Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Sarah Goldsmith part 3


So Sarah had the guts to come onto the blog and post in response to my invitation to enter into dialogue. I have to say I am mildly disturbed by the eagerness with which she has jumped into a conversation which she must have had many times before. However, in the spirit of open discourse and with the political fate of the South West at stake (that's a joke, for people who think I have an overinflated sense of self importance) I would like to offer a considered reply to her comments and those of her various ardent fans who also felt the need to speak up in her defense. I will now explain why you are all either mental or ignorant. That's not a joke.

Sarah, in order for us to not only preserve the richness of our civilisation's culture, but for it to flourish we need to develop a sustainable way of life that allows us to uncouple development from economic, population and habitat growth. This is utterly, utterly unequivocal. The evidence is overwhelming. The changes to our day-to-day lives required to achieve sustainable development are daunting. They are not impossible. In contrast, our civilisation is absolutely guranteed to slide, screaming and dribbling, into authoritarianism/anarchy if collective action does not materialise.

I want you to appreciate that the mountains of data that evidence this analysis has been produced throught the application of the scientific method. I mention this because I'd like to challenge you to agree with me that the environmental movement began with the publication of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson in 1962. Carson was a scientist, a marine biologist like me, who deployed the scientific method to document the effects of recently developed pesticides upon wildlife populations in the USA. I find her work particularly inspiring both because it was broadly condemned but also because Carson defended herself passionately against the same sort of vitriolic accusations of inhumanity which I now direct at yourself. The difference between you and Rachel is that her arguments were based upon evidence. If you were a scientist then this conversation would never have happened. However, you did not choose this career path. You did all the things you listed on this blog and somehow convinced yourself that you were a witch. This leads me to ask the following questions: Can you tell me what a witch is, in factual terms, i.e. what makes you different from my mum? What about your "craft" is of value to the bioprospecting industry (the technical term for making a living searching for useful organic compounds)?

You might not appreciate why I ask this but I would like to request that you provide links to evidence to support your responses wherever possible.

Can I also observe that I have attacked you for your bizarre convictions in the same way that I would attack any religious person who sought political power: by pointing out that they have no evidence to support their convictions and that this suggests they are inherently unsuitable for the job to which they aspire. I frequently criticise followers of mainstream religions for letting their insanity drive their politics and you are no exception because religious is exactly what you are.


  1. apparantly, according to Ms Goldsmith, the volcanic activity in Iceland was all a hoax by NATO so they might use the airspace for wargames... Or so I've been told.

  2. If that was her considered opinion I wouldn't be surprised at all.

    Actually, I am surprised. That she didn't get a mention of flying unicorns and the mystic powers of Stonehenge in there too.

  3. Well, its been six months now and I haven't received a response from the Fourth Witch.

    final score

    punkscience 6,287,229 - Sarah Goldsmith 0


Feel free to share your opinions of my opinions. Oh- and cocking fuckmouse.