Peter Scott wrote:


As long is its a balanced intelligent review, I am all for it.

'balanced and intelligent' and 'environmental lobby' don't however fit
in the same sentence.

I'm afraid you are right. I don't know why. Perhaps it is the poor
quality of much science training. I should know as I have worked in that
area and seen how poor it has become. Or perhaps under-educated people
have always had a problem with rigorous logic but now have a chance to
spout their ill-thought-out ideas through the variety of mass-media
available to them.

If things were different, I would call myself an environmentalist, but I
get depressed at the poverty of many of the opinions that are touted.
One such area is genetic modification. Instinctively I am against it
until proven safe. However GM soya, tomatoes and maize have now been
eaten for a couple of decades without any apparent problems arising. I
am happy to change my mind, as we certainly need speedy evolution of
more hardy crops if we are not to starve.


I've never been against GM per se, but it needs careful watching. It
could lead to unforeseen results.

But what doesn't? Rabbits in Australia, then myxmatosis..

The whole use of pesticides n the 60's. leading to dead raptors..the
probable link between pesticides and falling bee populations.

Science is amoral. It needs to be *applied* morally if you want a moral
result.


Not sure where she got it from but my wife was peering at a blog and
muttering 'if they had educated the kids to do basic cost benefit
analysis and science, instead of climate changes studies and teaching
them how to screw in a CFL...'

How very very true!