Bishop Hill The Moral Maze
Feb 19, 2014 The BBC's Moral Maze show is on science and morals tonight, and it looks as though there is going to be a focus on climate change.
As the flood waters rise and gales rip through the country the debate about climate change has erupted with new energy, with both sides claiming the scientific and moral high ground. So where does that leave us? Whether it's climate change, GM crops or the latest IVF technique - how should we make moral decisions when the facts are in dispute? Environmentalists accuse the sceptics of being climate change "deniers" with all the emotional charge that comes with that word "denier"; while the sceptics accuse the environmentalists of following a quasi-religious cult that is more about controlling people's freedoms than it is about anything to do with the weather. Both claim the science backs up their position and accuse the other side of ignoring and twisting the evidence. Do we rely too much on science being the only reliable and neutral source of knowledge? How often have you heard politicians fall back on the phrase "the science shows that..." when they're promoting their own values and policies? Is science filling in the moral vacuum left by our increasing scepticism of traditional forms of authority? Or is the scientific method the only thing that's saving us from dressing up our own prejudices as moral, right and just? Increasingly we live in an age when we want answers and we want them now. But arguably, we also live in an age when our scientific illiteracy is matched only by our philosophical ignorance. Thankfully the Moral Maze is here to help. Combative, provocative and engaging debate chaired by Michael Buerk with Claire Fox, Michael Portillo, Giles Fraser and Anne McElvoy.
It has already started, and I've only just found out about it, but here's a thread for anyone who wants to discuss it. I'll try to catch up later.
Reader Comments (32)
Jesus, what a load of over-hyped, ignorant tosh.
Watch it only if you are already mad.
Buerk has a;ready been considered "off message" by BBC management re AGW so with him in the chair we should at least have a balanced view.(or not).
Costing the Earth is on now discussing the solutions that the Dutch have been employing for centuries with dykes and dredging and pumping. Most nations on earth are trying to re-claim land from the sea, meanwhile we are busy trying to flood our countryside and minimise our small country on the basis. We prefer to follow fairy tales of global cooperation on emission reduction to make a difference. Humans are better at adaption than predicting climate or hippy cooperation lets play to our strengths.
Not too bad. The debate was broad, straying into uses and abuses of 'science' in political policy making, but at least recognised sceptical opinion was valid, particularly where policy is concerned, and should not be censored.
Richard Betts on 'Costing the Earth' R4 now - talking about climate change and sea level rises of 20cm, more intense rainfall.
They sounded like a load of generalists attending the same dinner party having read headlines from the Guardian and Church times. It's as if they know just enough to get them by having read the idiots guide to talking about science, ethics and how to discuss these topics in polite company in Islington.
I learned absolutely nothing.
Well worth listening to. Panellists Claire Fox, Anne Mcelvoy and portillo had an openminded/sceptical view. The point about action being a political decision not a scientific one was made, and the balancing of pros and cons.
It was even suggested and then repeated that some scientists might have an anti-industry motivation. I expect the beeb will get some angry "science is settled" letters.
That philosopher woman made my cat seem intelligent. I used to think that this area of expertise what something to behold and required intense, critical thinking along the lines of genius level thought. She disproved that assertion. She sounded like a yummy mummy holding forth while waiting for Tristram and Tabatha before home in the 4x4.
Well, Paul, my cats philosophize and their science about dogs is settled.
============
Michael Buerk is sound as a pound on the subject of catastrophic global warming and Anti (sic) being biased.
What made me laugh out loud was the philosophy professor who thought the only downside to combatting climate change was having to buy Scottish blueberries instead of New Zealand ones! :-). Oh the horror!
Michael Portillo spotted her bias pointing out she was stating a political view in the guise if a philosophical one.
If you want the pits of philosophy google 'Rupert Read' who 'is is an academic and a Green Party politician in England. He is Chair of the Green House thinktank, East of England Green Party Co-ordinator and a Reader in Philosophy at the University of East Anglia.'
Specialises in the 'morality of climate change'.
There are three sorts of philosophers, first rate who puzzle out metaphysics and logic and philosophy of science, second rate who study it, realise there are no easy answers and become something else, and third raters who decide to make a career out of it by publishing drivel in the ethical line of things. You know, the moralituy of the feministt perspective in a post modern relativist society..blah yaddah yaddah.
On philosophical cats, it's hard to beat Henri:
http://www.henrilechatnoir.com/
you got that from a Guardian BBC executive search advertisement job description?
Good for mentioning Read, Leo
Read is currently in full swing blaming the UK floods on climate change ('...this is weather chaos, the consequence of human-induced climate change, starting to come home to roost') and partners with ... NN Taleb on working with the 'precautionary principle' which Taleb and Read hope to rescue. Taleb seems to have come under Read's sway, blaming 'disastrous exceedances' for flood damage (here).
Read is running for Member of European Parliament elections and he plans to use the precautionary principle:
and
Rupert[??] Read.
Late press, late press!
"Madman green propagandist - needs to be a member and runs for Strasbourg" ..................aren't they and don't they all?
+ Private school fees paid, limo travel, business class all the way and to boot a gold plated pension - no tricks, no scruples nor morals just such easy money, ask Nick Clegg, the Kinnochio dynasty.
Heart warming stuff so it is, even better it's all paid for by you and me.
Ontarians already know what Richard Betts and Matthew Kiernan are up to. Lots of money to be made off from climate change.
Paul, I didn't hear it but am going by your comments. If what you said was discussed it's a good thing, not a bad thing. Think on, there are masses of people out there who have nagging doubts about this CAGW thing, but haven't the werewithall, or the inclination to go into the details of the science and probably, given the almost blanket media blackout, don't know there are "intelligent" dissenters. Now they do. what's not to like?
Keep that freak and his bogus view of precaution out of any sort of actual power.
Here in Adelaide we've had a record hot summer, 13 days over 40℃ followed by heavy rain for 2 days. The hysterical screams about "Climate Change" can be imagined.
The record for the day's rain was beaten back in the 1960's, but it is true that we only had 12 summer days above 40℃ back in 1897.
Graeme No. 3 - was in S Aust down from Qld during this period. Son is a welder constructing commercial chook farms on the plains west of Balaklava. Drove out to collect him after work. It was 46℃ in the shade and who knows how hot inside the galvanised iron sheds. "Bit hot" I said. "Yeah, it's summer", he said as we headed off for the front bar of the Royal.
No mention of Climate Change. Those bleating about it were likely in air-conditioned offices, cafes or solar powered houses.
They never seem to worry about future generations being stuck with insuffient energy for their needs combined with a massive bill for stuff that just doesn't work.
You can use the precautionary principle only when you have ready-made replacements such as HFC's for CFC'c for the ozone hole alarmist case. However they really should consider the unintended consequences; like HFC's being more potent greenhouse gases and far more leaky than CFC's. Of course the alarmists were warned about this but hey something needed done and this was something, so it was done.
The climate change we were told to expect and fear was global warming. It hasn't warmed much for years and so what is - for all we know - a merely natural variation in seasonal stormy weather is now declared to be the new man-made climate change.
A variation, in music, is the same thing only different. So it is with unusual, but not unprecedented, weather (for the region, for the season).
It is strange how the precautionary principle is used. A major meteorite impact, although pretty unlikely, would do vastly greater damage than anthropogenic global warming but apart from when Lembik Opik (famous for dating weather girl Sian Lloyd and then dumping her for one of the Cheeky Girls) was in Parliament none of our MPs wanted to discuss precautions such as trying to detect and monitor the orbits of meteorites that could possibly pose a threat.
They probably thought the chances of a major meteorite impact before the next general election were pretty remote and therefore they could ignore the issue. However there is a much more likely possibility; dangerous superbugs that have developed resistance to all existing antibiotics. There has been the odd newspaper article on this subject but how of have our MPs discussed it? When has it ever been discussed on Question Time or any other TV programme?
Repeat 10.15pm Saturday for those of us who didn't catch it first time round.
No need to wait for the repeat. Can listen now at the link given.
I clicked to the link and then couldn't be bothered to listen.
Well done to those who did and reported back.
Spot on Paul Matthews. Claire Fox and Michael Portillo have long harboured a rather sceptical view of the environmentalist movement, which they both described as " miserablist ", a series or so ago. It was the views of the other two panellists which intrigued me in that they are both signed up members of the BBC friendly elite. Scientism is certainly a term which is worth noting and watched through a politico-philosophical prism, it was quite obvious that they had seen through the sham of what passes as science in the mainstream news. The fact that none of the usual attack dogs were invited on, not even the ameliorative views of Mike Hulme to me at least posed a interesting thought. Scepticism rather than being the badge of honour of the blind and stupid is actually the hallmark of intelligence and indeed bravery in standing up to a flawed consensus view. I hope that I am not being too optimistic in thinking that these are also the real views of a majority of our law makers, held in the politically correct stranglehold of being subject to ridicule and demotion.
The precautionary principle is only trotted out when convenient. There is for example apparently no need to even consider what extracting megawatts of energy directly from wind might do to weather patterns, greens will insist that it's clearly too small to matter.
Where science wanders into the territory of morality (or vice versa), the correct political response would be; proceed, but with caution.
I did not see the programme but it does appear to be less biased than I would have thought.
Enjoyed the comment by Paul about the yummy mummies and their 4x4's. Nice.
podcast jerrymandered or just coincidence ?
- For the record on Friday I when I took the podcast it was only 2.5 minutes long.
That was a strange coincidence to me, this is the first time a BBC prog was not dominated by the alarmists.. And I couldn't listen to it.
After my complaint on Friday it was fixed by Monday Lunchtime, but it shouldn't have taken so long,
Overall the prog was a fefreshing change.. The panel couldn't think as logically as wr think here, but3 of them could see through the alarmists as playing propaganda games androunded on them b for it. There was hardly any criticsm of skeptics at all except from the philosopher woman, but Ortillo put her right
anyone noticed that the first comment comes from a reflex troll bot probably intent on disrupting stuff here
"watch it" ..how can anyone watch it, when it is a radio prog not TV ?