Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Thursday December 08 2016, @10:33PM   Printer-friendly
from the more-like-a-massacre dept.

According to our dear friends over at Wired, we are losing the war on science. This interview with Shawn Otto, author of The War on Science [no-script hostile] ranges from the American presidential election to Albert Einstein:

His new book The War on Science explores ways that citizens can fight back against a creeping tide of anti-science nonsense promulgated by everyone from postmodern academics to greedy oil companies to nature-loving hippies. An important step is to make journalists understand that science and opinion should not be given equal weight.

"The purpose of a free press in a democracy is to hold the powerful accountable to the evidence," Otto says. "Journalists have really lost sight of that purpose, of their entire reason for being."

Fair enough. But things have gotten worse?

He fears that the war on science will only intensify once Donald Trump takes office in January. "I'm very concerned, as is the rest of the global scientific community," Otto says.

As a personal aside, I find it unlikely that the public, those who executed Socrates, burned the Library of Alexandria, and imprisoned Antoinio Gramsci, could fall for such a diaphanous fraud as the Republican attack on science! People back then were truly and profoundly stupid. But people today have the internet, and facebook, and a total misunderstanding of science, politics, ethics, and math. So, this will not end well? Help me, Soylentils, give me hope.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday December 09 2016, @03:23PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Friday December 09 2016, @03:23PM (#439183)

    nothing in the conception of climate change denotes what is the best course of action (if any) to take. While there is a presumption that science=cap and trade or whatever, that is simply something science isn't qualified to answer.

    It depends which scientists you are talking about here.

    Climatologists, in essence, say this: Do nothing, and this long list of really bad things will happen. If you find some way to reduce CO2 emissions, that will help significantly. They don't specify the means of reducing CO2 emissions.

    Economists are the ones suggesting cap & trade and similar measures. One reason they're suggesting cap & trade is that cap&trade worked really really well for combating SO2 emissions (the primary source of acid rain).

    The trouble is, the politicians and business people want to do nothing, because doing nothing is cheaper and easier and doesn't require any political efforts.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @04:01PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @04:01PM (#439206)

    Uh, not exactly.

    Can the scientist answer what will be the total effects from pursuing regulation (economically, developmentally, and cost of enforcing regulation)? Can the economist make even a slightly convincing argument that cap and trade will reduce emissions (CO2 is way more prevalent than SO2)?

    While business and politicians are obvious boogiemen, I also don't see wide public support for regulation until more is known.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @05:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @05:52PM (#439267)

      You're begging the question. GP stated that scientists had laid out the facts. They didn't pontificate about regulation. You're not only begging the question, but you're projecting. Blame the scientists for the broken political and economic solution proposed by our "owners." That way the owners get to do an about face. After all, they were just trying to avoid the bad stuff the scientists said would happen. No, the scientists were obviously wrong. There is no bad stuff. No action is needed. Throw the scientists out to starve because their political and economic solutions would ruin us.

      Italy does the same thing with scientists who study earthquakes.