Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

It's hard to decide who's truly brilliant; it's easier to see who's driven, which in the long run may be more important.

All major changes are like death. You can't see to the other side until you are there.

This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right.

Although personally, I think cyberspace means the end of our species.

In my view, our approach to global warming exemplifies everything that is wrong with our approach to the environment. We are basing our decisions on speculation, not evidence. Proponents are pressing their views with more PR than scientific data. Indeed, we have allowed the whole issue to be politicized-red vs blue, Republican vs Democrat. This is in my view absurd. Data aren't political. Data are data. Politics leads you in the direction of a belief. Data, if you follow them, lead you to truth.

At the edge of chaos, unexpected outcomes occur. The risk to survival is severe.