4 ms·

Yeah, as much as I agree with the policy position, I detest the "scientific consensus" speak. It's exactly the slimy approach to engaging the public which has m

Yeah, as much as I agree with the policy position, I detest the "scientific consensus" speak. It's exactly the slimy approach to engaging the public which has made something as straightforward as climate change controversial.

majewsky 9y ago
The thing that made climate change controversial is the interests (and deep pockets) of the fossil energy lobby. Science communication can be improved, but you can't reasonably blame it for this.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  I actually think they're one and the same. Al Gore is literally being paid by Al Jazeera, the state media for the world's largest oil exporter pretending to be a country. I suspect that the biggest influence big oil has had is in making overblown, unconvincing, scaremongering communications which ultimately make people more suspicious than convinced.
  - aianus 9y ago
    Al Jazeera is the state media of Qatar which exports natural gas, not oil.
lerpa 9y ago
> as much as I agree with the policy position So do I. But that is irrelevant. > I detest the "scientific consensus" speak Same here, specially when implying that health researchers talking not about their actual results but about the _opinions_ they have of what should be the law and what shouldn't, are in some way scientific. Research and policies are not the same things. . Otherwise next you'll see things like "Researchers find most animals kill each other mercilessly, so we should decriminalize murder."
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > Otherwise next you'll see things like "Researchers find most animals kill each other mercilessly, so we should decriminalize murder." Yeah, a naturalistic fallacy will take something good (e.g. a firm and objective grasp of biology) and turn it into a crime against humanity (e.g. negative/mortal eugenics campaigns).

4 ms·

Yeah, as much as I agree with the policy position, I detest the "scientific consensus" speak. It's exactly the slimy approach to engaging the public which has m

by microcolonel 9y ago

majewsky 9y ago
The thing that made climate change controversial is the interests (and deep pockets) of the fossil energy lobby. Science communication can be improved, but you can't reasonably blame it for this.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  I actually think they're one and the same. Al Gore is literally being paid by Al Jazeera, the state media for the world's largest oil exporter pretending to be a country. I suspect that the biggest influence big oil has had is in making overblown, unconvincing, scaremongering communications which ultimately make people more suspicious than convinced.
  - aianus 9y ago
    Al Jazeera is the state media of Qatar which exports natural gas, not oil.
lerpa 9y ago
> as much as I agree with the policy position So do I. But that is irrelevant. > I detest the "scientific consensus" speak Same here, specially when implying that health researchers talking not about their actual results but about the _opinions_ they have of what should be the law and what shouldn't, are in some way scientific. Research and policies are not the same things. . Otherwise next you'll see things like "Researchers find most animals kill each other mercilessly, so we should decriminalize murder."
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > Otherwise next you'll see things like "Researchers find most animals kill each other mercilessly, so we should decriminalize murder." Yeah, a naturalistic fallacy will take something good (e.g. a firm and objective grasp of biology) and turn it into a crime against humanity (e.g. negative/mortal eugenics campaigns).