next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects --Apple-Mail-5-691572226 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Andy, On 28-Jul-11, at 7:35 AM, Andy Moir/Christine Callaghan wrote: > Chris, good arguments are not made by being patronizing. You are > patronizing me (and many others) by suggesting I don't know the > difference between science and politics. That's not the case. > Like many others, I live with the consequences of bad science, > turned into political advice and action. The fact, not opinion, > is, that we are seeing lots of intentionally bad science, done by > scientists, used for political goals. That may be your view; it's not mine. If it's intentionally bad, its not science. As to what politicians do, that's a whole other kettle of fish. ;-> > If you look at how Fisheries and Environment Minister Sterling > Belliveau is justifying the St. Mary's Bay salmon feed lots, he > points to scientific information provided by DFO and Dept. of > Environment. That's justifying this development in the name of > science. He may well do. But he's not a scientist, he's a politician. He (like anyone else) can point to anything he wants to and construct whatever case he wants to. That doesn't make it science. > Your other arguments about the fact that we're challenging it are > just silly. We don't have the funds or expertise to go up against > these government departments. No one suggested you did. What I wrote was, "What it should mean (if the public process were a good one) is just what you suggest: that other studies should be done to determine the validity of such knowledge." If there are problems identified with the state of knowledge as it stands, a good public process will identify these and ensure that scientific studies are conducted to fill in the gaps or ascertain the validity of counter claims that are being made. If they are not, that's a political issue - not a scientific one. > You can play around with words (we call is spinning) however you > want. I find your approach evasive of the core argument and totally > unconvincing in the face of the evidence. You are certainly entitled to your view. > I sometimes think there was something to be said for some aspects of > the cultural revolution, where politicians and academics actually > had to live with the consequences of their work and decisions. The whole world lives with the consequences of political decisions. And evermore so now, when the the biggest challenge confronting the world - bar none - is climate change. And the largest scientific survey ever conducting in history - the results of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - are being ignored by the politicians that govern our country. We will all live with these consequences. Cheers! Chris Christopher Majka 6252 Jubilee Rd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 2G5 c.majka@ns.sympatico.ca The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. - John Maynard Keynes --Apple-Mail-5-691572226 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; = -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Andy,<div><br><div><div>On = 28-Jul-11, at 7:35 AM, Andy Moir/Christine Callaghan wrote:</div><br = class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span = class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; color: = rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-style: normal; = font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; = line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; = text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; = -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: = 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: = auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div = bgcolor=3D"#ffffff" style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: = space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Chris, good = arguments are not made by being patronizing. You are patronizing = me (and many others) by suggesting I don't know the difference = between science and politics. = </div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That's not the = case.</div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" = style=3D"border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: = 'Times New Roman'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; = font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; = orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; = white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; = -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: = 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: = auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div = bgcolor=3D"#ffffff" style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: = space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Like many others, I = live with the consequences of bad science, turned into political advice = and action. The fact, not opinion, is, that we are seeing = lots of intentionally bad science, done by scientists, used for = political goals. = </div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That may be your = view; it's not mine. If it's intentionally bad, its not science. As to = what politicians do, that's a whole other kettle of fish. = ;-></div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span"= style=3D"border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: = 'Times New Roman'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; = font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; = orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; = white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px