FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Science prevails

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

For the right wing science is a dirty word, with politicians and those inclined to the right discrediting scientists on a regular basis.

Isn’t it ironic now that the same group of people are so dependent on expert advice from scientists to saving their lives and for politicians their own careers?

I can only hope that those people start listening and acting on expert advice as opposed to ignoring it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ary_ArgyllMan
over a year ago

Argyll

Not convinced left wing administrations are much more inclined to listen to the science - they are often obsessed with keeping older polluting industries (coal etc.) going because traditionally that was where most of their votes came from.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Not convinced left wing administrations are much more inclined to listen to the science - they are often obsessed with keeping older polluting industries (coal etc.) going because traditionally that was where most of their votes came from."

That's not true for the politics of the UK, US, and most of Europe.

In general the people who post on here who are right leaning, they often use "expert" as an insult.

Science is Apolitical, what people decide to do with the information, ignore it, attempt to discredit it, act upon it. Is political.

The correct course of action often has economic impacts. Such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Which is something the right wing governments ignore and attempt to discredit.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral

Science tells us that tracing and tracking is a great idea but the left wants to hold off because of possible infringements on privacy and human rights.

If Corbyn was in we would it have a lockdown because it infringes on human rights etc,did you here Harriot Harmen yesterday,unbelievable.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool


"Science tells us that tracing and tracking is a great idea but the left wants to hold off because of possible infringements on privacy and human rights.

If Corbyn was in we would it have a lockdown because it infringes on human rights etc,did you here Harriot Harmen yesterday,unbelievable.

"

I'm not sure upholding human rights is a bad idea tbh.

What did she say?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Not convinced left wing administrations are much more inclined to listen to the science - they are often obsessed with keeping older polluting industries (coal etc.) going because traditionally that was where most of their votes came from.

That's not true for the politics of the UK, US, and most of Europe.

In general the people who post on here who are right leaning, they often use "expert" as an insult.

Science is Apolitical, what people decide to do with the information, ignore it, attempt to discredit it, act upon it. Is political.

The correct course of action often has economic impacts. Such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Which is something the right wing governments ignore and attempt to discredit. "

The hole in the o-zone was first discovered in 1985. Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister and it was the conservatives led the way, calling for Nations around the world to ban cfc, and harmful gases.

It was a Labour Government promoting diesel engine cars. I vaguely remember the 'dash for diesel' in 2001

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uninlondon69Man
over a year ago

Tower Bridge South


"Science tells us that tracing and tracking is a great idea but the left wants to hold off because of possible infringements on privacy and human rights.

If Corbyn was in we would it have a lockdown because it infringes on human rights etc,did you here Harriot Harmen yesterday,unbelievable.

"

Yes, I heard her on LBC. She's in favour of tracking and tracing but wants to put limits and caveats on the government's powers and use of our data. You disagree with her?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Cambridge Analytica.....say no more. As it stands,I'd probably use an app. But with this government's track record, it's not a particularly reassuring idea.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"For the right wing science is a dirty word, with politicians and those inclined to the right discrediting scientists on a regular basis.

Isn’t it ironic now that the same group of people are so dependent on expert advice from scientists to saving their lives and for politicians their own careers?

I can only hope that those people start listening and acting on expert advice as opposed to ignoring it.

"

Actually, science is neutral and so are politicians' opinions on science.

They will use science when it is convenient for them and deny it when it isn't. They will, in fact, try to use "science" and "studies" to introduce a false sense of uncertainty in well established areas such as climate change and vaccination.

It is, in fact, the right and totalitarian regimes who are mainly propping up dinosaur industries. Particularly fossil fuels. Trump is even rolling back anti-pollution legislation.

The latest trick in these countries is to install people as the heads of departments who have an agenda to remove genuine experts, enthusiastically accept budget cuts and defund studies.

If you aren't measuring the problem it is far easier to claim that it doesn't exist.

Money has started winning again, yet the population who supports this resents inequality.

It's a great trick.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool


"For the right wing science is a dirty word, with politicians and those inclined to the right discrediting scientists on a regular basis.

Isn’t it ironic now that the same group of people are so dependent on expert advice from scientists to saving their lives and for politicians their own careers?

I can only hope that those people start listening and acting on expert advice as opposed to ignoring it.

Actually, science is neutral and so are politicians' opinions on science.

They will use science when it is convenient for them and deny it when it isn't. They will, in fact, try to use "science" and "studies" to introduce a false sense of uncertainty in well established areas such as climate change and vaccination.

It is, in fact, the right and totalitarian regimes who are mainly propping up dinosaur industries. Particularly fossil fuels. Trump is even rolling back anti-pollution legislation.

The latest trick in these countries is to install people as the heads of departments who have an agenda to remove genuine experts, enthusiastically accept budget cuts and defund studies.

If you aren't measuring the problem it is far easier to claim that it doesn't exist.

Money has started winning again, yet the population who supports this resents inequality.

It's a great trick."

I was arguing with people yesterday who were against demanding the rich pay a little bit more tax because it would damage the economy.

You have to give the right wing system in this country credit.They have done a terrific job in getting people to oppose what's in their own best interests.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Not convinced left wing administrations are much more inclined to listen to the science - they are often obsessed with keeping older polluting industries (coal etc.) going because traditionally that was where most of their votes came from.

That's not true for the politics of the UK, US, and most of Europe.

In general the people who post on here who are right leaning, they often use "expert" as an insult.

Science is Apolitical, what people decide to do with the information, ignore it, attempt to discredit it, act upon it. Is political.

The correct course of action often has economic impacts. Such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Which is something the right wing governments ignore and attempt to discredit.

The hole in the o-zone was first discovered in 1985. Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister and it was the conservatives led the way, calling for Nations around the world to ban cfc, and harmful gases.

It was a Labour Government promoting diesel engine cars. I vaguely remember the 'dash for diesel' in 2001 "

Ah you're talking about the Montreal Protocol. You can hardly give the Tories credit for that. It was an internal effort and agreement. And besides, changing out CFC gasses for other propellants is hardly on the same scale as the changes need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Diesel cars were thought to be less polluting. The science changed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Not convinced left wing administrations are much more inclined to listen to the science - they are often obsessed with keeping older polluting industries (coal etc.) going because traditionally that was where most of their votes came from.

That's not true for the politics of the UK, US, and most of Europe.

In general the people who post on here who are right leaning, they often use "expert" as an insult.

Science is Apolitical, what people decide to do with the information, ignore it, attempt to discredit it, act upon it. Is political.

The correct course of action often has economic impacts. Such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Which is something the right wing governments ignore and attempt to discredit.

The hole in the o-zone was first discovered in 1985. Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister and it was the conservatives led the way, calling for Nations around the world to ban cfc, and harmful gases.

It was a Labour Government promoting diesel engine cars. I vaguely remember the 'dash for diesel' in 2001

Ah you're talking about the Montreal Protocol. You can hardly give the Tories credit for that. It was an internal effort and agreement. And besides, changing out CFC gasses for other propellants is hardly on the same scale as the changes need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Diesel cars were thought to be less polluting. The science changed. "

It all has to start somewhere

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/08/revealed-uk-scientists-fury-over-attempt-to-censor-covid-19-advice

Actually the government has used science to justify their course of action and have the document to prove it.

Nothing to hide......

Unless of course you believe science shouldn't need to be redacted....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

1 + 1 = (redacted)

You can't HANDLE the truth!!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/15/uk-government-coronavirus-science-who-advice

Helen Ward is professor of public health at Imperial College London

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/07/with-the-pm-in-hiding-raab-takes-cover-behind-the-science

“Um, we’ve always been guided by the science,” Raab garbled...

So which scientists were we listening to and what was their advice?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"Not convinced left wing administrations are much more inclined to listen to the science - they are often obsessed with keeping older polluting industries (coal etc.) going because traditionally that was where most of their votes came from.

That's not true for the politics of the UK, US, and most of Europe.

In general the people who post on here who are right leaning, they often use "expert" as an insult.

Science is Apolitical, what people decide to do with the information, ignore it, attempt to discredit it, act upon it. Is political.

The correct course of action often has economic impacts. Such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Which is something the right wing governments ignore and attempt to discredit.

The hole in the o-zone was first discovered in 1985. Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister and it was the conservatives led the way, calling for Nations around the world to ban cfc, and harmful gases.

It was a Labour Government promoting diesel engine cars. I vaguely remember the 'dash for diesel' in 2001 "

Margret Thatcher was one of very, very few scientists in politics.

Credit to her for not fighting it.

She actually understood and accepted the dangers of climate change but saw those advocating change as "socialists" so opposed them rather than the science.

Our current generation of politicians are scientific simpletons so here we are.

Diesel does produce significantly lower CO2 emissions which is good for the climate.

What was neglected was NOx and spit which is bad for people.

What was also neglected is that companies game the system.

The latest generation diesel cars are significantly cleaner and are tested properly.

The science is right. The enforcement was not.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ardiffCoupleNJCouple
over a year ago

Pontypridd/Rhyfelin

The problem is it's all too easy to bend science to one's own ends.

Throughout the pandemic, the Government has claimed they are following "the science".

Yet they held back from imposing restrictions while many scientists were calling for urgent action.

Finally they gave in to the inevitable.

We have far and away the highest number of deaths in Europe & are still seeing

100's die each week.

So which science did they follow?

As with statistics it's too easy for politicians to bend the truth.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The problem is it's all too easy to bend science to one's own ends.

Throughout the pandemic, the Government has claimed they are following "the science".

Yet they held back from imposing restrictions while many scientists were calling for urgent action.

Finally they gave in to the inevitable.

We have far and away the highest number of deaths in Europe & are still seeing

100's die each week.

So which science did they follow?

As with statistics it's too easy for politicians to bend the truth.

"

Science isn't like religion. It isn't really twistable.

Our problem on a global scale is that politicians can tell a bald face lie that everyone knows is untrue and that complete lack of honour and trustworthiness is considered completely acceptable, entertaining even.

Currently we are happy to accept that every scientist in the world is a liar and that the EU are lying when they contradict our PPE story. The only one's we aren't prepared to accept are liars are politicians.

Belief is the death of reason.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"The problem is it's all too easy to bend science to one's own ends.

Throughout the pandemic, the Government has claimed they are following "the science".

Yet they held back from imposing restrictions while many scientists were calling for urgent action.

Finally they gave in to the inevitable.

We have far and away the highest number of deaths in Europe & are still seeing

100's die each week.

So which science did they follow?

As with statistics it's too easy for politicians to bend the truth.

"

Science goes out of the window when their political lives are at stake.

Case in point there are more Climate Deniers on the right than the left, and right wing politicians have to demonstrate their climate denier credentials to their supporters.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *V-AliceTV/TS
over a year ago

Ayr

The great thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not; as Neil deGrasse Tyson once said.

The great thing about the information age - brought to us by science - is that politicians (of any stripe) and corporations, in societies with laws protecting journalism and freedom of speech, can no longer manipulate or suppress truths inconvenient to them, with impunity.

They still try to, of course - they just get found out sooner.

As for people who live in China, Russia, Iran, N. Korea. etc Science is used to restrict them, as well as benefit them.

We should be wary and remember that, whilst science is neutral, the way it's used often isn't.

Plus, science takes years to prevail - on the occasions it actually does - it rarely happens quickly.

It is frequently denied, which is why we still have anti-vaxers, flat-earthers, astrologers, people who wonder if injecting bleach is a cure for Covid 19 and other assorted fuckwits out there.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The problem is it's all too easy to bend science to one's own ends.

Throughout the pandemic, the Government has claimed they are following "the science".

Yet they held back from imposing restrictions while many scientists were calling for urgent action.

Finally they gave in to the inevitable.

We have far and away the highest number of deaths in Europe & are still seeing

100's die each week.

So which science did they follow?

As with statistics it's too easy for politicians to bend the truth.

Science isn't like religion. It isn't really twistable.

Our problem on a global scale is that politicians can tell a bald face lie that everyone knows is untrue and that complete lack of honour and trustworthiness is considered completely acceptable, entertaining even.

Currently we are happy to accept that every scientist in the world is a liar and that the EU are lying when they contradict our PPE story. The only one's we aren't prepared to accept are liars are politicians.

Belief is the death of reason. "

And science removes the need for belief. Hence why the right wing fight so hard to place non-scientific doubt into the minds of the general public.

Best example of this is the Americans "teaching the controversy", about evolution Vs creationism.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The great thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not; as Neil deGrasse Tyson once said.

The great thing about the information age - brought to us by science - is that politicians (of any stripe) and corporations, in societies with laws protecting journalism and freedom of speech, can no longer manipulate or suppress truths inconvenient to them, with impunity.

They still try to, of course - they just get found out sooner.

As for people who live in China, Russia, Iran, N. Korea. etc Science is used to restrict them, as well as benefit them.

We should be wary and remember that, whilst science is neutral, the way it's used often isn't.

Plus, science takes years to prevail - on the occasions it actually does - it rarely happens quickly.

It is frequently denied, which is why we still have anti-vaxers, flat-earthers, astrologers, people who wonder if injecting bleach is a cure for Covid 19 and other assorted fuckwits out there."

I like to view science as set of universal laws which have no bias or agenda but just are.

What someone has kindly pointed out to me on this forum is 'Normalcy Bias' where a person will deny that 1 + 1 = 3 ans swear blind the sky is pink provided they don't have to change their perception of the world.

Looking back at world history we have many scientists who were imprisoned because their science contradicted the beliefs of the church. Copernicus, Galileo etc etc.

Today we have people like the Koch Brothers who paid off scientists to publish 'bad science'. Even after this fraud has been exposed and the bad science debunked we still have people on this forum referring to this literature.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I deny that 1+1 = 3

But yeah. I like this post. Well articulated.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I deny that 1+1 = 3

But yeah. I like this post. Well articulated."

Redid the maths. You're right.

Proving that science is objective and not subjective

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I deny that 1+1 = 3

But yeah. I like this post. Well articulated.

Redid the maths. You're right.

Proving that science is objective and not subjective "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kstallionMan
over a year ago

milton keynes

Science is constantly evolving or more to the point new things being discovered.

Years ago the best scientists in the world thought the atom was the smallest thing

Turns out it was wrong

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Science is constantly evolving or more to the point new things being discovered.

Years ago the best scientists in the world thought the atom was the smallest thing

Turns out it was wrong"

Man was wrong. Not science.

Today I give to all of you on fab a new law of science. It shall be called the Law of May. That is...

"Gardening is a pain in the arse"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kstallionMan
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Science is constantly evolving or more to the point new things being discovered.

Years ago the best scientists in the world thought the atom was the smallest thing

Turns out it was wrong

Man was wrong. Not science.

Today I give to all of you on fab a new law of science. It shall be called the Law of May. That is...

"Gardening is a pain in the arse""

Yes its sort of what I was trying to say. I said evolves maybe not a good explanation

Science is of course correct but scientists are not. Like everyone they make mistakes or the tech is not yet available

Not there fault its just how it is

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Science is constantly evolving or more to the point new things being discovered.

Years ago the best scientists in the world thought the atom was the smallest thing

Turns out it was wrong

Man was wrong. Not science.

Today I give to all of you on fab a new law of science. It shall be called the Law of May. That is...

"Gardening is a pain in the arse"

Yes its sort of what I was trying to say. I said evolves maybe not a good explanation

Science is of course correct but scientists are not. Like everyone they make mistakes or the tech is not yet available

Not there fault its just how it is"

Einstein once said that Truth was a function of time.

In the early days of the last century it was written in Encyclopedias that birds could fly because their wings were lighter than air.

One of the greatest steps in this evolution in my humble opinion was the development of the Scientific Method.

I would very much like to see scientific method used to justify a strategy of herd immunity. Until then science cannot be used to prop it up.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kstallionMan
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Science is constantly evolving or more to the point new things being discovered.

Years ago the best scientists in the world thought the atom was the smallest thing

Turns out it was wrong

Man was wrong. Not science.

Today I give to all of you on fab a new law of science. It shall be called the Law of May. That is...

"Gardening is a pain in the arse"

Yes its sort of what I was trying to say. I said evolves maybe not a good explanation

Science is of course correct but scientists are not. Like everyone they make mistakes or the tech is not yet available

Not there fault its just how it is

Einstein once said that Truth was a function of time.

In the early days of the last century it was written in Encyclopedias that birds could fly because their wings were lighter than air.

One of the greatest steps in this evolution in my humble opinion was the development of the Scientific Method.

I would very much like to see scientific method used to justify a strategy of herd immunity. Until then science cannot be used to prop it up."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uninlondon69Man
over a year ago

Tower Bridge South

“If advice at the time was wrong, I’m not surprised if people then think we made a wrong decision.”

Therese Coffey this morning. They've started blaming the scientists...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS
over a year ago

Ilkley

Was always going to happen. And scientific advisors will be under confidentiality agreements, probably even official secrets act. So if they attempt to defend themselves they will end up being prosecuted. Funny how the government ministers can make up any old shit they like though...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"“If advice at the time was wrong, I’m not surprised if people then think we made a wrong decision.”

Therese Coffey this morning. They've started blaming the scientists..."

once again, its the scientists fault, the tories are so predictable now, what a bunch of shitbags.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Was always going to happen. And scientific advisors will be under confidentiality agreements, probably even official secrets act. So if they attempt to defend themselves they will end up being prosecuted. Funny how the government ministers can make up any old shit they like though..."

This..

The poisoned chalice of being invited on the Sage committee..

Sitting there with cummings and the other advisor it must have been apparent how it would turn out, maybe ferguson tipped the wink to the media..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Worst thing, people will swallow it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Worst thing, people will swallow it. "

Hook line and sinker, the chance to learn lessons and prepare will be lost..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The more I hear, the more 'manslaughter' seems appropriate. I'd imagine there is s lot of email deleting and document shredding going on right now.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

Only a matter of time before the scientists joined teachers and nurses.

This lot would throw their mothers under the bus if it got them off the hook.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ykmwyldTV/TS
over a year ago

Belpre

That's the problem in a nut shell. We have powerful wealthy idiots with no intention of doing what is right running everything, when we should have intelligent people with good common sense that actually strive to do what's right for the common people and the environment running everything, up to and including taking away the power and wealth of the idiots that could and would infringe on doing what is right for the common people and the environment.

BUT, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen, because it's always been a crooked

system from it's very inception, specifically designed to help the powerful and wealthy to achieve more power and more wealth.

It's very tragic unfortunately, but barring a worldwide collapse of some sort and a full revolution or a change in thinking by the masses, it's VERY unlikely to change any time in the foreseeable future.

The powerful and wealthy know all this, so they are not concerned in the least ! The odds are far in their favor that their way of doing things will continue, and they know it !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool


"That's the problem in a nut shell. We have powerful wealthy idiots with no intention of doing what is right running everything, when we should have intelligent people with good common sense that actually strive to do what's right for the common people and the environment running everything, up to and including taking away the power and wealth of the idiots that could and would infringe on doing what is right for the common people and the environment.

BUT, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen, because it's always been a crooked

system from it's very inception, specifically designed to help the powerful and wealthy to achieve more power and more wealth.

It's very tragic unfortunately, but barring a worldwide collapse of some sort and a full revolution or a change in thinking by the masses, it's VERY unlikely to change any time in the foreseeable future.

The powerful and wealthy know all this, so they are not concerned in the least ! The odds are far in their favor that their way of doing things will continue, and they know it ! "

And they have convinced working people the system works.

On the virus forum last week people were actually arguing taxing the more wealthy would actually damage the economy

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"That's the problem in a nut shell. We have powerful wealthy idiots with no intention of doing what is right running everything, when we should have intelligent people with good common sense that actually strive to do what's right for the common people and the environment running everything, up to and including taking away the power and wealth of the idiots that could and would infringe on doing what is right for the common people and the environment.

BUT, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen, because it's always been a crooked

system from it's very inception, specifically designed to help the powerful and wealthy to achieve more power and more wealth.

It's very tragic unfortunately, but barring a worldwide collapse of some sort and a full revolution or a change in thinking by the masses, it's VERY unlikely to change any time in the foreseeable future.

The powerful and wealthy know all this, so they are not concerned in the least ! The odds are far in their favor that their way of doing things will continue, and they know it !

And they have convinced working people the system works.

On the virus forum last week people were actually arguing taxing the more wealthy would actually damage the economy"

Trickle down economics is something that existed in the last century. It has been proven to no longer exist.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ary_ArgyllMan
over a year ago

Argyll


"Not convinced left wing administrations are much more inclined to listen to the science - they are often obsessed with keeping older polluting industries (coal etc.) going because traditionally that was where most of their votes came from.

That's not true for the politics of the UK, US, and most of Europe.

In general the people who post on here who are right leaning, they often use "expert" as an insult.

Science is Apolitical, what people decide to do with the information, ignore it, attempt to discredit it, act upon it. Is political.

The correct course of action often has economic impacts. Such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Which is something the right wing governments ignore and attempt to discredit.

The hole in the o-zone was first discovered in 1985. Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister and it was the conservatives led the way, calling for Nations around the world to ban cfc, and harmful gases.

It was a Labour Government promoting diesel engine cars. I vaguely remember the 'dash for diesel' in 2001 "

Thatcher was trained as a chemist so may have at least understood the science.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *ary_ArgyllMan
over a year ago

Argyll


"“If advice at the time was wrong, I’m not surprised if people then think we made a wrong decision.”

Therese Coffey this morning. They've started blaming the scientists..."

She seems to have forgotten how it is supposed to work - advisers advise, ministers take decisions!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top