next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separa This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C7D51B.A4C314B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Interesting comments about the media, Chris. "Is it any wonder that there is often so much confusion in relation to = science or natural history stories on the part of the general public = when the level of reportage and fact-checking by the media is so = lamentable (or perhaps this level of accuracy is simply typical of the = media reporting on stories in general ... :->)." =20 I recently sat through two weeks of public hearings on the proposed = quarry for Digby Neck. (Before the hearings, I also read all of the = 6000+ pages of the Environmental Impact Statement and the rebuttals). I = heard many scientists discussing things such as water tables, geology, = impacts on rare plant species, and a host of other topics. Some of these = scientists worked for the proponent. Others worked for government. = Still others did "independent reviews" of the many, many issues. Most of = these scientists didn't agree on much of anything. Even scientists from = various government departments couldn't agree. I don't have a problem = with that. But I wish if they didn't know something, they would just = say so, rather than claiming with certainty that their particular = conclusions are, in fact, definitive. I make no excuses for the media = making mistakes, but I don't have a lot of time for blaming the media = for a lack of understanding of scientific issues, when scientists = themselves are often as not muddying the waters as much as anybody else. One could say that if the level of some of the scientific expertise = demonstrated throughout the quarry assessment is any indication of the = level of science in general, it's no wonder the public has so little = faith in what scientists claim to be true. =20 Andy Moir Freeport ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C7D51B.A4C314B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16481" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Interesting comments about the media,=20 Chris.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> "Is it any wonder that there is = often so much=20 confusion in relation to science or natural history stories on the part = of the=20 general public when the level of reportage and fact-checking by the = media is so=20 lamentable (or perhaps this level of accuracy is simply typical of the = media=20 reporting on stories in general ... :->)." </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I recently sat through two weeks = of public=20 hearings on the proposed quarry for Digby Neck. (Before the = hearings, I=20 also read all of the 6000+ pages of the Environmental Impact Statement = and the=20 rebuttals). I heard many scientists discussing things such as water = tables,=20 geology, impacts on rare plant species, and a host of other = topics. Some of=20 these scientists worked for the proponent. Others worked for=20 government. Still others did "independent reviews" of the many, = many=20 issues. Most of these scientists didn't agree on much of=20 anything. Even scientists from various government departments = couldn't=20 agree. I don't have a problem with that. But I wish if = they=20 didn't know something, they would just say so, rather than claiming with = certainty that their particular conclusions are, in fact, = definitive. I=20 make no excuses for the media making mistakes, but I don't have a lot of = time=20 for blaming the media for a lack of understanding of scientific issues, = when=20 scientists themselves are often as not muddying the waters as much as = anybody=20 else.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>One could say that if the level of some = of the=20 scientific expertise demonstrated throughout the quarry assessment is = any=20 indication of the level of science in general, it's no wonder the public = has so=20 little faith in what scientists claim to be true. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Andy Moir</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Freeport</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C7D51B.A4C314B0--
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects