Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Science and Klaus

by kcurie Thu Jun 14th, 2007 at 01:22:04 PM EST

The article of V. Klaus about dangerous enviromentalism as some sort of dangerous communism threatening our freedoms has generated a heated debate about how to beat back this kind of discourse which floods our public discourse.

As jerome points out, they are relentless, they know their stuff and they know how to put narratives and histories behind...we also know how to do it.. but we just do not have the media.

But beside screeaming again "buy Media for Xsakes" I would like to address here the scientific implications of this kind of articles... please follow me below and provide inputs for my answer to Klaus article


I think the narrative I want to push in this diary (aimed to scientists initially but to all the "rational people" at the end) is encapsualted in the question I present here. I will put it in the FT after all is set and done  It is tough to make a narrative in a question.. but with some "tales tricks" I manage to get that...


My question would be the following: how can I convince my fellow scientists (yeah I am one of those nasty hippie-communist scientists poised to destroy your freedoms... or whatever) that people who think that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, that the second law of thermodynamics should not exist, that HIV has no virus origin and that global warming is either a hoax or, 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 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) when confronting any bothersome fact, are the common talking points of people pushing the narrative you present in the article.

But somehow my fellow scientists refuse to believe that you are anything more than a scientifically 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 preventive 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"

I would like, well NEED, input on the substance and on the form...

Please HELP!!!!

Display:
I think I should leave it here for a day or so...after changing it with the inputs I will post it.

I do not think responses from groups can be directed to FT.. if so I would like to do it.. but I am afraid a name should be in there.. so I will take responsability for it...

But I would like input.

A plesure

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

by kcurie on Thu Jun 14th, 2007 at 01:37:39 PM EST
It's very good and I'd love to help, but I have no time, no time, no time..!!!

After the weekend?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Jun 14th, 2007 at 02:51:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ok.

I think the deadline is monday.
I think.

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

by kcurie on Thu Jun 14th, 2007 at 03:02:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If you want a parallel to the current situation where the politicians are criticizing the scientists, you might be interested in the Grand Banks Fishery in Canada. There are some clear parallels.

Some fishermen reported disturbing problems about the fishery close to shore. Eventually the scientists came on board. The politicians were not willing to face the political consequences of the predictions that the scientists made.

John Crosby (Newfoundland Cabinit Minister) in discussing why he prerered a go slow approach to limiting cod catches:

These questions are not decided by scientists. And it is just as well they are not because if they were last year we would have wiped out the whole off shore fishery.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-1595-10940/politics_economy/cod_economy/clip4

The scientists (and inshore cod fishermen) were right. The fishery has been destroyed. The politicians were wrong.

I googled "cod fishery".

This looked like an interesting site:
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-73-1595/politics_economy/cod_economy/
I didn't look at all the information, but item #4 and #9 might in particular be useful.
stiangovernment.ca/

aspiring to genteel poverty

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Thu Jun 14th, 2007 at 05:28:58 PM EST
Who else was advising the politicians, or what were their underlying assumptions? What political consequences of the scientific advice were they scared of?

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 14th, 2007 at 05:45:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am not an expert on the topic. It was a major piece of news in Canada over a period of several years. The link I provided looks like it incorporates a fairly reasonable history into it.

The cod fishery was the major employment in Newfoundland - a province that is the poorest (I'm pretty sure) in Canada. Over a short period of time it grew radically in size. What else was there to do? Economically, there was very little of anything other than fishing. There have been numerous spectacular failures at bringing industry to the "rock". The closure, or even curtailing of the cod fishery would cause major economic hardship to an already poverty stricken province. Cod was a way of life, and had been for 100's of years. There was a saying in Newfoundland - to the effect that no matter how bad times came, you could always fish. The premier of Newfoundland who brought it into confederation was known as the Cod Father. Politically, cutting back on cod fishing was seen to be suicide, and probably with good reason.

The politicians would cherry pick science in order to keep fishing quotas as high as possible. There was talk of the damage scientists were going to do to Newfoundland. Uncertainty levels were used in ways to maximise the estimates of Cod Stocks, and the resulting size of fish quotas. The result was that cod fishing has been more or less banned - for I don't know - a decade? in a classic case of locking the barn door after the horses escape. The cod still has not recovered.


aspiring to genteel poverty

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Thu Jun 14th, 2007 at 08:16:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I it is great, I started to giggle.

But I think it would win on dropping the last sentence. The third paragraph is the crescendo and deserves to finish it of.

Otherwise, just hilarious.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Jun 14th, 2007 at 05:34:32 PM EST
In addition, I'm not sure you should tell Klaus how to improve his message.

Al enemigo, ni agua we say in Spanish [don't give anything to the enemy, not even water]

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 14th, 2007 at 05:38:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree.... I will do it..

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

by kcurie on Fri Jun 15th, 2007 at 03:51:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Try this k.  I made just a few minor changes.  My tendency would be towards making the point (he's a dangerous nut) and not overdoing it.  With that in mind, I might shorten it even more than I did here.  I always try to make the point hard then quit.  Good response.

"My question would be: how can I convince my fellow scientists that people who think that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, believe that the second law of thermodynamics should (does not?) not exist, can't fathom that HIV has a viral origin, and still believe that global warming is either a hoax or, at most, just a climatic aberration that will 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 lunatics 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 that 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) over bothersome facts, are the common talking points behind people promoting the narrative you present in this article.
But somehow my fellow scientists refuse to believe that you are anything more than a scientifically challenged 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 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?"


I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Thu Jun 14th, 2007 at 11:40:37 PM EST
This one is very good.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 15th, 2007 at 03:28:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Perfect..

I will put them all.

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

by kcurie on Fri Jun 15th, 2007 at 03:53:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Notes:

  1. I took the liberty to edit some minor changes (typos and such)
  2. I would make the point that he wants to explain to the world "that scientists should be aware of the political implications of what they say but at the same time" politicians should not be held accountable for pontificating about science; also that environmentalism is a dangerous secular religion, while an utopian view of infinite growth and unbrindled consumerism is not. But am not sure this fits in better, make your pick.


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Jun 15th, 2007 at 03:15:23 AM EST
Thanks for the first.

Part of the second is included now clearly in the versions posted here by Gringo for example

and regarding their religion.. I do not know hot to go further than saying "particualr deluded version of economic and human reality"... I am not sure I can be more clear without making it too long...

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

by kcurie on Fri Jun 15th, 2007 at 03:56:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
not sure if this helps your response or not but its a link to a New Scientist article debunking climate change myths

Climate myths: Many leading scientists question climate change

Funnily enough they also mention Richard Lindzen of MIT but say that he doesnt deny climate change is happening, just disagrees with the predicted severity. So that just leaves the author quoting Michael Crichton, that well known science FICTION author.....as a scientist should i be accepting his novels as the work of this silent majority......?

best of luck with it

by darragh on Fri Jun 15th, 2007 at 01:01:03 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]