A prime example of the complete dumbing down of science and the proliferation of wokeness, which seems to be an affliction most acutely felt in the English speaking Five Eyes nations of US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Peter Ridd (who was hounded and persecuted by the academic establishment for daring to question Great Barrier Reef apocalypticism) has this written this article in Spectator Australia, which shines an alarming light on the parlous state of science in Oz.
The Australian Academy of Science (AAS) recently released a report Reef Futures Roundtable, which is ostensibly about the doomed Great Barrier Reef. However, the report only demonstrates that the AAS, Australia’s peak science body, has become not just unscientific, but anti-scientific. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it has also become astonishingly Woke.
The AAS report predictably concluded that the Great Barrier Reef could already be ‘irreversibly’ damaged. The fact that UNESCO has just declared it not endangered did not rate a mention, and neither did the latest two years of statistics showing the reef is at record high coral levels. Remarkably, the report does not contain a single fact or figure to support any of its claims about the reef – except the area of the reef is 340,000 square kilometres. There are no figures, no percentages.
The problem with this completely unanalytical approach is seen in the ‘interventions’ it recommends to fix the reef. Their impracticality is breathtaking. For example, it suggests ‘solar radiation management’ – shading the reef from the sun with man-made fog and clouds to prevent the water heating up and causing coral bleaching. The only number cited in the entire report – the area of the reef, which is as big as Germany – should have given them a hint that this is crazy. How are you going to make a cloud as big as Germany and keep it anchored over the reef for the whole summer over the next few hundred years? And you will also have to stop hot water flowing into the reef from the Coral Sea at the same time. That would require a dam 2,000 kilometres long and 100 metres high.
While a simple calculation is all that is required to reveal the absurdity of this idea, modern science is full of people who are almost completely non-quantitative and, as such, impractical and virtually useless as scientists.
Modern science is a product of modern ‘educayshun’ and rampant censorship of dissident voices.
The unscientific nature of the AAS report is largely a result of its anti-scientific approach. The report is actually a parody of wokeness and romantic mythology.
Here’s where the Wokeness creeps in:
Having a diversity of ideas and scientific thought would have gone some of the way to curing the AAS of the groupthink which renders its report risible . . . . .
But selecting people for their ‘roundtables’ on the basis of their ethnicity rather than their scientific or real-world experience is a fundamentally anti-scientific approach.
But it gets worse. The dearth of statistics about the reef are made up for by an abundance of data on the gender identification of all those who participated in the ‘roundtables’. There is also the Indigenous percentage.
As Ridd says, the Australian Academy of Science has become an anti-science Woke Joke:
The AAS ascribes such importance to facts and figures on gender and race, but not to scientific facts. This demonstrates it is anti-science. Science is about evidence and logic. It does not matter whether one is male or female or whatever else, it is still impossible to make clouds as big as Germany for the next hundred years. That is called a fact, and facts do not vary with race, gender, or any ideology.
I have been saying for some time that many of our science institutions have become totally untrustworthy. By its wilful abandonment of quantitative analysis, the AAS has destroyed its reputation as a source of useful scientific advice. The media loves a bad news story – they should focus on what has happened to a once-esteemed organisation.
The Australian Academy of Science is now a joke.
The Royal Society in the UK is not much better.
Just skimmed the report in question. Peter Ridd’s report is disingenuous. The AAS report has no figures because it’s not a scientific paper it’s more a discussion, “Roundtable” in the title sort of suggests that, it’s a brain storming session or SWAT analysis, Why mention the make up of the group? Because it’s in the Appendix under participants, the goal was to get a diverse group together for a “Roundtable” discussion so reporting on the make up of the group would probably be of interest to the reader. Some were scientists other were not. “Out of the box thinking” was encouraged. I’m surprised they only got one stupid solution i.e. the shading he cherry picked to make them look stupid.
I’m not defending the AAS they may well be a bunch of woke dip-shits but the report is not what Peter Ridd makes it out to be.
This decay started in 1946 when government started funding most of science. All the Deepstate tentacles were founded at the same time. NIH, WHO, CDC, NSF, UN. The takeover was accelerated in 1970 when the tenure system became the sole measure of career advancement. The only way to get tenure and promotions is to publish lots of peer-reviewed pieces, and the only way to publish lots of peer-reviewed pieces is to get government grants.
Tenure guarantees orthodoxy. The common idea that tenure "protects freedom" is nonsense.
Before the 1946 takeover, academic science and published papers were VASTLY more open to varied ideas. Even official government experts were able to think and write openly.