Home | About | Donate

'Everything Is at Stake': Global Extinction Rebellion Kicks Off Week of Civil Disobedience to Demand Climate Action


I haven’t followed her for a long time and I’m kind of sad to discover she lost her way. I think it was valiant to oppose nuclear testing (Linus Pauling nominated her for a Nobel Prize even) and she can oppose nuclear power too, but after reading https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world by George Monbiot who I respect, I can only conclude she lost her ground with reality at some point. Too bad.

I hope no one is reading ‘bio-magnify’ as to mean it could actually increase the total amount of a substance in the ocean. While it is possible to increase in concentration (concentration increase of many things going up a food chain is accepted by the scientific community), if that doesn’t actually show up in scientific tests (to any degree commensurate with her hyperbole), she should have moved on.

I wish she just stuck with trying to prevent nuclear war - which is still a real risk I’m afraid, no hyperbole is needed there.



Why waste my time with your mind game is a better question, do you not think so?



Pauling is another cautionary tale of someone who did good work straying from science and going off the rails.

Caldicott has called the use of atomic energy wicked, a great evil, and a deal with the Devil, and I suspect that’s not just red-meat rhetoric for her audiences. I don’t know whether she ever really understood the science, but it is clear she now does not, and she embraces and promotes any junk study, quackery, and even long-since-debunked fraudulent material so long as it produces the desired result of scaring or appalling people. I think in her mind, exaggeration and even outright lying is justified, perhaps even noble, in a righteous crusade against evil. I particularly get that feeling when I see her in videos delivering some horrific (and typically bogus) factoid, followed immediately by a chin-swallowing grin that looks simultaneously impish and smugly satisfied. It looks bizarre and creepy in the context of the factoid, but it kind of makes sense if her focus is all about its effectiveness in delivering the reaction she wants.

However, I will call her a moonbat out of consideration for her diminished capacity and her confusion and befuddlement, even if some of it was brought on by self-deception and bending her own ethical compass to the point of ultimately rejecting science and reason. That is more credit than I will give people like Gundersen, Busby, Mangano, and Sherman, who are clearly opportunistic fraudsters who know exactly what they are doing.



If we want to be on the side of reality, if we want to embrace good solutions rather than bad, if we want to have standing to critique perverse agendas that are based on ideologies and faith-beliefs, and if we don’t want to discredit ourselves and the movements we associate with, then it matters whether our positions are grounded in reason and on robust evidence. If you think it is a “mind game” or a waste of time to examine how we know something is real, then it would appear these are all things you do not care about.