possible.
That means that any failing of the science to meet real world conditions should be highlighted and rectified , by total cancellation of the project if necessary.
Since when do we put anything responsible in the hands of the high school theater kids, be it foreign policy or science?