Outstanding intellectuals
published: 24/03/20, 18:18
The standard is what standardizes the thought that one should have on any subject. In environmentalism today, the standard means:
- adhere to anthropogenic warming and to the idea that CO2 is a pollutant
- adhere to the idea that GMOs are irrelevant to the public good
- adhere to the method of manipulation by fear (especially of the future), as motivation to save the planet
non-exhaustive list.
We are talking a lot about Professor Raoult right now, world number 1 in infectious diseases, for his treatment of the coronavirus with chloroquine.
He is not only brilliant in his field, but also exercises his scientific sagacity in the analysis of other fields. The scientific methodology is in fact partly independent of the field studied, for example, one can notice selection biases in a study on subjects outside its field of competence (and even, without being scientific yourself).
I discover that he defends GMOs, that he is almost climato-skeptical, and that he asks what I also want: that we stop being afraid (and to be afraid to manipulate, by catastrophism). This is the subject of the book about which he is questioned.
Will the news of "who is Raoult" make an environmentalist give up a treatment that could save him?
The journalist :
[Reheating] "it is a fairly widely established scientific consensus"
Pr Raoult:
"those who agree, are those who practice religion [...] it's like asking a theologian if he believes in God. So all those who work on global warming, of course they are okay, otherwise they're doing something else. But if you ask the geologists, who are closer to that, they're ferociously distant from that. ".
A treat, as is his mockery about the skepticism he is accused of (skepticism for a scientist would be an insult ?!). Certainly, we are really dealing with a free and independent thinker, I feel more and more affinity with this spirit. In these times, a little rejoicing is always good to take.
PS - News is catching up with me. "Didier Raoult slams the door of Macron's Scientific Council", it just came out.
- adhere to anthropogenic warming and to the idea that CO2 is a pollutant
- adhere to the idea that GMOs are irrelevant to the public good
- adhere to the method of manipulation by fear (especially of the future), as motivation to save the planet
non-exhaustive list.
We are talking a lot about Professor Raoult right now, world number 1 in infectious diseases, for his treatment of the coronavirus with chloroquine.
He is not only brilliant in his field, but also exercises his scientific sagacity in the analysis of other fields. The scientific methodology is in fact partly independent of the field studied, for example, one can notice selection biases in a study on subjects outside its field of competence (and even, without being scientific yourself).
I discover that he defends GMOs, that he is almost climato-skeptical, and that he asks what I also want: that we stop being afraid (and to be afraid to manipulate, by catastrophism). This is the subject of the book about which he is questioned.
Will the news of "who is Raoult" make an environmentalist give up a treatment that could save him?
The journalist :
[Reheating] "it is a fairly widely established scientific consensus"
Pr Raoult:
"those who agree, are those who practice religion [...] it's like asking a theologian if he believes in God. So all those who work on global warming, of course they are okay, otherwise they're doing something else. But if you ask the geologists, who are closer to that, they're ferociously distant from that. ".
A treat, as is his mockery about the skepticism he is accused of (skepticism for a scientist would be an insult ?!). Certainly, we are really dealing with a free and independent thinker, I feel more and more affinity with this spirit. In these times, a little rejoicing is always good to take.
PS - News is catching up with me. "Didier Raoult slams the door of Macron's Scientific Council", it just came out.
