Comments on: More on scientists in GQ

By: Sergio

Sergio — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:47:13 +0000

So you’re saying that the CEO of IAG is lonkoig forward to Global Warming because rising premiums will increase his net worth and the value of shares? Could it not simply be that he’s a nice person who wants to do what he believes is the right thing. Much like me, and everyone attached to the youCan2 project. Please tell me you read the article, before you criticised his point of view!Science is rarely unanimous. We often can only go on a best guess. However, for every debate we now have on climate change’s legitimacy we waste valuable time. The debate I believe we should be having: what is the best way to deal with it.Dealing with climate change, for me, represents the very best in man-(and woman-)kind. Nations united around a common goal is what the world needs right now. We are divided in so many ways, and yet we all inhabit this little blue dot.We have already conquered so many global problems, and we will overcome this one. The price is miniscule (1% of GDP was a figure quote in The Stern Report). The technology is already available, and continues to emerge and develop in new and exciting ways. There seems to be little financial cost to respond to this challenge, so why not work together on this?And that is my final point. I believe the world is getting warmer. I made the choice to believe this based on my research. I decided I wanted to contribute to the solution, not by inciting “hysteria”, but by creating a series of ads that suggest simple things we can all do.We have been debating Climate Change for some time, in Australia and all around the world. Because of the nature of the issue, there needs to come a point where we decided either “it’s probably true” or “it’s probably not true” (WMDs, anyone?!). After making that decision we should take the appropriate action. The debate has now taken two decades. The majority, though not all, of informed people who take a stance seem to think the world is getting warmer and that’s not a good thing. If this were a general election, they would have won in a landslide! Is it not time to count the votes, see which side won, and then talk about the action? Or should we keep deating this forever?

By: Play Free Games To Play

Play Free Games To Play — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 18:02:10 +0000

Go go scientists

By: Zen Faulkes

Zen Faulkes — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:39:53 +0000

Having scientists become as famous as a contemporary rock star may not be all that hard, because rock stars are not as famous as they used to be. (I can’t think of any musicians who started in the last 10 years who are anywhere close to the rock star status of The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, U2, etc.)

But how many scientists would want to be like rock stars? Many musicians just want to make art that excites them and don’t necessarily want the intense scrutiny that comes from international fame. Many scientists just want to answer questions that excite them and wouldn’t want that level of attention.

As for whether we need more scientists, emphatically yes. Whether we need more people with doctorates is a totally separate question, and I’m not sure of the answer. Don’t confuse careers with credentials.

By: Kate

Kate — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:44:23 +0000

If science becomes popular and cool, it could open up new jobs. Of course it could open up jobs in academia, but just think what new companies could form, what new funding would come out, if the population really thought science was as cool as… say… football… or Paris Hilton.