Posts by Carol Stewart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: What Now?, in reply to Jackie Clark,
Hey thanks, Jackie, and yes I had noted your most excellent online manners.
Note to self: word things unambiguously.
Have a good weekend. -
Hard News: What Now?, in reply to Jackie Clark,
No need to snap, Jackie, it was a figure of speech.
-
Hard News: What Now?, in reply to Hilary Stace,
Che seems to be right about student addresses being used to calculate deciles.
-
Hard News: The First Draft, in reply to Andre Alessi,
You can root beer ..
-
Hard News: The First Draft, in reply to B Jones,
Ken has a particularly novel take on climate change denial:
The chemical composition of water might also be looked at, because at the moment the steam molecule is lighter than air and rises to form clouds but the cooler liquid H2O molecule is heavier than air and sinks as rain, in which amounts these contribute to climate. While we are about it we would have to arrange ice's molecular structure so it thawed at -70C, which is today (24 June)'s current temperature at the South Pole at Vostok, and -54C which is the average winter temperature of the Arctic. As ice presently thaws only at +4C we have a lot of work to do to get the poles to melt and stay melted all year around.
It's like he lives in a parallel universe where the laws of chemistry and physics are different. A universe where ice thaws at +4C :-)
-
and he's quite charming really
Actually he's* not at all charming when challenged. This from Silly Beliefs:
I merely suggested you may be happier joining the Taleban, now that your jackbooted shin-kicking mate Stalin is gone and the KGB and Gestapo have disbanded. There can’t be many places left for those who don’t like the thoughts of others and seek to do them in, along with their careers or enterprises. It must be hard living in the free world when all around you there are folk who have differences of viewpoint and who seek to make a difference, despite your request for them to stop. The KKK would open its doors to you. You should give them a call. Tell them you’re from Corporation X.
He being Ken Ring, of course.
-
Hard News: The First Draft, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Seismologist Mark Quigley isn't too concerned about handling Mr Ring with kid gloves either:
“No one has predicted the recent earthquakes in Canterbury. Vague quotes about dates of ‘increased’ activity plus or minus several days, without magnitudes, locations, and exact times do not constitute prediction. … [This] is opportunistic and meaningless self promotion during a time of national crisis.
Quite.
-
Hard News: The First Draft, in reply to B Jones,
I tend to agree, B. Ken Ring has had a scandalously free ride in the media in general, as Peter Griffin mentions, and I think this kind of showdown was overdue. Not that it was necessarily the showdown needed.
There are many instances through history where the widely held belief has proved to be both scientifically wrong, and life-threatening.
Recordari, there are also instances where, er, fringe beliefs may be scientifically wrong and life-threatening. Like, say, refusing conventional cancer treatment. Or using homeopathic remedies for malaria prevention.
the degree to which everyone is certain of the superiority of their belief system and its scientific underpinning is getting me a little uppity.
But, seismologists are not dogmatic at all. They are well aware of the limits of their approach and honest about their predictions which are couched in probabilities rather than certainties. On the other hand, Ken Ring, behind his affable facade, is all dogma. The moon causes earthquakes and that is that.
-
Hard News: The First Draft, in reply to Hilary Stace,
Hilary, I don't think it was a great interview either. Peter Griffin, here, has an astute commentary on the interview and how it could have, well, gone a bit better.
OTOH, I see no reason to apologise for calling bullshit. Like that example of Ken's views on ozone depletion that I mentioned. It's just plain wrong and it would be dangerously wrong if more people had believed it. -
Somewhere to acknowledge alternative views because they are so widely held, but challenge them over scientific method, data etc. Have a real discussion and see if there is any room for agreement.
This would be like setting up a discussion between biologists and intelligent design proponents. Isn't life a bit short?