3 ms·

I would agree that it is unfair, except as I point out they deliberately ignore or attack critics, and do not offer any actual valid scientific arugments in ret

by cultus 8y ago

I would agree that it is unfair, except as I point out they deliberately ignore or attack critics, and do not offer any actual valid scientific arugments in return. This pattern includes ignoring or even demeaning scientists and engineers who dare criticize them (including quite sexist behavior towards some female scientists). They do this while raking in many millions. This demonstration project uses 30-year old boom technology, and would very quickly fail in the open ocean (as a previous attempt did). So, either they are so blissfully ignorant of the challenges of what they are trying to do (literally harder than sending humans to Mars) and are continuing to raise funds out of the best intentions, or they are scamming. For a project that seems to rely almost exclusively on pointing out that the founder is young, I'm guessing the second one.

crispinb 8y ago
My personal threshold for claiming dishonest motivations is higher than yours. I'd require, at a minimum, specific & direct evidence re the individuals involved, whereas the childish defensiveness you've come across is perfectly explicable as part of the general ignorant pop culture that encouraged the misguided project in the first place. Anyway, that aside, we're totally on the same page re the merits of the project. It's a terrible waste of the good intentions (& resources) of the donors, and can only lead to yet more cynicism.
solarengineer 8y ago
I don't know about the sexist behaviour, do you have any references? Let us not rush to allege that a project is likely to be a scam because the founder is young. The Trillion Trees campaign is also largely by really young people. The Ocean Cleanup folks don't harp so much about the founder's age. There's a whole team working there, and I haven't heard any grumblings from the team of resentment about him getting all the attention. As for scientific documentation, here is their feasibility study: https://www.theoceancleanup.com/fileadmin/media-archive/Documents/TOC_Feasibility_study_lowres_V2_0.pdf https://www.theoceancleanup.com/fileadmin/media-archive/Docu...
- cultus 8y ago
  I'd rather not go into details on the sexist attitudes, but let's just say there is a pattern of talking down or ignoring the credentials of female scientists. The feasibility study is BS. It only convinced the media, no one in the marine community. They also gave the scientists they asked to "review" it literally 24 hours to do so. It is pretty hard to see how it was a good faith effort. Here is some information written by an actual oceanographer. http://www.deepseanews.com/2016/06/the-ocean-cleanup-deployed-a-prototype-and-i-honestly-have-a-lot-of-questions/ http://www.deepseanews.com/2016/06/the-ocean-cleanup-deploye... http://www.deepseanews.com/2014/07/the-ocean-cleanup-part-2-technical-review-of-the-feasibility-study/ http://www.deepseanews.com/2014/07/the-ocean-cleanup-part-2-... The second article is an in-depth explanation of all the scientific and engineering problems with the prototype.

by cultus 8y ago

crispinb 8y ago

My personal threshold for claiming dishonest motivations is higher than yours. I'd require, at a minimum, specific & direct evidence re the individuals involved, whereas the childish defensiveness you've come across is perfectly explicable as part of the general ignorant pop culture that encouraged the misguided project in the first place. Anyway, that aside, we're totally on the same page re the merits of the project. It's a terrible waste of the good intentions (& resources) of the donors, and can only lead to yet more cynicism.

solarengineer 8y ago

I don't know about the sexist behaviour, do you have any references? Let us not rush to allege that a project is likely to be a scam because the founder is young. The Trillion Trees campaign is also largely by really young people. The Ocean Cleanup folks don't harp so much about the founder's age. There's a whole team working there, and I haven't heard any grumblings from the team of resentment about him getting all the attention. As for scientific documentation, here is their feasibility study: https://www.theoceancleanup.com/fileadmin/media-archive/Documents/TOC_Feasibility_study_lowres_V2_0.pdf https://www.theoceancleanup.com/fileadmin/media-archive/Docu...

cultus 8y ago
I'd rather not go into details on the sexist attitudes, but let's just say there is a pattern of talking down or ignoring the credentials of female scientists. The feasibility study is BS. It only convinced the media, no one in the marine community. They also gave the scientists they asked to "review" it literally 24 hours to do so. It is pretty hard to see how it was a good faith effort. Here is some information written by an actual oceanographer. http://www.deepseanews.com/2016/06/the-ocean-cleanup-deployed-a-prototype-and-i-honestly-have-a-lot-of-questions/ http://www.deepseanews.com/2016/06/the-ocean-cleanup-deploye... http://www.deepseanews.com/2014/07/the-ocean-cleanup-part-2-technical-review-of-the-feasibility-study/ http://www.deepseanews.com/2014/07/the-ocean-cleanup-part-2-... The second article is an in-depth explanation of all the scientific and engineering problems with the prototype.