NationStates Jolt Archive

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4482174.stm)

Fundamentalism is hampering global efforts to tackle climate change, according to Britain's top scientist.

In his final speech as president of the Royal Society, Lord May of Oxford is to warn that core scientific values are "under serious threat from resurgent fundamentalism, West and East".

Scientists must speak out against the climate change "denial lobby", he says.

Lord May completes his five-year term as president of the UK's academy of science on Wednesday.

"Ahead of us lie dangerous times," he will say in his fifth and final anniversary address.

"There are serious problems that derive from the realities of the external world: climate change, loss of biological diversity, new and re-emerging diseases, and more.

"Many of these threats are not yet immediate, yet their non-linear character is such that we need to be acting today.

"And we have no evolutionary experience of acting on behalf of a distant future; we even lack basic understanding of important aspects of our own institutions and societies.

"Sadly, for many, the response is to retreat from complexity and difficulty by embracing the darkness of fundamentalist unreason."

'Denial lobby'

Lord May will say that fundamentalism applies not only to organised religions but to lobby groups on both sides of the climate change debate.

The climate change "denial lobby" and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) opposed to nuclear power are not exempt from a denial or misrepresentation of scientific facts, he told reporters in London.

Speaking in a week that saw the opening of climate talks in Montreal, and the re-opening of the nuclear power debate in the UK, he said there had to be open questioning and inquiry of such issues.

The huge problems with nuclear power had to be weighed against the problem of putting more carbon into the atmosphere and the future potential of land and sea turbines, he said; "rather than ruled out of discussion on what you might call some fundamentalist belief system".

'No easy recipe'

Another danger to the enlightenment of science came from the growing network of fundamentalist and lobby groups in the US that campaigned for creationism to be taught in science classes, he added.

"By their own writings, this group has a much wider agenda which is to replace scientific materialism by something more based on faith," he said.

He called on scientists to take a more active role in speaking out against so-called "intelligent design" and other threats to modern scientific values.

"The only thing I can see scientists doing is being more energetic as citizens - getting out there and trying to convince people that that's not a very wise way to behave," he explained. "That's no easy recipe."


Do you think this is a problem we actively have to tackle?

I'll not like the world to descend back to the dark ages...

Old news, a couple of centuries old to be precise. Science has never been listened to, never been trusted, never been accepted as fact. Science does not lie to people like... certain organizations. Science tells the truth and people don't like the truth. It's difficult to face, difficult to take in, especially when the alternative is simply to retreat into a dark shell of senseless, ignorant superstition. The only time people start actually listening to scientists is when consequences of their stupidity hit them head-on, by which time it is usually too late.

Still, though, we managed to get this far. For me that's a reason as good as any to believe we're not facing a cataclysmic disaster.

It does in the US, and not only in the realm of global warming--we're still dealing with the asinine evolution/creation debate over here.

It does in the US, and not only in the realm of global warming--we're still dealing with the asinine evolution/creation debate over here.
which is frankly ridiculous

"rather than ruled out of discussion on what you might call some fundamentalist belief system"

so many of these fundamentalists, be they religious or otherwise, see the world in black or white. the nuclear power issue is an example where nuclear power is the lesser evil considering the potential other 'choice' is accelerated climate change.

science does tell us, over and over, that climate change is happening, is happening faster than previously thought, and that its going to be big. and yet people stick their heads back in the sand because its too much to deal with, and politicians do nothing because the measures required to deal with the problem are expansive, expensive, quite probably unpopular and vote-loosing.
its a loose-loose situation :(

what we need is some kind of indipendent supranational world coordinating body to reach the overall conclusions regarding climate change and organise the disparate national governments of the world powers accordingly. similar stuff's been tried before but some people *coughBushandtheUSA* won't play ball. this organisation needs real power... like an army or nukes or something... (desperate times call for desperate measures (never thought of myself as a realist hmm))


[/rant]

as for the hard times science faces, i find it hard to see from my perspective here in the UK cos here religion is a joke. but elsewhere, like the US, i worry... :(

Funny he mentiones that n00k j00 pwr. I must admit that I've changed about that quite recently. I can't defend being against nuclear power in light of what's going on. We simply won't have viable alternatives soon enough.. At least not as far as I can tell.

Science is taken quite seriously in Europe. Dunno bout the USA, it seems the Right moves ever closer to imposing its beliefs as the truth. That could indeed endanger science. On the whole though? Nah. There is loads of sci research going on in the EU.

PS: You guys do realise many nations are actually hoping the Arctic Circle melts so as to exploit its rich resources? Amongst them both european nations and the USA and Canada.

Science has always been a bonsai tree for the government, manipulated by the most powerful people at the time, so that its discoveries most reflect their ideals at the time. This has led repeatedly to the unfortunate snipping of a few branches. Especially in Renaissance times. The only reason we have computers nowadays is because they proved useful during WW2 as decoders (well A decoder; there was only one).

At least it has survived up to the point where the Church can no longer legally burn people at the stake.

You guys do realise many nations are actually hoping the Arctic Circle melts so as to exploit its rich resources? Amongst them both european nations and the USA and Canada.

That's sort of my secret fantasy actually. You know that one map in Railrood Tycoon 2 where the ice caps melt and you build a railroad in 2042 Antarctica? That was my favorite.

Haha...in the real world though that would cause massive problems. Yeah, it would unlock massive quantities of natural resources (who's to say we will need them by 2050 though?), but is it worth melting the North Pole? It sounds like an idiotic endeavour to me.

which is frankly ridiculous
No kidding. An article in my local paper on Sunday noted that my county is buying new biology textbooks this year, and that one of the options on the short list mentions ID as though it's a legitimate theory. I wrote a Letter to the Editor for starters--I got a call yesterday saying it was under consideration--and I'll be at the next School Board meeting. I've got a daughter in high school right now; I can't afford for her to be denied credit when she applies to college because some fundy asswipes decide that it's more important to put creation myth in a science classroom than to actually teach, you know, science.

I simply get thoroughly depressed when I realize how many people out there seem incapable of critical thought and scientific reasoning. They'll argue till they are blue in the face in the absence of any sort of data. Then they'll retire, certain that they have won a victory.

Science always faces dangerous times. There are a lot people with vested interests in lies, myths and misconceptions who will automatically be opposed to anything grounded in objective, empirically demonstrated truths. And a lot of them are in positions of power, and therefore have the ability to promote their favorite falsehoods as superior to science. And since the average person doesn't really get how scientists operate, they see no reason to trust scientists any more than they trust the snake oil salesmen.

But regardless of whatever bad science makes it into the public school curriculum, I intend to make sure that my kids know the difference between science and pseudoscience. It's possible to get a good education anywhere if you're willing to do the work yourself.

:rolleyes:

No kidding. An article in my local paper on Sunday noted that my county is buying new biology textbooks this year, and that one of the options on the short list mentions ID as though it's a legitimate theory. I wrote a Letter to the Editor for starters--I got a call yesterday saying it was under consideration--and I'll be at the next School Board meeting. I've got a daughter in high school right now; I can't afford for her to be denied credit when she applies to college because some fundy asswipes decide that it's more important to put creation myth in a science classroom than to actually teach, you know, science.
quite. fight the retards!

I simply get thoroughly depressed when I realize how many people out there seem incapable of critical thought and scientific reasoning. They'll argue till they are blue in the face in the absence of any sort of data. Then they'll retire, certain that they have won a victory.
Let them think they have won ;)

I agree fully Dishonorable Scum. Education outside textbooks is largely a personal matter, and vital to the rounding of an individual's sphere of knowledge. I learnt a lot more outside school than I did in it. University is slightly different though, as it forces you to engage in independent research, thus reasserting the principle of independent education.

What opponents of science don't realize is that, at it's most basic, science is nothing more than a refined form of that most common-sensical of practices: Trial and error.

Science always faces dangerous times. There are a lot people with vested interests in lies, myths and misconceptions who will automatically be opposed to anything grounded in objective, empirically demonstrated truths. And a lot of them are in positions of power, and therefore have the ability to promote their favorite falsehoods as superior to science. And since the average person doesn't really get how scientists operate, they see no reason to trust scientists any more than they trust the snake oil salesmen.

But regardless of whatever bad science makes it into the public school curriculum, I intend to make sure that my kids know the difference between science and pseudoscience. It's possible to get a good education anywhere if you're willing to do the work yourself.

:rolleyes:
True, true -- especially when you consider that power structures have traditionally been based on access to and control of knowledge. Science's most basic social message has always been, "this is how it works and the king/pope/shaman/etc. has nothing to do with it." That's not what the king/pope/shaman want the peasants to hear.

The fact is, though, that a huge part of the population, possibly the great majority of both religious and irreligious people, do not buy into this religio-crap. If we, as voters and, more important, as consumers would just tell the major corporations what we want them to do -- about energy production/usage, about the environment, about wages, etc. (globally, folks, globally) -- trust me, they will comply. And the bible thumpers who want us all to worship at their altar will be left wondering how the air got so clean.

Ever wonder how hybrid cars got onto the market so fast after 9/11? Ever wonder why we're seeing so many ads from energy companies talking about nuclear and wind production? They're testing the market, people. The hybrids are selling. They want to know what else we're willing to change. If we come, they will build it.

True, true -- especially when you consider that power structures have traditionally been based on access to and control of knowledge. Science's most basic social message has always been, "this is how it works and the king/pope/shaman/etc. has nothing to do with it." That's not what the king/pope/shaman want the peasants to hear.

The fact is, though, that a huge part of the population, possibly the great majority of both religious and irreligious people, do not buy into this religio-crap. If we, as voters and, more important, as consumers would just tell the major corporations what we want them to do -- about energy production/usage, about the environment, about wages, etc. (globally, folks, globally) -- trust me, they will comply. And the bible thumpers who want us all to worship at their altar will be left wondering how the air got so clean.

Ever wonder how hybrid cars got onto the market so fast after 9/11? Ever wonder why we're seeing so many ads from energy companies talking about nuclear and wind production? They're testing the market, people. The hybrids are selling. They want to know what else we're willing to change. If we come, they will build it.

I am an atheist, and thus I believe in science's superiority to religion's mysticism. But you are gettin those crazy fundamentalists confused with business conservatives like me. Business and money has always been the impetus of scientific advancement. To say that religion goes hand in hand with business is absurd.

No kidding. An article in my local paper on Sunday noted that my county is buying new biology textbooks this year, and that one of the options on the short list mentions ID as though it's a legitimate theory. I wrote a Letter to the Editor for starters--I got a call yesterday saying it was under consideration--and I'll be at the next School Board meeting. I've got a daughter in high school right now; I can't afford for her to be denied credit when she applies to college because some fundy asswipes decide that it's more important to put creation myth in a science classroom than to actually teach, you know, science.
If you have a child in a public school, that child is in the wrong place. Public schools are so vulnerable to the incompetents that get elected to the school board, that it isn't funny. In my district, the problem isn't what is taught in science, but the stupidly conceived high-stakes tests that are required throughout the child's scholastic years. Fail one, but pass all your subjects and you are held back. Pass one, but fail all your subjects and you are promoted. No, the problem isn't evolutionists or creationists, it's public schools.

I am an atheist, and thus I believe in science's superiority to religion's mysticism. But you are gettin those crazy fundamentalists confused with business conservatives like me. Business and money has always been the impetus of scientific advancement. To say that religion goes hand in hand with business is absurd.
You misunderstood me. I was saying that by doing business the way we want, we can simply by-pass the religious nuts and get on the road to the medecine, energy production, and environmental conditions the world needs. Business cares about what consumers and shareholders want, not what political pressure groups want. We need to start voting with our wallets and our stocktrades.

Where exactly are religious people fighting measures against climate change? There are plenty of secular sceptics out there who question just about anything.. science doesn't get a pass.

Where exactly are religious people fighting measures against climate change? There are plenty of secular sceptics out there who question just about anything.. science doesn't get a pass. Oh, you get secular idiots as well as religious idiots. Luckily, we don't have the fundie problem in Europe, but honestly… America is unbelievable sometimes. Such an odd place, if you don't mind me saying so.

Oh, you get secular idiots as well as religious idiots. Luckily, we don't have the fundie problem in Europe, but honestly… America is unbelievable sometimes. Such an odd place, if you don't mind me saying so.
As an American, I shall rely on you saying that, if you don't mind. It's so much more polite than the things I usually come up with. ;)

In fact, I think I'll design a series of tourism postcards:

America: such an odd place, really.

or

America: 'tis a silly place.

:D

Oh, you get secular idiots as well as religious idiots. Luckily, we don't have the fundie problem in Europe, but honestly… America is unbelievable sometimes. Such an odd place, if you don't mind me saying so.

It's true that people are more religious here by percentage.. I'm just having trouble seeing the connection between some groups advocating for Creationism and some imagined threat to global warming research... it's not as if Creationists are going to revolt against the atomic mass of Cadmium being 112 Amu because they believe in a Creator.. I'll connect the dots when there's some proof that religious people are somehow fundamentally opposed to the notion of climate change, because my experience is that religious people tend to trust accepted science outside evolutionary theory as much as anyone.

You guys do realise many nations are actually hoping the Arctic Circle melts so as to exploit its rich resources? Amongst them both european nations and the USA and Canada.
Only the really stupid people here think that will be a good thing. I remember once somebody wrote into the Toronto Star saying how great global warming will be for Canada, as we'd be able to extend our growing season and the land we can grow crops on. Of course it's bullshit. Once you get to the canadian shield there isn't enough topsoil for crops to grow and there isn't enough sunlight much of the year to grow crops anyways. Then you have the whole gulf stream shutting down which fucks over the atlantic provinces (as though they need fucked over) and I'd imagine that the hotter summers wouldn't do wonders for the areas that are suitable for crops as it is now either. Especially warmer, drier summers... Not to forget about the extra cold winters that will be coming. I already freeze my ass off from Dec-March, I don't need to freeze my ass off more than usual.

If you have a child in a public school, that child is in the wrong place. Public schools are so vulnerable to the incompetents that get elected to the school board, that it isn't funny. In my district, the problem isn't what is taught in science, but the stupidly conceived high-stakes tests that are required throughout the child's scholastic years. Fail one, but pass all your subjects and you are held back. Pass one, but fail all your subjects and you are promoted. No, the problem isn't evolutionists or creationists, it's public schools.
I think the problem there is standardized tests. Those have to be the most retarded things ever invented, honestly.

No I don't believe it's in danger. Maybe in the US because Bush is such a "God" person. Pushing the religious right agenda through Congress. Science cannot be pushed aside. It is facts and that is it. It pwns religion.

Not really. Science has faced much worse times before.

I think the problem there is standardized tests. Those have to be the most retarded things ever invented, honestly.
No kidding. My wife has students that are failing, their parents are begging for the school to hold them back a year, but they have passed the 'Test'. The only way to have them held back is to have them classified as needing special education. What a screwed up system.

It's true that people are more religious here by percentage.. I'm just having trouble seeing the connection between some groups advocating for Creationism and some imagined threat to global warming research... it's not as if Creationists are going to revolt against the atomic mass of Cadmium being 112 Amu because they believe in a Creator.. I'll connect the dots when there's some proof that religious people are somehow fundamentally opposed to the notion of climate change, because my experience is that religious people tend to trust accepted science outside evolutionary theory as much as anyone.

People are more religious in America because America has more religions,and more variations of religions

No kidding. My wife has students that are failing, their parents are begging for the school to hold them back a year, but they have passed the 'Test'. The only way to have them held back is to have them classified as needing special education. What a screwed up system.
Yeah, that's definitely messed up.

It's true that people are more religious here by percentage.. I'm just having trouble seeing the connection between some groups advocating for Creationism and some imagined threat to global warming research... it's not as if Creationists are going to revolt against the atomic mass of Cadmium being 112 Amu because they believe in a Creator.. I'll connect the dots when there's some proof that religious people are somehow fundamentally opposed to the notion of climate change, because my experience is that religious people tend to trust accepted science outside evolutionary theory as much as anyone.


I figure it's more so that they're tring to ignore things like the fact that there is a tropical storm/depression named EPSILION in the air right now. (that's the 29th one, I believe...) Something big WILL happen with the climate (not of our own fault, mostly by natural cyclations) and we need to study and prepare, while some religous ignore it with, "It's part of God's plan", or something of the like.

Only the really stupid people here think that will be a good thing. I remember once somebody wrote into the Toronto Star saying how great global warming will be for Canada, as we'd be able to extend our growing season and the land we can grow crops on. Of course it's bullshit. Once you get to the canadian shield there isn't enough topsoil for crops to grow and there isn't enough sunlight much of the year to grow crops anyways. Then you have the whole gulf stream shutting down which fucks over the atlantic provinces (as though they need fucked over) and I'd imagine that the hotter summers wouldn't do wonders for the areas that are suitable for crops as it is now either. Especially warmer, drier summers... Not to forget about the extra cold winters that will be coming. I already freeze my ass off from Dec-March, I don't need to freeze my ass off more than usual.
Europe will apparently be best off from global warming...it won't suffer that badly. That is to say, its agricultural sector will be destroyed, many cities will flood, deserts will form and so on. You can imagine how bad it will be elsewhere. It is amazing how greedy people are. They have no idea how dangerous the meltic of the polar caps truly is. Allowing them to melt to get oil (a resource which may be obsolete via alternative technologies) is somewhat preposterous to me. I wonder if this is why Bush fails to realise the consequences of global warming.

I think Science has long been its' own worst enemy.

Here's what I've been reading in-between posts on NS:

http://www.holoscience.com/index.php

Give it a read. It shook me up something fierce. And made me start asking a lotta questions, too.

Up the Electric Universe! Down with the patch-quilt of Science in Academia!