My question would be the following: how can I convince my fellow scientists (yeah I am one of those nasty hippie-communist scientists posed to destroy your freedoms.. or whatever) that people who think that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, the second law of thermodynamics should not exist, HIV has no virus origin and global warming is either a hoax ot, at most, would produce minor problems are not just fringe lunatics but also very powerful people interested in a pre-enlightenment world?
It is very difficult to convince them that some people in your group are not lunatic but a have a clear agenda to discredit science and enlightenment values. A world where facts do not exist (it is just "scientific consensus"), evidence is irrelevant (because oh my Lord. scientific ideas depend on a "minority who speaks louder") and where words like "freedom" and "liberty" are twisted to favour one's particular religion (in the case of the author a particular deluded version of economic and human reality) in front of any bothersome fact, are the common talk points behind people pushing the narrative you present in the article.
But somehow my fellow scientists refuse to believe that you are anything more than a scientific handicapped person. What can I do to convince them that you are really serious about what you are saying? How can I convince them that you really mean it, that you really want to explain to the world that those pesky facts are nothing to worry about, that taking preventing action to prevent highly likely catastrophes is dangerous enviromentalism, that scientists should be aware of the political implications of what they say but at the same time we should not politicize science ?
By the way, next time you should also check the internal coherence of the whole article, it really looks like "Science I do not like=politicized science"; "science I like=not politicized science"
Any input?
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
Maybe then scientists would understand the political implications of locking themselves up in ivory towers. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
A short diary.
