Robyn Malcolm should go back to being a bad actor

[R6_kid:Me]

Well, we do seem determined to ignore or marginalise the real experts, maybe some entertaining and well-meaning non-experts is just what we need.

And, the media are there for entertainment, doncha know.

Yeh, but you won't find them interviewing any of the 'celebrity non-experts' who don't support the whole "the end is nigh" campaign.

[rainman]

if you look at the title you will see that i spelt her name correctly professor

So you did. That'll teach me to post while pissed. My apologies.

the REAL ex berts may not agree with you or her

Ah, but how does someone like you or me, who are not real scientists, tell which experts are realer than others? We can listen to what they say and see if it makes logical sense (up to the point where it becomes too arcane to follow); or look for evidence supporting or opposing their positions; look for reasons why they may be deceived or deceiving; or we can make it a numbers game: how many claimed experts say yea, how many say nay? Science is, to a degree, a majority opinion game.

The latter is not ideal, but for some complicated bits may be our only option. An analogy: if you go to the doc and he/she check's your cholesterol, pronounces it too high, and prescribes statins, do you a) take them without question, b) investigate the science a bit, get lost in the complex bits, and end up trusting the majority view, or c) reject them because the "science isn't settled" (it isn't)? What does this do to your risk of heart disease?

On the basis of this methodology I would have to say a rational person would conclude that the principle of anthropogenic climate change is likely to be right, and the experts claiming it more realer than the conservative mutatiophobes hanging on at all costs to the ideas of yesteryear. I may be wrong, of course, as may you - neither of us, I'm guessing, being real scientists. But I'll take my chances with logic rather than visceral rejection and la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you-ism.

As an aside, I've always found it odd that the biggest climate change deniers are in the Act party, who are committed to the idea of property rights, and yet are quite content to pollute and destroy "property" used/owned by others for private gain. Somewhat hypocritical, but that's how they roll, I guess.

Yeh, but you won't find them interviewing any of the 'celebrity non-experts' who don't support the whole "the end is nigh" campaign.

Ah, a conspiracy theorist! Pray tell, who's running this "campaign"?

[HenryDorsetCase]

Robyn Malcolm and Keisha Sandcastle-Hues are actors. They're peddling their celebrity for a cause that they presumably believe in. Other than that, they are not experts on climate change. Their opinions have no more relevance than yours or mine. However our media are so gullible that they will pander to celebrities pimping a cause du jour, rather than doing any real investigation of the issues or taking seriously the views of experts who actually know something about the issue at question.

I wait with breathless anticipation for the day when the media starts asking some probing questions about the activities of multinational NGOs like Greenpeace, or specifically Greenpeace. I don't care which.

greenpeace = mcdonalds: just another evil corporate, with franchises everywhere. Avoid.

[oldrider]

So you did. That'll teach me to post while pissed. My apologies.

Silly me, I thought that was just business as usual!

[JimO]

So you did. That'll teach me to post while pissed. My apologies.



Ah, but how does someone like you or me, who are not real scientists, tell which experts are realer than others? We can listen to what they say and see if it makes logical sense (up to the point where it becomes too arcane to follow); or look for evidence supporting or opposing their positions; look for reasons why they may be deceived or deceiving; or we can make it a numbers game: how many claimed experts say yea, how many say nay? Science is, to a degree, a majority opinion game.

The latter is not ideal, but for some complicated bits may be our only option. An analogy: if you go to the doc and he/she check's your cholesterol, pronounces it too high, and prescribes statins, do you a) take them without question, b) investigate the science a bit, get lost in the complex bits, and end up trusting the majority view, or c) reject them because the "science isn't settled" (it isn't)? What does this do to your risk of heart disease?

On the basis of this methodology I would have to say a rational person would conclude that the principle of anthropogenic climate change is likely to be right, and the experts claiming it more realer than the conservative mutatiophobes hanging on at all costs to the ideas of yesteryear. I may be wrong, of course, as may you - neither of us, I'm guessing, being real scientists. But I'll take my chances with logic rather than visceral rejection and la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you-ism.

As an aside, I've always found it odd that the biggest climate change deniers are in the Act party, who are committed to the idea of property rights, and yet are quite content to pollute and destroy "property" used/owned by others for private gain. Somewhat hypocritical, but that's how they roll, I guess.




Ah, a conspiracy theorist! Pray tell, who's running this "campaign"?

the whole planet used to be covered in ice, now it isnt, most of NZ was carved out by glaciers (which arnt here any more) what caused that ice to melt

[bogan]

the whole planet used to be covered in ice, now it isnt, most of NZ was carved out by glaciers (which arnt here any more) what caused that ice to melt

fat kids.



also, whens the new season of outrageous fortune coming out? actually why don't I just google it, expected to return in june, gonna be awesome

[cowpoos]

something too green for your tastes.

You mean ill informed and full of shit...

[Morcs]

both Z list celebs anyway. who cares.

[rainman]

the whole planet used to be covered in ice, now it isnt, most of NZ was carved out by glaciers (which arnt here any more) what caused that ice to melt

Is that seriously your argument against anthropogenic climate change?

You have got to be shitting me.

You mean ill informed and full of shit...

As you might be able to see from the above, ill-informed is hardly the problem of the green viewpoint.

And full of shit is a good thing. Need some shitstirrers around to chase you ostriches out of their complacency, otherwise nothing'd get done. Most days, when I wake up in the morning, I say to myself "Self, today I'm going to be full of shit. Maybe even disruptive."

Conservatism is an inappropriate evolutionary response to our present circumstances.

[Jonno.]

You know Keisha is full of shit when she gives her credibilty for knowing about climate change is that she is a mother

[JimO]

Is that seriously your argument against anthropogenic climate change?

You have got to be shitting me.

yes that is my argument

[bogan]

yes that is my argument

well the planet used to be completely covered in magma too didn't it?

[Winston001]

The rationale for dissing Robyn Malcolm and Keisha Castle-Hughes is that they are only actors, not scientists, and have no special expertise that allows them to comment on climate change. Keisha in particular is very young and unlikely to know much detail.

Nevertheless one of the most effective ways of broadcasting a message is to have a celebrity do the talking. It might not make intellectual sense but as a method of getting public attention, enlisting high-profile people works.

[Jonno.]

I'm sick of going places and have an old hippy show me half a herald article saying the Iceburgs melting, thus proving CO2 causes climate change.

It's kind of like how you see the people promoting a higher minimum wage are derros who won't make any more than minimum wage for the rest of their lives.

[Mudfart]

the more you talk about em, the more their celebrity status increases.
in the words of Oscar Wilde, "its better to be talked about, than not talked about at all".
That was in response to the rumour flying around Londons high society that he was gay, which was true, in an attempt to diminish his personality.
Please, talk about me instead.