Comments on: Gender, Ethics, Science.

By: BenSix

BenSix — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:27:47 +0000

“which you can almost get struck out of public life for saying now”

Sorry, I realise that in some company this would place you somewhere between a mugger and Genghis Khan but ‘public life’? It’s the equivalent of typing “I bet you don’t have the balls to print this” at the bottom of a comment.

By: Lee Griffin

Lee Griffin — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:46:51 +0000

What an utterly naive statement Woobegone

By: Woobegone

Woobegone — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:58:38 +0000

I find it rather reassuring that whenever someone starts out by saying “Now I’m going to be shouted down for saying this but…”, 99% of the time they turn out to be talking complete nonsense. It suggests that the mainstream orthodox view is actually pretty reliable, which has to be a good thing. We’ve passed the time when great scientists like Galileo or Darwin got shouted down by their peers. Today’s scientific community is right far more often than it’s wrong. The problem is that there are a lot of have-a-go-heroes who fancy themselves as the next Galileo and never tire of trying to make themselves out as persecuted innovators. A hundred years ago the innovators really were persecuted, nowadays if you get persecuted it’s probably because you deserve it.

By: Lee Griffin

Lee Griffin — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:39:08 +0000

I don’t think Dale is peddling ignorance though, he’s peddling skepticism over scientists ability to predict trends in climate without more than a hundred years worth of data. Now he’s an absolute idiot for pandering to the worst case scenario, as there is absolutely no reason (game theory wise) to not at least follow scientific advice. But let’s not assume just because some people are concerned over the scope of data and how it’s being used, that that is ignorance.

By: Jennie Rigg

Jennie Rigg — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:14:32 +0000

I love Zombie Darwin; he writes well! I just wish he wasn’t fighting such an uphill battle against ignorance.

Thanks for the linkie, Doug. *smooch*

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:42:20 +0000

I don’t think it’s Dale pointing out that the public don’t trust scientists in that first link, it’s more a long-dead scientist calling out people like him for peddling ignorance. I liked this bit:

“That scientists may distort or exaggerate findings for their own sinister, ill-defined ends is a perception that we must not allow to grow in the media. I fear we may arrive at a time when the public (for media purposes London) finds itself up to its armpits in water and turns on the scientists and asks ‘why didn’t you warn us this might happen?’

When we point to an Alp of peer-reviewed climate science and frustrated scientists trying to condense complex issues into TV news soundbites, they will say, ‘Why didn’t you warn us better?’”

and was amused by this bit:

“Well I just don’t agree with that. But the original question was about comparing this apocalypse to the global warming apocalypse now I am going to say something heretical which you can almost get struck out of public life for saying now but I am not convinced by all the arguments on man made global warming but you are not allowed to say that in polite society any more.”

Since he’s not allowed to say it then presumably he will be purged from public life altogether soon. Unless, of course, everything he said was a festering load of old shit.

“(APPLAUSE) As some of the audience have just demonstrated.”

Eh?