Kosmos

 (2603)
|
de efterfølgende kommentarer er også interessante ! - jo da, det er altid interessant at tage et lejlighedsvis kig i 'menighedsbladet'! 
Man får efter bogomtalen at dømme en fornemmelse af, at Mr. Lynas har taget Stephen Schneiders berømte udsagn til sig:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have...
Redigeret d. 26-11-2007 18:05 |
rick_uk

 (1121)
|
Kosmos,
What I got from the 'RealClimate' piece was that:
characteristic of the book: it doesn't tend to go beyond the published literature. This is what Lynas claims at the outset — "all of the material in the book comes from the peer-reviewed scientific literature" – and I think he does an admirable job. Hvor hører "we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have..." så hjemme her? Er det at de "scary scenarios" findes I det " peer-reviewed scientific literature"?
Now that's scary! 
"Be worried, be very worried":
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/03/26/coverstory/
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176081,00.html?cnn=yes
Vh rick
Vi har hørt varslerne. Klokken tikker....Informerede valg.
|