CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 16years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
So, in another thread, someone mentioned that Cameron Rose introduced Danny Mackaskill and explained that he was a director of the Festival. I've checked and it appears to be true:
http://www.endole.co.uk/company/SC106331/edinburgh-international-science-festival-limited
Cameron Rose is also one of Edinburgh's most prominent climate change deniers, as can be seen. In his blog here http://climateedinburgh.blogspot.co.uk
am I the only person who thinks this is very, very wrong?
Suppose it depends how you define "wrong"
Odd certainly.
Suppose it depends how you define "wrong"
As not being right.
I suppose it depends if he has any editorial/oversite role in the content that the festival delivers. He might just be there as some sort of token local elder type from the political classes.
I had a wee shufty at his blog. He comes across as a Met Office conspiracy theorist. I do kind of see where he's getting on about electric cars for, but perhaps for different reasons than I might.
I've not seen or read any of this guy's views before, so he may well be a nutjob. As said above, if he is just performing the liaison role with the council then I don't see it as a particularly big deal.
However, I don't like the labelling of anyone who expresses any scepticism, questions data or methodology or just wants more information about climate change as a "denier". That goes for the layman and also the specialist in the field.
Yes, there are people who are conspiracy theorists out there, but that doesn't justify the pejorative description applied so often. It serves to close down discussion and debate.
(For the record, I believe that climate change occurs, am agnostic on whether it is caused by humans, but am extremely sceptical of some of the extreme "solutions" proposed).
If he can provide empirical peer reviewed evidence that what he's talking about or to support any change he might want to push through then fine. If not, and he was found to be in any way influencing who talks, or what they talk about, or about what is said or unsaid, then I'd say that's very wrong.
It's like when they put a mother who believes in homeopathy up against a pharmacologist and doctor on those stupid radio call in shows...
I don't believe Mr Rose to be a scientist of any description ...
I think that someone needs to explain to him the complexity of predicting weather... especially on a global scale...
Basically a blog scoffing at the met office... Frankly the way the metoffice makes money has nothing to do with their predictive abilities so I'm not really sure what he thinks they're hoping to gain by having a bias?
@SRD
The science festival is more children's theatre than anything. It used to include a church service.
Even if it was part of 'science', that's about arguing with those who disagree with you, not ignoring or expelling them. Who knows, the board may also include someone with heretical views on Ziegler-Natta catalysis or Hawking radiation?
When you find me an industry on the scale of the fossil-fuels business that has a vested interest in muddying the waters of the Orthodoxy of Hawking Radiation then we can talk.
@iwrats @stickman I don't think science and religion are necessarily opposed, but they're based on fundamentally different ways of knowing.
I value both of them as part of our society, but they serve different functions.
He has, of course, spoken at most of the POPs (although not this year I think, as we've a tory MSP coming for the first time).
@SRD:
I've only got an undergrad science degree, but keep up an "amateur" interest in science. That interest is stoked by my brothers, who are both career scientists.
One of them actually spent several years at the British Antarctic Survey modelling temperature layers in the ocean. After hearing him talking ad nauseam at length about the wide spectrum of opinions about climate change amongst scientists at BAS I do get frustrated when I hear phrases like "the science is settled", "scientific consensus" or "deniers". (Probably expressing frustration on his part as much as anything).
I've previously exchanged views on twitter with this gentleman who insisted that there is no evidence for global warming at all. That fits the description of a climate change denier.
Climate science is inherently complex. A rational person should be able to allow for uncertainty in knowledge, information, predictions etc. It would be good to see better education in this regard, especially politicians.
Good leadership is needed - short term concerns prevail over long term.
"Good leadership is needed - short term concerns prevail over long term."
That's politics.
I'm NOT saying that as an excuse!
"That's " a failure of "politics. "
True
I see that Councillor Rose is one of four councillors on the Science Festival board, along with two professors and various others. The festival has a separate advisory group, lots of academic partner organisations and a surprisingly big full time staff.
I don't think there is anything to worry about here - he doesn't hold this position on the basis of any scientific knowledge and I doubt he would have any influence on these matters, given the expertise of others involved.
@Stickman there is a LOT of debate in the earth science community about climate change, but the debate is around details, not the big questions. Climate change is (a) happening, and (b) primarily caused by emissions from human activity.
There is enough evidence to agree that these two points are most probable to be correct. Opposing these because of a personal hunch is by definition being a denier.
-twq
MSc. Earth Sciences ;)
@twq:
Did you read my disclaimer at the foot of my initial post? ;-)
Tangentially related: I recall IWRATS and I discussing the likelihood of more junior people standing up to group-think in financial services. We concluded that the atmosphere in financial companies was (historically at least) not conducive to challenging "orthodox thinking". (Of course IWRATS and I, being moral and intelligent people, would never fail to challenge authority ;-) ).
My concern is the almost reflexive instinct of many people to shout "denier" at anyone who asks a question or raises a challenge. That simply cannot be a positive environment for research.
There are loonies out there (and it looks like Cllr Rose may be one), but that doesn't mean that everyone is a loony.....
I think there is always room for debate but it should be on issues rather than personalities. I was told something when young and impressionable -
"If someone tells you that you are a "*£$%%^", then ignore them, but if they tell you why you are a "*£$%%^", then listen and absorb..."
Calling someone a loon because they disgaree with you isn't going to change them.
For the record, I believe that on the basis of available research that climate change exists, it is caused or exacerbated by humans, and even if it is subsequently found not to be the case, reducing waste in whatever form is good practice and will leave more finite resources for future generations.
The one thing I never understood was that the Green movement doesn't push this in economic terms rather than environmental terms. Supporters will take the environmental advantages as a given, but sceptics are more likely to be converted by economic arguments.
I guess it's because it's difficult to understand the emphasis on economics when the consequences of climate change could be much more catastrophic. It's like worrying about whether your insurance is up-to-date when you're just about to crash your car.
"... the Green movement doesn't push this in economic terms rather than environmental"
Possibly because a lot of the Green movement doesn't understand economics. A lot of their views and attitudes exhibit the kind of thinking that could be labelled as "economics deniers".
Do any politicians understand economics?
I guess it is down to getting people to do what you want them to do and pushing whatever buttons
The main argument in elections is "vote for me because we (are not/will not let in*) the other lot"
Meaning "I don't care whether you vote for me because you agree with me or because we are less useless than the other lot, one vote is still one vote..."
Still believe that the economic arguments for "going green" are unanswerable, even in the case that climate change is found out to be less than is currently thought. If the extent of climate change is equal to or greater than currently thought, the economic case is even more bulletproof.
Back on cycling, the economic case of deciding to cycle to work:
for an initial outlay of £x,
you will break even in y months
and save £z per year after that
backed up by case studies as @Claire is doing at the minute, can be used for persuading people to cycle to work.
A lot of people will repond to the pressure on their pocket and be converted to the cycling movement by stealth.
Next step world domination *practises evil laugh*
Science Festival no stranger to controversy. Back in 1992 I was helping them out with a multimedia exhibition on the High St, installing Windows 3 on some old PCs (I know, I know...). Major sponsor of the Science Festival that year (and a few others IIRC)? British Nuclear Fuels Limited.
"Do any politicians understand economics?"
Yes, but they don't tend to stay in politics very long, or if they do are kept well out of trouble on the back benches.
The Guardian's style guide (other opinions are available, but this one is consistently entertaining) has a handy entry:
climate change terminology
A sensitive area. The editor of the Guardian's environment website says: "Climate change deniers has nasty connotations with Holocaust denial and tends to polarise debate. On the other hand there are some who are literally in denial about the evidence."
Our guidelines are:
Rather than opening itself to the charge of denigrating people for their beliefs, a fair newspaper should always try to address what it is that people are sceptical about or deny.
The term sceptics covers those who argue that climate change is exaggerated, or not caused by human activity.
If someone really does claim that climate change is not happening – that the world is not warming – then it seems fair enough to call them a denier
The same bits of the brain which allow cognitive dissonances to flourish, fail to correctly comprehend probabilities and permit their owners to theorise conspiratorially are probably disturbingly capable of concurrently being unconvinced of anthropogenic climate change but reckoning that even if it is real it won't be as bad as they're saying and anyway surely they wouldn't let that happen? Wouldn't they? Same as surely no-one would build loads of houses on a flood plain if there was any real risk of it actually, like, flooding? No?
One of the most important things properly-instilled reasoning can help people cope with is the ability to comprehend just how big big things (planets, stars, geological timescales etc.) are, if the frequent exhibitions of the laws rules guidelines way-things-happen of physics pummelling the crap out of engineering and economics are insufficient. Some of the thought processes behind anthropogenic climate change skepticism (at least concerning the severity and risk) seem to conclude along the lines of "if people did it, people can fix it, especially with modern technology", which fails to properly compare things like the massively different timescales of fossil fuel creation and fossil fuel combustion.
In museums and books and popular science festivals there's a dangerous conflation of "science" and "shiny technology", which can over-focus on our species' sciency-technical abilities in whizzy-bangy applications such as putting people on moons or building huge dams across rivers, at the expense of explaining how the underlying understanding of how things work has been/is being gained. An upshot is that the people waving the magical shiny technology-stick get more airtime/credence than the people waving (or writing) the books.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts