[set fair (OP)]

A four and a half minute video

[Bored chemist]

It's the last few seconds that show why she's wrong.
"that's not antiscientific; that's just dumb"


Well the whole point of science is to not be dumb.
Being dumb, when the right answer is known (because of science) requires you to discredit science- in order to justify your plan carry on doing something dumb- so it is anti science.

Being dumb because you don't know better is not anti science.

Carrying on doing something dumb when you do know better is anti science.

[alancalverd]

Being dumb, when the right answer is known (because of science) requires you to discredit science- in order to justify your plan carry on doing something dumb- so it is anti science.

It's actually quite difficult to discredit science, and certainly way beyond the capacity of any politician. Far better to just ignore it, which is apparently the prerogative of an elected representative. 

[Bored chemist]

Far better to just ignore it, which is apparently the prerogative of an elected representative. 

Possibly his prerogative, but not what he did.
He made a big song and dance about following the science. It was, of course a lie. But in the eyes of those who believed him, they now think science doesn't work.

It's actually quite difficult to discredit science,

Actually, it's quite easy. You just have to keep on dedicatedly lying about it.

Eventually, you can discredit the whole idea and get otherwise sensible people to ignore reality.
You just have to tell them things like “people in this country have had enough of experts”.
And then you can axe their social security system.

[alancalverd]

I wasn't thinking about BoJo, who claimed to be "guided by the science" but was (until last week) driven by political popularity and his share portfolio, but der Fuhrer Trumpf who simply ignored anything that smelt of fact or Democracy.

Being a bit of a pedant, I think you have to demonstrate a fundamental flaw in the observations or predictions in order to discredit science - not the same as ignoring or rubbishing the player who starts off with a straight bat and goes on to make 200 runs because his technique is impeccable.

[Bored chemist]

I think you have to demonstrate a fundamental flaw in the observations or predictions in order to discredit science

Trump (And BoJo) did demonstrate a fundamental flaw in it. He proved conclusively that it did not agree with his wishes.
For example, it predicted that the virus wouldn't go away in the Spring- so it was wrong.

The terrifying thing is that people believed him (and BoJo) when they talked about Mexican walls and sunlit uplands.

[alancalverd]

I think "sunlit uplands" was copyrighted by Churchill and rendered ludicrous by practically every pompous idiot from George Brown to William Rees-Mogg.

[Petrochemicals]

You know people get paid for each view of a video on some sites, it seems to have led to many outrageous divisive statements. They use the misrepresentation of fact and feigned interest to garner attention, I think this has led to a new culture of fake news and conspiracy theories so you end up with a US Representative accusing children of faking school shootings.

She may as well say the sky is green and cats go moo.

[evan_au]

It's the last few seconds that show why she's wrong.
"that's not antiscientific; that's just dumb"

I quite liked the video, partly because of it's ironic tone.
- Effectively, she is asking people to be honest about why they make decisions (and say it publicly)
- Her final irony is about people who oppose climate change:
        - They care more about the windfarms spoiling the view from their holiday house
        - Than they care about global warming-induced wildfires burning down their holiday house
        - That is what she describes as "dumb", and I agree that it wouldn't be a cost-effective decision (if it were so black-and-white)

[Bored chemist]

I think "sunlit uplands" was copyrighted by Churchill and rendered ludicrous by practically every pompous idiot from George Brown to William Rees-Mogg.

Quite so.
Boris told a different lie "We’ve got an oven-ready deal. We’ve just got to put it in at gas mark four, give it 20 minutes and Bob’s your uncle."

And, of course, "Get Brexit Done" - which, like Trump's wall, didn't happen.

[Bored chemist]

It's the last few seconds that show why she's wrong.
"that's not antiscientific; that's just dumb"

I quite liked the video, partly because of it's ironic tone.
- Effectively, she is asking people to be honest about why they make decisions (and say it publicly)
- Her final irony is about people who oppose climate change:
        - They care more about the windfarms spoiling the view from their holiday house
        - Than they care about global warming-induced wildfires burning down their holiday house
        - That is what she describes as "dumb", and I agree that it wouldn't be a cost-effective decision (if it were so black-and-white)

And it's the opposite of what rational, evidence-based decision making would do.
Which is why it is antiscientific.

[alancalverd]

They care more about the windfarms spoiling the view from their holiday house than they care about global warming-induced wildfires burning down their holiday house

Obviously.

The windfarm is a permanent blot on the land/seascape, an affront to those who opposed planning permission, makes a profit for someone else, and devalues your asset without compensation.

Wildfires hardly ever happen and you can insure against them and rebuild - as long as the view remains worth having.

The response is entirely logical and evidence-based. Calling it "dumb" is unscientific.

[evan_au]

Wildfires hardly ever happen...

...in the UK. But I live in Australia; residents of California are equally at risk from increased temperatures!

[Bored chemist]

devalues your asset without compensation.

you can insure against them

The compensation is the reduced insurance premium.

[alancalverd]

reduced insurance premium.

Citation needed. Something to do with unicorns.