Return to Website

Number Watch Web Forum

This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.

Number Watch Web Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: Balcombe protesters

>>
"Don't you think the experts know about temperature, enthalpy, triple points, etc, you must think they are morons or something!"

"You just think you are smarter than all those people that have spent way more time studying the subject that you!"
<<

For some reason, this childish view of scientists reminds me of a line from Star Trek ("Miri" The Original Series), where the character, Jahn, makes the following statement:

"But Grups, they know things and all that. You know, I bet they'll be able to do it with one person less."

Jim


Re: Balcombe protesters

In reply to Brad, this relates I think to a big difference I noted between the pro-AGW side and AGW sceptics some years ago. The pro AGW side has a tendency to see science as a single monolithic entity with all scientific disciplines and scientists having more or less equal status, whereas AGW sceptics take a more non-egalitarian view, observing some demarcations like the idea of splitting science into hard science and soft science, or maybe the old Ernest Rutherford idea of regarding science as being either physics or stamp-collecting (subjects which mainly involve data collection). AGW sceptics are prepared to show deference to scientific disciplines that have some proven track record in predicting something useful, but not to disciplines that don't seem to be good at predicting what they're supposed to know about. The pro-AGW side thinks that deference should be paid to anybody calling themselves a scientist (there is however a contradiction to this in that the Green lobby, which makes up a considerable component of the pro-AGW side, do not themselves show equal deference to all scientists), and interpret the inconsistency in deference by sceptics as being politically motivated or conspiracy theory type thinking, rather than the simpler explanation that people might just not be impressed by a particular scientific discipline.

I noticed an article called "Science says so suckers!" that picks up this point of mistakenly regarding science as a single entity a few weeks ago (it's a WSJ article, so it may go behind a paywall at some point). The article is a rebuttal of the assertion that climate change science is as certain as gravity:

link

Re: Balcombe protesters

On the subject of fracking protests and hippies, an event is coming up this weekend organised by British pagans to protect 'Albion' (an ancient name for Britain or England, reputedly based on the white cliffs of Dover) from the practice of fracking. I suspect that the event, though quite newsworthy, will not be reported by environmental journalists due to it being somewhat embarassing to the political Green cause.

link

It looks like they've got 1800 people attending a magic ritual to be carried out at Glastonbury (which is a sort of general centre of British mumbo jumbo), with possibly several thousand others carrying out rituals in smaller gatherings elsewhere. So if you never hear about fracking in Britain again after this weekend, you'll know why.

One thing I have to say in favour of the hippies and pagans is that they do represent the honest face of environmentalism. It is self-evident with these people that they are just following a voice in their heads.

Re: Balcombe protesters

As I expected, no British environmental journalist covered the Pagan anti-fracking protests, even though it was a bigger event than Balcombe. In fact there has been no mention of the event in the British news media at all, confirming my long-held impression that the media gives the environmental movement a bit of an easy ride compared with other political groups. But a couple of Youtube videos have been uploaded, for anyone interested, one for Glastonbury and one for Stonehenge:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIKJ6bklycc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve3GEX8ut60