Gransnet forums


Why are environmentalists taking anti-science positions

(37 Posts)
Bags Wed 24-Oct-12 12:55:47

Article by Fred Pearce with the same title as above. Plenty of discussion follows in the comments too.

vampirequeen Wed 24-Oct-12 13:17:35

That is an excellent piece of writing. I don't know if we're under threat from climate change, water shortages, gm food or a million other apparent threats because we never hear a balanced arguement. I recycle because it seems wise to reuse rather than continually take from new and if I'm wrong I don't think I'm doing any harm but I don't know for sure.

I don't know if the climate is changing or not. I know from history that there have been good harvest years and bad harvest years so how can it be argued that this year is evidence of climate change. In the reign of Mary Tudor there were a series of poor harvests over several years. They didn't blame climate change. Some people thought God was angry with Mary for bring Catholocism back to England and burning Protestant martyrs. Mary thought God was angry with her for not bringing it back fast enough and so burnt more heretics. Who was right? Was anyone right? Who knows it all depends on your perspective?

I don't know if there will be a water shortage at some point in the future. It seems odd that we're surrounded by water yet worry we won't have enough. Will technology be developed to solve the problem?

Has any evidence been provided that proves that GM foods are dangerous or is it a knee jerk reaction to tinkering with nature?

I don't know the answers. I'm just asking the questions that came into my mind.

janeainsworth Wed 24-Oct-12 14:08:39

Bags how do you find time to source all these articles? I can't keep up with you sad[hopelessly inefficient emoticon]

Bags Wed 24-Oct-12 15:09:59

Other people do the sourcing and the collecting together in a few useful places. I just know where to look.

janeainsworth Wed 24-Oct-12 22:25:07

I've read it now -as vq says an excellent and balanced piece.
Thank you bags

FlicketyB Thu 25-Oct-12 21:53:24

This is a most peculiar article. Frankly it reads like a self publicising, self congratulatory article by an author who is as casual with the facts as the people he criticises.

The author sets up a definition of an environmentalist as a person who is anti everything and anti science and is a member of Green Peace or Friends of the Earth. Yet having written this polemic against environmentalists he then announces that he is an environmentalist, but if course, unlike all those other environmentalist he is a 'good' environmentalist who loves science.

What makes him think that all other environmentalists, except him, subscribe to the views and attitudes of Green Peace and Friends of the Earth? He produces no evidence that that is so. I would say with equal lack of evidence that these two organisation represent only a minute section of the environmental movement and that the vast majority of people who call themselves environmentalist are just as likely to share his views as oppose them.

Having said that I would also add that many of the examples he quotes of 'bad' environmentalist arguments haven't been used for years, others had nothing like the support he suggests and his hop, skip and a jump sentence on fracking shows he couldnt be bothered to find out anything about the technology before endorsing it, and I find that worrying (and I have no problem with the technique which has been widely used in the extraction of hydrocarbons for decades.). He dismisses out of hand those who do not believe that climate change is man made and his comments on the future power situation in Germany following their non-nuclear policy was out of date when he wrote it.

Cityfarm Tue 14-May-13 07:33:19

Nice information. Thanks..

carboncareful Fri 09-Aug-13 15:33:29

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

j08 Fri 09-Aug-13 15:44:54

Hello carbon. smile

Galen Fri 09-Aug-13 16:06:30

Bags is an intelligent well read woman who makes up her own mind as to what to believe and what is not logical. She has an excellent brain which she applies to problems and draws her own conclusions.

FlicketyB Fri 09-Aug-13 16:23:20

My comments apply to the original article and its author not Bags and I do not disagree with a word you said about her Galen

Elegran Fri 09-Aug-13 16:32:48

And there is only one of her. Bags is quite capable of posting under her own name. She does does not need an alternative personality.

There is no obligation for anyone to agree with anything that is said on Gransnet, but the integrity of those expressing opinions is not a subject for comment. Anyone with suspicions about that integrity should report the post to HQ.

Galen Fri 09-Aug-13 16:37:28

My remarks were aimed at Carbon not you flick

FlicketyB Fri 09-Aug-13 17:47:36

Ah, her post was deleted so I had not seen it, but I can now guess at its content!

Butty Fri 09-Aug-13 17:56:51

Elegran Quite agree.

j08 Fri 09-Aug-13 17:57:57

confused I can't remember what carbon' s post said now, but it did n' t seem to be anything worth deleting!

Ana Fri 09-Aug-13 18:14:21

Just his/her usual Bags-slating...hmm

j08 Fri 09-Aug-13 18:15:58

But was it really worth deleting?

Galen Fri 09-Aug-13 18:17:26

Yes. It broke forum guidelines.

j08 Fri 09-Aug-13 18:19:58


Nonu Fri 09-Aug-13 18:21:18

I read it & it did not seem so horrible to me , Bags gives it out and I quite sure expects to get it back . Doesn"t seem to phase her !!

But then what do I know .?

j08 Fri 09-Aug-13 18:25:50

Whoever reported it probably knocked a really good discussion on the head.

Back to knitting and the grandkids. hmm

petallus Fri 09-Aug-13 19:04:39

Wow, nice reference Galen. Did Bags need one?

j08 Fri 09-Aug-13 19:29:02

petallus grin

j08 Fri 09-Aug-13 19:29:41

It does read just like a job reference! grin