|
Ok. That's a fair point. Mind you, I'd still not call him a scientist. To me that word implies a professional researcher with PhD (or working towards same) in pure science.
I quite like the speech. It's construction mixes images, emotion and a dash of reason. Clever, well constructed, appealing. There is nothing wrong with this structure in a political or general context. It is aimed at a broad audience. It is nicely done.
But... the pattern tells a sceptical person that they are being sold something. Does he really have a solid case - if so, why is he padding it with fluff? I'm not particularly paranoid - it is probably because he has an audience to entertain.
The key points made are probably not meant to be taken as absolutes, more I'd say they are logical end points in a story. Just as a film is a story meant for entertainment, so is the speech.
Ultimately, I quite liked it. The danger is that people may take this seriously. Accept the observations that he makes (stated as facts) and go on to discount evironmental agencies, environmental science and all environmentalists.
Sure... the group "environmentalists" includes a number of uneducated kooks, but... we should put this in context. Whether his claims (DDT) are correct or not is barely relevant. There have been a significant number of fairly undeniable - of environmental disasters and issues over centuries. Accepting that these occurred does not mean saying no to all development.
|